11-16-2009, 01:18 PM | #1111 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 45
Posts: 17,460
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
It should be noted, there are no major, long-term free agent QBs in 2010.
2010 NFL Free Agents Kyle Orton (will be kept by Denver for sure) Jason Campbell Chad Pennington (old and busted) Tavaris Jackson (far less capable than even Campbell, has failed to keep job several times) Kellen Clemens (could not beat out Sanchez for starter, barely backup quality) Charlie Batch (old, not leaving Pittsburgh) Kyle Boller (no) David Carr (MAYBE...but has he been beaten to death in his Houston years) Daunte Culpepper (injury risk) Rex Grossman (no way) Joey Harrington (had chances) Jon Kitna (ancient) Matt Moore (who?) Brett Ratliff (who?) Troy Smith (great in college, good in an emergency, not starter quality) As for college: Tebow I don't see being an NFL success. Bradford is an injury risk. McCoy looks good, I don't trust a Notre Dame QB, Pike from Cincinnati...undecided...
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster |
Advertisements |
11-16-2009, 01:24 PM | #1112 | |
The Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,373
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
__________________
But there's booze in the blender. And soon it will render. That frozen concoction that helps me hang on. |
|
11-16-2009, 01:27 PM | #1113 |
Warpath Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 34,420
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Other vets may become availible after this season as other teams look to rebuild...Hasselbeck, Bulger, D. Anderson, etc. There not long term solutions either but could easily challenge JC at the QB spot.
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler He Gets Us |
11-16-2009, 01:30 PM | #1114 | |
The Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,351
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
Nevertheless, Orton, who may not be a top 20 Nfl qb, didn't miss as much as JC yesterday. JC is just not a franchise QB to build around. I like the guy, he's a good teamate, he just doesn't have it. We can all argue about the line, WR's, RB's, etc but he doesn't have it. As i've said though, that doesn't mean he might not be the best option next year. |
|
11-16-2009, 01:41 PM | #1115 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 17,265
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
|
|
11-16-2009, 01:43 PM | #1116 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,712
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
I agree that Collins would probably give us a better chance to win now, but honestly, whats the point? The more campbell plays, the better chance we have that he'll improve enough to give him some trade value in the offseason.
__________________
Dolphins get good press for saving drowning humans.But we only hear about the swimmers theyve pushed ashore.You know who we havent heard from: all the people theyve pushed out to sea.Dolphins dont know what theyre doing-they just like pushing things. |
11-16-2009, 02:03 PM | #1117 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,331
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
Exactly, I don't understand why people get their panties in bunch.
__________________
R.I.P. #21 |
|
11-16-2009, 02:24 PM | #1118 | |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 50
Posts: 5,311
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
You might get 8, 9, maybe 10 wins that way, but the league's champions have QBs that can make big plays on a consistent basis. If you go up against a powerhouse team like the Colts, Pats, Saints, or Steelers, on their field or in the playoffs, you're going to need more than just a game managing QB who doesn't throw picks. In that sense, it's my contention that Jason Campbell won't be the quarterback of a championship team no matter where he plays. |
|
11-16-2009, 02:40 PM | #1119 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
11-16-2009, 02:47 PM | #1120 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
Right now, we have a non-descript figurehead QB. Under the current circumstance, you could replace Campbell with Garcia or Byron Leftwich, and he would just be known as "Washington QB" and the production would be exactly the same. If you improved the units around him to league average, you'd probably have the Campbell of the first half of last year. If you add a great defense to that, then you have a super bowl contender. Jason Campbell is probably not the type of player who gets better by putting the ball in his hands 50 times a game like Brady or Brees. If he had better ball-securing fundamentals, then maybe. If you put a legitimately great receiver and OL in front of him, you'd probably have something that looks like Steve McNair. Otherwise, you're always going to have to take the good with the bad.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
11-16-2009, 02:56 PM | #1121 |
The Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,373
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
To win a title you have to have a playmaker at the QB spot,not a manager who can make a play here and there. When was the last time a team with a good running game and a avg QB won the SB? And even if you throw out the names Dilfer and Johnson you have to point out the fact that they had great defenses,the type of defenses that dont come along very often that can take over games. it may be another 4+ yrs before you see a defense like those that carry a team to the title but in that time you will see many teams win because of the man throwing the ball.
__________________
But there's booze in the blender. And soon it will render. That frozen concoction that helps me hang on. |
11-16-2009, 03:01 PM | #1122 | |
The Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,373
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
Are you serious? He avg'd ONE TD pass a game during that stint. You think that will beat Manning,Brady,Brees,Favre or Warner?
__________________
But there's booze in the blender. And soon it will render. That frozen concoction that helps me hang on. |
|
11-16-2009, 03:09 PM | #1123 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
So in a vacuum, Campbell misses just as often as he makes. Compared to all first round draft pick QBs since his draft year of 2005, the group of guys who "make plays" at a higher rate includes only Cutler, Rodgers, and Flacco. I looked at first rounders only because if you were to consider using a 2010 first rounder on a QB, you'd expect 2/3 of potential draftees to post a lower career completion % than Campbell, and that's just not helping.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
11-16-2009, 03:11 PM | #1124 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
I remember Portis scoring a lot in the red zone then, though I could be wrong.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
11-16-2009, 03:18 PM | #1125 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Campbell's numbers dont lie
Quote:
How often does one of the top five QBs in the NFL at the time actually win the super bowl? Peyton in 2006, Brady in 2004, Warner in 1999, and like, Favre in 1996? Those teams had playmakers at the QB spot and won, I guess, but in 13 years a top five quarterback (in that year) has won the super bowl four times. That's 30%. You're wasting your time on this argument. Having a great quarterback and having a great defense are both great weapons in terms of winning playoff games, but balance is way more important.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|