Can Jason Campbell bounce back?

[silverbear]

Ah yes, the mythical STATS pass. I couldn't care less about not having a pass. You are the ONLY person, anywhere, that has claimed this. Show me one other person, anywhere, that isn't a Cowboys fan, and I may give you some ounce of credit. Otherwise I am calling BS, again.

Then prove he's wrong...

 

[firehawk350]

Except that you lack depth... this is a direct result of the reckless way Danny Boy went out and paid top dollars for free agents, in the process trading away draft picks wholesale... your starters are just fine, and if you guys stay lucky on the injury front, you have enough ability to go 10-6 next year... but if you sustain even a "normal" number of injuries, your ability compete will quickly deteriorate...

I'd say our depth is pretty damn good actually. We lost more starters for the season than any other playoff team (other than the Colts maybe, I'd have to research it) yet still made it. So you're lack of depth argument doesn't hold water.

So your argument is that if we are able to stay lucky on the injury front, we'll win one more game? I really don't know what to say to you. You do realize that 6 starters is more than a quarter of the football team right?

And as a result, he's completely irrelevant to this discussion... I mean, he won't be on the 2008 team, will he??

So why bring him up??

Oh, gimme a break... I'm gettin' past sick of you dragging up Sean Taylor as some kind of excuse; when he died, the Skins RALLIED, they PLAYED BETTER... indeed, it's quite likely that if that tragedy hadn't happened, the Skins wouldn't have made the playoffs... so in a perverse way, his death worked to your benefit...

Actually, we fumbled the ball (not literally, figuratively) quite a bit in that we lost, in horrible fashion, to the Bills. Either way, it shows we have tenacity. I like a team that fights the most when the chips are down. When the going gets tough...

Now you're making alibis for your lack of depth... but all of your alibis combined don't explain the difference between 13-3 and 9-7...

I think the lack of depth thing is way overexaggerated... We had our RT, then our backup RT get injured and still did okay. We had our #2 corner go out and didn't have to put in somebody as embarrassing as Reeves. When Taylor went out, we put Landry at FS and Reed at SS and he performed well after the first game or two. If you can't see how injuries play a huge role in somebody's record, then I don't know what to say to you.

LOL... you only "give us that" because you know what a fool you'd look like if you tried to deny it... 15 players who have been in the Pro Bowl in the last two years...

Pro-bowl is a joke. A huge joke. Roy Williams??? Al Gurode??? I know personally I love a bad shotgun snap every game.

Given that we have 15 Pro Bowlers on the roster, one the league's youngest rosters, we're coming off a 13-3 record, and have two first round picks to work with, if you don't define them as "up and coming", then your definition of "up and coming" is obviously whacked...

You have a lot of your talent at the wrong side of 30 though. Average out the age of the starting rosters and get back to me. TO, Glenn, Henry, Ellis and Flozell all are at hard to replace positions (exception of Ellis) and are up around the 33/34 mark. The Skins have Springs, Fletcher, Sellers and Pete Kendall in a similar position and Springs is the only guy that's hard to replace.

No, he didn't... he did not have an "average QB rating", for openers... he ranked 20th in quarterback rating among QBs with enough attempts to qualify (IIRC, that would be 225 attempts on the season)... an average quarterback rating would be 16th in a 32 team league, 20th is obviously a bit below average...

Actually, the NFL says there are 33 qualifying passers. He's three places from 17th which would be average. FYI, the "average passer" was Derek Anderson (17th), whereas the other side of average was Sage Rosenfels (16th). Another FYI, Jason Campbell beat out Marc Bulger, Eli Manning and Trent Edwards. Marc Bulger is a good QB, I don't care what you have to say. Eli just won the super bowl and all the critics are praising him right now. And Trent Edwards is on a whole lot of lists as an up and comer. Yet, they did worse, statistically than JC. Would you call any of THEM below average?

That's your first distortion of fact, which has led you to an unrealistic opinion of Jason Campbell...

His yards per attempt average of 6.4 was even worse, ranking him 23rd in the league... his completion percentage of 60.0 ranked him 24th in the league... he was the only QB in the league with over 400 attempts to throw fewer than 18 TD passes, and he only had 12...

*yawn* First off, I never put out any opinion of JC in this thread. That's your fifth distortion of fact. Again, statistically, he wasn't impressive, but he had a lot to deal with. A lot of guys aren't impressive without a full year starting. He had his bad games (Bills) and had his good games (Eagles). All I'm saying is it's hard, given the circumstances to get a good read on what he's going to develop into. You clearly are already counting him out.

These are also facts that you obviously haven't taken into consideration, and they paint a picture of Jason as a BELOW average QB in the NFL last year...

Then there's the matter of him being 0-10 in games in which he's thrown the ball 30 times or more... every time the Skins have put the game on his arm, they've lost... every single time... now, in games where you're behind you're gonna throw a lot more often, and you're gonna lose some, even most, of those games... but ALL of them?? TEN of them in a row??

