Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan
I've actually come around to the "dark side" on Campbell after being a consistent supporter since he was drafted. I actually think you are correct about statistics not telling the story with Campbell and I actually think that one of the reasons that guys like GTripp are so hell-bent on insisting that he is a franchise quarterback is because they are "stat guys." That is great, and I read Tripp's stuff on here and on his blog, but I actually have come to believe that he is wrong on Campbell. I think the stats cloud his opinion (which is usually very judicious, but is biased in favor of Campbell) and it is also very difficult to properly evaluate quarterbacks without having access to the coaches tape. There is a subjective element with quarterbacks, more than any other position, that you cannot access through statistical analysis.
The thing I have realized about Campbell after watching him this year is that he lacks a refined sense of timing and anticipation. He has all of the tools, but he too often throws only to open receivers rather than anticipating routes. He also is not very good with the nuances of the position, like manipulating safeties. He is very much like David Garrard in that way. Both have physical tools, both can spin the rock, both actually put up good statistical numbers, but both have inconsistent mechanics, lack timing and anticipation, and are not elite players at the position. Garrard has a QB rating of 84.8 for his career, is a 60% career passer, and has 23 more TDs than INTs, but he is not a very good quarterback (there are actually many QBs that do not possess superior timing and anticipation, but Campbell's deficiencies really crystallized for me when I was watching Garrard last week against Arizona ... for instance you could throw Brady Quinn's name in there, but Quinn is not as good an analogue because his statistics are horrible). Garrard is "just a guy" and that is what Campbell is too. They both are capable of having great games (see Garrard in the 2007 Divisional playoffs or Campbell in the first Cowboys game last year) but neither will do so consistently. Hell, Campbell could light up the Lions defense as he did last year. The bottom line, though, is that while you can probably win some games with Campbell, he will not consistently make your team better.
Campbell's lack of timing/anticipation also leads him to hold the ball too long and I think it is really the heart of the Redskins struggles in the red zone. You can say that Sellers and Thomas dropped TD passes against St. Louis, which is absolutely true, but that does not answer why the Redskins have an endemic problem scoring inside the 20. If Campbell completes those passes it just means that he can defeat a very bad defense, which I expect, but it does not solve the larger issues in his game. Inside the 20 is where the importance of timing and anticipation (I know I am overusing that, but I take it from Greg Cosell and I think it is the best way to describe that quarterback attribute) is heightened due to the condensed field. Campbell has still not shown that ability and with this many snaps in the NFL he probably never will. Not being a great quarterback does not make him a bad person or anything, but it does mean that the Redskins most likely will have to find another solution after this season. On a positive note, it does suggest that the Redskins actually did properly evaluate Campbell in the off-season and were correct to pursue other opportunities, even if the opportunity costs were perhaps too high. Maybe they are not totally clueless after all. Although that does not absolve them of the Devin Thomas and Jason Taylor moves.
I know this post will be read, if it is read at all, as just another attack on Jason Campbell and we know he has taken plenty. I certainly would not want to pile on, and I really like the guy as a person (or at least as the persona that I am familiar with).
As for this thread. Well Snead clearly is not an answer either.
|
I think you're making the best well thought out Campbell argument to date, but I actually think the subjective elements of Campbell actually strengthen his case.
And I've always said: you can make an argument that Campbell holds the ball too long. But, I believe there are extenuating circumstances that have contributed to a rising sack rate. I also maintain that if I am correct about Campbell, his sack rate will drop significantly in the future (and currently, it's at a career low 4.7% in a SSS).
As for the statistical argument, I would suggest that Quarterback play more than any other position can be measured inclusively by the statistics. Your point that there are critical elements of quarterbacking (as opposed to other positions) that can not be measured statistically is on the surface, valid. But I think it's a somewhat misleading point. Not wrong, but I question the assertion that quarterback play, specifically, has intangible aspects that other positions do not have. That small part seems false. I would suggest that the argument of route anticipation exists in a more direct sense for both Corners and Receivers.
The question is: how do you explain the statistical studies that suggest that in the history of the statistical record, no quarterback has a skill known as "red zone ability". That, of course, is to say that: the best red zone passers in history were also the best passers in the rest of the field as well.
Again, I have nothing that suggests your points about Campbell's anticipatory ability are necessarily wrong. Not one shred of evidence. But if, over the season, Campbell's red zone numbers normalize to the rest of his numbers, and the offense scores more points as a product, I would at that point suggest that yes, he has answered all the questions.
Until then, I thank you for contributing yet another element to my game reviews that I can analyze, because, though completely subjective, finding a few instances per game where Campbell's incompletions are attributable to throwing the ball later than the play design suggests should be pretty easy.
And I'll bet a whole lot of money we will find evidence that points in both directions.