Per Vinny Cerrato, JC is our QB this season!

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is this even a serious question?

I guess experience and familiarity with a system doesn't count for anything in your book?

As I said in the sentence immediately before the sentence you quoted from, its a serious question because:

Campbell had experience and familiarity with Saunders system (he was in it two years), and it didnt "count for anything" then. It did not benefit him at all. He took no giant leaps forward. For that reason, i'm asking - if two years in the same system didnt work before, what makes you think it will work now?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As I said in the sentence immediately before the sentence you quoted from, its a serious question because:

Campbell had experience and familiarity with Saunders system (he was in it two years), and it didnt "count for anything" then. It did not benefit him at all. He took no giant leaps forward. For that reason, i'm asking - if two years in the same system didnt work before, what makes you think it will work now?

Campbell had 20 starts in Saunders offense, not really enough of a body of work to properly judge how he could have done had they left Saunders in place to continue his development. My guess is he would have taken a nice leap forward in year 3. Plus you have to consider he was in just his 2nd and 3rd years under Saunders and was already in offense #2.

His numbers in Zorn year #1 showed improvement. His completion % was up, his INTs and fumbles were way down, and his overall QB rating took a nearly a 7 point jump. I'm pretty secure in saying I think in Zorn year #2 he's going to take another step forward. It's definitely premature to say he can't fit in this offense or be successful. He at least deserves a 2nd year to tell if he can be the guy or not.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Campbell had 20 starts in Saunders offense, not really enough of a body of work to properly judge how he could have done had they left Saunders in place to continue his development. My guess is he would have taken a nice leap forward in year 3. Plus you have to consider he was in just his 2nd and 3rd years under Saunders and was already in offense #2.

His numbers in Zorn year #1 showed improvement. His completion % was up, his INTs and fumbles were way down, and his overall QB rating took a nearly a 7 point jump. I'm pretty secure in saying I think in Zorn year #2 he's going to take another step forward. It's definitely premature to say he can't fit in this offense or be successful. He at least deserves a 2nd year to tell if he can be the guy or not.

I'm not so sure I understand exactly what your basing that from? Remember Collins was just coming off a huge ending to that season.

JC in year two of Al's offense was below par IMO to begin with. I think that's when most within the org. really started to question whether this guy could be the next leader of this team.

As you recall when Al's guy Todd Collins got in the game after Cambell went down in week fourteen, someone that knew and understood what Al wanted we got on a roll and peeled of 4 big games straight and he lead us to a playoff birth.

If Joe & Al would have stayed who knows if JC would have seen a year number 3 as a starter, it could have very well been Collins at the helm. In my point of view even remembering Joe's final presser (Pre-Retirement) I gathered there would at least be a competion for the starting QB position for the following season as he would not commit to Cambell and I think that was a smart move on his behalf. Then we all know what happened Joe descided to step down.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

I'm not so sure I understand exactly what your basing that from? Remember Collins was just coming off a huge ending to that season.

JC in year two of Al's offense was below par IMO to begin with. I think that's when most within the org. really started to question whether this guy could be the next leader of this team.

As you recall when Al's guy Todd Collins got in the game after Cambell went down in week fourteen, someone that knew and understood what Al wanted we got on a roll and peeled of 4 big games straight and he lead us to a playoff birth.

If Joe & Al would have stayed who knows if JC would have seen a year number 3 as a starter, it could have very well been Collins at the helm. In my point of view even remembering Joe's final presser (Pre-Retirement) I gathered there would at least be a competion for the starting QB position for the following season as he would not commit to Cambell and I think that was a smart move on his behalf. Then we all know what happened Joe descided to step down.

JC would have remained the starter had everyone come back. There's no way they would have pulled the plug on him after his first year as the starter for a 36 year old QB who got hot for 4 games.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

JC in year two of Al's offense was below par IMO to begin with. I think that's when most within the org. really started to question whether this guy could be the next leader of this team.

If Joe & Al would have stayed who knows if JC would have seen a year number 3 as a starter, it could have very well been Collins at the helm. In my point of view even remembering Joe's final presser (Pre-Retirement) I gathered there would at least be a competion for the starting QB position for the following season as he would not commit to Cambell and I think that was a smart move on his behalf. Then we all know what happened Joe descided to step down.

If, 20 starts into a guys career, despite drafting absolutely zero offensive talent (save Campbell himself) since 2004, ANYONE in the organization is questioning his leadership skills, then that's a problem with the organization, not with Campbell.