We put Detriot on his arm and he won that games FWIW. Of course with your solely statistical analysis, you won't be willing to concede that. He was also without his two starting receivers for half the game (didn't have Moss at all actually). How about the first Eagles game, he didn't win it with his arm, but he sure did contribute a whole lot.

Last but not least, Jason Campbell is now 8-12 after 20 games as a starter... and his replacement the last 3 games last season took the same, beat up team and went 3-0 with them to make the playoffs...

You go on and on about the injuries Campbell had to struggle with on his offense, but Collins came in and took over that same beat up team, and the offense instantly became more productive... in the first 13 games, the Skins averaged 19.5 points and 308.0 yards per game... in the last 3 games after Campbell went to the bench, against 3 teams that combined to go 31-17 last year, none of them finishing under .500, the Skins averaged 27.0 points per game, and 343.3 yards per game...

So against stiffer competition, Todd Collins (who is a journeyman at best) clearly outplayed Jason, working with the same cast...

If Todd Collins is SO much better than why did Zorn give JC the starting job uncontested. Why does JC start and Todd Collins not be able to even get a job offer from any team for a starting position? Besides, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First, it was the Sean Taylor tragedy that rallied the Skins, now it's Todd Collins. So which is it?

3 TDs and 5 ints, actually... and Romo didn't play all of that final game, did he?? Seems you're not above stretching the truth... and that was mostly because of one game, where he threw 3 ints with no TDs... in the other 2 and a half games, he completed 70 of 102 passes 68.6 per cent) for 645 yards, 3 TDs and 2 ints... that works out to a quarterback rating of 87.3... that's just 9 points lower than his career QBR...

Which is 10 points higher than Campbell's rating was last season, LOL... if Tony had put up that rating for an entire season, he still would have ranked 12th in the league...

I can't believe you're even trying to compare Jason to Tony anyway... that's just comical...

I was just pointing the fallacy of using purely statistical analysis. Anyways, you've got something way off. From the Philly game on is what I was referring to. In the last three games of the season, he threw 1 TD and 5 INTs. You include the Giants game, that number changes to 2 TDs and 6 INTs. Besides, do you think he would have done that much better against the Skins in the second half. It sure as hell didn't look like it. But, OMGZ, Brad Johnson came in and played betterz than Romo, he MUST be better and Romo isn't better than an old, washed-up noodle arm! He SUCKZ!

In the interest of brevity, you show statistical analysis of Romo's superior QBing

At this point in their careers, I agree. Yet, you again seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouths. You play a more aggressive scheme so it stands to reason Romo would have more TDs, yards, YPA and INTs. Campbell plays in a super conservative scheme so he doesn't GET to take the same chances Romo does. Every time we let Jason play more aggressively, he's done better.

Never said he would never be good... he might, he might not... but to this point, he hasn't shown us anything to make us believe he WILL be good... for sure, he's not good at this point... so your deep-seated belief that he will become good is based on wishful thinking, rather than any substantial, logical reasoning...

I didn't said he'll be good. I said given what we know right now, it doesn't stand to make a judgment either way. I want to compare his stats to Hasselbeck's first year in Seattle next year and go from there. He has shown signs that he will be good, just about every opponent interview and announcer said it, he just needs to put it all together. Some QBs never can (Carter, who you are so fond of comparing him to) and some QBs do (Manning). Until then, we don't know and shouldn't say either way.

Or if he hadn't completed under 50 per cent of his passes in that game, for a comically feeble 5.6 yards per attempt, perhaps the Skins would have won that game... or maybe if he hadn't lost that critical fumble in the 4th quarter of that game, leading to a short TD drive for the Giants, the Skins might have won... once again, with the game on the line, Campbell came up small...

But you want to blame Betts...

It's funny, he goes 16 of 34 for 190 yards, commits a critical turnover late, the Skins score just 14 points, and you don't seem to blame him for any of that...

I didn't say he played well. I'm just saying that all Betts had to do was extend or cut inside and all of a sudden a stupid and wierd stat goes away. Again, just pointing out the fallacy of your purely statistical analysis.

You don't think he's to blame there?? You HAVE to be kidding me...

In the Skins' last 3 drives, Campbell went 4 of 9, for 18 whole yards... he had a 15 yard completion, a 4 yarder, a 2 yarder and one for -3 yards... and he had yet another critical fumble in that 4th quarter, just before the 2 minute warning, leading to the Iggles' clinching TD on the very next play... before that fumble, the Iggles were clinging to a 1 point lead...

Campbell was the goat of that game, but you don't blame him for any of that??

More to the point, how many times last year did Jason commit the critical turnover in the 4th quarter?? It sure seemed to me that most of his 8 fumbles lost last season came in crunch time...

He needs to protect the ball better, that's for sure. But maybe, gasp, he'd not have to worry so much if he wasn't missing the right side of his line. Didn't seem to be a big issue last year when the line was healthier.

Again though, just pointing out the fallacies of your statistical arguments.

