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

[Mahons21]

Well, that's nice lol...but as you mentioned earlier in response to my comment, since the game was played on the east coast there probably were a lot of people who saw the game and still didn't think Campbell deserved praise. I just pointed out that you can easily tell that a lot of people did NOT watch the game by the comments they made in their posts. The fact that you may have watched the game doesn't change that fact.

So you quoted me and just made some point in your post that was entirely irrelevant to our debate... ok

No, not really. If I see an attractive female at the mall I don't immediately try to judge her in comparison to every other female I've ever seen at that same mall over the last 12 months lol...I either think she's pretty or I do not.

Not synonymous situations tons of women in a mall to compare the woman to. If you're going to go after a girl in a bar, and there's only one in there, she's going to look more attractive than she would, if a group of very attractive females walked in. Hell if you started talking to them you'd probably forget all about her.

And it's incredibly easy to judge whether or not a player had a good game without needing to judge it against all other QBs playing that same weekend. The only time comparisons are needed is when deciding on if a QB should be considered elite or HOF-worthy...things like that. But as for whether or not a QB had a good game?...If you are the type who needs to FIRST look at the other QBs in the league that same weekend before determining if a QB had a good game or not, then something's wrong. I guarantee you coaches and coordinators don't view players in that manner lol...

You judge a QB within there era. In today's pass happy NFL with QB's performing the way they are, to have a performance considered to be good, it needs to be above some sort of league average.

No, they set the standard of what is considered "elite" in the NFL...If no QB in the league is considered "dominating", then it will be said that there are no truly elite QBs in the NFL. They don't grade on a curve lol ...

Then what is half of a elite?

It's not just the INTs, though, it's the decision-making throughout the game. INTs can come from WRs running the wrong route, tipped balls or just incredible DB play, and not due directly to anything the QB did wrong.

I didn't watch enough of this game to make any type of analysis on Manning's performance, I assume you decided to tivo it? From the drive I remember Manning and Wayne drove down the field playing catch with one another, decision making certainly didn't look like the problem.

Why is that a problem? lol ...the debate isn't whether or not Campbell should be considered an elite QB based on the Raiders game. Again, who cares if Rodgers does it more consistently than Campbell?

If one play isn't worthy of much praise from what one player, it shouldn't be worth of that much from another player. It would mean you're judging the two QB's on a different scale, and probably bringing expectations into talent evaluation.

But you went a step or two further by claiming Campbell's performance shouldn't even be considered good. That's what I commented on. I don't care about the other aspects you just mentioned.

Half of elite, sounds mediocre to me.

So? lol ...Once again, it has zero to do with what we're discussing, because what we're discussing is NOT that JC played the biggest role of any QB in their team's win this past weekend. We're discussing whether or not JC's performance should be seen as a good one. And for the record, there HAVE been those on this thread who have claimed Campbell's contribution to the Raiders' win was little more than "handing off the football" for 60 minutes lol...

OK and it probably would have been considered a good one 30 years ago, when football was a very different sport.

He did make his plays, I didn't say he just handed the ball off for 60 minutes. But realistically, a lot of what he did was hand the ball off.. either RB, had more rushing attempts than he had passing attempts.

You DO realize, of course, that the Raiders' RBs had done squat up to that point in the game, right?

Yes I realize their THREE rushing attempts hadn't amounted to much. I also realize that the San Diego chargers defense was probably aware that the Raiders were a top 5 rushing team throughout the duration of the season. Despite their three rushing attempts to start the game with a 3.3 ypc average, they were still a little more worried about the Raiders rushing attack on fourth and 1. BTW none of the rushing plays went for less than 2 yards, so it wasn't as if the Chargers were dominating the LOS and thought they would easily stop them.

...and you DO realize, of course, that the player who should have contained Campbell was standing straight up, looking into the pile to see what happened while the guy he was responsible for kept running right past him, right?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/oakland-raiders/09000d5d81cab143/QB-Campbell-9-yd-run-TD-4th-down-conversion

Maybe you should watch this play again, the design and call deserve more credit than execution. They motion a TE to the opposite side of the roll out to make it appear that they continue their power rushing attack, the man responsible for Campbell doesn't even look his way (but apparently Campbell faked him out) he just stares in the backfield trying to make sure the bottled up RB doesn't break free.

That play doesn't happen on a team that doesn't require the same attention the Raiders rushing attack does.

And you DO realize, of course, that even an average PA attempt by a QB in that situation would at least get that same defender at the very least chasing after him, but this guy just stood there frozen, right?

No he stands there trying to see if he can make a play on the RB he believes has the ball because he never even looked Campbell's way he was so concentrated on stop the RB.

The Chargers had a top-5 rushing defense at the time (I think it might have been #3 in the league)...they weren't running scared out there at ANYONE's running backs. That PA was just a beautifully executed play by Campbell and the RB. I give him all the credit in the world for selling it as well as he did.

I don't care what ranking your defense is, when you're playing a team that is running the ball like the Oakland Raiders you're worried about their rushing attack, not their QB.

That's weak lol...My point was that Campbell's role in the Raiders' scoring a TD on that drive was THE most significant aspect of that drive--a 40-yard completion to the 10-yard line on 3rd down after faking out the defense, the crowd, the announcer and the camera man. He set them up perfectly to put a lot more distance in between his team and the momentum-building Chargers. He's the reason they scored on that drive.

And the most significant play of the roll-out TD drive, was the muffed punt, the biggest play of the Ford drive was the INT.

Let me get this straight. Campbell runs in a 9 yd TD run with one other run on the drive, he get's all the credit.

Darren McFadden rushes in a 7 yd TD, with 2 other players on the drive, Campbell get's all the credit.

Even though Campbell is untouched in his rush, and McFadden beats one guy to the edge and goes through another to get to the endzone.

You've changed your criteria of whether the significant play(play that had the largest roll in gaining the yardage necessary to score), or the actual scoring play on a drive should get the credit. In Campbell's PA TD roll-out drive, the significant play was the muffed punt that got them that position. Don't forge the Raiders had just gone 3rd and out, after Campbell and Ford couldn't hook up on a pass on 3rd and 3.

Now...are there a multitude of scenarios that we could conjure up that show the Raiders scoring a TD on that drive if Campbell misses that throw or doesn't even attempt it? Sure lol ...But you could say that about every single TD pass thrown by Rodgers, Brady and Brees. I somehow doubt, though, that we'd be just as willing to call it "silly" to claim that those QBs were the reason those TDs were scored.

