Campbell's numbers dont lie

He had it earned last year at about midseason, then there were some doubts raised in the second half of the year about if he was regressing, and now he's proved that he's not.

I would extend him today, if I was in charge.

So what you are saying is that he showed you that he was a leader ? That he had a command of this offense or even the team itself ? Does Jason Campbell put this team in a position to win games or does he do enough to not give the game away ? What is it that Jason Campbell does best ? His strong suit so to speak.

1. Since Harrison was part of a Super Bowl team, everything he says is correct? Now that's just poor critical thinking.
No, but, he was an elite defensive player, and he's confirming a point that is blatantly obvious to anyone who's looking objectively.

2. You are correct, I do not see Cutler and Campbell as equals, despite the fact that their stats are similar in many ways. Campbell is superior because he is not Captain Turnover like Cutler is.
-Cutler throws WAY more TDs than Camble.
-Campbell SHOULD have atleast 4 INTs (if defenders had held on to easy interceptions) and, in honesty, 2 more TDs (if Sellers and Thomas could catch balls that hit them in the hands. Conversely, Campbell has missed wide-open guys for big plays a number of times (check photo-evidence of this on extremeskins).
-If you honestly think Campbell is clearly better than Cutler, then youre simply dellusional. There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

3. What is the point of bringing up Cutler and Sanchez? Neither one of them will qb the Skins any time soon, if ever. It would be just as rewarding to discuss how Y.A. Tittle would do with the 2009 Skins.
No, i could discuss about 20 other QBs in the NFL that I would rather have than Campbell. Cutler and Sanchez are the two we allegedly had interest in in the offseason, hence the comparison.

4. You vastly underestimate the Jets offense. Depends on how you look at it. Their offense is good, because they have a good playcaller and excellent QB. We have a below-average QB and horrible play-caller. That said, the actual talent we have on offense is noteably superior to the Jets.

5. Your sig has bugged me for some time because of its inaccuracy. Many studies have shown that dolphins do in fact "know what they are doing." They are quite intelligent and can recognize different shapes, different colors, and different verbal cues. They definitely know where the shore is and where open sea is because their food habits require such. Read the ethological literature about dolphins and you will realize that your sig advertises ignorance.
My sig is a quote from Dwight on the Office. I do not endorse any particular view on sea-faring mammals. I simply found the quote amusing.

So, in sum, you have underestimated Campbell, the Jets offense, and dolphins. You have overestimated Rodney Harrison's insight. Good luck with all of that.
Thank you for wishing me luck. You should probably wish some on yourself. At this time next year, Campbell will be a backup QB somewhere. I don't think his career path will take as bad of a turn as Patrick Ramsey's, but the only way he ever starts again in this league is if a guy Jamarcus Russell or Matt Schuab gets hurt.

Barkley just randomly speaks, Harrison just has no filter, but usually he is right on.

I see what you're getting at, but the parallel I was trying to draw is the ego-driven "I could still get out there and whip these guys" mentality. Both Harrison and Barkley have this.

The thing is, as a sports commentator, you're either a straight man, a sort of ambassador type who tries to find the silver lining in any bad team, or you're the "bad boy" type who makes "controversial" statements under the guise of "just calling it like I see it". I think both Charles and Rodney are in group 3.

Most of the time though, guys in that group don't say anything controversial at all, they take shots at safe targets. For instance, Barkley continually ripping on the Wizards, but you'll never hear him saying "Kobe is a ball hog" (even though that's not terribly controversial either). But is anyone outside of DC really going to care if he railroads Brendan Haywood or Gil?

Likewise, what QB's can Harrison attack verbally without catching serious flack? How about Favre? Certainly you would expect Harrison would have some choice comments about Brett's gunslinging mentality, maybe he's even thrown pickles to Rodney. But he says anything about Favre being done or over the hill, he'll catch hell from everyone.

I mean, hell, he's taking on TO now -- regardless of what a head case the guy is, nobody has ever disputed that Terrell Owens is a hell of an athlete and can be / has been one of the best WR's in the game (when he's not sabotaging himself). But TO is a super easy target, so Harrison goes after him. Shocker.

Commentators who happen to be former athletes can have plenty of ulterior motive for talking smack. I don't really think you can take Harrison's comments at face value in this instance. Not that this will stop anybody who is looking for evidence that Campbell sucks and should be replaced at all costs.

I see what you're getting at, but the parallel I was trying to draw is the ego-driven "I could still get out there and whip these guys" mentality. Both Harrison and Barkley have this.

The thing is, as a sports commentator, you're either a straight man, a sort of ambassador type who tries to find the silver lining in any bad team, or you're the "bad boy" type who makes "controversial" statements under the guise of "just calling it like I see it". I think both Charles and Rodney are in group 3.

Most of the time though, guys in that group don't say anything controversial at all, they take shots at safe targets. For instance, Barkley continually ripping on the Wizards, but you'll never hear him saying "Kobe is a ball hog" (even though that's not terribly controversial either). But is anyone outside of DC really going to care if he railroads Brendan Haywood or Gil?

Likewise, what QB's can Harrison attack verbally without catching serious flack? How about Favre? Certainly you would expect Harrison would have some choice comments about Brett's gunslinging mentality, maybe he's even thrown pickles to Rodney. But he says anything about Favre being done or over the hill, he'll catch hell from everyone.

I mean, hell, he's taking on TO now -- regardless of what a head case the guy is, nobody has ever disputed that Terrell Owens is a hell of an athlete and can be / has been one of the best WR's in the game (when he's not sabotaging himself). But TO is a super easy target, so Harrison goes after him. Shocker.