In the right situation, I could see Campbell developing into an effective QB, but the Skins of 2008 are not the right situation... Zorn is likely to go to a west coast-style of offense, that's his background, and Campbell's skills are not suited to a precision short passing game... he's just not accurate enough... IMO, an ideal situation for him would be an offensive approach like the Raiders employ, he's best suited for going downfield... but he would need a much better offensive line than the Raiders could put in front of him right now... give him that good OL and a vertical passing game, though, and I could see him succeeding... he'd make a lot of mistakes at first, but if you could live through those growing pains, in time his recognition on the field would cut down on those mistakes...

Right dude. Which is why he did so well with a west coast in his last season in college. But you're right, he is going to go through *more* growing pains as he switches to yet another system (ugh) and in time, he'll gain some recognition and become a better QB.

Further complicating things in 08 will be the implementation of a new system... even before Campbell was drafted by the Skins, I was reading draft reports about how he struggled to learn a new offense... now the Skins are putting in a new offensive system, and we can reasonably expect him to require some time to master it... what's sweet for us Cowboys fans is the likelihood that Zorn is not a long-term answer to the Skins' problems, so they're likely to be implementing another new system in the not too distant future, further setting back Campbell's development...

Now, on the plus side, Zorn might help Jason develop, if they can establish a productive relationship... the guy was a pretty fair QB himself, once upon a time...

Zorn took Hasselbeck (6th or 5th rounder I believe) and turned him into a perennial probowler, so we'll see. But given that he's had to learn a new offense in each of his years in college, I don't think that's a legit criticism. Struggling with a new offense is taking 3 or 4 years to learn one. Taking more than just a summer, not so much.

Zorn is an unknown quantity at coaching, so it's really unfair to say that he will likely fail. You could make the argument that most new coaches fail, but then, you couldn't ever hire a new coach in that case.

Basically, my big knocks on Jason's prospects long-term are his lack of accuracy on the short stuff, his problems with learning a new system, and most of all, it just looks to me like he doesn't see the field real well... when he's able to find an open receiver downfield, he can hit that receiver, but if something doesn't come open rather quickly, he's in trouble... he has limited ability to improvise, and has been known to try to force things that aren't there (though that's a problem that many young QBs struggle with, and the good ones overcome it in time)...

I found that his throws short aren't necessarily inaccurate, he just tosses it WAY too hard and given the TOF of the ball, it's hard to catch. I think he has accuracy problems at the intermediate level.

I don't know that he has such a problem learning new systems, he just hasn't been given any time (that is more than just one season) to actually grow comfortable in it. Most QBs take more than one season to pick up and be able to execute a new system.

All of these opinions are based on what I've seen watching the guy play, not on my hopes as a Cowboys fan...

None of us are completely unbiased. Even if we try as hard as we can to be objective, we will always end up seeing what we hope and blocking out what we don't want. It's inevitable.

 

[firehawk350]

Clinton Portis is one of the most underrated players in the NFL. Dude does nothing but produce despite some of the worst conditions to play under, he's a great locker room guy and is just damn entertaining to watch and there are even Skins fans who think Betts is just as good.

I don't know if you watched, but Landry instantly got a lot better when we moved him to FS. He's nasty though, given his attitude, I'd hate to see him on the Cowboys. He would bring that fire and intensity that so many Cowboys fans pine for.

Cooley is my fav current Skin. He's just hilarious (met him at a wine tasting in the VA countryside) and all those things he does are just elaborate jokes. He tried to deposit his $12M bonus in a drive-thru bank. He's just an awesome dude and a great football player.

Betts I'm not so sold on, he's decent but he's injured a lot, has fumblitis and lacks ideal burst through the hole. I like him as a back-up though. Rock Cartwright is a good special teams player, solid kick returner (though he's not a threat to score very often) and supposedly one of those guys who gets everybody else fired up. Shawn Springs is clearly the leader of our defensive backfield.

I think we (as Skins fans) underestimated Jon Jansen. Randy Thomas all of us knew was the best/second best lineman on our team (toss up between him and Samuels). We missed him a whole lot. Chris Samuels, of course, is an elite left tackle.

As for me, in interest of full disclosure, I like Newman a lot. I think he can improve a lot and is not a game-changer in the sense of the word, but he is about as solid in coverage as you can get. Ware is a beast, though I'd like it if he had a bit more attitude in his game. I actually like TO, though I'm not above making fun of him for crying about people making fun of Romo, it was too similar to Chris Crocker. Witten I think is a solid guy and I like the way Barber runs. Romo, though I don't like him on a personal level, is a good QB. I think he'd do REAL well playing under Zorn's system here in DC.

Before anybody asks, I do watch every single cowboys game (my bro is a huge fan and we always watch the Skins games and Cowboys games so we can rag on each other).

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You have a lot of your talent at the wrong side of 30 though. Average out the age of the starting rosters and get back to me. TO, Glenn, Henry, Ellis and Flozell all are at hard to replace positions (exception of Ellis) and are up around the 33/34 mark. The Skins have Springs, Fletcher, Sellers and Pete Kendall in a similar position and Springs is the only guy that's hard to replace.

