Am I the only one who thinks Campbell is getting better?

[JaimeDeCurry]

thats my point.

if you stuck campbell on the vikings, theyd be 9-7, 10-6. you think that throw to greg lewis at the end of the 9ers game happens with campbell? lol. you think campbell is tossing multiple 4 TD games? think again.

theyd be a grinding hardnose football team, campbell would put up 15 TDs and minimal yards, while AP would kill himself each week, and the games would be all close scoring affairs. theyd be an above average team, just like they were last year.

Okay, but vice versa....put Favre on this team, and you think we'd be a 14-2 team like the Vikings?

Remember, here's our offensive personnel:

QB: Favre

LT: Levi Jones

LG: Derrick Dockery

C: Casey Rabach

RG: ????

RT: Stephon Heyer

RB: Rock Cartwright

WR: Santana Moss

WR: Devin Thomas

TE: Fred Davis

Football, honestly, has not changed that much since its inception as a pro sport. Run the football effectively, and make the other team one-dimensional, and you will be successful. With Favre or not, Vikings opponents are still keying in on Adrian Peterson. The reason Favre is able to do what he does is because he has an outstanding offensive line, a great running game, and a defense that can make up for offensive mistakes.

We have one of those things.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Yeah... Stuckey was such a beast that he plays with the Browns now. Weak argument IMO. Favre also led that 8-3 right into the toilet. Yo forget the latter half of the season? If he is so AWEOME and complete game changer, then his bad years would have neer happened. He would be more like Brady who created stars... and not works with them.

Also, let not forget that 9 of Favres TD have come in the last two games. Not to take that away, but ntil recently, the pass game was not spectacular as is stands now. Still. The Vikes were aleady good. Using that as your example of how a QB changes a team is pretty thin... fwiw, the QB pay last year was not all that bad, as I recall, you and a few other posters were touting Ferotte as a "good" QB.

favre was injured man, cmon. his shoulder was destroyed, his stats clearly showed when he got injured and how bad he became. remember? he retired? he had major surgery that kept him out of camps? its clear as day that his shoulder was badly injured and why his play suffered.

and LOL, please show me where i said ferrotte was good. if i said that i must have been on crack that day because i seriously doubt i posted that.

and you proved my point with stuckey. hes not good, favre just made him look good. now hes in cleveland..........being chansi stuckey.

[boobiemiles]

Look what having some semblance of a real football team can do. Before we had an inexpereinced guy who never called plays being both offensive coordinator and head coach. Just imagine if we had a real o-line infront of him?!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Okay, but vice versa....put Favre on this team, and you think we'd be a 14-2 team like the Vikings?

Remember, here's our offensive personnel:

QB: Favre

LT: Levi Jones

LG: Derrick Dockery

C: Casey Rabach

RG: ????

RT: Stephon Heyer

RB: Rock Cartwright

WR: Santana Moss

WR: Devin Thomas

TE: Fred Davis

Football, honestly, has not changed that much since its inception as a pro sport. Run the football effectively, and make the other team one-dimensional, and you will be successful. With Favre or not, Vikings opponents are still keying in on Adrian Peterson. The reason Favre is able to do what he does is because he has an outstanding offensive line, a great running game, and a defense that can make up for offensive mistakes.

We have one of those things.

as i said, no we wouldnt be 14-2 at all. we'd probably be a 8-8, 9-7 team with brett favre. right on the cusp of being good but being held back by our oline in the long haul and in crunch time.

and favre is able to do what he does because hes brett favre, not because of AP. if AP made QBs better, than jackson and ferrotte should have lit it up last year because defenses were keying in on peterson, but that wasnt the case. favre has succeeded everywhere hes been. before he got injured last year he was putting up great numbers with the jets.

he put up great numbers with green bay.

he put up great numbers with the jets (before his injury)

hes putting up great numbers in minnesota

hes a hall of fame QB, league MVP, superbowl champion. hes not riding anyones coattails. everyone is riding his coattails.

the vikings last year proved that without a great QB, even with the best run game, best oline, and great pass rushing defense, the best you can be is above average. the titans proved that in the playoffs as well.

a franchise QB is a MUST if youre going to sustain a winner in this league.