You find me a drive where Rodgers/Brady/Brees have thrown a single pass that didn't go for a TD nor was it longer than 50 yards and someone still says "they're the reason the team scored on the drive," and trust me I'll say it's silly.

The fact is it was 3rd and 1, and the Raiders weren't having a problem getting a yard. The Chargers weren't consistently stopping them in the backfield or anything of that nature.

Campbell's performance deserved praise but it wasn't "good"? lol...

You can have plays that deserve praise but still not have a good game. Manning had plays that deserved praise in his performance last weekend, he certainly didn't play well.

So how exactly were we able to come up with the first determination of good QB play?

It's nothing set in stone, it's usually done by the era in sports. Hence the reason you need the comparisons.

Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you:

In youth basketball a 12 year old is the first kid to make 3 pointers. He shoots only 25% a game, but hell he's the only one who's made more than a couple, and he's considered to be one of the better players in the league, you might even say his performance is good. But the next year a lot of boys catch up with his 3-point shooting abilities, and even though he's gone from 25% to 28% shooting, Billy, Joe, Tommy, Zack, John, and Tim are all now shooting 35%+, in fact the original boy is now among the worst 3-point shooters in the league.

Does this mean he can't still have an impressive shot that deserves praise? No. But what once was considered good, is no longer, even though he's improved upon his performance from the year prior.

So you praise mediocre play? lol...

No I praise the few plays I really thought he did something special on, most notably the PA bomb, and the michael bush shuffle pass.

[TheItalianStallion]

i cant remember anyone ever saying he was the worst in the NFL either, but hey while were talking about exaggerations.

There was a thread last year titled something like "Bigger bust: Campbell or Russell?" In that thread, SoCalSkins and SkinsFTW both argued that Campbell was the bigger bust.

[PF Chang]

There was a thread last year titled something like "Bigger bust: Campbell or Russell?" In that thread, SoCalSkins and SkinsFTW both argued that Campbell was the bigger bust.

I'm about to go find that thread, because you should learn something every day. Today I am hoping to find out how you can cogently argue that Campbell is a bigger bust than Russell. I'm not optimistic about it.

I think those posters have been around for a while though, which usually means there will at least be a reasonable argument. I guess I'll see, search time.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So you quoted me and just made some point in your post that was entirely irrelevant to our debate... ok

No...I corrected something you claimed was true in one of your posts. Significant difference.

Not synonymous situations tons of women in a mall to compare the woman to. If you're going to go after a girl in a bar, and there's only one in there, she's going to look more attractive than she would, if a group of very attractive females walked in. Hell if you started talking to them you'd probably forget all about her.

STILL not true. If she's attractive, she's attractive. I don't care if Halle Berry in her prime walked in, she's still attractive. Just because someone MORE attractive might walk into the bar/club doesn't suddenly make the 1st woman uglier. If that's truly how you look at women I feel sorry for anyone you may date or be married to lol ...

You judge a QB within there era. In today's pass happy NFL with QB's performing the way they are, to have a performance considered to be good, it needs to be above some sort of league average.

You judge a QB's game performance within that particular game. That's what I'm doing. That's what you refuse to do...I suspect because you feel you've found some sort of unshakable stance in claiming that since Campbell's performance wasn't on an elite level like what Brady and Brees can deliver, it's silly to claim he had a good game.

Then what is half of a elite?

Again, has ZERO to do with what we're discussing (or should be discussing lol)...what you need to do is go find someone who claims Campbell is now an elite QB (or even a very good QB) based on the game against the Chargers. At least then your responses will be on-topic.

I didn't watch enough of this game to make any type of analysis on Manning's performance, I assume you decided to tivo it? From the drive I remember Manning and Wayne drove down the field playing catch with one another, decision making certainly didn't look like the problem.

Manning threw 48 passes...you just accounted for a whopping 14 of them lol. Yeah, that proves that his decision making was spot on :thumbsup:

But the fact remains: if you're throwing 4 INTs in a game your decision making deserves criticism--unless those INTs are due to any of the factors I've already mentioned. That was my point...sailed completely over your head, though.

If one play isn't worthy of much praise from what one player, it shouldn't be worth of that much from another player. It would mean you're judging the two QB's on a different scale, and probably bringing expectations into talent evaluation.

WTF? lol ...

I'll simplify it even more for you: When Rodgers does it, it's deserving of praise and is one aspect that shows he played a good game. When Campbell does it, it's deserving of praise and is one aspect that shows he played a good game. How MANY times Rodgers does it more than Campbell is one million percent irrelevant in that regard.

Please tell me you understand that rather simple concept, and that you also understand why how more consistently Rodgers does it than Campbell doesn't matter one iota as to whether or not we can say Campbell played a good game against the Chargers.

Half of elite, sounds mediocre to me.

Ok, now you're not even attempting to respond to the stuff I'm writing lol ...

OK and it probably would have been considered a good one 30 years ago, when football was a very different sport.

No, it was considered a good game just this week, and in a helluva lot more circles than just here on ES. Get out more.

He did make his plays, I didn't say he just handed the ball off for 60 minutes.

And I didn't say you did lol...you need to step away from this self-centric perception you have and learn to read my posts better.

But realistically, a lot of what he did was hand the ball off.. either RB, had more rushing attempts than he had passing attempts.

I'll fill you in on a little secret that was obvious to those who watched the game:

When the Raiders were up 21-3, they had run 29 offensive plays. 12 plays were either JC passing or scrambling, and 17 plays were rushing plays.

When watching the game, it was obvious on those three consecutive TD drives that they did NOT consist of "a lot of JC handing off". It was what the Raiders did up to that point that won them the game...and Campbell played a significant role in what they had accomplished up to that point. The abundance of running plays after that doesn't negate that fact, no matter how much you try to contort logic to say otherwise.

By that point:

Bush - 8 rushes, 27 yards

McFadden - 8 rushes, 24 yards

Campbell - 5 rushes, 39 yards

As Skins fans, we only wish that rushing 16 times for a 3.2 ypc average with supposedly very little help from the QB would lead the team to a 21-3 lead lol ...We'd be leading the division if that were the case.

