In Defense of Jason Campbell
by TLF18 on Jan 28, 2010 9:19 AM EST
Email
PrintI know a lot of people (Redskin fans and national media alike) assume that Jason Campbell is not the guy at QB for the Redskins, but I think he is. We need to not only go inside the numbers, but also consider the content of his character and the situation(s) he has played under. Please check out my column, In Defense of Jason Campbell over at Real Football 365.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good article
and it’s nice to see a positive article about Campbell without the sensationalism and rantings (for and against) we get plnty of in these forums.
I agree with your assessment, especially on Campbell and Eli Manning (talk about a guy who doesn’t have “IT”).
I like using Eli as a measuring stick
I’ve always wondered how he got the label franchise quarterback, he’s always seemed nothing more than adequate to me. And that’s how I view JC, adequate, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
For all the talk about whether we could upgrade this position are not, I support Jason Campbell, because he’s always been a team player and he understands the tradition of the Redskins. I liked how he asked permission of Doug Williams to wear number 17, that was very classy for a 22-year-old.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 28, 2010 10:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
JC
You got it right – JC is no more than adequate (and I’d call him mediocre), and the best reason to keep him is that there is no one better to replace him. That is not a certainty – Colt Brennan could be better, and a really good rookie could be as good, but with much more potential. On another thread they discussed the 2010 schedule, and it’s pretty depressing – hard to see us winning more than 8 games. Why not use the season to develop an excellent QB? And as Mark Sanchez proved, it’s not just conceding the season.
All Mark Sanchez
proved was that with a dominating run game, and superb O-Line, any QB can get it done.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
by Rekka on Jan 28, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
AMEN
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 28, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
OPINION
Colt Brennan could be better, and a really good rookie could be as good, but with much more potential.
Without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Opinions are like assholes
And his can get f*cked. Ha.
Noone who wants a rookie QB ever considers the idea that they could come in and struggle. Do we really have a complete enough team to survive a rookie QB coming in and throwing 20 interceptions in half a season?
Nice article.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what the Shans are thinking, and which way they want to take this team.
I think they will give Campbell the benefit of doubt and completely break down his game tapes. They will do their due diligence and break down Bradford/Clausen tapes and injury issues.
I think they will be very decisive and either sign Campbell long term or trade him for picks.
I would not think that Shanahan will invite any QB controversy here, especially in the beginning of his tenure.
Nothing wrong with adequate?
Maybe to you
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 28, 2010 12:55 PM EST reply actions
"+ reply"...
and to you?
You seem to think that a football team is all about having the top 10, best player, or franchise player, at every position. I think that every successful football team has more adequate players than anything else, and has very few below adequate players if any. If I’m wrong, please reply ( using the appropriate button), in more than three words.
If your argument is that you have to have a more than adequate quarterback to be successful, I would be interested in hearing your rationale.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 28, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
except for Joe Theismann
Who’s your damie
by sofutomygaha on Jan 28, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
was Joe Theismann a great QB?
I always liked him – he had great leadership from what I saw but personally I consider him to be part of the group of “adequate QBs”. To me he looks like he inbetween a Brunell quality Qb and a Montana but he’s not in that group of great QBs.
G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int%
Brunell 163 150 78-72-0 2753 4624 59.5 31928 182 3.9 107 2.3
Theismann 167 124 77-47-0 2044 3602 56.7 25206 160 4.4 138 3.8
Montana 192 164 17-47-0 3409 5391 63.2 40551 273 5.1 139 2.6
Maybe the problem is the term “adequate”. To me it means good enough to win a SB if there’s enough other talent on the team but not the kind of QB who dominates like Montana.
Joe T had
pretty good arm strength. The legs, not so much….