[Passizle]

favre was injured man, cmon. his shoulder was destroyed, his stats clearly showed when he got injured and how bad he became. remember? he retired? he had major surgery that kept him out of camps? its clear as day that his shoulder was badly injured and why his play suffered.

and LOL, please show me where i said ferrotte was good. if i said that i must have been on crack that day because i seriously doubt i posted that.

and you proved my point with stuckey. hes not good, favre just made him look good. now hes in cleveland..........being chansi stuckey.

LOL. We will never agree on this issue, so agree to disagree. You know I am not as "sure" about JC as I used to be... but to be honest, I did not think things would be good without a good front five.

Here is some food fr though. Think about all the "bad" QB out there and try to think of the things they have in common. Chances are, its not coaching, systems, schemes, playcalling, colleges, players etc... but I would bet you a dollar that most (90% or better) have terrible offensive line talent. IMO, the offense flows from the front five.

To make a simple racing analogy, even though the QB "drives" the team and he can make pinpoint shifts, draft well and advise the pit crew (coaches) on how the car is handling, the car can only go as fast the motor can take it... that depends on the quality of the build. For a quick minds-eye picture, we have a decent driver being asked to win the Daytona 500 with a 1978 Monte Carlo. Sure was a nice car at the time, but years of wear are appanet and no matter how pretty the paintjob, uderneath its still pretty old and prone to failure.

PS. His injury was not major. He had a torn bicep tendon. HIs procedure was outpatient. Favre was just... wel... Favre and played like he always does. Gambling a game away. In fact, if you think abuot it. Thats what make Favre look so good this year. He does not do that anymore. He is playing smart football (finally). Iagine how his career would look if he learned thia a long time ago.

[JaimeDeCurry]

the vikings last year proved that without a great QB, even with the best run game, best oline, and great pass rushing defense, the best you can be is above average. the titans proved that in the playoffs as well.

a franchise QB is a MUST if youre going to sustain a winner in this league.

Meh. I really don't thing you need a GREAT quarterback, merely a good one. Brady won three Super Bowls being a good quarterback...he didn't really turn into OMGWTFTOMBRADY!!! until two or three years ago. The Steelers won a few 'Bowls lately using that formula. The Giants used it to beat the aforementioned Patriots. Arguably the three best "pure" quarterbacks playing right now - Manning, Brees, and Favre - have a grand total of two Super Bowl rings between them. If it weren't for great defense and a guy named Vinatieri, Brady would only have one.

The Ravens won with Trent Dilfer as QB. Hell, our own Redskins won with three mediocre QBs, but great running games and defensive play. Remember, arguably the best QB the 'Skins have had in the modern era - Hall of Famer Sonny Jurgensen - never won a Super Bowl.

Now, I'm not arguing for or against Campbell specifically here. I'm just saying that we don't need to try to fix our quarterback position at the expense of fixing what's going to keep him upright and keep the pressure off him in the running game. Football starts from the ball and works outward. Fix the line, then you can worry about the rest.

[Passizle]

as i said, no we wouldnt be 14-2 at all. we'd probably be a 8-8, 9-7 team with brett favre. right on the cusp of being good but being held back by our oline in the long haul and in crunch time.

and favre is able to do what he does because hes brett favre, not because of AP. if AP made QBs better, than jackson and ferrotte should have lit it up last year because defenses were keying in on peterson, but that wasnt the case. favre has succeeded everywhere hes been. before he got injured last year he was putting up great numbers with the jets.

he put up great numbers with green bay.

he put up great numbers with the jets (before his injury)

hes putting up great numbers in minnesota

hes a hall of fame QB, league MVP, superbowl champion. hes not riding anyones coattails. everyone is riding his coattails.

the vikings last year proved that without a great QB, even with the best run game, best oline, and great pass rushing defense, the best you can be is above average. the titans proved that in the playoffs as well.

a franchise QB is a MUST if youre going to sustain a winner in this league.

Its funny we fall on Favre. You know he would not have come out of retirment for any other team right? Is not like he wanted to take a tream an turn the around. They wer already on their way... Favre happened to catch a ride and now he is helping them become better. Its why I said it was a bad example before.