Yes I realize their THREE rushing attempts hadn't amounted to much. I also realize that the San Diego chargers defense was probably aware that the Raiders were a top 5 rushing team throughout the duration of the season. Despite their three rushing attempts to start the game with a 3.3 ypc average, they were still a little more worried about the Raiders rushing attack on fourth and 1.

Being a "little more worried" about the Raiders' RBs doesn't begin to explain how the Chargers defender stood by completely faked out as Campbell ran past him for a TD, though, does it...But JC pulling off a perfect PA roll out does. But I forgot, we are not to give Campbell any real credit for that, are we...would upset the balance of the universe and all that.

BTW none of the rushing plays went for less than 2 yards, so it wasn't as if the Chargers were dominating the LOS and thought they would easily stop them.

None of the THREE rushing attempts? lol ...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/oakland-raiders/09000d5d81cab143/QB-Campbell-9-yd-run-TD-4th-down-conversion

Maybe you should watch this play again, the design and call deserve more credit than execution. They motion a TE to the opposite side of the roll out to make it appear that they continue their power rushing attack, the man responsible for Campbell doesn't even look his way (but apparently Campbell faked him out) he just stares in the backfield trying to make sure the bottled up RB doesn't break free.

He never looks Campbell's way? ...Oh, yes he does, and he quickly decides that Campbell does NOT have the ball, and his head swivels back to the pile up. Watch it again, and focus on what his head does and Campbell starts rolling out.

That Chargers' defender wasn't even IN on the "tackle" of the Raiders' RB, and the play wasn't even going to his side...he wasn't even being blocked at the time JC ran past him. In other words, he had ZERO reason to ignore his responsibility to contain the QB in case of a bootleg other THAN he was thoroughly fooled into thinking the RB had the ball and thus Campbell didn't need to be accounted for. I damn well guarantee you that his coaches pointed that out during game film study...they were not saying to him "Hey, those Raiders RBs are something else, aren't they?...I don't blame you for just ignoring the QB altogether!" lol...

That play doesn't happen on a team that doesn't require the same attention the Raiders rushing attack does.

Oh, yes it does lol :yes:...and especially against teams with a top 5 (top 3, actually) running defense...and on 4th down to boot! ...Don't delude yourself about that.

No he stands there trying to see if he can make a play on the RB he believes has the ball because he never even looked Campbell's way he was so concentrated on stop the RB.

He's standing there "trying to see if he can make a play" on the RB?? LOL!!! :rotflmao:...No, he's standing there trying to see if the RB got the 1st down or not. No defender tries to make a play on ANYONE by standing around lol ...if they're trying to make a play, they're moving forward, towards where they think the ball is. It's beyond obvious that he's standing on the periphery of the pile trying to see what happened...not realize that what REALLY happened is running right by him as he stands on looking. That is due to nothing more than an excellently sold bootleg by BOTH the QB and the RB. I have zero problem giving Campbell all the credit in the world for his contribution to that play working. Can't for the life of me understand why you're so hellbent against doing so.

I don't care what ranking your defense is, when you're playing a team that is running the ball like the Oakland Raiders you're worried about their rushing attack, not their QB.

Um, when a defense has shown all season long that they can stop most teams' rushing attack, and the rushing attack in the current game has been held in check so far to an average of 3.3 yards per attempt, the DC most likely makes sure that every player out there is aware of their role on an important 4th down attempt in their red zone. Ya think? lol...

And the most significant play of the roll-out TD drive, was the muffed punt, the biggest play of the Ford drive was the INT.

1. Nobody said it wasn't...but that doesn't negate the perfect execution OF the roll out, does it?

2. Yeah, tell yourself that when we have a Skins offense that can be given 5 stinkin' turnovers by the defense on 5 stinkin' drives in a row...and score ZERO points on offense off of them ...Other than the scores themselves, the most significant plays on any scoring drive are the big plays which immediately put the offense into scoring position. The INT, while important, was no more significant for the Raiders scoring drive than the actual TD pass was, or Campbell's QB sneak on 4th and 1 to keep the drive alive.

Let me get this straight. Campbell runs in a 9 yd TD run with one other run on the drive, he get's all the credit.

Darren McFadden rushes in a 7 yd TD, with 2 other players on the drive, Campbell get's all the credit.

Man, you're reading comprehension skills need some serious refining lol...

I'll help you "get it straight"...Campbell gets credit for how well he sold the play action on his TD run...not ALL the credit, for as I said several posts ago that the RB deserves equal credit. How you turned that to "Campbell gets all the credit" for the TD is beyond me, other than you were severely in need of a straw man to knock down lol...

Campbell gets credit for completing a huge pass on 3rd down and putting the offense on the 10 yard line, right when the Chargers were gaining momentum...a play that enabled the offense to score when there was no reason to expect them to do so on that drive and at that point in the game. It was easily the play of the drive and the most significant contribution to the Raiders scoring a TD. McFadden doesn't get a chance TO run in a 7 yard TD without that play.

This is probably easy for practically everyone to understand...except you. You are way too reliant on straw man arguments to help prove your stance.

Even though Campbell is untouched in his rush, and McFadden beats one guy to the edge and goes through another to get to the endzone.

Here's the difference, sparky lol...in one instance we're talking about a singular play (the TD bootleg)...in the other instance we're talking about a TD drive...in the first instance we look at the execution of a single play and how well it was carried out. In the other instance we look at a series of plays and determine if any singular play played a more significant part in that drive turning into a TD. Getting the ball on the 10 yard line by faking out the entire defense, and with a punt about to occur, qualifies.

If it helps your analytical skills, though, imagine how JC so expertly selling that PA that got them down onto the 10- yard line effected the defense?...Just imagine, now after faking out the entire defense on a PA--twice--they had to account for JC possibly doing it again, even if just for a split second...a split second that they keep their eyes on Campbell...a split second that helps the RBs build up some steam and get their yards...and their TDs.

Naaaaaaah lol...nothing Campbell does is worthy of being considered as helping the rushing attack, I forgot that undeniable truth of football.

You've changed your criteria of whether the significant play, or the actual scoring play on a drive should get the credit.

Read the above again, and stop embarrassing yourself.

In Campbell's PA TD roll-out drive, the significant play was the muffed punt that got them that position. Don't forge the Raiders had just gone 3rd and out, after Campbell and Ford couldn't hook up on a pass on 3rd and 3.

Yep, never said it wasn't. Show me where I did. I'll wait.

