I don't like the term "average" because too often, it is used to make an above average player seem worse than he really is. I don't know what you define as average, BHA, and it's very possible that Campbell is only average. But, then you see Cutler as better than average. But they are very similar players. So, you're putting one guy down (who happens to be the QB of your favorite team), to the point where you are clearly undervaluing his skill set in order to try to make a point.
Here's the thing: according to Football Outsiders, in 2008, the average performance from a quarterback was Dan Orlovsky/Trent Edwards
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2008
In their stats, an average performance always seems to be weighed down by the very worst players of the year, so average always comes out between the 20-25th best player at the position. This is only one way to define average, but I do not reject their assumption that there are more above average QBs in this league that start than below average QBs.
As you can see, Cutler was clearly more effective in Denver's offense last year than Campbell was in the Redskins. I am not disputing this. I'm disputing two things:
1) Why you think that Zorn's conservative style will mesh better with Cutler's caution-to-the-wind playing style than Campbell's.
and
2) When you replace Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal with Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El, and replace the Denver OL with the Washington OL, how you don't account for a significant drop in Cutler's output.
Obviously, if we don't improve on offense, Cutler isn't going to be as good here as he was in Denver. If we DO improve, he probably would be. And obviously, Campbell will be much better as well.
What he's been given is a bunch of different terminology, and short, underwhelming receivers, and an aging OL. That's a lot of tools, but I would argue that save for an expansion team, that's pretty much as tough a situation as it gets for a young QB.