Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Skins media bias busted

Spaceman Spiff

By Spaceman Spiff
in 2005 Archives Forum

Recommended Posts

Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted

I looked and didn't see this posted so here you go...

http://redskins.scout.com/2/374031.html

Views of Campbell plunged when taken by Skins

Skins Media Bias: Caught Red Handed

By Rich Tandler Site Editor

Date: Apr 25, 2005

Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 4.25.05

One who praised Jason Campbell prior to draft day is now laughing at the Skins for taking him.

I'm not one to whine much about media bias against the Redskins. Yes, there is a lot of negative reporting about the Redskins. It's hard to find a Skins draft grade out there above what I got in high school physics (and there's a reason I'm not a rocket scientist). My line of reasoning has been based on the fact that until they make the playoffs again or at least post a couple of consecutive winning seasons, the critics will be out there.

Sometimes, however, the critics get caught in a biased moment. When something they said in a context that doesn't involve the Redskins suddenly does pertains to Danny Snyder's team, the positive spin becomes inoperative and turns negative, or vice versa depending on the situation.

Read the following statement and tell me who made it:

Campbell looked really good -- so good that you find yourself wondering: How can a scout watch this kid and not label his arm, athleticism and field presence all first-round gifts?

Was it Joe Gibbs or Vinny Cerrato? Auburn coach Tommy Tubberville? Some homer Redskins blogger out there?

No, it was said in this article by Peter King. Yes, the very same Peter King who annually draws the ire of Redskins fans when he leads to charge to block Art Monk's entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The very same Sports Illustrated writer who hasn't had anything good to say about the Redskins since the Norv Turner era.

To say that he is ga-ga over Campbell in the article, which was published two weeks before the draft on April 11, would be an understatement. You have to click over to the third page before you find the nut of the story:

Next I watched Campbell. My first question was: Where's this guy been hiding? The simple answer: Behind Brown and a very big Cadillac. Campbell is 6-4 3/4 and 230 pounds. His pass-drop is quick and textbook perfect. He sets up well in the pocket, bouncing athletically until he finds his receivers. He never flinches against a pass rush, moving deftly this way or that to avoid traffic. He throws on the run better than Rodgers or Campbell. On one throw against Kentucky last fall, he rolled out from his 46 to his right, then flicked a sideline throw 19 yards downfield for an in-stride completion. That's the kind of throw he'll be asked to make 100 times a year in the NFL.

He concludes in regards to what quarterback the 49ers should draft among Alex Smith, Aaron Rogers and Campbell:

I hope they take another look at Campbell. I sure would if I were Mike Nolan.

But, hey, if you're Joe Gibbs, you're a fool to make the trade for the 25th pick in the draft in order to take a quarterback who is in the writer's view an equal to the #1 overall pick, according to King.

On Monday on PTI, King literally laughed at the Redskins for drafting Campbell, saying that it was obvious that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. He made absolutely no mention of the fact that he thought that Campbell was Smith's equal. If he did, then that would have blown the whole media template established that the Redskins are the gang that can't shoot straight.

If you're trading a couple of mid-rounders for a shot to get an guy who's as good as the best quarterback in the draft, that's a pretty shrewd deal. That's something that, to the Peter Kings of the world, the Redskins can't make. So, just like in the Nixon White House, previous statements become inoperative. Campbell's talents are first-round gifts when another team might be looking at him. When the Redskins take him in the first, they're bumblers.

We're always suspected such things, but now we have the goods on at least one of them.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bulldog

bulldog

Posted
Posted

An argument can be made that the Redskins got the #1 cornerback and the #1 quarterback in the 2005 draft in terms of pure skills, size and upside.

We will see if both players turn out.

What's funny is that nobody ever criticized the 49ers for making a deal with Tampa to acquire Steve Young when they already had an 'in the prime' Joe Montana as their starting qb.

Yet the team ended up needing #8 when Montana had back surgery and then elbow surgery and missed parts of several seasons.

This was all BEFORE Young became the full-time starter and Super Bowl champion on his own, throwing 6 touchdowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tarhog

Tarhog

Posted
Posted

I think you can legitimately love a player, and still question whether it is the right selection for a team to take.

But I also think this goes a lot deeper than that.

King certainly looks like a hypocrite here. Nice catch by Tandler and thanks for posting it Spiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bulldog

bulldog

Posted
Posted

King is the same guy that thought Wuerffel would throw for 3,700 yards and 25 touchdowns for the Redskins in 2002 :)

I wouldn't believe his PRE draft assessment of Campbell NOR his POST draft assessment :D

King is a gossip columnist that attends parties and works the phones to get information he can use in his columns. What does he actually know about the NFL, especially prospects?

Do you really think this guy does any real scouting?

He picks up the same magazines and online draft services as the rest of us to get a gauge on players about to be selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ljer

ljer

Posted
Posted
King is a gossip columnist that attends parties and works the phones to get information he can use in his columns.

And, don't forget, he can work a buffet table at those parties like no other.

Except for Lenny of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Tarhog

I think you can legitimately love a player, and still question whether it is the right selection for a team to take.

But I also think this goes a lot deeper than that.

King certainly looks like a hypocrite here. Nice catch by Tandler and thanks for posting it Spiff.

I think you nailed it Tarhog. King hasn't waffled on his love for Campbell, but he still doesn't think that means the Redskins made the right move. From his MMQB Column this morning:

3. I think, when history judges this draft, one of the best five players in it will be Auburn quarterback Jason Campbell, who went to Washington at No. 24. That isn't to say Washington did a smart thing, paying a ransom for the pick -- particularly when it already has another quarterback there who's good enough to win with and considering Joe Gibbs will be at some racetrack by the time Campbell is an experienced starter. I'm just commenting on the quality of the player. He's good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rtandler

rtandler

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by richard saunders

King really covered his butt with that MMQB article.

Sort of. But if the guy is one of the top five players in the draft at the highest-impact position on the field and all the Skins had to do to get him is give up a couple of mid-round picks and a Hall of Fame coach isn't happy with his current QB, why is that a bad deal?

King's perception of Campbell didn't change. His perception of the Redskins didn't change. He just made the round peg fit in the square hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
richard saunders

richard saunders

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by rtandler

Sort of. But if the guy is one of the top five players in the draft at the highest-impact position on the field and all the Skins had to do to get him is give up a couple of mid-round picks and a Hall of Fame coach isn't happy with his current QB, why is that a bad deal?

King's perception of Campbell didn't change. His perception of the Redskins didn't change. He just made the round peg fit in the square hole.

Agreed.

King believes that this kid is going to be good, so he put this ditty out to cover himself.

We need more of this crap exsposed and sent to guys that will cover it on a broader level.

Good work Tandler:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirk Diggler

Dirk Diggler

Posted
Posted

For him to say this:

Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who has covered the league and its' college drafts for 20 years, said before the draft that Jason Campbell would be the most memorable player selected in five, seven years...

It doesn't matter how much we gave up for him. That's the kind of praise that you throw at a Vick or McNabb or Manning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ljer

ljer

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

For him to say this:

Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who has covered the league and its' college drafts for 20 years, said before the draft that Jason Campbell would be the most memorable player selected in five, seven years...

It doesn't matter how much we gave up for him. That's the kind of praise that you throw at a Vick or McNabb or Manning.

The bad news is that King doesn't know what he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AzSkinsFan63

AzSkinsFan63

Posted
Posted

I've been around for all our SB victories..

I thought nothing could ever top them..

But if we ever get another one.

I'm telling you, there will be nothing like it because of what we fans have been through since the Skins fired a totally inept HC named Norville Eugene Turner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...