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
yeah, I certainly am not dogging him
I’d take Theismann any day – he was a good QB and obviously good enough to win a Super Bowl but nobody mistook him for Fouts or Marino.
just keeping you guys honest
He was top tier in his day. Calling Joe Theismann “only adequate” belies very unrealistic expectations. I really think it’s ridiculous when a QB has to be a hall of famer to be considered better than “only adequate.” We don’t apply that standard to other positions… none of the Hogs are in the hall, Charles Mann isn’t in the Hall. Why do you have to compare favorably to Dan Fouts to be adequate? Shouldn’t the actual bar be set somewhere closer to, say, Bernie Kosar?
by sofutomygaha on Jan 29, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Good point
and pretty much the basis for a lot of my comments regarding “adequate” vs “good.” It’s kinda like saying Dannica Patrick drives slow since she’s only won one race. It’s all relative. Most would agree that only a FEW individuals on the planet possess (or have possessed) the ability to play QB in the NFL. I think it helps to keep that perspective.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
yes but
even within that group there are some who stand above the others. I find it odd that being considered an adequate NFL QB is taken as a put down. What percentage of people can play QB in the NFL? A very tiny number so just being there is a major accomplishment. But that doesn’t mean somebody else can’t be a lot better.
I'm keeping it honest
from those who claim Theismann was a great QB because he won Super Bowls. He was good, better than average but not in the same class as Marino or Montana. Kosar lands in with these stats
G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int
126 108 53-54-1 1994 3365 59.3 23301 124 87
I’d say Theismann was on par with Kosar but that doesn’t vault them both to the upper tier, it just means they were both good aka, adequate. Theismann had a better supporting cast than Brunell or Kosar and at some point that should be taken into account.
I do apply that standard to other positions. Using the absence of the Hogs in the NFL HOF is a lame reference though as the HOF is nototious for ignoring non skill players. CB is a good example, Darrel Green was great but on the other side of the field we usually had good/adequate players but not great players.
Now throw Jason Campbell into the mix and we have
G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int%
Campbell 52 36 16-20-0 1002 1637 61.2 10860 55 3.4 38 2.3
Kosar 126 108 53-54-1 1994 3365 59.3 23301 124 3.7 87 2.6
Brunell 163 150 78-72-0 2753 4624 59.5 31928 182 3.9 107 2.3
Theismann 167 124 77-47-0 2044 3602 56.7 25206 160 4.4 138 3.8
Montana 192 164 17-47-0 3409 5391 63.2 40551 273 5.1 139 2.6
Fouts 181 171 86-84-1 3297 5604 58.8 43040 254 4.5 242 4.3
I think Cambell falls into the same group Theismann and Kosar fall into, if you taken into account the talent he has to work with (OL, and WR specifically).
The Hogs and Charles Mann aren't in the hall
because the Hall of Fame is a joke. It should be renamed the Hall of High Profile QBs, Wide Receivers and Running Backs.
you said he was merely adequate (i.e. good (i.e. my head hurts))
good, great, fair, poor, adequate, whatever. This is asinine but not absurd. The Redskins have never had a great player, only adequate players who were lucky enough to be surrounded by other adequate players. Here’s to drafting an adequate player or two next year.
by sofutomygaha on Jan 29, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Joe came to the Redskins
during George Allen tenure..he was a part of a 25 year span where the Redskins
had quality Qbs every season…none that ever had to make excuses
JC Adequate?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “adequate”. If it means “good enough” then that would be fine. “Average” might be good enough. Sanchez was “good enough” to take the Jets to the playoffs. Ditto Flacco and Ryan. Nobody thinks they’ll be great from the start – there’s going to be a learning curve, but they might be good enough early and great later on. Obviously both rookies and JC will do better with a good O-line. There’s been much agonizing about JC learning new systems. Now he’ll have to learn another – and he doesn’t seem to be too good at it. He simply is not really good at reading defenses or finding open receivers, or getting rid of the ball quickly. And I don’t think he’ll ever be really good at it. But some young QBs might have that basic talent. Proof of JC’s ability – how about watching him for 3 years, or watching Todd Collins come in and win with the same players JC did not win with?
Because our players didn't have any extra motivation for that stretch of games
watching Todd Collins come in and win with the same players JC did not win with?
