Jaws takes a second look at Jason.

[GibbsFactor]

very true. claussen, bradford, mccoy, tebow, locker (before he went back) and those are just the ones i can name off the top of my head.

when shanny arrives, i expect our first order of business is to shore up the line in FA and draft a QB.

I don't want any of them.

Look, I don't want to sign JC to a franchise qb contract, but do want him to stay as everyone you just mentioned along with everyone up to be traded or any free agent aren't in the same league as him.

Hook him for 3 years 15 million and let's move on.

If we can get another QB in a few years great. But right now, I don't want any of the QBs out there. Bradford's shoulder worries me and I'm not sure he'll be a stud in the NFL.

[McD5]

very true. claussen, bradford, mccoy, tebow, locker (before he went back) and those are just the ones i can name off the top of my head.

when shanny arrives, i expect our first order of business is to shore up the line in FA and draft a QB.

I would be thrilled with o-line.

I would be thrilled with Bradford. He looks like the closest college qb to Peyton or Brees that I have seen in five years.

I would be thrilled if JC would improve big time.

I would be thrilled with a guy like Ponder in 2011.

And I am thrilled that if we go qb, we aren't looking at last year's draft class--where it was Sanchez, Stafford or bust.

[McD5]

Don't forget about Stafford who went #1 last year. 3 QB's went in the 1st round last year, not 2.

With Locker returning I'm guessing that 3 will go again in the 1st in the upcoming draft. Bradford, Claussen, and McCoy, with McCoy being a fringe 1st rounder. Pike and Tebow will likely be 2nd rounders, imo.

I do think this years class is better than last years, though. Bradford and Claussen could be big hits.

Yes, thank you. I forgot about Stafford.

[morpheusmeyers]

Yes, thank you. I forgot about Stafford.

Just think back to our game with the Lions earlier this year when Stafford kept sticking his tongue out and making stupid facial expressions, and you'll never forget him again .

[McD5]

Just think back to our game with the Lions earlier this year when Stafford kept sticking his tongue out and making stupid facial expressions, and you'll never forget him again .

:hysterical: Yes. I believe I forgot about him because he went to the Black Hole known as Detroit.

He did look sharp against us though.

[Elessar78]

There are like 12 O-line prospects in the top 96 prospects. I'm sure we can snag one or two that would improve our line. None of the QBs you guys listed are slam dunks to me. We can live without them or wait on them to develop. Let's get O-linemen that will play for a decade and improve whoever is at QB.

[mnb123]

Just think back to our game with the Lions earlier this year when Stafford kept sticking his tongue out and making stupid facial expressions, and you'll never forget him again .

Stafford may be a tool but I think if they can get their crap together in Detroit he can be awesome

[PCS]

As with all drafts,it's a roll of the dice. Playing the odds can help though. Looking at the QB class for this year,I'm like others in that it's a bit debatable on how good it MIGHT be. Right now,I'm just comparing the 2010 QB draft class to the offensive linemen draft class to see if the odds are better at finding a fairly immediate impact player there. It's a tough call to be sure. Draft a QB and sit him for a season and let him learn,or start him and hope he survives behind the present Oline and improves fast enough that the team can maybe contend for the playoffs in season or two. Draft an Olineman or 2 or 5 and hope that they are as good as their potential and able to keep Jason on his feet long enough to continue to "improve". All this while quite possibly teaching everyone a new system made up by a new coaching staff. Sigh. Decisions,decisions,decisions.

[mnb123]

There are like 12 O-line prospects in the top 96 prospects. I'm sure we can snag one or two that would improve our line. None of the QBs you guys listed are slam dunks to me. We can live without them or wait on them to develop. Let's get O-linemen that will play for a decade and improve whoever is at QB.

If everyone waited for a "slam dunk" at QB you would have to wait once every 10 years to draft one. And then he could still bust out.

Fact is you have to take a risk on one eventually

[DGREENHULK]

Beating the GMEN and looking good doing it will go a long way for the Skins bringing JC back....beating Dallas and SD wouldn't hurt either.....also if JC continues the chemistry with Fred and Devin might be hard for the next HC to break that up

[McD5]

There are like 12 O-line prospects in the top 96 prospects. I'm sure we can snag one or two that would improve our line. None of the QBs you guys listed are slam dunks to me. We can live without them or wait on them to develop. Let's get O-linemen that will play for a decade and improve whoever is at QB.