And in that same vein, Campbell's 38 yarder on a perfectly-executed PA play was the most significant reason they scored on THAT drive.

I'm completely consistent.

You, on the other hand, are confusing the discussion of scoring PLAYS with the discussion of scoring DRIVES. Keep up!

You find me a drive where Rodgers/Brady/Brees have thrown a single pass that didn't go for a TD nor was it longer than 50 yards and someone still says "they're the reason the team scored on the drive," and trust me I'll say it's silly.

"Nor was it longer than 50 yards" lol ...So you ARE admitting that a long pass play can be the reason a drive ends up as a scoring drive...you just feel 38 yards isn't long enough, is that it? lol...

Man, you have quite a limited view of the realities of football.

For me, a play where the QB threads the needle with a 7 yard pass on 4th and 5 and picks up the 1st down will be in the running for the most significant reason that drive turned into a TD drive. Without that absolutely necessary, difficult completion the drive stalls and the opposing team takes over.

To you, though, it would be silly to suggest such a thing because the ball only traveled 7 yards.

The fact is it was 3rd and 1, and the Raiders weren't having a problem getting a yard. The Chargers weren't consistently stopping them in the backfield or anything of that nature.

You don't have to "consistently" stop the RBs, you only have to do it once. And simply picking up the 1st down doesn't mean they will proceed to march down the field.

The reason the down plays a role in Campbell's completion is because he wasn't going to be given another shot if he blows the play...there's more pressure doing this on 3rd down than on 1st down, where you know you'll be given 2 more shots at picking up the 1st.

You can have plays that deserve praise but still not have a good game. Manning had plays that deserved praise in his performance last weekend, he certainly didn't play well.

Yes, but you said Campbell's "performance" deserved praise, not "some plays by Campbell" deserve praise. "Performance" is overall play, not a few plays here and there.

It's nothing set in stone, it's usually done by the era in sports. Hence the reason you need the comparisons.

You don't get what I asked you.

You said you can't determine whether or not a QB performed well in a game unless compared to another QB. That's faulty logic. There has to be an objective barometer of determining whether or not a QB--or any player--performed well. Comparisons to other players are highly subjective, and can't possibly take into account all the mitigating factors that are different for each QB such as playcalling, surrounding cast, weather, opponent, coaching, O-Line, offensive scheme, etc, etc...so before the first QB to ever have been praised for having a "good" game was ever GIVEN that praise, those measurements and that barometer had to have already been in place. You can't delay that assessment for a month or so lol..."Yeah, you SEEMED to do well, but maybe all the other QBs in the league actually suck and you only look good by comparison! We'll need at least another year or so before we can tell whether you did well today, son..."

Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you:

In youth basketball a 12 year old is the first kid to make 3 pointers. He shoots only 25% a game, but hell he's the only one who's made more than a couple, and he's considered to be one of the better players in the league, you might even say his performance is good. But the next year a lot of boys catch up with his 3-point shooting abilities, and even though he's gone from 25% to 28% shooting, Billy, Joe, Tommy, Zack, John, and Tim are all now shooting 35%+, in fact the original boy is now among the worst 3-point shooters in the league.

Does this mean he can't still have an impressive shot that deserves praise? No. But what once was considered good, is no longer, even though he's improved upon his performance from the year prior.

Well, there's all sorts of stuff wrong with your scenario, for starters...

For one, there will already be measurements in place to determine what would be a good 3 point accuracy percentage for 12 year olds in this imagined circumstance...coaches don't just play it by ear and gauge their players based on comparisons to other players. They have specific goals that they want to see players reach.

Second, those three 12 year old sharpshooters who are knocking down the 3 pointers the next year...how are we to know if that's an anomaly and unrealistic to expect from other 12 year olds? Because if it IS, then those coaches are overlooking the actually-rather good 3 point shooter on his own team because he's too caught up in subjective measuring instead of realistic analysis. Good coaches don't bother with the first one.

3rd, if that first 12 year old who shot 25% from behind the arc sparks a come-from-behind win late in the 4th by nailing 4 in a row...all while pulling down a lot of rebounds and playing good defense throughout the entire game...his performance should qualify as being "good". That there ended up being some other 12 year olds that shot better from behind the arc a year later should be 1,000% irrelevant in any assessment of that first 12 year old's game.

No I praise the few plays I really thought he did something special on, most notably the PA bomb, and the michael bush shuffle pass.

But again, you said JC's "performance" deserved praise...not just a few plays here and there.

[tr1]

Why does anyone 'mess' with Califan.

Evisceration without a knife....it's incredible to watch.

[Mahons21]

No...I corrected something you claimed was true in one of your posts. Significant difference.

No that's not true. Refer to this point to get cleared up.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?333744-PFT-Gradkowski-Campbell-conundrum-could-spark-a-locker-room-rift-(MET)&p=8023936#post8023936

You quoted me in a post where I posted stats, while debating someone other than you and said "So far it seems most of the people unwilling to say JC played a good game are those who didn't actually see the game, and are instead trying to use game stats to prove their point."

Somehow I inferred this to mean you were implying I didn't watch the game. I told you I had, and you went off on how you're talking about other posters.

Now let me pose one last situation, maybe we'll see eye to eye, but I doubt it.

If someone who's never watched a football game, but is taught all of the rules through videos of past generations, and they're told the passing game in today's NFL is very different. They are asked to watch a game of a given QB and determine whether the QB, had a good game. That aren't allowed to make an argument they are asked, yes or no did the QB have a good game.

You're currently arguing that the person in this scenario would just as easily determine whether or not the player had by watching that game alone, as they would if they watched every other game that weekend. You're saying everything else is entirely irrelevant to whether or not that QB had a good game.

The person would obviously want to watch all the footage possible, if their intent was to be correct. It's only logical.

Obviously you'll pick this apart and have a million different additions to the scenario, missing the one simple point. It's easier to judge whether someone has done good/well or whatever, when you have the performance of their peers available as well, than it is to judge someone without viewing any performance of their peers.

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 07:05 PM ----------

Why does anyone 'mess' with Califan.

Evisceration without a knife....it's incredible to watch.

Tr1 with another profound drive by. How unlike and very unpredictable of you. What are you gonna do next go overboard on how bad a Cowboy is? Really throw us all for a loop.