Until a person can show a team that was terrible and allthey did was switch one player and become great consistantly, I refuse to beleive that a football team starts with a QB.

[Passizle]

Meh. I really don't thing you need a GREAT quarterback, merely a good one. Brady won three Super Bowls being a good quarterback...he didn't really turn into OMGWTFTOMBRADY!!! until two or three years ago. The Steelers won a few 'Bowls lately using that formula. The Giants used it to beat the aforementioned Patriots. Arguably the three best "pure" quarterbacks playing right now - Manning, Brees, and Favre - have a grand total of two Super Bowl rings between them. If it weren't for great defense and a guy named Vinatieri, Brady would only have one.

The Ravens won with Trent Dilfer as QB. Hell, our own Redskins won with three mediocre QBs, but great running games and defensive play. Remember, arguably the best QB the 'Skins have had in the modern era - Hall of Famer Sonny Jurgensen - never won a Super Bowl.

Now, I'm not arguing for or against Campbell specifically here. I'm just saying that we don't need to try to fix our quarterback position at the expense of fixing what's going to keep him upright and keep the pressure off him in the running game. Football starts from the ball and works outward. Fix the line, then you can worry about the rest.

Well said. Its funny you mention SJ. I was ripp about that a few weeks ago. Sonny had one winning season out of eleven with the Redskins. I made the comparison that with todays Skins fans, SJ would have been boo'ed out of a starting job.

[SkinsSyco4Life]

Well there you have it. You said it yourself. They were already a good team... therefore Favre is a small part of their success. Trust me, if Favre had Kelly, Moss, Cooley and Portis to throw to with our front five... well, he would have more interceptions than TD's and Cooley would go to the pro bowl again. Its not all about the QB. Its about the team...

First off, I am finished with the JC experiment and I try to stay out of these debates. In this case however I will let down my guard long enough to express a few opinions.

1: Respect......This is one reason why if Brett was playing for the Skins, the results would be improved greatly over having Jason.

Defences do not fear Jason, they come after him hard not because they believe that our OL is weak, they do it because they believe Jason will not make them pay. Brett and others like him understand the game better and they will make you pay.

2: Trust......Unlike Brett, Jason lacks trust not just in himself, but also in his receivers. His fear of throwing an INT is preventing him from ever becoming more than he is, he has to understand that he can not wait for his receiver to get open, he has to throw the receiver open.

3: Belief.......Jason plays the position hoping that he can lead the team to victory, Brett believes that he will lead his team to victory and you know what, the rest of his team.......Offence, Defence and special teams believe it to.

:logo:

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Meh. I really don't thing you need a GREAT quarterback, merely a good one. Brady won three Super Bowls being a good quarterback...he didn't really turn into OMGWTFTOMBRADY!!! until two or three years ago. The Steelers won a few 'Bowls lately using that formula. The Giants used it to beat the aforementioned Patriots. Arguably the three best "pure" quarterbacks playing right now - Manning, Brees, and Favre - have a grand total of two Super Bowl rings between them. If it weren't for great defense and a guy named Vinatieri, Brady would only have one.

The Ravens won with Trent Dilfer as QB. Hell, our own Redskins won with three mediocre QBs, but great running games and defensive play. Remember, arguably the best QB the 'Skins have had in the modern era - Hall of Famer Sonny Jurgensen - never won a Super Bowl.

Now, I'm not arguing for or against Campbell specifically here. I'm just saying that we don't need to try to fix our quarterback position at the expense of fixing what's going to keep him upright and keep the pressure off him in the running game. Football starts from the ball and works outward. Fix the line, then you can worry about the rest.

ill take VERY GOOD. theres always exceptions like dilfer or johnson, mediocre QBs that had everything surrounding them in 100% working order, but those are so rare. look at the QBs for the superbowl winners since 1990. most of them are hall of famers. steve young, brett favre, troy aikman, kurt warner, john elway, tom brady, big ben, peyton manning, hell ill throw eli in there (although of all these hes the worst). in the last 19 years, 2 QBs that were "game managers" have won the big dance, and both had historic defenses.