Your entire O-Line is at least 31 years old come next season. You also have age at Daniels, Griffin, and Marcus Washington as well. Terry Glenn played all of one game last year. So saying that if he gets hurt at would have a big impact that would cause Dallas to lose games is a bit erroneous.

Actually, the NFL says there are 33 qualifying passers. He's three places from 17th which would be average. FYI, the "average passer" was Derek Anderson (17th), whereas the other side of average was Sage Rosenfels (16th). Another FYI, Jason Campbell beat out Marc Bulger, Eli Manning and Trent Edwards. Marc Bulger is a good QB, I don't care what you have to say. Eli just won the super bowl and all the critics are praising him right now. And Trent Edwards is on a whole lot of lists as an up and comer. Yet, they did worse, statistically than JC. Would you call any of THEM below average?

Dear lord.

Trent Edwards? He was a rookie 3rd round pick playing for the Bills. If Campbell couldn't beat him out statistically, then we'd have our answer.

Eli won a Super Bowl, somehow got his stuff together in the postseason combined with the Pats uncharacteristically not capitalizing on the mistakes he made. I'm glad the G-Men won because I cannot stand New England, and I do understand a lot of people are hyping him up now, but I do not see him as even an average QB and I think he's likely to keep with his below average production.

And yes, Bulger is a good QB. But he's proven that over the years. Campbell has not. A bad season *can* happen, particularly when you get injured early on in the year...which was caused by the O-Line decimated with injuries.

In a sense, you can only go by what has happened. Campbell has been a below average QB, the stats back that up, and if Campbell had 4 out of the 5 previous seasons of a 90+ QB rating, then he should be considered a good QB or a QB that is going to "bounce back." Instead, he's been a mediocre QB for 2 years

At this point in their careers, I agree. Yet, you again seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouths. You play a more aggressive scheme so it stands to reason Romo would have more TDs, yards, YPA and INTs. Campbell plays in a super conservative scheme so he doesn't GET to take the same chances Romo does. Every time we let Jason play more aggressively, he's done better.

Campbell playing in a more conservative scheme should mean that he has a higher completion percentage, yet he's far lower than Romo's.






YAKUZA

 

[firehawk350]

Your entire O-Line is at least 31 years old come next season. You also have age at Daniels, Griffin, and Marcus Washington as well. Terry Glenn played all of one game last year. So saying that if he gets hurt at would have a big impact that would cause Dallas to lose games is a bit erroneous.

Daniels is being moved to back-up DT, so he's not really a starter anymore, right? Griffin is getting phased out by Golston and Montgomery and Washington just turned 30 I believe (I'll have to check). Either way, TO is 34 and if you lose him, you guys went from a good offense to mediocre as teams double Witten and dare Crayton to beat a number one corner (assuming you don't need Glenn and he'll be out like he was last season).

Dear lord.

Trent Edwards? He was a rookie 3rd round pick playing for the Bills. If Campbell couldn't beat him out statistically, then we'd have our answer.

You're right, but sometimes seeing a guy play you can tell if he's going to be good. Yes, he's struggling right now and make bad decisions but you know if he's just young and if he can end up putting it all together, he'll be good. Just like Campbell. If he can put it together, than he can be great. If he can't, then he goes down as yet another guy who just couldn't hack it.

Eli won a Super Bowl, somehow got his stuff together in the postseason combined with the Pats uncharacteristically not capitalizing on the mistakes he made. I'm glad the G-Men won because I cannot stand New England, and I do understand a lot of people are hyping him up now, but I do not see him as even an average QB and I think he's likely to keep with his below average production.

Well, it's no use trying to figure out if Eli's for real or not. He either suddenly got it all together or just got really lucky. There's evidence both ways so I'm not going to have this debate with you.

And yes, Bulger is a good QB. But he's proven that over the years. Campbell has not. A bad season *can* happen, particularly when you get injured early on in the year...which was caused by the O-Line decimated with injuries.

In a sense, you can only go by what has happened. Campbell has been a below average QB, the stats back that up, and if Campbell had 4 out of the 5 previous seasons of a 90+ QB rating, then he should be considered a good QB or a QB that is going to "bounce back." Instead, he's been a mediocre QB for 2 years.

You're right, but it bears in mind to keep it in perspective. You are playing a game of semantics. Yes, technically it is below average. Barely. That's like saying, well the average QB rushes for 1 TD a season, given that Peyton didn't do that (I don't know if he did or not, just making a point), let's not worry about the QB sneak on the half yard line. He's not good (in the top 10 per se) and he's not bad (in the bottom 10). He's about average. Yes, if you want to split hairs, he's slightly below but your being intentionally misleading if you say that.

Campbell playing in a more conservative scheme should mean that he has a higher completion percentage, yet he's far lower than Romo's.