---------- Post added December-8th-2010 at 07:13 PM ----------

A very easy barometer for whether or not a player is performing well is measuring them against the averages of their peers. If all your stats are below average, then you're probably not playing very well. This doesn't mean there's no situation in which you aren't performing well (even though you're below league average), perhaps all of your plays happened at crucial moments in the game, and you were extremely clutch. But for the most part if you're playing below the level of the majority of your peers, you didn't have a good game.

To further ensure that it's not a one year anomaly with majority of QB's playing above their actual level of talent, you can even use stats from years prior.

[darrelgreenie]

An impartial view:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/CampJa00-1.php

Week 13 at SD - After spending the first three months of the season moving in and out of the lineup and looking like little more than a third stringer at best, Campbell came from nowhere to play arguably the best game of his career. He had a lot of help from the rushing game, but he was the primary reason for the Oakland victory. Campbell used the play action pass to perfection to throw off not only the San Diego defense but also the CBS camera crew on several occasions. On Oakland's first possession, Campbell beautifully sold the fake handoff to RB Darren McFadden before rolling out to his left. There wasn't another San Diego defender in the area, and he easily waltzed in untouched for the game's opening score. On the next Raider drive, he found WR Jacoby Ford in the back corner of the end zone with perfect touch on a fade pattern. On that and just about every other play, there was almost no pressure on Campbell. But even on the rare occasions that there was, he used his athleticism to avoid it. And not only did he avoid it, but he made a number of improvised plays that turned out to be highly effective. One play in particular was a play on which he bought time in the pocket, looked to be getting sacked, and somehow found RB Michael Bush to his left for a quick lateral on a pseudo-option type of play. Since it wasn't a forward pass, it won't even show up in the stat sheet for Campbell but for sure he was the reason the play even happened. Campbell was shaken up on the play and briefly left the field, but returned just one play later. Late in the game with the Chargers trying to mount a comeback, Oakland faced a third and one. Campbell again faked the handoff beautifully and hooked up downfield with WR Louis Murphy on a 37-yard pass play that just about clinched the game. The fake was so good that several defenders tackled the player who the fake handoff went to. CBS cameras didn't even pick up the live shot of the play, also thinking the ball had been handed off. Basically, Campbell could do no wrong in this game and the Chargers did little right against him.

---Jason Campbell Raiders head coach Tom Cable heaped praise on Jason Campbell Monday, Dec. 6, after a Week 13 win against the San Diego Chargers, reports Vittorio Tafur, of the San Francisco Chronicle. "I thought this was the best he's done," Cable added. "We always talk to him about it, but (Monday) there was a calmness about him. I've felt for about three days now that he was really confident."

[Mahons21]

Here's another impartial view of the game as a whole.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/12/05/raiders-manhandle-chargers-to-sweep-season-series-for-first-time/

SAN DIEGO -- The Oakland Raiders are back to playing the role of dangerous villain.

That's good for the NFL, which needs dangerous villains.

That's bad for the Chargers, who preferred the dysfunctional Raiders.

Sunday on a gray day in San Diego, the Raiders trampled the Chargers 28-13 in front of largely pro-Raiders crowd, and looked about as hard-hitting as any NFL team can.

"The Raiders are back," said fullback Marcel Reece. "That's it. We're back to playing Raider football."

The Raiders ran for 251 yards. They sacked Philip Rivers four times and hurried him seven other times. They bullied the Chargers throughout the game, then walked off with their first victory in San Diego since 2002.

________________________________________________________

This author seems to believe the staunch Raiders defense, and heavy rushing attack were the main reasons for success.

[DCranon21]

Jeez, it seems like when Jason had probably one of the best games in his career, he still doesn't get any credit. Did some of you guys watch the game? Califan and others pointed it out and he's 4-0 in the division. Another win this weekend with a Chiefs loss and the Raiders will be a game behind the Chiefs.

[TheItalianStallion]

game set match. Bad QB when he has to carry the team.

So last year it was (to paraphrase) "all of his good stats came when we were behind," and now it's "all of his good stats came when his team was ahead"? Okaaaay.

If what you believe is true, than the team would have an increase in rushing % on the drive as their lead grew larger. Outside of the final drive of the game with 2 minutes left, and 20 rushing yds gained, this was not the case.

Drive 1: 0-0

66%

Drive 2: 0-0

25%

Drive 3: 7-0

63%

Drive 4: 14-0

50%

Drive 5: 21-3

66%

Drive 6: 21-3

Kneel

To this point in the game (halftime, 3 score lead).........

# of 1st downs/TDs by JC: 8

# of 1st downs/TDs by someone other than JC: 3

Drive 7: 21-3

60%

Drive 8: 21-3

60%

Drive 9: 21-6

40%

Drive 10: 21-13

71%

Drive 11: 28-13

100%, game ending drive.

In the 2nd half........

# of 1st downs/TDs by JC: 4 (12 total)

# of 1st downs/TDs by someone other than JC: 6 (9 total)

Please never mention that McNabb play again, and that's a good play for Campbell. The problem is it's routine for someone like Rodgers.

I think JC's rushing yards are down from last year (haven't checked recently), though he did consistently rush well last year; he was 4th in the league among QBs in 2009 rushing yards, behind only Rodgers, Young, & Garrard.

An impartial view:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/CampJa00-1.php

Week 13 at SD - After spending the first three months of the season moving in and out of the lineup and looking like little more than a third stringer at best, Campbell came from nowhere to play arguably the best game of his career. He had a lot of help from the rushing game, but he was the primary reason for the Oakland victory. Campbell used the play action pass to perfection to throw off not only the San Diego defense but also the CBS camera crew on several occasions. On Oakland's first possession, Campbell beautifully sold the fake handoff to RB Darren McFadden before rolling out to his left. There wasn't another San Diego defender in the area, and he easily waltzed in untouched for the game's opening score. On the next Raider drive, he found WR Jacoby Ford in the back corner of the end zone with perfect touch on a fade pattern. On that and just about every other play, there was almost no pressure on Campbell. But even on the rare occasions that there was, he used his athleticism to avoid it. And not only did he avoid it, but he made a number of improvised plays that turned out to be highly effective. One play in particular was a play on which he bought time in the pocket, looked to be getting sacked, and somehow found RB Michael Bush to his left for a quick lateral on a pseudo-option type of play. Since it wasn't a forward pass, it won't even show up in the stat sheet for Campbell but for sure he was the reason the play even happened. Campbell was shaken up on the play and briefly left the field, but returned just one play later. Late in the game with the Chargers trying to mount a comeback, Oakland faced a third and one. Campbell again faked the handoff beautifully and hooked up downfield with WR Louis Murphy on a 37-yard pass play that just about clinched the game. The fake was so good that several defenders tackled the player who the fake handoff went to. CBS cameras didn't even pick up the live shot of the play, also thinking the ball had been handed off. Basically, Campbell could do no wrong in this game and the Chargers did little right against him.

