Will JC Get a Contract Extension From His Stats or Playoff Berth?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by roth74va

I dont think Zorn is psychic, he doesnt have a "crystal ball" on the sidelines. He is an idiot if this is the way he wants to coach, he will never be successful, and neither will Campbell. Why not open up the playbook, call your damn plays, and we will find out if JC sinks or swims. Right now JC looks capable, and the plays(especially in the redzone) look questionable. Take off the handcuffs and lets see if the guy can play quarterback, otherwise its just Zorns best guess of what he thinks JC can handle.

I prefer a game manager, not the gunslinger(Cutler, Romo) so Im hoping that he continues to progress. JC has all the talent in the world, Im not sure why Zorn doesnt feel he cant "handle" whatever he wants to throw at him. I really dont buy this reasoning, I feel like Zorn is just over his head and not a very good playcaller.

In the end, its about wins/losses....all the stats in the world wont matter.

If you throw it all on Zorn then you also need to add Gibbs to that list.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by roth74va

He thinks, he thinks, he thinks.....bottom line is he doesnt KNOW anything! Roll the dice, if the guy falls on his face, we know what the next step will be. The way this is unfolding, neither will be here next year and we are starting over AGAIN!

Lets see Zorn was a QB, a QB coach and now he doesn't know anything. Who the heck sits there and watches JC in practice day after day and maybe he knows more about JC and why we looked to trade him. I guess the other team and coaches that did not come running to get JC also no nothing. JC has tried like 6 or 7 deep passes in preaseason and the reg. season and has not completed the long one yet. On all but one of those plays was the guy not open but I guess this is just more of Zorns issue and not JC's. This same problem was here with Gibbs so at what point do we stop blamming the D, O line, WR's, coaches, and who ever else you want to add to that list and not JC?

[roth74va]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you throw it all on Zorn then you also need to add Gibbs to that list.

I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. Gibbs "guy" was Brunell, and Campbell should be far more seasoned by now. Zorn came in as the "QB guru", its how he became known as a coach, and was how he got the job. He has had two seasons to work with him, so the excuses are a little late IMO. I feel like the whole "he isnt able to call plays because JC cant handle them" excuse is crap.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by roth74va

I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. Gibbs "guy" was Brunell, and Campbell should be far more seasoned by now. Zorn came in as the "QB guru", its how he became known as a coach, and was how he got the job. He has had two seasons to work with him, so the excuses are a little late IMO. I feel like the whole "he isnt able to call plays because JC cant handle them" excuse is crap.

What!!!! Gibbs traded up in the draft to get JC.

[roth74va]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What!!!! Gibbs traded up in the draft to get JC.

But didnt play him until he was on the way out the door. Im not holding JC's feet to the fire when he was a rookie, or 1st year QB.

[SC Skins Fan]

I have been a consistent Campbell supporter, very much so, but I was watching the Shortcut of the Jacksonville game last night and I had this revelation. Jason Campbell is David Garrard, David Garrard is Jason Campbell. Both are statistically accurate passers, and neither has ever thrown a ton of TDs or INTs. Neither is a great timing and anticipation passer, but they can hit throw when players are open. Campbell probably has superior arm strength, but they can both make NFL throws. Neither has tremendous pocket awareness and their lack of timing and anticipation leads them to hold the ball too long at times. You can certainly win with either quarterback, especially if you have a strong running game, but neither will carry a team. They will put up workman like statistics, and even have flashes at times, but their upside is ultimately limited.

Jacksonville went ahead and gave Garrard a big new deal after 2007 and he has been an adequate player since that time. Given a strong run game and good defense he will win games, absent that he will not. I think that is exactly what we have with Campbell. I think both of them of an upside potential of 3,600-3,800 yards with 15-18 touchdowns. That is better than what a lot of NFL teams have at the position, but probably not enough to win championships without a dominant defense, which the Redskins do not have.

[roth74va]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Lets see Zorn was a QB, a QB coach and now he doesn't know anything.

He was a horrible QB, and although he was apparently good as a QB coach, he came here with ZERO playcalling experience. I like the guy, he is a great person, but his playcalling needs to be questioned.

[roth74va]

Originally Posted by roth74va

But didnt play him until he was on the way out the door. Im not holding JC's feet to the fire when he was a rookie, or 1st year QB.

Especially considering it was a revolving door as far as learning a new offense EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by roth74va

He was a horrible QB, and although he was apparently good as a QB coach, he came here with ZERO playcalling experience. I like the guy, he is a great person, but his playcalling needs to be questioned.

His play calling does need to be questioned but perhaps all is not lost. I think he's just wearing too many hats. He needs to hand off play calling to Sherman Smith so that he can focus clearly on the other stuff.

