PFT:: Gradkowski, Campbell conundrum could spark a locker-room rift (MET)

[Rey]

I was sorta being sarcastic, dude. Janikowski is the man, though. Other than the Cards game, he has brought it every week. Campbell is still a joke.

Wait, isn't Janikowski the kicker? wtf...

[TheItalianStallion]

Game Manager isn't defined by the yards-per-catch stat, though.

"Game manager" is a subjective term, the meaning of which varies from person to person based on whatever their criteria is for what constitutes "managing the game." A high ypc stat is indicative of a QB who is taking chances (his comp% is down a bunch from last year, yet his ypa is up). When you put the emphasis on "catch," I assume what you were getting at was that his pass catchers have been getting a lot of yac. Well, look at his 2 TDs in the Seattle game; there were a bunch of yac on both of them, but he fit both of the passes into tiny holes, hit his targets in stride, and once the catches were made, they had nothing but green in front of them. The yac on those plays were made by Campbell, not the receivers.

[MikeBass]

I don't understand the problem in calling Campbell a game manager as long he is managing a "W". I don't think that anyone is saying that he is a elite QB but instead are saying that he is not a "horrible QB", "stinks", "sucks" or any of the adjectives that some want to label him . Nor has he been the problem with our team over the years.

Obviously Cable and crew is using Campbell in ways that best benefits the Raiders, They are effectively using him according to opponents, Ala Seattle when he blew it up stat-wise or situations like the Chiefs when his stats were not that glowing throughout the game but he was able to adjust to help produce a comeback and a victory.

Trying to find ways to hate on Campbell is fruitless as long as he is making contribution in helping his team win games.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

"Game manager" is a subjective term, the meaning of which varies from person to person based on whatever their criteria is for what constitutes "managing the game." A high ypc stat is indicative of a QB who is taking chances (his comp% is down a bunch from last year, yet his ypa is up). When you put the emphasis on "catch," I assume what you were getting at was that his pass catchers have been getting a lot of yac. Well, look at his 2 TDs in the Seattle game; there were a bunch of yac on both of them, but he fit both of the passes into tiny holes, hit his targets in stride, and once the catches were made, they had nothing but green in front of them. The yac on those plays were made by Campbell, not the receivers.

"Game Manager" QBs have always been known as those QB who will not lose you game, but will not win you games, either. Their yards-per-catch average is irrelevant in that regard. Their TD percentage and INT percentage stats would be far, far more telling.

And I emphasized "catch" because it's rare that anyone pays attention to yards per catch...if anything, it's yards per attempt that ends up mattering.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I don't understand the problem in calling Campbell a game manager as long he is managing a "W". I don't think that anyone is saying that he is a elite QB but instead are saying that he is not a "horrible QB", "stinks", "sucks" or any of the adjectives that some want to label him . Nor has he been the problem with our team over the years.

Obviously Cable and crew is using Campbell in ways that best benefits the Raiders, They are effectively using him according to opponents, Ala Seattle when he blew it up stat-wise or situations like the Chiefs when his stats were not that glowing throughout the game but he was able to adjust to help produce a comeback and a victory.

Trying to find ways to hate on Campbell is fruitless as long as he is making contribution in helping his team win games.

All good QBs are game managers as well as playmakers, so you're right.

[tr1]

I was sorta being sarcastic, dude. Janikowski is the man, though. Other than the Cards game, he has brought it every week. Campbell is still a joke.

I'll take a joke who wins games...

[TheItalianStallion]

"Game Manager" QBs have always been known as those QB who will not lose you game, but will not win you games, either. Their yards-per-catch average is irrelevant in that regard. Their TD percentage and INT percentage stats would be far, far more telling.

In other words, a game manager doesn't take chances, doesn't get the ball downfield, but doesn't make mistakes either. These are all inconsistent with what having a high ypc would entail. If a QB plays "to win" rather than "not to lose," they are throwing it downfield and taking risks. Since you bring up TD/INT, though.......since the benching he has 6 TDs & 3 INTs, and that's without many pass attempts.

And I emphasized "catch" because it's rare that anyone pays attention to yards per catch...if anything, it's yards per attempt that ends up mattering.

I understand that ypa is much more significant than ypc, but it's possible to have a high ypa without going downfield much. Hell, look at JC last year; respectable ypa of 7.1, but that was because he didn't throw many incompletions. His comp% is down by a bunch from last year, yet despite throwing more incompletions (i.e. more pass attempts that result in ZERO yards), his ypa is actually higher. Currently #11 in the league, which is also pretty darn high for a "game manager."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

In other words, a game manager doesn't take chances, doesn't get the ball downfield, but doesn't make mistakes either.