What you are saying is true about the QBs.

But when one is a slam dunk, you will need to draft him in the top 3.

Which requires either a terrible season, or trading multiple firsts, or something similiar.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[Drastik]

After seeing Brady Quinn become an utter disaster.... I really don't want Clausen...

TBH, the only QB I would be happy drafting is Bradford... I think he looks the most polished... he just has durability questions.

If we draft Clausen, McCoy, or Tebow... I will not be happy....

I still need to see more film on Pike... I watched him in the Cinci - Pitt game and he did not look very good. At least not in the sense of him being a first day selection.

[Buck812]

I would be thrilled with o-line.

I would be thrilled with Bradford. He looks like the closest college qb to Peyton or Brees that I have seen in five years.

I would be thrilled if JC would improve big time.

I would be thrilled with a guy like Ponder in 2011.

And I am thrilled that if we go qb, we aren't looking at last year's draft class--where it was Sanchez, Stafford or bust.

Dude you are just setting yourself up to be thrilled arent you? lol... Im the same way though, no matter what happens Im gonna try to like it

[Mad Mike]

Let me address a few points here...

First off. This isn't just about keeping him or not. Being that he is a RFA, its about keeping him at WHAT COST. Do we match a big long term offer? Because NONE of us, pro or con, know how Jason will develop from here. He's STILL a gamble. We cant keep him for just "another year" to see how he turns out. It's commitment time. We have to decide if he is worth keeping for several more years and paying him a lot of money or not. The whole "one more year" argument is pure fantasy. Any one year stopgap solution is going to come from a Free agent. Not Jason Campbell.

Second. Five years is five years. If he wasn't playing, he was studying playbooks, watching film, being coached, and practicing. Many coaches believe that time to be an asset for a young QB. Aaron Rogers spent years on the bench behind Favre and when his number was called, he came in ready to go. No one has to make excuses for him and claim those years on the bench stunted his growth.

Third. Campbell has played in two systems with the Redskins. Gibbs and the west coast. Saunders comes from the same coaching tree as Gibbs. When Saunders came in terminology was not changed. The only thing that was changed was the addition of new plays and some new wrinkles. Nothing that any young QB isn't expected to learn as they progress. The west coast should not have been too much of a big deal. Campbell himself admitted that he had a head start because he played in a west coast system in college.

Forth. Audibles. Portis was, as usual, talking out of his ***. Gibbs wasn't big on giving Jason audibles so some argument can be made there. but Jason has long had some ability to call audibles under Zorn. Sometimes he has done well with them, others, not so well. Like when he called for a running play at the worst possible time (we needed a TD and were too far to score with a run). This is really a chicken and egg question - was Jason stunted because he was not allowed to audible or was the offense stunted because Jason could not be trusted to do so? NONE of us knows.

And finally. Jason was not "clutch" against the saints. He played pretty damn well most of the game but when "clutch" time came and he could have won the game, he threw an INT. That people think he was clutch says more about how low our standards have fallen than anything else.

The bottom line is that after 5 years, Jason is still a question mark and that makes any attempt to keep him a gamble. I'm just glad none of us have to make that call.

[Mad Mike]

Beating the GMEN and looking good doing it will go a long way for the Skins bringing JC back....beating Dallas and SD wouldn't hurt either.....also if JC continues the chemistry with Fred and Devin might be hard for the next HC to break that up

Honestly. And I say this without bias...

If Jason is really impressive in his final two games, it could go a long way in making him HARDER to bring back because he will draw more interest from other teams. Possibly more interest than he is worth.

[brasi]

I'm not a GM. But I think JC is decent, and can win games, with a better OL. Why replace him on a hunch with a "maybe" guy?

There are no surefire franchise QBs in next year's draft, and we have GLARING needs on the OL. I'd go heavy on the OL next year, get two/three starting level OLs in house. Maybe draft a potential backup QB deep....or wait until 2011 and get a top tier draft pick at that slot.

Keep the defense as intact as possible. We're near the Top 5 at D. A mid-to-average offense should give us a playoff shot.

No need to blow everything up. Jason has been one of the brighter spots of the last few weeks. He can do what we need done next season.

Just my opinion.:gaintsuck

[wwSEANd]

Let me address a few points here...