if were gonna blow this thing up, it needs to start with a legit QB. or at least we need to ATTEMPT to find one. the teams that consistently compete for the playoffs have stud QBs, and most teams that get to the playoffs usually have had good QB play that year. brees is the only one bogged down by defense, they fixed that with GGGwilliams, and shocker, theyre 10-0.

we need a line too, but stud QB comes first.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Its funny we fall on Favre. You know he would not have come out of retirment for any other team right? Is not like he wanted to take a tream an turn the around. They wer already on their way... Favre happened to catch a ride and now he is helping them become better. Its why I said it was a bad example before.

Until a person can show a team that was terrible and allthey did was switch one player and become great consistantly, I refuse to beleive that a football team starts with a QB.

a great football team starts with a QB most of the time. the rare instances they dont are the 80s skins, the 2000s ravens, the 2000s steelers (although ben is awesome). im still sticking to my gut that this fan base (especially guys that remember the glory years) dont care at all about QB play cause we never really had a great one and were able to get away with it, so this "lets rebuild the hogs" stuff gets trotted out left and right. there is no more hogs, there never will be. the game is different. no team wins the superbowl by running 82 times to the left, its just not done anymore.

the legit teams start with a QB. the ones that sustain success have that franchise guy.

mcnabb in philly

brady in new england

peyton in indy

big ben in pitt

chargers with brees/rivers

even the giants with eli

these teams are in the playoffs almost yearly. they all have a stable game making QB. sure they have defense as well, no team is going to win with JUST a QB, but last i checked, our defense is pretty good, definitely playoff caliber.

i remember B mitch said something like "the skins have a 12-4 defense with a 4-12 offense". lol

[JaimeDeCurry]

we need a line too, but stud QB comes first.

After it's all said and done, this is where we disagree fundamentally.

I just won't ever be able to support drafting a supposed franchise quarterback, and then sticking him in a situation where he's set up for failure.

Everyone touts the success of Ryan and Flacco last year, and points to Big Ben's rookie success as reasons for why you go for the quarterback in the draft. But look at the situations they were plugged into - outstanding running games and very solid defenses. They were asked to pass less than 25 times a game, and let the rest of the team carry them, not the other way around.

There are very, very few quarterbacks in the league that carry their teams. Petyon Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and possibly Roetheilsghadhsdgoheberger and Rivers. I wouldn't even throw Palmer in there, and honestly Big Ben and Rivers have had great running games and playmaking receivers. But we'll throw those two in there anyway. But that's it. Out of 32 teams, six at max have quarterbacks that can put that team on their shoulders and carry them despite what else is going on.

You cannot just get the quarterback and think everything else is going to fall into place. Put your players in positions to succeed.

[Passizle]

First off, I am finished with the JC experiment and I try to stay out of these debates. In this case however I will let down my guard long enough to express a few opinions.

1: Respect......This is one reason why if Brett was playing for the Skins, the results would be improved greatly over having Jason.

Defences do not fear Jason, they come after him hard not because they believe that our OL is weak, they do it because they believe Jason will not make them pay. Brett and others like him understand the game better and they will make you pay.

2: Trust......Unlike Brett, Jason lacks trust not just in himself, but also in his receivers. His fear of throwing an INT is preventing him from ever becoming more than he is, he has to understand that he can not wait for his receiver to get open, he has to throw the receiver open.

3: Belief.......Jason plays the position hoping that he can lead the team to victory, Brett believes that he will lead his team to victory and you know what, the rest of his team.......Offence, Defence and special teams believe it to.

:logo:

I disagree with #1. I agree with #2 and #3.