---Jason Campbell Raiders head coach Tom Cable heaped praise on Jason Campbell Monday, Dec. 6, after a Week 13 win against the San Diego Chargers, reports Vittorio Tafur, of the San Francisco Chronicle. "I thought this was the best he's done," Cable added. "We always talk to him about it, but (Monday) there was a calmness about him. I've felt for about three days now that he was really confident."

(emphasis mine)

Whoa whoa whoa.........."best game of his career"?!! Geez, let's not go nuts.........

[TheLongshot]

Whoa whoa whoa.........."best game of his career"?!! Geez, let's not go nuts.........

Well, the article does say "arguably".

While I did miss most of the game, that PA fake he gave toward the end of the game was ungodly good. I don't think I saw him do a fake nearly as well here.

[tr1]

This author seems to believe the staunch Raiders defense, and heavy rushing attack were the main reasons for success.

Maybe you missed this part of the article:

Here was Oakland's plan: 1) use a four-man rush to harass Rivers; 2) run the ball between the tackles so that quarterback Jason Campbell could work the screen game and dole out play-action passes.

...

Out-rushing the Chargers was Jason Campbell, who gained 37 yards on seven carries.

Campbell (10-for-16, 117, 1 TD) deftly used quick pass fakes to gain extra yards when his receivers were cloaked. He said he was inspired to run the ball after watching Cam Newton, the dual-threat quarterback for his alma mater, top-ranked Auburn.

"I had to go back to my Auburn days and make some plays," he said.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The haters/ agenda boyz/ backers **** has been one of the most nauseating things to come out of the sorry Campbell experiment.

But when he actually does have a decent game, not so much in his numbers but in the plays he made, it makes you sound like a hater with an agenda when you refuse to credit him with that. A little dignity and honesty never hurt anyone, and doesn't suddenly make you a Campbell backer. To do other wise when he does do well makes you sound utterly churlish.

Oh, and for any of the staunch backers of Captain Checkdown (no nmaes mentioned. We all know who you are); please don't all jump in, in agreement. After some of the ridiculous **** y'all have said in his defense, that would make you sound as ridiculous as those on the "other side" the above was aimed at.

Hail.

[Boss_Hogg]

So last year it was (to paraphrase) "all of his good stats came when we were behind," and now it's "all of his good stats came when his team was ahead"? Okaaaay.

To this point in the game (halftime, 3 score lead).........

# of 1st downs/TDs by JC: 8

# of 1st downs/TDs by someone other than JC: 3

In the 2nd half........

# of 1st downs/TDs by JC: 4 (12 total)

# of 1st downs/TDs by someone other than JC: 6 (9 total)

I think JC's rushing yards are down from last year (haven't checked recently), though he did consistently rush well last year; he was 4th in the league among QBs in 2009 rushing yards, behind only Rodgers, Young, & Garrard.

(emphasis mine)

Whoa whoa whoa.........."best game of his career"?!! Geez, let's not go nuts.........

I disagree, IMO Campbell's best game was here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091407/2008/REG2/saints@redskins/analyze/box-score

24/36, 321 yds, 1 td 0 INT

led 4th quarter comeback

[TheLongshot]

Oh, and for any of the staunch backers of Captain Checkdown (no nmaes mentioned. We all know who you are); please don't all jump in, in agreement. After some of the ridiculous **** y'all have said in his defense, that would make you sound as ridiculous as those on the "other side" the above was aimed at.

Hail.

I disagree. Most of us on the other side were not predicting that Campbell would suddenly be Manning or Brees. I have argued for the past couple of years that Campbell is a solid, unspectacular QB who's main assets are his mobility, not making the stupid mistake and he can make the occasional play. Oh, and be able to get up off the mat after getting creamed. He's not the guy who can take a team on his shoulders and win on his own. He's a cog in the machine that needs the support of the players around him.

But, because he didn't become Manning or Brees, the haters cast him as the worst QB ever. (Never mind that this team hasn't had a truely great QB since Sonny.)

Captain Checkdown? You'd check down a lot too if your OL declined every year that you were a starter and were limited in your offensive targets. Oh, and even with McNabb, the offensive production is still pretty mediocre.

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 12:47 PM ----------

Oh, and maybe we can finally dispell the OP:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports-headlines/ci_16811303?nclick_check=1

Yanking Campbell only six quarters into his Raiders career was, oddly enough, less about his talent than liabilities elsewhere on offense. The move also spoke volumes about the desperation of coach Tom Cable and his offensive staff.

Now, though, Campbell is the unquestioned No. 1. Gradkowski, hurt 11 days ago, is done for the season, Kyle Boller clearly is No. 2, and J. T. O'Sullivan arrived five minutes ago.

Just as matters of urgency separated Campbell from his coaches, matters of urgency also brought them back together.

And Campbell rewarded Cable and offensive coordinator Hue Jackson with a masterful performance in a must-win game at San Diego last Sunday. Although running backs Darren McFadden and Michael Bush, along with solid line play, carried the offense, Campbell orchestrated the action and come up big when needed.

"He handled the entire game the best that we've seen him," Cable said. "That's what he's capable of."

Cable also concedes Campbell, 28, has grown into his role as a leader, settling in and taking charge. That development was slowed when Campbell was demoted, but he never let his temporary backup status affect his attitude.

To the contrary, Campbell utilized that time to learn about his team, his teammates and what benefits he might derive from his new playbook.

By the time he took the field last week, he was a comfortable and relaxed quarterback.

"A lot of that comes with time and a lot of that is learned with time," Campbell said. "A lot of times people want things to happen (immediately). Things in the NFL don't happen instantly. It takes time to build together and grow together. I just feel like over the weeks we have grown together."

The last line sounds very familiar.

[Mahons21]

I disagree, IMO Campbell's best game was here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091407/2008/REG2/saints@redskins/analyze/box-score

24/36, 321 yds, 1 td 0 INT

led 4th quarter comeback

That Saints game definitely comes to mind when I think of the good game's Campbell has had. That bomb to Tana to give us the lead was b e a utiful.