YAKUZA

Just curious, but why do you put your name in the bottom? What purpose does that serve? Eh, whatever, carry on...

Far lower completion percentage? Romo's completion percentage is 64. Campbell's sits around 58. We're talking about 1 in 18 passes. That can be accounted for by Moss' uncharacteristically bad hands this year. Cooley also had a case of the dropsies a little earlier in the year. Hardly far lower.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You're right, but sometimes seeing a guy play you can tell if he's going to be good. Yes, he's struggling right now and make bad decisions but you know if he's just young and if he can end up putting it all together, he'll be good. Just like Campbell. If he can put it together, than he can be great. If he can't, then he goes down as yet another guy who just couldn't hack it..

That's pretty much my point. He hasn't shown me anything yet, has had marginal improvement, and has been at best pedestrian. I'm guestimating that he probably isn't going to be that good and have explained why.

You're right, but it bears in mind to keep it in perspective. You are playing a game of semantics. Yes, technically it is below average. Barely. That's like saying, well the average QB rushes for 1 TD a season, given that Peyton didn't do that (I don't know if he did or not, just making a point), let's not worry about the QB sneak on the half yard line. He's not good (in the top 10 per se) and he's not bad (in the bottom 10). He's about average. Yes, if you want to split hairs, he's slightly below but your being intentionally misleading if you say that.

Your analogy is off. It's like trying to compare baseball players by looking at grand slams hit per year over looking at home runs. The sample sizes for QB's with rushing TD's is very small and it's not what NFL QB's are really judged upon. The average QB rating last year was 81, Campbell's was a 78 which is below average.

Just curious, but why do you put your name in the bottom? What purpose does that serve? Eh, whatever, carry on...

Just a habit.

Far lower completion percentage? Romo's completion percentage is 64. Campbell's sits around 58. We're talking about 1 in 18 passes. That can be accounted for by Moss' uncharacteristically bad hands this year. Cooley also had a case of the dropsies a little earlier in the year. Hardly far lower

Romo also had a much higher completion percentage in 2006 where Owens had all of those drops. And it wasn't like Owens didn't have some problems with the dropped passes this year either.

Not to mention that Romo throws far less screens and swing passes that Saunders loved to use and for most of the year was throwing the ball deeper than any QB in the league.






YAKUZA

 

[Vintage]

You have a lot of your talent at the wrong side of 30 though. Average out the age of the starting rosters and get back to me. TO, Glenn, Henry, Ellis and Flozell all are at hard to replace positions (exception of Ellis) and are up around the 33/34 mark. The Skins have Springs, Fletcher, Sellers and Pete Kendall in a similar position and Springs is the only guy that's hard to replace.

True. Although, we've seen what we can do without Glenn. We did that this past season. He's a nice weapon to add, but we've clearly proven we can survive without him.

Henry - we missed him in the middle of the season. Sure, Reeves sucked. Yet, we kept winning. Odd.

Ellis? He missed the start of the year. We won every game he missed. Seems like Spencer must have done ok in his position during that stretch.

Flozell? Yeah, we don't know. We hope we've hit on one of our young OL.

Of your list, Owens and Flozell hold true. Otherwise, we've shown we can without those guys (though, they do make the team better).

 

[AmishCowboy]

:fact:

Your entire O-Line is at least 31 years old come next season. You also have age at Daniels, Griffin, and Marcus Washington as well. Terry Glenn played all of one game last year. So saying that if he gets hurt at would have a big impact that would cause Dallas to lose games is a bit erroneous.





Dear lord.

Trent Edwards? He was a rookie 3rd round pick playing for the Bills. If Campbell couldn't beat him out statistically, then we'd have our answer.

Eli won a Super Bowl, somehow got his stuff together in the postseason combined with the Pats uncharacteristically not capitalizing on the mistakes he made. I'm glad the G-Men won because I cannot stand New England, and I do understand a lot of people are hyping him up now, but I do not see him as even an average QB and I think he's likely to keep with his below average production.

And yes, Bulger is a good QB. But he's proven that over the years. Campbell has not. A bad season *can* happen, particularly when you get injured early on in the year...which was caused by the O-Line decimated with injuries.

In a sense, you can only go by what has happened. Campbell has been a below average QB, the stats back that up, and if Campbell had 4 out of the 5 previous seasons of a 90+ QB rating, then he should be considered a good QB or a QB that is going to "bounce back." Instead, he's been a mediocre QB for 2 years





Campbell playing in a more conservative scheme should mean that he has a higher completion percentage, yet he's far lower than Romo's.






YAKUZA

 

[Wolfpack]

I'd

Wow! That was the longest post ever in interwebs history....congrats.

I didn't read any of it but just wanted to tell you that I think that sort of devotion is great. The Commanders have the most loyal fans in the league bar none.

Creating a 500 word post on a Dallas Cowboys message board is not, however, going to bring the quarterback fairey to DC and use the magic QB dust on Jason. Jason is an athletic guy who isnt the sharpest tool in the shed, fairey dust or no...he is your Rex Grossman.

