Let's Discuss the 2007 Schedule

Elway actually has a really low career completion %. I mean, looking at that one stat out of context, it would seem silly to debate HOF credentials for Elway.

But John Elway did play in an era when QB friendly offenses pretty much only existed by way of the run n shoot, and the Bill Walsh west coast. I actually think the system that Elway was in (with Dan Reeves) for the 12 years of his career was one of the most QB unfriendly systems ever. A lot of vertical, not necessarily drive sustaining, but because of Elway, the system was successful.

But for a ROOKIE QB, a low completion % is acceptable. Very rarely is a rookie QB ever good enough to play much above replacement level. Matt Leinart was one exception, and Peyton Manning was another...but even they struggled mightily compared to what weve come to expect from them.

But that's the thing about Campbell--he wasn't a rookie. He had been practicing with NFL caliber talent every week for the last year and a half. The adjustment period between practice and a game was inevitable, but the propensity to force the ball downfield just seemed a bit perplexing. It's not like this was an issue with Campbell in college. He had a very good completion % in college. It just manifested itself for 5 games, and then disapeared for the last two. Weird.

Because of what he did in college, and the fact that he's now a 3rd year pro with 7 starts under his belt, we should see a numbers spike in Campbell. If we see no improvement this year, I'd be very worried about the accuracy of his projection. 7 games is a relatively small sample to judge a player, but because of the hype surrounding this kid in sabremetric circles, I guess I just expected to see smarter decision making right off the bat.

51% is still inexcusable for any non-rookie QB, and Campbell wasn't a rookie last year. Raw, yes. A rookie fresh out of college? Not at all.

51% is not inexcusable at all. The coaches were all happy with his performace and that's more important than what picky fans think. They see this guy up close everyday and they know how good he can be. Remember his first year he didn't do anything but watch. He didn't even run the scout team. He was the 3rd qb. Year two he ran the scout team. Either way he DID NOT get any reps w/ Moss, Cooley, Lloyd and ARE. No game experience and had to learn yet another offense. What Qb would come in and complete 60% and have a high rating in this situation? Not many if any. I think if you would stop just looking at completion % and rating you would see some of the good things the guy did. What were we suppose to do? Leave in Brunell? C'mon.

51% is not inexcusable at all. The coaches were all happy with his performace and that's more important than what picky fans think. They see this guy up close everyday and they know how good he can be. Remember his first year he didn't do anything but watch. He didn't even run the scout team. He was the 3rd qb. Year two he ran the scout team. Either way he DID NOT get any reps w/ Moss, Cooley, Lloyd and ARE. No game experience and had to learn yet another offense. What Qb would come in and complete 60% and have a high rating in this situation? Not many if any. I think if you would stop just looking at completion % and rating you would see some of the good things the guy did. What were we suppose to do? Leave in Brunell? C'mon.The coaches did the right thing...even if they cost us a few wins, that pales in comparision to the value of getting the young guy out on the field in a lost season. Once the season became lost, it was really a no brainer.

I was not expecting him to come in and set the world on fire. I was just hoping to see more than just a small glimpse of what he is capable of. I was hoping to see Campbell put up Brunell like numbers, something I know he is capable of. I was frusterated when he was forcing the ball, something that is totally uncharacteristic of a great QB no matter how far along he is in his development.

The coaches did the right thing...even if they cost us a few wins, that pales in comparision to the value of getting the young guy out on the field in a lost season. Once the season became lost, it was really a no brainer.

I was not expecting him to come in and set the world on fire. I was just hoping to see more than just a small glimpse of what he is capable of. I was hoping to see Campbell put up Brunell like numbers, something I know he is capable of. I was frusterated when he was forcing the ball, something that is totally uncharacteristic of a great QB no matter how far along he is in his development.

While I agree that he forced too many, I have to disagree that great QB's don't. Case and point Bret Favre.

While I agree that he forced too many, I have to disagree that great QB's don't. Case and point Bret Favre.Farve does force a lot of balls, but that's something he never outgrew despite his greatness. It wasn't a developmental thing, just a flaw in his otherwise flawless game.

Farve does force a lot of balls, but that's something he never outgrew despite his greatness. It wasn't a developmental thing, just a flaw in his otherwise flawless game.

Well if that turns out to be JC's only flaw and he ends up as good as Favre I would not be upset.

I dont know how much JC actually forced it. It seemed to me he just took way too long to make his read and find the open reciever.

I dont know how much JC actually forced it. It seemed to me he just took way too long to make his read and find the open reciever.

He also had a little bit of accuracy problems.

I dont know how much JC actually forced it. It seemed to me he just took way too long to make his read and find the open reciever.Well, there's no way to be certain about how many deep attempts are too many, its really about how the defense plays you.

I will say this: When Brunell was the QB, we had a lot of success with the short and intermediate games. We didn't throw deep very often, so the times that we did, it was wildly successful.

When Campbell was the QB, its like we threw deep every other play. While some TDs were created by this, it seemed to cost us many drives on the whole through incompletions. This might have been a playcalling flaw, but more likely, Campbell was just being uncharacteristically agressive with the football.

When Campbell did start throwing the short and intermediate routes with consistentcy and accuracy, we started moving the ball much better.

I think the flaw in NFL passing defenses today is covering the backs out of the backfield. The soft 2 that a lot of teams play will be eaten alive by a patient passing attack. This is what we seemed to lose by pulling Brunell.

He also had a little bit of accuracy problems.Yeah, on a lot of the shorter stuff.

In this league, accuracy issues won't hurt you much as long as you are making the correct reads and deliver the ball on time.

Accuracy woes plus poor reads will be a disaster

Well, there's no way to be certain about how many deep attempts are too many, its really about how the defense plays you.

I will say this: When Brunell was the QB, we had a lot of success with the short and intermediate games. We didn't throw deep very often, so the times that we did, it was wildly successful.

When Campbell was the QB, its like we threw deep every other play. While some TDs were created by this, it seemed to cost us many drives on the whole through incompletions. This might have been a playcalling flaw, but more likely, Campbell was just being uncharacteristically agressive with the football.

When Campbell did start throwing the short and intermediate routes with consistentcy and accuracy, we started moving the ball much better.

I think the flaw in NFL passing defenses today is covering the backs out of the backfield. The soft 2 that a lot of teams play will be eaten alive by a patient passing attack. This is what we seemed to lose by pulling Brunell.
But on the flip side of that, I don't think that Brunell threw deep often enough. I would like to see that happy medium.