It was all Todd Collins’ doing eh?
JC and Todd
It wasn’t all Todd, but he was the one big difference. He moved the team, and with the same players, JC did not. Earlier this year, when we were losing to weak teams, Sonny Jurgensen said that we would have won several more games with Todd at QB. And Sonny really knows quarterbacking. The offense has always underperformed with JC at QB. He never led a good offense. How many years do we have to lose before we figure out that he is not very good? This is not to say that he’s a bad guy. He is tough and brave and a good runner, and has a strong (if not very accurate) arm, but he does not have the field vision or quick release or ability to read defenses or leadership quality, to be a top NFL QB.
Jurgensen may know quarterbacking but you actually believe that Todd would have won us more games?
All the times the he got playing time during the season he would hit Moss on a deep ball but then that would be pretty much it. As many times as Campbell had to scramble during the season can you really picture Collins doing that? And in a few of the games, the Kansas City game pops into my mind first, when Collins came in he did just as bad if not worse than Campbell. And to end the game I believe he gave up a safety because he couldn’t get away from the pressure.
Sure I'll argue my point
My point is sure there’s going to be adequate players on every team but adequate could mean different from one point of view to another. So I’m not going to argue who you call adequate. But as far as wanting/settling for an adequate QB (the most important position on the field) I cant agree with that. If a QB was adequate on the verge to being good and so on….then I’m cool with that. But a QB that’s content with being adequate doesn’t need to play QB
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 28, 2010 9:14 PM EST reply actions
By definition,
in my mind, adequate = good. Adequate means you performed sufficiently well to get the job done. What’s not to like about that?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I agree...
each individual’s definition of adequate will be different. From a team standpoint, if a player is getting the job done and doing all that is asked of him, what more could you ask for?
I do agree with your point about the players settling for adequate, but that’s not what I was talking about. That being said, I don’t think Campbell is settling. He has improved every year, and at the beginning of last year was playing very, very well.
And here’s the big sticking point, did Campbell regress or did the team fall apart around him? That’s a question for the new regime.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 29, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Well
we know the line fell apart on him. And we know there was some backlash from the players regarding the play calling, which we all know was horrendous. So I give JC a pass on the falling apart around him issue. Maybe another QB would have found away around all that adversity, but all in all I don’t think JC or the offense totally gave up – at least not beginning with the second half of the Falcons game.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Good post
There was a lot of good insight with a lot of facts to back up the argument. Of course the haters are still going to ignore it all though.
I want to know:
Fill in the blank.
A quarterback must be at least as good as _________ to be adequate.
a quarterback, must be at least as good as what his team’s coaches expect him to be to be adequate.
That just doesn’t work, does it? I know you were looking for a name in that blank, but I just can’t think of a good example. Oh wait, let me try this one. Kyle Orton with the Denver Broncos or Matt Cassel when he was playing with the patriots.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 29, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Mark Sanchez
with a +1 for continuing to learn and improve throughout the season, though I didn’t think he was NFL QB material for the 1st half of the season.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I agree, Sanchez improved from game to game throughout the season.
He looks like he will be a very good QB. That’s the hope with Campbell, that he can improve his game even further with a top flight coaching staff and, hopefully, better players around him.
I am not a big Campbell fan, but I have to admit that all the changes around him through the years has hurt his developement and growth.
That we can speak of his improvement
with the horror show that’s been around him for the last year and a half is amazing in and of itself.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I don't think most people realize that
it’s so much easier to say he sucks than to try and factor in all the craziness that he’s gone through.
Maybe only the Raiders
have had a crazier time of it recently. I mean, if it didn’t make me cry it would be downright freakin’ hilarious some of the stuff that has gone on. I mean, what other NFL team has its very own dedicated stand up comedian?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I think it is because most people do not understand football as much as they claim.