 

[Aikbach]

Can Campbell bounce back? Off the turf he can, after multiple sacks

 

[silverbear]

I'd say our depth is pretty damn good actually. We lost more starters for the season than any other playoff team (other than the Colts maybe, I'd have to research it) yet still made it. So you're lack of depth argument doesn't hold water.

OK, the first thing I'm gonna say is I really liked your next post in this thread, so I'm gonna discuss this issue with you in a bit less confrontational manner than is my norm...

Now, regarding your observations regarding making the playoffs with your injuries, that's the result of something entirely separate from the quality of your depth... the plain truth is, at the time Sean Taylor was murdered, the Skins were circling the drain, headed straight for about a 6-10 record... but when he died, in spite of all the adversity, that team pulled together the way you rarely get a pro team to bond... everybody stepped their game up, some of them played better than they are, and the whole "team" thing made the whole greater than the sum of its parts...

And you actually got lucky that Campbell got hurt, if that hadn't happened you would not have made the playoffs, you probably would have been sub-.500... so that particular injury actually worked to your benefit...

This is all quite strange, but it's exactly what happened... and to be fair, it's to the Skins' credit that they were able to rally around each other that way... you have every right to be proud of that...

So your argument is that if we are able to stay lucky on the injury front, we'll win one more game?

Yup... you won't have the whole "let's win this one for Sean" thing working for you any more, that mojo evaporated up in Seattle... as I said, but for that your record would have been a couple-three games worse than it wound up being... but with your talent level, and the limited potential to improve that the draft will offer, your team will need to stay pretty healthy to win 10 games... bluntly, you guys overachieved last year, particularly at the end of the year...

Actually, we fumbled the ball (not literally, figuratively) quite a bit in that we lost, in horrible fashion, to the Bills. Either way, it shows we have tenacity. I like a team that fights the most when the chips are down. When the going gets tough...

When the going gets tough, I'll take the team that has more talent... and as I said, it might have been a little harder for your tough to get going, absent the huge emotional wave they rode in the wake of the Sean Taylor murder...

I think the lack of depth thing is way overexaggerated...

Yeah, you more or less have to, don't you??

We had our RT, then our backup RT get injured and still did okay.

1) You "did okay"?? Hmmmm, seems to me that the Skins ranked 15th in yards per game, tied for 18th in points per game, were 20th in yards per play, and 14th in 3rd down conversion percentage...

Hey, it that's good enough for you, then who am I to point out your offense wasn't really all that good last year??

2) IIRC, one of the biggest reasons y'all got beat in the playoffs by the Seahawks is your right tackle got used and abused, badly... DE Patrick Kerney and OLB Leroy Hill combined for 1 sack and 5 hurries... Chris Samuels had a rough day with Julian Peterson too...

So perhaps citing the play of your RT to prove your point isn't your best avenue of rebuttal...

We had our #2 corner go out and didn't have to put in somebody as embarrassing as Reeves.

And yet, the Cowboys gave up 3409 yards passing last year, the Skins gave up 3424... and our two top cornerbacks only started 21 of a possible 32 games... this is the exact same number of games your top two cornerbacks started...

And yeah, we consider our corner depth (or rather, our lack of corner depth) to be one of our bigger problem areas... but you focus on one area where we freely admit we need to improve our depth, and even then, even though we used our depth in that area as much as you used yours, our pass defense functioned as well as yours did, even fractionally better...

And you might have noticed, we've let our 3rd and 4th cornerbacks go without even trying to keep them around... obviously we see a need to upgrade there...

When Taylor went out, we put Landry at FS and Reed at SS and he performed well after the first game or two.

Doughty is a fair to middling backup, I liked him coming out of college... but he lacks real speed, and if you guys are forced to use him for an extended period, he will be victimized... at the very least, you're gonna have to come up with ways to cover for his speed inadequacies, which takes away from other areas of your defense...

If you can't see how injuries play a huge role in somebody's record, then I don't know what to say to you.

Of course I can see that, but in your case, some of the injuries (specifically Campbell's) worked to your advantage... more to the point, you guys were able to use a tragedy as a motivating force, that allowed you to overcome for a few weeks the lack of talent in your reserves...

Pro-bowl is a joke. A huge joke. Roy Williams??? Al Gurode??? I know personally I love a bad shotgun snap every game.

Regardless of your individual nitpicking (Gurode is the best center in the NFC, regardless of your exaggerating his issues with deep snaps), 15 of the Dallas Cowboys have played in the Pro Bowl in the last two seasons... this is what, three times the number of Skins who have played in that game over the last two years??

Obviously, this reflects a more talented base of players in Dallas than there is in Washington...

You have a lot of your talent at the wrong side of 30 though.

Not a lot, actually, and certainly not as much as the Skins have...

Average out the age of the starting rosters and get back to me.

