Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't. It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.

I understand. But so far this offseason the upgrade choices have been few. Let's see what happens at and after the draft.

Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't. It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.
Rome wasn't built in a day.

I understand. But so far this offseason the upgrade choices have been few. Let's see what happens at and after the draft.

Good point Lotus. People are judging our offseason and we haven't even made it to the draft. There are months of FA after that. Plus, too many people are discounting the difference of having Shanahan.

Doc Walker has consistently said something that I found interesting. He said that all of the problems with the O-line that we had were correctable. I believe him.

Look at what Pittsburgh corrected in 08 and then compare what we went through.

What is the difference? Pittsburgh has a great coaching staff we had the bike riding West Coast Spouting buffoon who got humilated by a guy who delivered Meals on Wheels.

Now, we not only are on a level playing field, our coach most likely has the advantage.

Agreed with all the above. The day we need to cash in on our offseason is still three weeks away. The best thing we can do in the time leading up to the draft is simply not trade away our picks.

Doc Walker has consistently said something that I found interesting. He said that all of the problems with the O-line that we had were correctable. I believe him.

By "correctable" does he mean it can be corrected by all new players? Or just a new coaching staff?

Coach Bugel wasn't exactly chopped liver.

By "correctable" does he mean it can be corrected by all new players? Or just a new coaching staff?

Coach Bugel wasn't exactly chopped liver.

Nah, Buges was good. We outright dominated the Saints' D.

A bad conditioning program and lack of talent is more to blame, IMO. If our fat boys don't have the proper cardio and strength training, it's not a wonder why they have been suck the past couple years.

I guess I'm trying to avoid being the guy who defines franchise quarterback and fits the definition to his argument. This is something you're avoiding as well. But I can see how, under a restrictive definition of the term, that you might only have 7 or 8 franchise QBs in the NFL (my top two tiers). I can also accept a more liberal/inclusive definition that allows for 18-22 franchise quarterbacks (including our own JC17). I personally don't care enough about the term itself to make a stand one way or another.

But my point of greater importantance is that Romo and Eli do bring (sustainable, repeatable) skills to the table that Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers do not, even if numbers wise, their per play and total production is indistinguishable. I'm not trying to disrespect Rodgers, Roethlisberger, or Matt Schaub here by declaring that they shouldn't be considered franchise quarterbacks even though their stats compare well to Romo and Eli, but that we should recognize the differences in context between "successful players" like those three, and players who have to deal with contextual deficiencies. Schaub, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger (and McNabb, really) all have high yards per attempt because they throw to a lot of WIDE open receivers downfield, and Campbell, Henne, Palmer, Garrard, and Cutler (09) really just don't have the same opportunities.

I think if they were in a great offense, Campbell's and Garrard's '09 production would be grounds for dismissal. (Sort of like '08 Cassel: you have that sort of production with the Redskins, you deserve a contract extension. With the Pats, it gets you traded.) However, neither gets pass protection, neither has a true downfield target that's ever open, both offenses lack ingenuity, and so then average performance looks kind of nice.

The problem with Hasselbeck is not durability (though that is a problem), it's that he's no longer in an offense where his familiarity with the timing of plays is useful. If he were producing like Campbell and Garrard, he probably would still have value. But he's played like a rookie in consecutive seasons, and replacement level (valueless by definition) would be a major improvement from the last two years. Hasselbeck used to be what Matt Schaub currently is: the system player who generates down-field plays in the context of the strong offense. He was a top quarterback as recently as age-33, but I do wonder if Matt Hasselbeck ever qualified as a franchise QB. Under the restrictive definition, I'd say: no. Same with Bulger, Delhomme, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, and McNabb to an extent. At all of their peaks, these guys were major cogs in an offensive juggernaut, but limited without their other parts. And so, if you restrict the definition of franchise QB to "guy who makes players around them better," none of these guys qualify. None of the older guys withstood the test of time, and I doubt that Rodgers/Roethlisberger can reverse the trend.

Agreed that trying to discern which players are responsible for which percentage of a given production total is painful, time-consuming, and ultimately requires the necessity to continually check your assumptions with objective evidence and never get too comfortable with any given opinion. But painful or not, it's still a major part of player analysis.

So while I'd agree that 3/4ths of the league can't just replace their quarterback with the best available player and expect no dropoff, only about 1/4 of the league has a truly indispensable player at the QB position. It's fashionable to call a guy a franchise QB right out of college, but one of the reasons I don't think people should be surprised if Bradford or Clausen ends up being the next Campbell or Garrard is because you can't mandate context before the draft.tl:dr
I just simplify my explanation. It's a bunch of hopefully self-evidently described tiers that are of the "closeness" a QB is to franchise status. "High-hope bringers" are exactly that, for example. They've done enough to at least give subjective optimism that they'll be something of worth in the future, and you can't have that if they did not a least do something on an objective level. They MAY flame out in the future, but as of now, they have shown that they could be something

Does other talent matter? Hell yes. But there are other QBs in the league that do not provide negative "utility" or provide more "utility" than other QBs. And IMO, JC17 is like a musket. If you have to use him, you will, but you ditch it for a rifle ASAP because of its unreliability and the amount effort just to get it to work.

Anyone would kill for Rapistberger's pocket presence and relative durability. Sure he may throw to wide open dudes, but there are some QBs who can't even get it open to wide open dudes.
And Favrah is NOT a system QB. He was CAPABLE of picking up any O and letting it rip, but since he was so ingrained in the WCO, that become his specialty. There have been a lot of WCO QBs, but some magnify what its capable of while others floundered in it, like Steve Deberg. Favrah fits in the former category. Hell, even if he struggled with the Jets' playbook, they still had a good offense before his bicep tendon decided to act up on him.

'It's just totally different than it used to be'


I bet it is.

Sorry Jason, seems the same to me.

Campbell wasn't told of trade | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Campbell-wasnt-told-of-trade-89888252.html)

No respect at all.

Sorry Jason, seems the same to me.

Campbell wasn't told of trade | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Campbell-wasnt-told-of-trade-89888252.html)

No respect at all.

I posted this somewhere as well but Campbell has said different things regarding how he found out. He has told different people "heard it from a reporter" "saw it on tv" "got a text" "Coach called"