And I'll just point this out quickly, Joe Gibbs didn't get where he was as a coach by giving up on a 25 year old promising QB for a 36 year old with fewer good games in 12 years in the league than the 25 year old has in 20 starts.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If, 20 starts into a guys career, despite drafting absolutely zero offensive talent (save Campbell himself) since 2004, ANYONE in the organization is questioning his leadership skills, then that's a problem with the organization, not with Campbell.

And I'll just point this out quickly, Joe Gibbs didn't get where he was as a coach by giving up on a 25 year old promising QB for a 36 year old with fewer good games in 12 years in the league than the 25 year old has in 20 starts.

Huh..? Now it's the organization's fault for questioning his leadership skills? well if so they do pay the bills and how would you know what they question? Maybe even though your in MI you have some inside track? I don't know who is questioning his leadership skills maybe you do..? But as it appears they are certainly questioning his get it done skills, just like I am. Last year of the contract,right. No extension,right. Usually a pretty good reason for that...right. Coach's and staff for the team know and see what is really going on with a player.

Let me remind you. In case it was before your time. Joe Gibbs WON ALL THREE super bowls Coaching the Washington Redskins with Veteran QB's, all in there 30's. Joe put the best QB in the pocket that he thought would give him the best results. Pretty GREAT results, huh...Hall of Fame. Not bad.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

Huh..? Now it's the organization's fault for questioning his leadership skills? well if so they do pay the bills and how would you know what they question? Maybe even though your in MI you have some inside track? I don't know who is questioning his leadership skills maybe you do..? But as it appears they are certainly questioning his get it done skills, just like I am. Last year of the contract,right. No extension,right. Usually a pretty good reason for that...right. Coach's and staff for the team know and see what is really going on with a player.

Let me remind you. In case it was before your time. Joe Gibbs WON ALL THREE super bowls Coaching the Washington Redskins with Veteran QB's, all in there 30's. Joe put the best QB in the pocket that he thought would give him the best results. Pretty GREAT results, huh...Hall of Fame. Not bad.

We have a salary cap this year? It's not like there's a rush or anything. We have a franchise tag.

Sorry to have outed you as a Campbell detractor, though. Since you had a really clever disguise going under neutrality.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We have a salary cap this year? It's not like there's a rush or anything. We have a franchise tag.

Sorry to have outed you as a Campbell detractor, though. Since you had a really clever disguise going under neutrality.

Doubt we can afford to use the tag on Campbell next year if he plays well. Goddell thinks the CBA will be extended and Haynesworth contract was written in such a way that we'll be screwed if '10 is capped. If Campbell plays at a pro-bowl level and theres a salary cap, we wont be able to keep him. If he sucks, we wont want to keep him whether theres a cap or not.

Basically, the only way Campbells our starting QB in 2010 is if the salary cap goes away AND Campbell plays at a pro-bowl level. What are the odds that both things happen?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As I said in the sentence immediately before the sentence you quoted from, its a serious question because:

Campbell had experience and familiarity with Saunders system (he was in it two years), and it didnt "count for anything" then. It did not benefit him at all. He took no giant leaps forward. For that reason, i'm asking - if two years in the same system didnt work before, what makes you think it will work now?

I've dissected and refuted your arguments on the Campbell thing before (as did GTripp), so I won't rehash. But bottom line (which you never responded to in other threads where we discussed this), how do you explain Campbell's Pro Bowl level numbers in early 2008 as "not being a good fit" for our system?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I've dissected and refuted your arguments on the Campbell thing before (as did GTripp), so I won't rehash. But bottom line (which you never responded to in other threads where we discussed this), how do you explain Campbell's Pro Bowl level numbers in early 2008 as "not being a good fit" for our system?

Sorry if i missed your responses in the other thread, getting to your bottom line statement -

Campbell was NOT playing at a pro-bowl level early on in the season. All that talk was ridiculous at the time, especially him being talked about as MVP of the league, let alone the team. All campbell did in the first few games was just not throw interceptions... something which was primarily a result Zorn not letting him throw much and really giving him an elementary form of the offense to run. Obviously, when Zorn opened things up some, Campbell was asked to do more... and we all know how the last 8 games went. We did so well in the first half of the season because Campbell wasnt doing much and we were relying on Clinton Portis. As the season wore on, our line declined and so did Clinton. Zorn tried to open things up, he put more on Campbells shoulders, and Campbell couldnt handle it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Campbell was NOT playing at a pro-bowl level early on in the season. All that talk was ridiculous at the time, especially him being talked about as MVP of the league, let alone the team. All campbell did in the first few games was just not throw interceptions... something which was primarily a result Zorn not letting him throw much and really giving him an elementary form of the offense to run. Obviously, when Zorn opened things up some, Campbell was asked to do more... and we all know how the last 8 games went. We did so well in the first half of the season because Campbell wasnt doing much and we were relying on Clinton Portis. As the season wore on, our line declined and so did Clinton. Zorn tried to open things up, he put more on Campbells shoulders, and Campbell couldnt handle it.