OK, but you're gonna wind up wishing you'd done the math yourself before issuing this "challenge"... I'm working from the depth charts provided by NFL.com, except they're still listing Oliver Hoyte as our starter at FB, and he's not on the team any more, so I went with his backup, Deon Anderson, instead...

Average age of the Cowboys' starting offense, on or around opening day 2008:
28.9 years old...

Average of the Skins' starting offense: 30.1, 1.2 years per man older than the Boys...

Average age of the Cowboys' starting defense: 28.0

Average age of the Skins' starting defense: 28.6, .6 years per man older than the Boys...

Average of the Cowboys' starting punter and kicker: 26.0

Average age of the Skin's starting punter and kicker: 26.5

Average age of the Cowboys' starting 24: 28.2

Average age of the Skins' starting 24: 29.1, .9 years per man older than the Boys...

Another way of looking at it is the Skins have 14 of 24 starters who will be 29 or older on or around opening day 2008, the Boys will have 11...

And of course, when you go to looking at backups, well, the Cowboys have been using all of their draft picks in recent years, even trading for more, while the Skins have been trading their draft picks away wholesale... you can guess who has more young talent sitting on their roster...

TO, Glenn, Henry, Ellis and Flozell all are at hard to replace positions (exception of Ellis) and are up around the 33/34 mark. The Skins have Springs, Fletcher, Sellers and Pete Kendall in a similar position and Springs is the only guy that's hard to replace.

I see, Adams is about done at 33, but Jansen, Thomas and Samuels all have years ahead of them... I mean, Jansen and Thomas are "only" 32, Samuels is "only" 31 (or will be when next season kicks off)...

FWIW, the Boys only have three players 33 or older in their starting lineup-- Ellis, Adams and Owens... Henry will be 31 at the start of next season, and it's no sure bet that Glenn will even be playing for the Boys next season... Patrick Crayton is our starting WR opposite TO these days... but the Skins have 5 starters who will be at least 31 come opening day-- Sellers, Kendall, Springs, Daniels and Fletcher... they have 2 more who will be 32 at that point, Jansen and Thomas... that makes 7 starters over 32, while the Boys have 3...

Like I said, the Skins have more old guys nearing the end of their careers in their starting lineup than the Boys have in theirs... but the Boys have a few heir apparents already on the roster for some of those aging vets-- for example, Anthony Spencer will be quite ready to take over for Greg Ellis when he hangs up the spikes...

Actually, the NFL says there are 33 qualifying passers. He's three places from 17th which would be average.

Actually, 17th would be slightly below average, and 20th is below that, so I'm both literally and semantically correct when I say he played below average last year...

FYI, the "average passer" was Derek Anderson (17th), whereas the other side of average was Sage Rosenfels (16th). Another FYI, Jason Campbell beat out Marc Bulger, Eli Manning and Trent Edwards. Marc Bulger is a good QB, I don't care what you have to say. Eli just won the super bowl and all the critics are praising him right now. And Trent Edwards is on a whole lot of lists as an up and comer. Yet, they did worse, statistically than JC. Would you call any of THEM below average?

I'd call ALL of them below average last year... the key here being last year; Bulger had some good years in the past, but he was not good last year, period...

As for invoking Edwards' name in this discussion, permit me to laugh at you for a second... you're talking about a rookie who wasn't even the starter at the beginning of the season, who was thrown into the fire, jerked from the lineup, then thrown back into the fire again... the Bills mishandled him dreadfully, and they had an AWFUL offense to begin with...

If Campbell wasn't able to outplay that poor kid, in that situation, then he should never take another snap in the NFL... to offer Trent Edwards up as a comparison to Jason is just laughable... for openers, Jason was a late first round pick, Edwards was a late third round pick, meaning expectations for Jason should have been higher at the outset... and of course, Edwards was a true rookie, Campbell was not...

Again, statistically, he wasn't impressive, but he had a lot to deal with.

And he CONSISTENTLY made critical mistakes in tight ball games... that's a problem of his own creation, not something he was forced "to deal with"...

Good QBs can overcome the kind of adversity that Jason experienced, indeed Todd Collins came in and immediately played better, even with having to deal with those same problems... and he's not really "good"...

That's the point you continually avoid, that you really ought to face up to-- for all you Skins' fans alibi-making for Jason Campbell, when he was replaced by Todd Collins, who has never been anything more than a journeyman, Collins outplayed Campbell decisively... so a mediocre quarterback was more effective than your alleged quarterback of the future...

That SHOULD give you cause for wonder, cause for concern, and I think you know it...

All I'm saying is it's hard, given the circumstances to get a good read on what he's going to develop into. You clearly are already counting him out.

Yeah, I don't think he'll ever be successful with the Skins... I think that we've seen what the guy brings to the table, and it's not good enough... he doesn't see the field well, he's not an accurate short passer, and he's not a particularly smart QB, which is the root of those critical mistakes he keeps on making...

And frankly, after 20 games he hasn't been nearly productive enough to believe that he'll ever be a force in the league... unless, of course, you're a Skins fan heavy into wishful thinking...