Commentators who happen to be former athletes can have plenty of ulterior motive for talking smack. I don't really think you can take Harrison's comments at face value in this instance. Not that this will stop anybody who is looking for evidence that Campbell sucks and should be replaced at all costs.

Great post!!

-If you honestly think Campbell is clearly better than Cutler, then youre simply dellusional. There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

Well, except for statistics. But who needs them, when the Denver Broncos new head coach and Rodney Harrison say otherwise.


No, i could discuss about 20 other QBs in the NFL that I would rather have than Campbell.


Now this I would like to see. Not because I think Soup is the best QB ever, but because I think he's probably in that "12th - 15th best in the league" tier which *should* be good enough for a power running team with a strong defense to make a serious playoff run.

So let's hear it -- who are the other 20 QB's you'd take right now over Campbell?

So what you are saying is that he showed you that he was a leader ? That he had a command of this offense or even the team itself ? Does Jason Campbell put this team in a position to win games or does he do enough to not give the game away ? What is it that Jason Campbell does best ? His strong suit so to speak.I think he's a leader. But I KNOW that we don't have enough information to debate that. So we can throw that point out as basically meaningless.

I think it's quite obvious that he commands the huddle. Again, what evidence to the contrary is there?

Yes. Jason both offers enough opportunities to win a game and protects the ball well enough to not lose games. There's room for improvement in the latter facet of his game.

Jason's best asset is his ability to turn plays where the offense is completely defeated into 20 yard first down runs. But he's also one of the better passers in the NFL. I think, though, if he's getting compared to Eli Manning and Tony Romo (two of the best this year and last year), there's more flaws in his passing game then those two have. But he can compete in the NFC's toughest division, an that's valuable.

Good point. I'd have to think he's scheme adaptable. Given the evidence, I feel that applies.

I thought the fact that he's had to be in so many schemes was the reason campbell apologists say he's never become league-mvp? He's been mediocre in every scheme he's been in at the pro-level. Jason Campbell will turn 29 in the 2010-2011 season. Unless you're predicting he'll go on to have a Favre-like career, there's no sense in extending a mediocre QB. He'll be on the downside of his career by the time he ever reaches any comfort level in a new system. Unless we keep a similar offensive system next year, I won't understand any argument for keeping Campbell around.

We're better off letting our new coach pick his own veteran QB familiar with the system and then draft a young guy the coach can groom. Now, if in 2010, Campbell wants to stick around for a Collins-esque deal and compete for a starting job, then so be it, let the best man win. But extending him in 2009 without knowing exactly what system we'll be running or who will be coaching the team is just stupid. It would turn prospective head coaching candidates away, and is almost as dumb as naming offensive and defensive coordinators before hiring a head coach.

How good is Denver's o-line? Put Orton behind our o-line. Does he have Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal? One of those wins was lucky because he got a touch down off a play that should have been a pick. Orton was horrible in Chicago. But he has been placed in a QB friendly system. We dont have that here. Orton is not better than JC. Stats or other wise.

I thought the fact that he's had to be in so many schemes was the reason campbell apologists say he's never become league-mvp? He's been mediocre in every scheme he's been in at the pro-level. Jason Campbell will turn 29 in the 2010-2011 season. Unless you're predicting he'll go on to have a Favre-like career, there's no sense in extending a mediocre QB. He'll be on the downside of his career by the time he ever reaches any comfort level in a new system. Unless we keep a similar offensive system next year, I won't understand any argument for keeping Campbell around.

We're better off letting our new coach pick his own veteran QB familiar with the system and then draft a young guy the coach can groom. Now, if in 2010, Campbell wants to stick around for a Collins-esque deal and compete for a starting job, then so be it, let the best man win. But extending him in 2009 without knowing exactly what system we'll be running or who will be coaching the team is just stupid. It would turn prospective head coaching candidates away, and is almost as dumb as naming offensive and defensive coordinators before hiring a head coach.Well, I mean, look at a stat sheet. It's hard to argue with what Campbell has accomplished in spite of significant offensive turnover. In a lot of ways, the word mediocre demeans what he actually has accomplished. The last year he played mediocre was 2007, which was his first full year as a starter. That was a long time ago.

You can probably find some 2008 splits that suggest mediocrity (**OMG--last 8 games--OMG**), but I think that's missing the big picture.

Still, I bolded your best point (and nice zinger, btw). A good organization would not handcuff it's head coach search by locking in a quarterback prior to firing it's head coach. Then again, a good organization knows how to value its own players in the context of the market. I'm clearly more concerned with them getting the small things right at this point than I am with them trying to show that they can be a good organization all of a sudden.

But that's the point. If the question is, "would you extend Jason Campbell right now?", I think the correct answer is, yes. And it's not a good situation right now to be deciding to extend players, but between Rogers, McIntosh, and Campbell, Jason is the only one who has played well enough to deserve it. And, frankly, if all a Jason Campbell extension does is force the organization to retain Zorn...then so be it. If it makes Zorn the best man for the job, then I could care less if we would not have kept him under different conditions.

You know, you are never as good or as bad as stats and records may indicate, BUT:

2009 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/leaders.htm)

After 3 games, Jason is in the top ten in passes completed (4th), passes attempted (10th), passing yards (9th), passer rating (9th), passing yards per game (9th) and yards per pass attempt (9th).

I'm sorry, but if there were any other name besides "Campbell, J." in this position, guys would be slathering at the bit to try and sign this dude for next season.

Will some of those stats come down? Sure. But my guess is they're going to be pretty good at year end and snipers looking for the magic bullet to fix this team should be careful what they wish for.

Fans of this team have gotten the front office and players we deserve.