Nope, never said that. A game manager does indeed take shots downfield...but it's how often and when they do that separates a game manager QB from a good QB who both manages games AND makes plays. Who filled your head with the idea that game manager QBs do nothing but throw screens? lol...Simply put, a "game manager" QB doesn't throw many TDs, but they don't make too many stupid mistakes, either. There's nothing at all that deals with yards per catch mattering in that regard. A high "yards per catch" average isn't going to WIN you games...but a high TD percentage will.

And for the record, "making plays" does not mean hitting a wide-open WR 30 yards downfield due to a really well-executed and well-designed play. Making plays means getting good, positive yardage and keeping drives alive when nothing seems to be there. It means throwing TDs when the game will be lost without one. The truly good QBs in the league have that added weapon to their game-managing arsenal, and have shown to bring that weapon to games with a certain amount of consistency...to the point that they're no longer seen as just "game managers", but also game winners.

QBs who "take shots downfield" and "take risks", but constantly screw up both, aren't seen as game manager QBs NOT because they took the chances or threw downfield, but because of when and how those longer and riskier passes were attempted...because they're not making plays and they're hurting their teams too much.

I understand that ypa is much more significant than ypc, but it's possible to have a high ypa without going downfield much. Hell, look at JC last year; respectable ypa of 7.1, but that was because he didn't throw many incompletions. His comp% is down by a bunch from last year, yet despite throwing more incompletions (i.e. more pass attempts that result in ZERO yards), his ypa is actually higher. Currently #11 in the league, which is also pretty darn high for a "game manager."

Kerry Collins, in 2008, was the epidome of a game manager QB. He only threw 12 TDs, and he also only threw 7 INTs. The Titans went 13-3 with him behind center that season. His yards-per-catch average was 11.1...

Kurt Warner's yards-per-catch total that same year was 11.4...

Collins was a game-manager QB...Warner was most definitely not. Yet their yards-per-catch averages were almost identical.

Basing anything in terms of game manager QBs on yards per catch is faulty. A well-design and well-executed screen pass can go for 50 yards. Does that mean the QB took "risks" or "threw downfield"? No. Again, much MUCH better stats to use are TD percentage, INT percentage, percentage of passes thrown 30+ yards or more through the air...completion percentage of long passes, etc...

For example, Campbell has attempted 25 passes of 21 yards or more so far this season...and has only completed 4 of them. And only one TD resulted from those throws.

To compare, Vince Young--the guy in the #1 spot on your list--has also attempted 25 passes of 21 yards or more...but he's completed 9 of them...with four of those passes for TDs.

Rivers--the #2 guy on your list--has attempted 35 passes of 21 yards or more, and has complete 16...with EIGHT of them for TDs (!!)

You want to know why yards-per-catch doesn't really tell you much? Let's look at some of those same guys on your previous list...

Passes of 21 yards or more through the air:

Young:

9/25

36%

4 TDs

16% TD rate

Rivers:

16/35

46%

8 TDs

23% TD rate

Vick:

8/18

44%

3 TDs

17% TD rate

Orton:

18/36

50%

4 TDs

11% TD rate

Sanchez:

8/32

25%

4 TDs

13% TD rate

Campbell:

4/25

16%

1 TD

4% TD rate

It's not just "taking shots downfield"...it's when and where you do, and the results. The REAL results. Not just the yards-per-catch results. That is one way of telling which QBs have risen above the "game manager" label and are actually making plays and getting the ball into the end zone with their arms. Not yards-per-catch.

[MikeBass]

The best "game manager" in the game today (and probably history) is Peyton Manning... Other great game managers (past and present) are Joe Montana and Tom Brady...heady QB's, who can manage games without a lot of coaches intervention whether they are going with the coaches call or changing plays (either run, pass, screen or whatever) they are consistently dialing up the right plays.

Then there's QB's who are going to get a bunch of YPC / YPA / yardage period (Brees, Rivers, Marino, etc.) they are typically known as "passing QB's"...

...yeah all QB's throw passes but all are not great "game managers" nor do all put up amazing stats

As far as Campbell is concerned, IMO he is in NO way a "game manager" but he, at times can put up numbers but will be reliant upon the correct coaching staff in order to succeed. He falls in another QB category a ("systems QB" ) because given the right team situation (system) he can help win games. Campbell is not great although he has a nice arm nor is he horrible because he will make mistakes but right now I am sure that he is more than a suffice QB for Cable and crew.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The best "game manager" in the game today (and probably history) is Peyton Manning... Other great game managers (past and present) are Joe Montana and Tom Brady...heady QB's, who can manage games without a lot of coaches intervention whether they are going with the coaches call or changing plays (either run, pass, screen or whatever) they are consistently dialing up the right plays.