Your hypothesis here is totally and completely factually incorrect at every corner.

But the funny thing is, it's totally necessary for the rest of the argument you've made in this thread to make sense.

You have to deny, deny, deny what has been accepted by fans and the media as common knowledge, but you can't provide one smidgen of evidence to the contrary. Only, you make a hypothesis that relies on the assumption that Campbell is everything that's wrong with the Skins offense to make sense (which obviously is why it makes sense to you. you believe that unconditionally). Except, that's exactly what you're trying to prove.

"I believe 'X'. Therefore, X is proven by the fact that 'Y', something else I believe, necessarily requires that X is true."

Circular logic? That's a basic logical fallacy is it not?

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Your hypothesis here is totally and completely factually incorrect at every corner.

But the funny thing is, it's totally necessary for the rest of the argument you've made in this thread to make sense.

You have to deny, deny, deny what has been accepted by fans and the media as common knowledge, but you can't provide one smidgen of evidence to the contrary. Only, you make a hypothesis that relies on the assumption that Campbell is everything that's wrong with the Skins offense to make sense (which obviously is why it makes sense to you. you believe that unconditionally). Except, that's exactly what you're trying to prove.

"I believe 'X'. Therefore, X is proven by the fact that X is something I believe."

Circular logic? That's a basic logical fallacy is it not?

I realy hate to put it like this, but Campbell sssucks!!!!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

I realy hate to put it like this, but Campbell sssucks!!!!

I really don't mind putting it like this, but I know you're wrong.

(I'm going to regret wasting the 10 seconds it took to respond to this later tonight when my term paper is not finished.)

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sorry if i missed your responses in the other thread, getting to your bottom line statement -

Campbell was NOT playing at a pro-bowl level early on in the season. All that talk was ridiculous at the time, especially him being talked about as MVP of the league, let alone the team. All campbell did in the first few games was just not throw interceptions... something which was primarily a result Zorn not letting him throw much and really giving him an elementary form of the offense to run. Obviously, when Zorn opened things up some, Campbell was asked to do more... and we all know how the last 8 games went. We did so well in the first half of the season because Campbell wasnt doing much and we were relying on Clinton Portis. As the season wore on, our line declined and so did Clinton. Zorn tried to open things up, he put more on Campbells shoulders, and Campbell couldnt handle it.

John Clayton on Jason Campbell (early in the season):

The Redskins, improved because Jason Campbell is having a season similar to David Garrard of the Jaguars last year, have only three home games left, all in the NFC East. Campbell and first-year coach Jim Zorn were a little lost in the regular-season opener against the Giants, a 16-7 loss. If the Zorn-Campbell alliance gets hot against the Giants, the Redskins have a chance to capture the NFC East title.

Again, Clayton on Campbell early in the season....

Yes, Campbell is the answer. He showed leadership in 2007 in setting up a playoff run. He's matured into an efficient quarterback this season who is only getting better.

And of course there's what Jaworski was saying about him early in the season...

Jaws previews Cowboys-Giants, Colts-Patriots and Titans-Packers and says Jason Campbell is the MVP of the league

I think Jaws and Clayton are pretty respected sources.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

John Clayton on Jason Campbell (early in the season):


Again, Clayton on Campbell early in the season....


And of course there's what Jaworski was saying about him early in the season...


I think Jaws and Clayton are pretty respected sources.

and they were wrong. Mark Brunell looked like the best QB of all time against Dallas when we had that incredible comeback and during the game against the texans when he set the record for completions... but those were just individual games. You cant judge a QB by one game and you cant judge Campbell by 8. All the Campbell apologists focus on the first 8 games and ignore the last 8...

ask any of those "pretty respected sources" if they still feel "Campbell is the answer" now. I garauntee they would give you a different answer... one that would range anywhere from "undetermined" to "no." If Campbell really was the undisputed answer, then he'd have a new contract already. He doesnt. He was not the MVP of the league. He was not the MVP of the team. He did not go to the pro-bowl. He wasnt an alternate. Hes not on anyones list as one of the top QBs in the league. No respected sources are expecting him to become one this year. Fans HOPE he is... but no one who doest drink burgundy and gold koolaid is expecting it. Everyone else is doubting and watching with curiosity at most. The only real support Campbell gets is from the Washington Post... and I wouldnt be surprised if theyre doing that just to get under Cerratos skin. That should tell us something.