[Passizle]

a great football team starts with a QB most of the time. the rare instances they dont are the 80s skins, the 2000s ravens, the 2000s steelers (although ben is awesome). im still sticking to my gut that this fan base (especially guys that remember the glory years) dont care at all about QB play cause we never really had a great one and were able to get away with it, so this "lets rebuild the hogs" stuff gets trotted out left and right. there is no more hogs, there never will be. the game is different. no team wins the superbowl by running 82 times to the left, its just not done anymore.

the legit teams start with a QB. the ones that sustain success have that franchise guy.

mcnabb in philly

brady in new england

peyton in indy

big ben in pitt

chargers with brees/rivers

even the giants with eli

these teams are in the playoffs almost yearly. they all have a stable game making QB. sure they have defense as well, no team is going to win with JUST a QB, but last i checked, our defense is pretty good, definitely playoff caliber.

i remember B mitch said something like "the skins have a 12-4 defense with a 4-12 offense". lol

Again, we disagree. I'm with Jamie POV. You take alook at all those stud QB and they all have stud lines... Even Bens lineis not a bad as advertised. He is the one QB tha takes mst of his sacks on his own accord. Evryone else? Stud line with perrenial ProBowl/AllPro talent... also in a stable systems with stable coaching.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

After it's all said and done, this is where we disagree fundamentally.

I just won't ever be able to support drafting a supposed franchise quarterback, and then sticking him in a situation where he's set up for failure.

Everyone touts the success of Ryan and Flacco last year, and points to Big Ben's rookie success as reasons for why you go for the quarterback in the draft. But look at the situations they were plugged into - outstanding running games and very solid defenses. They were asked to pass less than 25 times a game, and let the rest of the team carry them, not the other way around.

There are very, very few quarterbacks in the league that carry their teams. Petyon Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and possibly Roetheilsghadhsdgoheberger and Rivers. I wouldn't even throw Palmer in there, and honestly Big Ben and Rivers have had great running games and playmaking receivers. But we'll throw those two in there anyway. But that's it. Out of 32 teams, six at max have quarterbacks that can put that team on their shoulders and carry them despite what else is going on.

You cannot just get the quarterback and think everything else is going to fall into place. Put your players in positions to succeed.

big ben you have a point, but flacco and ryan were thrust into unknown situations, especially ryan. that was a 3-13 team with a rookie head coach and an oline that sucked. ryan and turner turned that entire offense around. teams had to respect both of them, and respect for a rookie is pretty impressive. flacco was coming into a 5-11 team that had quarterbacks failing all over the place, yet he was able to make that offense move better. both QBs helped turn their team around.

look at stafford this year. the lions oline is garbage, but theyve got him back there going hard and playing hard. if a kid has tough mental makeup, theyre gonna stand in there and take hits. a guy with great pocket presence is rivers, if youve ever watched a chargers game. when i watch that guy, he literally has guys at his feet, in his face, etc. nothing seems to phase him and he gets it done. stafford has obviously stood tall with that line, taken his rookie lumps, and came out blazing on sunday with a record setting performance.

no reason we couldnt draft a guy like that in a rebuild year and let him sink or swim. not everyone needs to be coddled and put in the perfect lily white situation. and you never know, if we get the right QB, they might make whatever oline we have look even better.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Again, we disagree. I'm with Jamie POV. You take alook at all those stud QB and they all have stud lines... Even Bens lineis not a bad as advertised. He is the one QB tha takes mst of his sacks on his own accord. Evryone else? Stud line with perrenial ProBowl/AllPro talent... also in a stable systems with stable coaching.

until we get a stud QB, nothing will be stable. once a smart football person finds the right QB for us, we'll be in limbo. you start with the QB and build around him. you dont spend years building a team and then gamble on a QB. what if that QB fails? wouldnt you rather know you have the general first before you build the army? what good is an army without a leader?

[NewCliche21]

until we get a stud QB, nothing will be stable. once a smart football person finds the right QB for us, we'll be in limbo. you start with the QB and build around him. you dont spend years building a team and then gamble on a QB. what if that QB fails? wouldnt you rather know you have the general first before you build the army? what good is an army without a leader?

Chicken or the egg here.

To be honest, I'd rather have the army first so that the general doesn't get killed.

What good is a general without an army to protect him and an arsenal for him to direct?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Chicken or the egg here.

To be honest, I'd rather have the army first so that the general doesn't get killed.

What good is a general without an army to protect him and an arsenal for him to direct?

armies come and go. great leaders dont.