Then there's QB's who are going to get a bunch of YPC / YPA / yardage period (Brees, Rivers, Marino, etc.) they are typically known as "passing QB's"...

...yeah all QB's throw passes but all are not great "game managers" nor do all put up amazing stats

As far as Campbell is concerned, IMO he is in NO way a "game manager" but he, at times can put up numbers but will be reliant upon the correct coaching staff in order to succeed. He falls in another QB category a ("systems QB" ) because given the right team situation (system) he can help win games. Campbell is not great although he has a nice arm nor is he horrible because he will make mistakes but right now I am sure that he is more than a suffice QB for Cable and crew.

You're kind of redefining what a "Game Manager" QB is, though.

Managing games IS what any QB should do...but if that's more or less all they can do, then they get the label. Peyton, Brees, etc, etc...they bring a helluva lot more to the field than just managing the offense.

And in general "Game Managers" absolutely require good coaching/playcalling and the other units on the team to be clicking in order to win consistently...which I think describes Campbell perfectly right now. Campbell is most definitely not a "system QB", because "system" and "situation" are two completely different things. "System" usually refers to the offensive scheme..."situation" usually refers to the team and how the team is performing overall. It's not that Oakland's system is best suited for Campbell, but the Raider's situation is definitely helping him lead the team to wins consistently so far.

And just to illustrate what I mean, compare JC's stats this year to what he put up last year:

Completion rate:

2009 - 64.5%

2010 - 56.7%

Yards per attempt:

2009 - 7.1

2010 - 7.3

TD percentage:

2009 - 4.0%

2010 - 4.1%

INT percentage:

2009 - 2.9%

2010 - 2.9%

Production-wise, he's more or less the same QB he was last year...but he's getting more wins now because of the situation he's in--his production is being used in service of a team with a strong running game and an aggressive defense. The Raiders' system isn't leading to a more productive Jason Campbell...but the situation he's found himself in HAS led to Campbell having more wins as a QB.

[MikeBass]

Production-wise, he's more or less the same QB he was last year...but he's getting more wins now because of the situation he's in--his production is being used in service of a team with a strong running game and an aggressive defense. The Raiders' system isn't leading to a more productive Jason Campbell...but the situation he's found himself in HAS led to Campbell having more wins as a QB.

Jason's numbers are going to be what they are throughout his career (probably a little better as he grows with his new team) and I think that the Raiders knew that when they picked him up...Yes he IS the benefactor of a strong running game,one in which the Raiders knew that they would have before they picked up Campbell. Their mission was to find a QB who could compliment the run game that they were already planning on featuring.

Jason had a rough start but IMO, the Raiders are now getting the play out of him as they expected to get from him in order for them to improve....Of course, he befits their system and it is showing.

[TheItalianStallion]

Nope, never said that. A game manager does indeed take shots downfield...but it's how often and when they do that separates a game manager QB from a good QB who both manages games AND makes plays. Who filled your head with the idea that game manager QBs do nothing but throw screens? lol...Simply put, a "game manager" QB doesn't throw many TDs, but they don't make too many stupid mistakes, either. There's nothing at all that deals with yards per catch mattering in that regard. A high "yards per catch" average isn't going to WIN you games...but a high TD percentage will.

And for the record, "making plays" does not mean hitting a wide-open WR 30 yards downfield due to a really well-executed and well-designed play. Making plays means getting good, positive yardage and keeping drives alive when nothing seems to be there. It means throwing TDs when the game will be lost without one. The truly good QBs in the league have that added weapon to their game-managing arsenal, and have shown to bring that weapon to games with a certain amount of consistency...to the point that they're no longer seen as just "game managers", but also game winners.

QBs who "take shots downfield" and "take risks", but constantly screw up both, aren't seen as game manager QBs NOT because they took the chances or threw downfield, but because of when and how those longer and riskier passes were attempted...because they're not making plays and they're hurting their teams too much.

Bunch of subjective opinion which, while valid at face value, doesn't really pertain to my post.

Kerry Collins, in 2008, was the epidome of a game manager QB. He only threw 12 TDs, and he also only threw 7 INTs. The Titans went 13-3 with him behind center that season. His yards-per-catch average was 11.1...

Kurt Warner's yards-per-catch total that same year was 11.4...

Collins was a game-manager QB...Warner was most definitely not. Yet their yards-per-catch averages were almost identical.