First off. This isn't just about weather we keep him or not. Being that he is a RFA, its about keeping him at WHAT COST. Do we match a big long term offer?

if he's a RFA, we can tender him for a 1st+3rd (since he was a 1st rounder), right? which means that, if we don't want to match another team's offer, they have to give us their 1st+3rd to get Campbell. at least, that's how i thought i worked.

that sounds like a win-win to me. we either get Campbell on the cheap, or some other team outbids us and we get some good draft picks.

[Kelvin Bryant]

Campbell is as good as now as he will ever will be.

I would have agreed with you a month ago. And I would have been wrong.

[RocketCitySkins]

Third. Campbell has played in two systems with the Redskins. Gibbs and the west coast. Saunders comes from the same coaching tree as Gibbs. When Saunders came in terminology was not changed. The only thing that was changed was the addition of new plays and some new wrinkles. Nothing that any young QB isn't expected to learn as they progress. The west coast should not have been too much of a big deal. Campbell himself admitted that he had a head start because he played in a west coast system in college.

The terminology was the main thing that was changed.

Washington Post - August 10, 2006

"On the surface, the change is merely new terminology, made for the sake of simplicity."

Saunders is of the same mind, but labels positions and duties differently in his playbook. So when Gibbs brought him on board in January, it only made sense to implement Saunders's wording."

[RocketCitySkins]

Forth. Audibles. Portis was, as usual, talking out of his ***. Gibbs wasn't big on giving Jason audibles so some argument can be made there. but Jason has long had some ability to call audibles under Zorn. Sometimes he has done well with them, others, not so well. Like when he called for a running play at the worst possible time (we needed a TD and were too far to score with a run). This is really a chicken and egg question - was Jason stunted because he was not allowed to audible or was the offense stunted because Jason could not be trusted to do so? NONE of us knows.

Jason was asked about audibles in an interview and he said he is given the play and then sometimes one option out of it, sometimes 2 options out. Except we know what Zorn said about JC changing the play in the Redzone. But it's not like he can call up any play from the playbook.

[Mad Mike]

The terminology was the main thing that was changed.

Washington Post - August 10, 2006

"On the surface, the change is merely new terminology, made for the sake of simplicity."

Saunders is of the same mind, but labels positions and duties differently in his playbook. So when Gibbs brought him on board in January, it only made sense to implement Saunders's wording."

OK, fair enough. I was wrong about that part. But it was still basically the same system. A change, yes. But not one that should stunt a QB's growth.

[Mad Mike]

Jason was asked about audibles in an interview and he said he is given the play and then sometimes one option out of it, sometimes 2 options out. Except we know what Zorn said about JC changing the play in the Redzone. But it's not like he can call up any play from the playbook.

Aside from Payton Manning, I doubt that there are many QBs who can call any play they want at any time.

And the question still remains. WHY? None of us knows for sure. But most coaches try to give young QB's no more than what they think they can handle. Being that it is Zorn's offense and Zorn knows more about playing QB and more about how well Jason has grasped the system than any of us, I think you have to assume there is a good reason for limiting him.

And before people start the BS about Zorn's play calling or coaching, consider what Jaws says...

Offensive coordinator Sherman Smith and consultant Sherman Lewis now mostly shared the responsibility. And since that time, the Redskins' offense has shown dramatic improvements -- but Jaworski doesn't attribute that to the play-calling shakeup.

ad_icon

Prior to the Eagles' game, Jaworski went through every Redskins game of the season and charted the plays.

"Each play we asked, 'What would have you have done differently? What was a better play to call in that situation?'" Jaworski said. "And there were very, very few plays that were badly called plays."

He attributes the team's improvement to execution, chemistry, continuity and a noticeable change in the comfort level of players. He credited coaches for avoiding complex game-planning with a patchwork offensive line and inexperience at some of the skill positions.

[Bat~man]

I am leaning towards keeping him around another year and maybe drafting CJ Spiller with our first pick if he's on the board.

Interesting article, lets hope JC continues to improve.

[mnb123]

I am leaning towards keeping him around another year and maybe drafting CJ Spiller with our first pick if he's on the board.

Interesting article, lets hope JC continues to improve.

If we draft CJ Spiller with our first rounder you might have to put me on suicide watch

[Mad Mike]

I am leaning towards keeping him around another year and maybe drafting CJ Spiller with our first pick if he's on the board.

Interesting article, lets hope JC continues to improve.

This is starting to make me a little crazy.

Seriously. Keeping Jason "for another year" is NOT an option. It's going to take a multi-year contract for a good amount of money. That's not my opinion. It's just the way things are.