Though he made a crucial mistake, I might have to say that the highest level I've ever watched Jason play at for an entire game might have that New Orleans game last year.

Worst part is, he never should have had the crucial mistake, because Sweasle should have hit that damn chip shot.

That was a good game from Jason Campbell.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120608/2009/REG13/saints@redskins/analyze/box-score

Hit 9 different receivers, had no rushing game to lean on, D Thomas was his leading receiver for crying out loud, and his best plays as QB actually came when he was throwing the ball.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I disagree, IMO Campbell's best game was here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091407/2008/REG2/saints@redskins/analyze/box-score

24/36, 321 yds, 1 td 0 INT

led 4th quarter comeback

I'd say this could qualify as his best game, actually: 2007 vs the Lions:

23/29, 79% completion rate, 248 yds, 8.6 ypa, 2 TDs, 0 INTs

Santana Moss didn't play due to injury, he had to use Antwaan Randle El as his #1 receiver--and then even ARE was injured and couldn't play after halftime...along with throwing to the likes of James Thrash, Brandon Lloyd and Keenan McCardell, who was yanked off his couch during the bye week lol ...Yet, JC still worked the Lions like a surgeon, put the team out in front and kept them out in front.

[HailGreen28]

You did not see the game. Its obvious.

I watched the game off and on, while also watching someone else almost beat the Pukes even with throwing 4 INTs by actually leading the team as a QB.

Pity that instead of praising a QB that took rushing yards when they presented themselves, and somehow gets credit for "great play fakes" When your team's rushing for around 200 yards, (and make no mistake, while the yards may have come late, unlike what a stupid announcer at the game said the Raiders were running the ball all game), OF COURSE play fakes are going to be more effective. Geez. :doh:

Obviously you've never seen a game where a QB has actually led a team to victory.

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

His stats disagree with you. I guess you mised todays gem of a performance by JC. JC did more with less on the Skins last year, than McSuck has been able to muster this year. McSuck has a better line, better coaching, better OC (aka not a split with the OC and a guy who was running bongo games), and essentially the same receiving crew. Stop letting your blind dislike for JC prevent you from being objective. Truth is the skins lost a decent player in JC. They gave up ALOT for an over the hill hass been. Right not, JC has the Raiders (not all on his own mind you) in a serious run for a playoff spot. The Skins may finish in the basement of the NFCE again.

Show me a game where the Skins rush for about 200 yds in a game this season. LOL. Then we can talk about doing more with less.

Better coaching I agree with you, haven't given up on Shanny yet. But looking at the rushing, you seriously trying to tell me our OL is as good as theirs?

Candle wasn't a decent player. He was holding back a playoff capable team in 2007. And we threw away 2008 and 2009 trying to make something of him.

Sure a 6-6 record is good enough for a "serious run" in Oakland's division. LOL. Is that really a good thing? Your spin is totally out of control, dude!

edit: Hey. I like how my two posts got combined. Nice feature.

[Passizle]

I watched the game off and on, while also watching someone else almost beat the Pukes even with throwing 4 INTs by actually leading the team as a QB.

Pity that instead of praising a QB that took rushing yards when they presented themselves, and somehow gets credit for "great play fakes" When your team's rushing for around 200 yards, (and make no mistake, while the yards may have come late, unlike what a stupid announcer at the game said the Raiders were running the ball all game), OF COURSE play fakes are going to be more effective. Geez. :doh:

Obviously you've never seen a game where a QB has actually led a team to victory.

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

Show me a game where the Skins rush for about 200 yds in a game this season. LOL. Then we can talk about doing more with less.

Better coaching I agree with you, haven't given up on Shanny yet. But looking at the rushing, you seriously trying to tell me our OL is as good as theirs?

Candle wasn't a decent player. He was holding back a playoff capable team in 2007. And we threw away 2008 and 2009 trying to make something of him.

Sure a 6-6 record is good enough for a "serious run" in Oakland's division. LOL. Is that really a good thing? Your spin is totally out of control, dude!

edit: Hey. I like how my two posts got combined. Nice feature.

Thats it? Thats all you have? Like I said before. You did not watch the game. Seeing that you did not, you shouldn't speak of it as if you did. Never once, did the "stupid announcer" say the Raiders ran the ball all game. They did not, as was proven by these little thingy's called statistics. You should try checking them out, before embarrassing yourself in front of your peers. They did run well, but not until after they had a 21 point advantage... unless you think a running game of 3.3 tpc is "running the ball alot". A 21 point advantage that JC lead the the first two dscoring drives on.

Its member like yourself that make this whole debate rediculous when you make statements like the one above. You cant give credit for JC making plays with his legs because he only took running yeards when they presented themselves, and in other threads, praise McNabb for making plays with his legs. Pot... meet kettle.

You say we wasted time on JC the past two years. Well then... please explain why MCNabb has done nothing different with the current crop of untapped talent we have on the roster. After all..... it was JC holding the team back, and making the line look bad... correct? Was it not his ineptitude that stamped out the run game? Why is it not stamped out for the Raiders?

No matter which way you slice it, the "agenda boyz" failed at everything they thought they knew about the position. Everything that they said our former QB was a cause of, or could not do has been rejected and disproven... on the Raiders of all teams. Its not like JC went to a team loaded with talent. You know, the team that has not been able to go better than 5-11 since 2002! The team that has had a monster rushing ranking of 21, 10, 6, 29, 29, 32, and 16 in that same time span. BTW... here another little factoid for ya. The Raiders do have a serious shot at the playoffs. You do realize they are 4-0 in ther division right? Their last two division games are against the the Broncos and Chiefs... and they have the Broncos at home. In all likelyhood, they will finish out 5-1 in the division. They have a good chance of sweeping it though, as they have played great on the road and the fact that they already beat the Cheifs, and Denver.... who beats the Chiefs as well. Looking at it subjectively, they have a very realistic chance of taking the division lead, and owning all tie breakers which will put them in the playoffs, and make for some very sour grapes for some people.

Now JC will not have "lead" the team to all that success, but he will have been an important part of that machine... whether you choose to believe that or not.

FYI, the Skins ran for 169 yards against the Eagles in their first meeting. Coincidentally (sp) McNabb had his best performance of the year in that game, even though the stats would not support that. Its also the last time the skins had a convincing win.