And both are significantly lower than JC's current rate.

Basing anything in terms of game manager QBs on yards per catch is faulty.

Hence my comments on him taking chances downfield (even with the strong ground game they've faced numerous passing situations on 3rd down where he's come through for them), TD/INT ratio, and since you bring up TD%, his is over 5% since the benching, which is in the top 10, if I remember right. He also has something like 4 pass attempts that have resulted in 30+ yard gains from defensive PI. My argument was based on more than his ypc stat, and the rest of your post is based on that fallacy, though your failure to realize that is partially my fault for not choosing my words better.

A well-design and well-executed screen pass can go for 50 yards. Does that mean the QB took "risks" or "threw downfield"? No.

Agreed, but plays like the throw to Nick Miller vs. Denver, both TDs vs Seattle, several throws vs KC, the PIs mentioned above, and other throws of his, do.

For example, Campbell has attempted 25 passes of 21 yards or more so far this season...and has only completed 4 of them. And only one TD resulted from those throws.

Your number is wrong. There was 1 vs SF, 2 vs Denver, 1 vs Seattle, and 3 vs KC, though granted, one of the 3 vs KC was an INSANE catch by the WR. And that's without getting into the PIs. In 9 games with Oakland, I think he's already drawn more 30+ yard PIs than his ENTIRE time as a redskin........

[Bubble Screen]

I'll take a joke who wins games...

You do realize Campbell has a losing record as a starter, right?

[pjfootballer]

Jason's had some good games lately, I'll give him credit for that. And the team is winning, but I will not take him for anything more than an average QB, until he goes to the probowl (on performance, not injury replacement), leads his team to the playoffs or a championship. Until then, he is what he is.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

7/19 for a whopping 70 yards, with O TD's, an INT, and 2 fumbles. (One lost.). Then replaced by Gradkowski for most all of the second half.

As soon as he comes up against a D that takes away the safety net of the run game, pressures him, and ask's him to actually win a game on his own talents; Captain Checkdown shows us, to quote some dude called Denny, "he is what we thought he was." A VERY average pro QB. Praise the Lord he's now Oakland's problem.

Hail.

[Ghost of]

GHH,

I'm sure "Rocky" will be back with a multi-quote, twenty-five paragraph/section essay as to why Campbell is still a pretty good QB in spite of being benched a SECOND time this season.

[MustangSteve]

7/19 for a whopping 70 yards, with O TD's, an INT, and 2 fumbles. (One lost.). Then replaced by Gradkowski for most all of the second half.

As soon as he comes up against a D that takes away the safety net of the run game, pressures him, and ask's him to actually win a game on his own talents; Captain Checkdown shows us, to quote some dude called Denny, "he is what we thought he was." A VERY average pro QB. Praise the Lord he's now Oakland's problem.

Hail.

I seen this coming as soon as they faced the Steelers. It was them who exposed Campbell in 08 with 7 sacks, and they knew just how to do it again. Take his running game, put on the heat and Jason will be Jason. A nice guy but I will take DMac anyday!

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

LOL Gibbs man, don't you just know it.

Given his impassioned defense of the totally indefensable; for many, many MANY months now; I'm seriously wondering if CC has Italian routes.

Hail.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Seen it coming a mile away...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I seen this coming as soon as they faced the Steelers. It was them who exposed Campbell in 08 with 7 sacks, and they knew just how to do it again. Take his running game, put on the heat and Jason will be Jason. A nice guy but I will take DMac anyday!

The real question, though (or the relevant question, I should say), is would you take Gradkowski? lol...That's what the Raiders have to ask themselves now. And Gradkowski stunk up the field right along with Campbell.

[TotalRecall]

Looks like Crumble threw another stinker against the Steelers today with a QB rating of 26.2

[HailGreen28]

Game Manager - definition - A QB that can be trusted not to lose a game if the team is doing well, but cannot be relied upon to win a game on his own strengths.

IMO

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Game Manager - definition - A QB that can be trusted not to lose a game if the team is doing well, but cannot be relied upon to win a game on his own strengths.

IMO

I believe that exact definition is in Websters with a picture of Jason alongside it.

Hail.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

wow, so campbells run game gets taken away and look what happens.

but all the campbell supporters, keep telling yourself that hes a factor on that team. lol

and the only reason campbell has a shot in hell is cause skeletor out there in oakland is in love with his arm, no more or less.

[Warhead36]

In 2008, Campbell's hot run came to an abrupt end against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Fast forward two years later, same Campbell, same Steelers, same result.

He is an average QB, a game manager, that's it.