Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation

Ditto. Stop blaming the WRs. Lots of teams have sucky receivers, but they still manage to score points - Miami, San Diego, Tennessee, Atlanta (well, when Vick was there they sucked). I've seen Miami march 80 yards down the field without throwing a single pass to a WR. New Orleans had so many WR injuries last year, they started putting random guys from the crowd into the game. Brees kept on hitting them for long gains. It's all about Campbell. No more excuses.

Wait, ur comparing Campbell to Brees? I agree that ppl shouldn't completely blame the WRs, although they do tend to drop a lot of balls. But JC is nowhere near where Brees is at this point in his career.

Also, did you notice that all the teams that you mentioned (Miami, San Diego, Tenn, and New Orleans) were in the top 10 of least sacks allowed in 2009?

You'd be correct that it's not linear, but it's also not subject to additional risk unless we become the chuck and duck offense.

As usual, normal variance suggests that 8 INTs is probably more of a floor than anything, but Campbell only had near picks on a handful of throws last year, maybe 5-6. There's always going to be those dropped picks.

David Garrard had a poor year on a 6-10 team. He threw 7 fewer picks than Jay Cutler did on an 8-8 team. So, there's variance based on risk, sure, but Campbell's not going to be picked 15 times this year.

That's likely true. It was pretty crazy how long he went without picks last year even though our WR corp wasn't that good and suffered a bit from cases of the tipsies and dropsies.

Ditto. Stop blaming the WRs. Lots of teams have sucky receivers, but they still manage to score points - Miami, San Diego, Tennessee, Atlanta (well, when Vick was there they sucked). I've seen Miami march 80 yards down the field without throwing a single pass to a WR. New Orleans had so many WR injuries last year, they started putting random guys from the crowd into the game. Brees kept on hitting them for long gains. It's all about Campbell. No more excuses.What you're saying is true in the loosest sense of the term, all those teams had iffy production from the receivers and strong passing offenses, but in a more structured sense, not one of those teams were as bad on the outside as we were.

The Browns and Seahawks were probably worse at WR than we were last year, and you can probably throw the Raiders, Rams, Bears, and Vikings in there as well. But you know what, none of those teams had any semblence of a passing game last year. So, it's not proven that an offense can function at a higher level than ours last year without a better job on the outside. We'll see. The OL should improve, but the WRs must develop because the veterans aren't likely to be more healthy than they were last year.

What you're saying is true in the loosest sense of the term, all those teams had iffy production from the receivers and strong passing offenses, but in a more structured sense, not one of those teams were as bad on the outside as we were.

The Browns and Seahawks were probably worse at WR than we were last year, and you can probably throw the Raiders, Rams, Bears, and Vikings in there as well. But you know what, none of those teams had any semblence of a passing game last year. So, it's not proven that an offense can function at a higher level than ours last year without a better job on the outside. We'll see. The OL should improve, but the WRs must develop because the veterans aren't likely to be more healthy than they were last year.

And do you think we did?

And do you think we did?Do you want me to qualify this, or can I just leave it as an implied yes (without being taken out of context)?

EDIT
^^Probably reads as more smart alecky than intended. I was trying to ask if the sentence in the context above can stand for itself, or if you really want hard numbers that suggest our passing game was clearly better than Clevelands or Seattles.

Do you want me to qualify this, or can I just leave it as an implied yes (without being taken out of context)?

EDIT
^^Probably reads as more smart alecky than intended. I was trying to ask if the sentence in the context above can stand for itself, or if you really want hard numbers that suggest our passing game was clearly better than Clevelands or Seattles.

I will agree with you on that. But that's not really saying much. Seattle was crushed by injured wr's and qb. Cleveland doesn't have a legit NFL QB. But having a passing game slightly better than Cleveland and a injury depleted Seattle team isn't saying much.

I will agree with you on that. But that's not really saying much. Seattle was crushed by injured wr's and qb. Cleveland doesn't have a legit NFL QB. But having a passing game slightly better than Cleveland and a injury depleted Seattle team isn't saying much.No, it's certainly not. Our number one goal on offense should be to make sure we build on what we began last year, and not to regress simply because our QB has his job on the line. Once that is accomplished, the next goal would be to improve the passing efficiency to score more touchdowns.

The key, obviously, is going to be in the big plays. Even when Moss is well covered, we're going to ask Kelly and Thomas to win those one on ones, and the rest should go from there. Those double moves that we like require great pass protection, and there's no guarentee that we can get that, but those vertical routes by secondary wide receivers can be run at any time...if only we get the personnel to run them.

If Campbell does:

338/515, 66%, 23 TD/8 INT, 3,605 yards, 7.0 Y/A: QB Rating of 94.4
(this is my mean projection for Campbell)

Is that "great" or merely good?

Based on last year's offensive environment, he would be 6th in the NFL in QB rating.


Those numbers are good enough to be great. Questions would arise with it being a contract year though. He needs to add a little more proof to the pudding than that. While those numbers will be good enough to keep him in Washington, they might not be convincing enough for outside organizations to offer him big time money.

Not sure what football world you're living in Angry, but I can guarantee you if JC has that kind of year and takes the Skins to the playoffs, he will definitely draw interest from a few teams, and Danny will need to show him the $$ to keep him here.

Not sure what football world you're living in Angry, but I can guarantee you if JC has that kind of year and takes the Skins to the playoffs, he will definitely draw interest from a few teams, and Danny will need to show him the $$ to keep him here.

I guess that you may be right (Matt Cassell), but most organizations want to see more than 1 year of production.