[darrelgreenie]

Whoa whoa whoa.........."best game of his career"?!! Geez, let's not go nuts.........

Yeah, dude overstated a bit.

I don't even think that was his best game as a Raider.

I don't know about his best game but this is my favorite Campbell game:

20/31 231 2 TDs against the Cowboys he was able to evade pressure and make plays

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008092810/2008/REG4/redskins@cowboys#tab:watch

[Mahons21]

Yeah, dude overstated a bit.

I don't even think that was his best game as a Raider.

I don't know about his best game but this is my favorite Campbell game:

20/31 231 2 TDs against the Cowboys he was able to evade pressure and make plays

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008092810/2008/REG4/redskins@cowboys#tab:watch

At about the 1:16 mark I believe it was, Campbell has a pass to Moss for about 30+ while stepping up to avoid the pressure he also takes a slight hit but is still able to get the completion. The following play to ARE for a TD is just as impressive.

On some of those plays, he's performing as well as any QB in the league.

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

FYI, the Skins ran for 169 yards against the Eagles in their first meeting. Coincidentally (sp) McNabb had his best performance of the year in that game, even though the stats would not support that. Its also the last time the skins had a convincing win.

You'll be hard pressed finding many people to agree with you that that was McNabb's best game. HOU game, GB game ring any bells?

Also the skins have 5 wins the season with their margin of victory being: 6,5,3,3,3 none of those should be considered convincing wins, especially considering none of them are even two score victories. In addition Philly almost won that game but Avant dropped the ball, that's hardly convincing.

[HailGreen28]

Thats it? Thats all you have? Like I said before. You did not watch the game. Seeing that you did not, you shouldn't speak of it as if you did. Never once, did the "stupid announcer" say the Raiders ran the ball all game. They did not, as was proven by these little thingy's called statistics. You should try checking them out, before embarrassing yourself in front of your peers. They did run well, but not until after they had a 21 point advantage... unless you think a running game of 3.3 tpc is "running the ball alot". A 21 point advantage that JC lead the the first two dscoring drives on.

No. An intelligent person would take my statement that they ran "a lot", to mean that they ran the ball many times. Which they did. The Raiders, when they're doing well, appear to be a run first team. Quit embarrassing yourself with a continued lack of reading comprehension, Passizle.

I watched the game on and on. And at one point on of the announcers said something like "The Raiders are running well now. That's what you do when you get a big lead." And I thought to myself, "They've been running the whole game. They aren't changing anything now."

Its member like yourself that make this whole debate rediculous when you make statements like the one above. You cant give credit for JC making plays with his legs because he only took running yeards when they presented themselves, and in other threads, praise McNabb for making plays with his legs. Pot... meet kettle.

You say we wasted time on JC the past two years. Well then... please explain why MCNabb has done nothing different with the current crop of untapped talent we have on the roster. After all..... it was JC holding the team back, and making the line look bad... correct? Was it not his ineptitude that stamped out the run game? Why is it not stamped out for the Raiders

Wrong again. While I've been impressed when our old man does take off for a few yards (man what I wouldn't give to have McNabb in his prime), what I and others have praised McNabb for is his ability to avoid sacks. Something Candle was never good at, here it was totally random whether he ran into or away from pressure. It's your lack of reading comprehension that's "ridiculous". Favre ran on us, but only a fool would say that he or Candle could provide any kind of running game. Like some Candle-lover has said in this thread. Here. The kind of foolishness to expect in ATN when the Raiders win lately.

Again, see how McNabb does with almost 200 yds rushing by the team.

No matter which way you slice it, the "agenda boyz" failed at everything they thought they knew about the position. Everything that they said our former QB was a cause of, or could not do has been rejected and disproven... on the Raiders of all teams. Its not like JC went to a team loaded with talent. You know, the team that has not been able to go better than 5-11 since 2002! The team that has had a monster rushing ranking of 21, 10, 6, 29, 29, 32, and 16 in that same time span. BTW... here another little factoid for ya. The Raiders do have a serious shot at the playoffs. You do realize they are 4-0 in ther division right? Their last two division games are against the the Broncos and Chiefs... and they have the Broncos at home. In all likelyhood, they will finish out 5-1 in the division. They have a good chance of sweeping it though, as they have played great on the road and the fact that they already beat the Cheifs, and Denver.... who beats the Chiefs as well. Looking at it subjectively, they have a very realistic chance of taking the division lead, and owning all tie breakers which will put them in the playoffs, and make for some very sour grapes for some people.

Now JC will not have "lead" the team to all that success, but he will have been an important part of that machine... whether you choose to believe that or not.

So because Candle only succeeds when everything else is working, that disproves that candle can't carry a team? RIIIIGHT. Keep stroking that 6-6 record in the AFCW, buddy. The fact they have that and a great division record should tell you something. Maybe they or somebody from that div could pull a Cardinals 2009 and prove everybody wrong, but I don't think that's likely. And again, the Raiders are winning with their running game, not their QB play.

FYI, the Skins ran for 169 yards against the Eagles in their first meeting. Coincidentally (sp) McNabb had his best performance of the year in that game, even though the stats would not support that. Its also the last time the skins had a convincing win.

Dude, 39 of those yards came from McNabb himself. Hard to say with a straight face that 130 combined by the running backs is comparable to 90+ each from the Raiders two RBs. But of course you would. :doh: Our offense did squat that game. (OK after the first quarter they didn't do squat.)

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Love him or hate him, it's pretty darn sad when 5 years and 61 games in, the amount of memorable ones from a first round pick you can count on one hand.

Hail.

[tr1]

Love him or hate him, it's pretty darn sad when 5 years and 61 games in, the amount of memorable ones from a first round pick you can count on one hand.

Hail.

What's sad is that the guy took the beating that he did in the time that he was here, yet so few are even willing to acknowledge that the blame didn't lay ALL at his feet.

Casual fans just can't get past the qb when analyzing games.

It's a pity.

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 10:31 PM ----------

BTW, the contortions many go through to discount JC's performance in Oakland would make olympic gymnasts envious.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What's sad is that the guy took the beating that he did in the time that he was here, yet so few are even willing to acknowledge that the blame didn't lay ALL at his feet.

Casual fans just can't get past the qb when analyzing games.

It's a pity.

Or those that can't accept he was a major part in it. Swings and roundabouts both ways, as pertinent as your point is.

Hail