*gets deep* lol

[bubba9497]

The last three weeks, Campbell has looked better.

nope

He's always been good, it's just the perception has changed some because of the media praising JC in recent weeks.

Lenny P wrote a big article on him, Aikman kept talking him up last game, Dierdorf the week before, Dungy on SNF, etc....

and I wouldn't be shocked if a new coach coming in keep Campbell as his QB, especially if that coach is a older veteran HC. Holgriem has openly praised JC, as has Gruden. Instead of taking a risk on a rookie QB, concentrate on building the OL, and adding some speed

[SkinsSyco4Life]

I disagree with #1. I agree with #2 and #3.

Well... maybe I was a little over the top with #1 so I am not completely right.

:logo:

[NewCliche21]

armies come and go. great leaders dont.

*gets deep* lol

Haha, my point is that great leaders sure as hell go if they have no one to protect them. I've been saying it since I was a Campbell supporter: Even Manning can't throw it from on his ass.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

you guys notice all the coaching changes and scheme changes? thats all been for the QBs. we did gibbs system for two years, no QB looked super great in it except brunell for one year, and vinny and dan figured that was the ceiling for that dated offense, decided to get another one. we bring in saunders offense for 06 and 07. brunell looks bad in it, campbell looks like a rookie in it, then looks bad in it, collins does it well for 4 games. now campbell is the starter, and we want an offense that will work with him, so we get zorn to run ANOTHER offense in hopes that something will "click". campbell looks decent for 8 games, and very sub par since. now were gonna get another offense and a new QB.

and trust me, if that QB doesnt show signs of life in that offense, rest assured that QB will be sat down or another offense will be brought in. until something "clicks" and we see legitimate sparks of something potentially great, the cycle will continue.

[milellie111]

Im sorry... was I posting to you directly? Regardless. I am not a blind JC supporter. You dont know me. Dont ASSume.

JC has left plays on the field. He has left points on the field. Where we disagree is that I think JC can succeed and is not a "terrible" QB. He is servicable for now and the near future "if" te FO addresses the REAL problems on this team. WHen you stop playing Madden in your moms basement and do some real research, you might learn a little something about t game of football.

No, you weren't posting directly to me. But when i read the above foolish sentiments and obvious Campbell homerism, i couldn't help but respond to the goon.

Its no reason for me to even argue with you man. Campbell could lead us to 0-16 throwing 3 picks a game and you would still stand behind him. Then again, you might not take note of the picks, you'll probably say "Oh, look at how much class Jason has even while losing." You probably think Daunte Culpepper still can be a solid starter don't you? Campbell isn't even close to Vince Young. At least Vince Young is mobile and can avoid sacks and make plays with his feet. Campbell fails at throwing and running. Oh yeah, the Titans must have a pro bowl offensive line

And me, learn something about the game of football? Who are you? Are you a coach? You must be since you know so much. I'll label you as coach Zorn, the worst coach in america who knows absolutely nothing. Maybe you can sit outside of Redskins Park to help comfort Jason Candle when he's let go this offseason.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Haha, my point is that great leaders sure as hell go if they have no one to protect them. I've been saying it since I was a Campbell supporter: Even Manning can't throw it from on his ass.

id take the great QB and average oline over the great oline and the average QB.

[NewCliche21]

you guys notice all the coaching changes and scheme changes? thats all been for the QBs. we did gibbs system for two years, no QB looked super great in it except brunell for one year, and vinny and dan figured that was the ceiling for that dated offense, decided to get another one. we bring in saunders offense for 06 and 07. brunell looks bad in it, campbell looks like a rookie in it, then looks bad in it, collins does it well for 4 games. now campbell is the starter, and we want an offense that will work with him, so we get zorn to run ANOTHER offense in hopes that something will "click". campbell looks decent for 8 games, and very sub par since. now were gonna get another offense and a new QB.

and trust me, if that QB doesnt show signs of life in that offense, rest assured that QB will be sat down or another offense will be brought in. until something "clicks" and we see legitimate sparks of something potentially great, the cycle will continue.

Gibbs brought in Saunders so that he could look at the whole team. Snyder wouldn't tell Joe Gibbs if he had **** all over his face.