Or they just aren’t an understanding fan. Those particular “fans” just want instant success for their team and of course when they don’t get it they just start talking about how everyone sucks. And then throw out wild comparisons. On the redskins website blog there was one person trying to compare Sanchez to Campbell saying that Sanchez has played better than Campbell has played in his entire career! Now how retarded that person must have been to say and actually believe that.
dude, you actually read the comments?
they give me a headache after a while
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
I read them sometimes
I mainly skim through them when I’m bored until I see one that seems somewhat different and hasn’t been repeated about 20 times within the first 30 posts. I would go crazy if I were to actually read them all lol
Would have been interesting, hypothetically,
to see what JC would have done with the Jets O-line and recievers; not to mention their running game and No.1 defense. I think they would have waltzed into the playoffs rather than squeaking in.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
My thoughts exactly
Its pretty easy for a QB to really preform when everything else is basically already in place.
Adequate
A quarterback must be at least as good as _________ to be adequate.
Trent Dilfer, Superbowl Champion. Adequate to me is defined as a QB which does not make mistakes which could cost the team a game. The QB will also not win the team a game. Who better than Dilfer fits that label.
Sanchez did that early in the season this year, the coaches decided to go more run heavy to prevent that from occuring. Sanchez was not adequate, he will be a good QB if he continues to progress.
TO the todd collins hater.
Stop bashing him.Find more useful things to do on your computer.YOU jerks.
word
did somebody bash him here?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
lol not at all
There were a few comments about him but no one bashed Todd
Our Future
Our Future Qb was hurt last year and was on the bench his rookie season. Colt Brennan is the future of the Redskins. Jason cant throw, I’ve seen my Junior Varsity QB throw better passes then Jason. Colt needs to be our future. If we dont have time to wait for our starting RB to come out in the draft we should trade Jason to Oakland for Michael Bush and another draft pick. In this case we might even be able to get Oaklands star runningback that hasnt done anything for them in MacFadden although I see Bush as being the better TailBack. Either way Jason needs to be trade bait
Dude Colt performed terribly in pre-season against 3rd and 4th string defensive players
And you say he is our future?!?!?! Maybe with a bit more work but I hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighly disagree taht he is better than JC at this moment.
I guess we are the insane as we ignore the mirror’s truth.
Can you seriously sit here and say that ANY QB (even legends like Montana, Marino, Jim Kelly), would stand a chance behind a patchwork o-line, 4th and 5th string RB’s off the practice squad, receivers that are interchangeable and don’t stand out anymore?
Only the most mobile of QB’s with a cannon arm and precision accuracy would stand a fraction of a chance of looking good. Even then they don’t look good when they’re eating turf 2 out of every 3 plays. Maybe we can go after Peyton Manning and see how he does eating turf all game.
It annoys me that the media and people on here basically skewer Campbell like he’s the biggest problem in Washington.
Name me one QB that has succeeded behind a terrible, and I mean terrible O-line. Maybe Jason Campbell should have just performed “the Jim Everett Phantom Sack” all game long considering how many times he got hit.
Mark Rypien and Doug Williams were sound QB’s but succeeded because they had a good/great/legendary O-line to PROTECT them.
let me repeat myself, NO quarterback, not a one, would succeed behind a Vinny Cerrato Offensive line.
Please keep Jason Campbell
by Paragon of all that is Great on Feb 12, 2010 2:08 PM EST reply actions
THANK YOU!!!!
Some on here are still going to continue to hate on JC despite the obviously terrible shape of the O-line though. It’s sad.
let's outline
all of Jason’s excuses and put them out there…to blame everyone responsible for his 5-year growth curve
+100000000000000000000000 just for the title
THANK YOU!!! Finally the righteous “keep jason campbell” lobby starts to find its voice (which I have proudly been apart of since 2 years ago). Anyone who thinks we need to draft a QB this year or should get rid of JC is utterly and completely retarded and knows nothing of football or statistics what so ever.
I'm not booing Stephon Heyer, he's trying hard. I'm booing the fact that Stephon Heyer plays for us.
by Area 51 Forever on Feb 23, 2010 9:45 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Hogs Haven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
