Campbell's numbers dont lie

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

The logic is quickly slipping from your posts. When not playing well, Palmer still had 4,000 yard/25 td seasons. Those who buried him after last year are the same mindless pundits who predict that the same teams will reach the playoffs as made it the year before (i.e. those with a very shallow historical memory). I realize that you are not necessarily comparing Campbell to Palmer, but just watch the tape. Watch Palmer's footwork, release, and willingness to make stick throws (he made one to Ochocinco on Sunday that was particularly impressive ... he is a "wow" thrower). You are just grasping now, you're better than that. Campbell played well at times on Sunday, but continues to frustrate by leaving so many plays on the field (Moss and Yoder plays the most obvious on Sunday, but emblematic of Campbell's struggles). We now know who he is as a player. I would not be against bringing him back if he is restricted, but I think that is probably unlikely.

Thank you, JC is not on the same planet as Carson P.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So I guess it comes to this, if you plugged ANY of those QB on our current roster, system and organizational structure in a one for one trade, would they automatically make us a SB contender and would JC automatically make them an also ran?

No not at all. We've got some major issues. One QB is not going to make us a SB contender. We've got RB, OL, WR issues...major issues.

But i'd guarantee one of those QB's would make us a better team immediately.

We've endured average QB's under Gibbs 2 right? If we would have had a Carson Palmer for our two playoff runs under Gibbs how far could we have gone? We lived w/ an average QB and a great defense and didn't make it to the Championship game. IMO, we could have gone that 2005 season, w/ a better QB. Gibbs had options, he just took the wrong option in MB.

[irish]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

I would give JC more leeway if he were a 3rd round pick or so and he was a project QB but thats not the case, he is a 1st round pick who we gave up a 2nd round pick to jump up and select so for me i expect this guy to be the leader of the team and to take over games. Not a middle of the pack 50/50 guy who makes plays here and there. I know in the draft there are hits and misses at every position but if you take a guy in the 1st and you dont get a 1st round production from him its time to try again. I cant name another 1st round QB who has been on a team as long as JC and has yet to make the playoffs or a probowl.

I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.

[redskinfan401]

Originally Posted by DCtoAZ

so who thinks he'll be back ... this is a big week if you can have won at 3-6 .. sure would be nice to snag a win in bid D with JC leading the show .

Hail Betts !!

If the CBA gets signed, I don't think he'll be back. They'll either draft a new QB or sign a veteran like Garcia. However, if it's an uncapped year, JC will be an RFA and only able to negotiate with the Skins. Then I wouldn't be too surprised to see a 1-2 year deal so the team could focus on Oline in the draft.

[DBUCHANON101]

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

[DBUCHANON101]

[QUOTE=irish;626586]I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

You do know that Jason Campbell won't be the starter next year right? True the stats don't tell the whole story, but unfortunately for you we have a mediocre QB with decent stats. I don't understand why you (and others) insist in having this argument.

Criticizing Jason Campbell right now is truly beating a dead horse...we know he's not starting caliber and he won't be here next year. He still has good stats, which I guess is better than having a terrible QB with horrible stats (JaMarcus, Derek Anderson, etc., etc.). So just let it go, you won. Ok?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

5 yrs isnt long enough?

Well we can keep him as a back up QB, there's nothing wrong with that.

[irish]

[quote=DBUCHANON101;626593]

Originally Posted by irish

I think you have it backwards. I would give JC less leeway if he was a 3rd round pick because he wouldnt have cost the team so much to draft and moving on would be less costly.

I think because JC was a 1st rounder who the team gave up picks to get has to make you give him more leeway because he cost the organization so much to get. As a result of how much he cost to get you have to make extra sure he cant do it before you cut him loose.[/QUOTE]

5 yrs isnt long enough?

It sure is. JC doesnt have it and its time to move on.

[Monkeydad]

[quote=irish;626600]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

It sure is. JC doesnt have it and its time to move on.

I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.

Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by DBUCHANON101

Stats are deceiving and they can be twisted to tell whatever story you want.
For instance lets take 2 QB's numbers and see how it goes.
QB "A" has 506 att 315 comp with a 62.3% and has 3,245yds / 6 ints
QB "B" has 474 att 288 comp with a 60.8% and has 3,692yds / 14 ints
Now by looking at this you will see that QB "B" had less att but he had more ints and about 25 more yds a game.It looks like QB "A" turned the ball over less therefore putting his team in a better position to win and had a higher comp% so he would seem to be more accurate if you go by the comp%. The only difference is that QB "B" had 28 TD's and QB "A" had 13 TD's and QB "B" went 14-2 and won the SB while QB "A" went 8-8 and missed the playoffs.
These are the numbers of 2004 brady and the 2008 JC. So again stats dont tell the whole story. There are many variables that are either added or taken away that will prove or disprove whatever the provider is trying to accomplish. So lets just stick with the W's and the L's which in the end are all that really matter.

You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats, that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.

[DBUCHANON101]

[quote=Buster;626618]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.
Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.

Yeah Peyton had alot of picks in his first yr but he also never threw less than 26 TD's in a season. There is promise there, especially when he went from 28 ints to 15 the next yr with the same number of td's.Plus they went 3-13 in the first season and 13-3 the next so why would you doubt your QB in that situation???

[irish]

[quote=Buster;626618]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm sure some Colts fans were saying this after their QB's 28 INTs in 1998 and 100 INTs in the first 5 years of his career.

Most sucessful QBs have developed over a 5+ year period. We've been throwing away QBs far too frequently since Mark Rypien left town. It's clear that the offensive line is a giant gaping hole in our team and I still think Campbell can excel with some help. He should be given the opportunity at least and if he can't play well with a line (he's already shown he can, see last season's first half), then we should move on to the next project. We'll never find a franchise QB by keeping every one of them on such a short leash and not giving them the tools and protection to succeed. With the current line (play played well vs. Denver though), we're lucky that our QB has good mobility, or we could be suffering through far worse than a 3-6 record.

I suspect they werent saying much since Manning had 138 TDs and over 20000 yards passing in his first 5 years.

Heck, Manning had almost ad many TD passes in his 3rd year alone (33) than JC has in his entire career (45).

[DBUCHANON101]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You do realize, that if you had left the TD line in the initial stats, that qb B would have been seen as the better choice for the qb right. Comparable TD/INT rate(about 50%), but more production, higher yards/attempt. Stats don't tell the whole story but deceptive use, or less than full disclosure, often is why they don't.

That was the point for the ppl who put up Brady's stats and say that JC is in the same ballpark due to their similiar Comp% and yards.They leave out the TD's and W's so the stats that they provided would make the 2 seem even when like we both said can make whatever point the provider wants to make.

[SmootSmack]

Y'all need to learn how to use the quote feature, because this is confusing as heck to follow.

Anyhow, the best thing for the Redskins is for Campbell to take control of the QB position and lead this team because then it's one less position for us to worry about. And we can focus on OL and RB.

But after 5 years, I expect more from Campbell at this point. He's a first round draft pick that we gave up a lot for. Is it his fault we did that? No, but we did and because of that he has to live up to certain expectations. Fair or not.

At some point, you have to stop looking at gradual progressions in various stat lines and just ask yourself "Do you trust Jason Campbell to carry the team on his back and lead them to victories?" I'm not there yet, and I think by now I should be.