[roth74va]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

That is better than what a lot of NFL teams have at the position, but probably not enough to win championships without a dominant defense, which the Redskins do not have.

HUH? What team are you watching? Our defense was ranked 4th last year, and with the additions could be even better. We have a championship caliber defense IMO, I dont see how you can say we dont.

[DBUCHANON101]

Originally Posted by roth74va

Especially considering it was a revolving door as far as learning a new offense EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

This excuse is getting old. As a pro QB you should be able to handle learning different offenses. Jay Cutler in his 2nd game in a new offense did very well vs the Steelers Defense,and this is with a 2nd rate wr corp. Mark Sanchez in his first 2 games has done well. Matt Ryan did well last yr. Same for Flacco, Pennington and Favre. Some of these guys learned new offenses and had to adjust to new teams and the rooks did this while adjusting to the speed of the pro game. The excuse is played out, let it go. Many players change teams each year and do well despite changing schemes.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by roth74va

HUH? What team are you watching? Our defense was ranked 4th last year, and with the additions could be even better. We have a championship caliber defense IMO, I dont see how you can say we dont.

The point has been covered ad infinitum on this board, but I am not among those who believe the Redskins defense was dominant in 2008 or that it has been close to dominant in 2009. Being "ranked 4th" is a fairly useless statistic and clearly is not an indication of the Skins having the 4th best defense in 2008. I will defer to Football Outsiders pro football prospectus on 2008 because they cover it much better than I can, but by DVOA in 2008 they ranked 11th and that is a much more accurate measure of their place in the league. They also declined as the season progressed and were absolutely horrible in the losses to Cincinnati and San Francisco. They were very good at getting off the field on third down, which is part of made them "4th" in yards allowed (along with the fact that they faced a lower number of drives, largely because of the offensive style), but they were not a dominant team in the way that Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia were in 2008. Slightly better than average does not equal dominant, but certainly is enough to win games when they play their best (and lose them when they did not).

So far in 2009 Haynesworth has made a huge difference in the running game, but the defense remains vulnerable on the back end. They also have not been able to get off the field on third down, which was such a large reason of why they were good last year. You ask what game I was watching, I was watching the one where the Rams, who are clearly among the bottom three teams in the league, with bad line play and one legitimate offensive threat, converted 50% of their third downs. That is not a dominant defensive effort in my world. If you want dominant watch the Jets-Pats game from last week and then tell me that the Redskins have a dominant defense. But strictly using net yards allowed the Redskins rank higher than the Jets. Another example of how net yards allowed is a completely BS statistic.

So when I say that Campbell and Garrard are the types of players who will not win championships without a dominant defense I mean '08 Steelers dominant, not pretty good sort of. Too many Skins fans (and players I might add) have this delusion that the defense is really great, when that is not supported by any empirical evidence. They have a couple of dominant players, Haynesworth most notably, but they are very vulnerable in the passing game (especially D. Hall).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

The point has been covered ad infinitum on this board, but I am not among those who believe the Redskins defense was dominant in 2008 or that it has been close to dominant in 2009. Being "ranked 4th" is a fairly useless statistic and clearly is not an indication of the Skins having the 4th best defense in 2008. I will defer to Football Outsiders pro football prospectus on 2008 because they cover it much better than I can, but by DVOA in 2008 they ranked 11th and that is a much more accurate measure of their place in the league. They also declined as the season progressed and were absolutely horrible in the losses to Cincinnati and San Francisco. They were very good at getting off the field on third down, which is part of made them "4th" in yards allowed (along with the fact that they faced a lower number of drives, largely because of the offensive style), but they were not a dominant team in the way that Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia were in 2008. Slightly better than average does not equal dominant, but certainly is enough to win games when they play their best (and lose them when they did not).

So far in 2009 Haynesworth has made a huge difference in the running game, but the defense remains vulnerable on the back end. They also have not been able to get off the field on third down, which was such a large reason of why they were good last year. You ask what game I was watching, I was watching the one where the Rams, who are clearly among the bottom three teams in the league, with bad line play and one legitimate offensive threat, converted 50% of their third downs. That is not a dominant defensive effort in my world. If you want dominant watch the Jets-Pats game from last week and then tell me that the Redskins have a dominant defense. But strictly using net yards allowed the Redskins rank higher than the Jets. Another example of how net yards allowed is a completely BS statistic.

So when I say that Campbell and Garrard are the types of players who will not win championships without a dominant defense I mean '08 Steelers dominant, not pretty good sort of. Too many Skins fans (and players I might add) have this delusion that the defense is really great, when that is not supported by any empirical evidence. They have a couple of dominant players, Haynesworth most notably, but they are very vulnerable in the passing game (especially D. Hall).

Well by using the Rams game our D only allowed them 7 points and in the NFL thats great D against even the worst teams.