I have allowed for the possibility that he'll still develop into a semi-capable quarterback, and have even outlined the situations in which I think he could be semi-successful, but those conditions simply don't exist in Washington right now... I could actually see the guy playing subpar again this year, playing out his contract, the Skins letting him hit the free agent highway, then finding a better situation for his skills, and emerging as a better weapon... but if Zorn's gonna put in the West Coast offense, and we have to assume that's what he was hired for, Jason Campbell is a terrible fit...

We put Detriot on his arm and he won that games FWIW.

You did no such thing, and he did no such thing... you guys won that game in a freakin' romp, 34-3... the defense won that game, giving up 144 yards of total offense... putting a game on a quarterback's arm means opening up the offense in a shootout-type game... the Lions never got closer than 3-14... the Skins ran the ball 35 times in that game, threw it just 29...

Now, I'm not saying Jason didn't play well in that game, but it's ridiculous to say he won it with his arm...

How about the first Eagles game, he didn't win it with his arm, but he sure did contribute a whole lot.

207 net yards passing, 1 TD pass, 20 points scored... 6 carries for 39 yards... basically, he hit one 48 yard TD to Moss, had one 20 yard carry, and Ladell Betts took a short pass and turned it into a 28 yard gain...

That was the extent of Campbell's big plays in this game... that ain't all that good, hoss...

If Todd Collins is SO much better than why did Zorn give JC the starting job uncontested.

Probably because Danny Boy told him the team is committed to going with Campbell...

Why does JC start and Todd Collins not be able to even get a job offer from any team for a starting position?

Collins didn't get a starting job offer because no other team considered him to be good enough to be a starter, obviously... they're right, of course, the guy's got extremely limited talent...

But he DID outplay Campbell, working behind the same banged-up offense, and you know it...

Besides, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First, it was the Sean Taylor tragedy that rallied the Skins, now it's Todd Collins. So which is it?

Both, actually... first, the Taylor murder rallied the Skins, then Campbell went down and Collins came in and played more efficiently... don't know why you think that has to be an either/or situation, indeed the two went kinda hand in hand...

There's often more than one reason to explain a situation, you know...

Anyways, you've got something way off. From the Philly game on is what I was referring to. In the last three games of the season, he threw 1 TD and 5 INTs.

He did indeed, but YOU were the one who introduced the last FOUR games as the parameter for this argument... so now, I follow YOUR parameters, and you tell me I'm "way off"??

Next time you want to argue with me, and I graciously let you determine the parameters of the argument, it would be nice if you stuck with your own rules... but I guess you have to keep changing the parameters if you keep getting beat on the issues of your own choosing, LOL...

At this point in their careers, I agree. Yet, you again seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouths. You play a more aggressive scheme so it stands to reason Romo would have more TDs, yards, YPA and INTs. Campbell plays in a super conservative scheme so he doesn't GET to take the same chances Romo does. Every time we let Jason play more aggressively, he's done better.

ROTFLMAO... the reason the Skins don't LET Campbell play that aggressively is he keeps on killing the team when he does... every time you've let Jason throw the ball over 30 times in a game, he's LOST THE GAME FOR YOU...

In the 3 games in 2006 where he threw over 30 times, he went 58 of 103 for 633 yards, 5 TDs, 3 ints and no fumbles lost... the Skins went 0-3 in those games, they scored under 20 points per game (19.7), and he averaged a paltry 6.3 yards per attempt... that's a 56.3 completion percentage, again rather bad... his quarterback rating for those 3 games was 78.7, which is only SLIGHTLY better than his full season rating of 76.5... he didn't play significantly "better" in those 3 games where the Skins let him "play aggressively"...

And in 07, well, let's look at each of the games where he threw the ball over 30 times, then we'll look at his combined numbers for those games:

On 9/23, against the Giants, he went 16 of 34 for 190 yards, 1 TD and 0 ints... but he also had a 4th quarter fumble he lost, with the game tied at 17, and 4 plays later the Giants scored the TD that gave them the 24-17 win... Jason's fumble was the key play of that game...

On 10/14, against the Packers, he went 21 of 37 for 217 yards, 1 TD and 1 int... no fumbles in this game, and his int was in the second quarter, in Packers' territory, but it really wasn't a key point in the game, IMO... the Skins scored 14 points, and lost by 3, though, so perhaps if he hadn't committed that turnover, the Skins could have gotten the 3 that would have wound up sending the game into OT... but I won't call him a goat in this one...

Against New England on 10/28, he went 21 of 36 for 197 yards, had 1 TD and 1 int, and lost THREE fumbles... it's hard to label any one player a goat in a game in which you get beat 52-7, but 4 turnovers earns you a pair of goat horns...

On 11/11 against the Iggles, he went 23 of 34 for 215 yards, 3 TDs and no ints, and he lost another fumble... this one also came in crunch time, in the 4th quarter, and the Iggles scored a TD on the very next play, stretching their 1 point lead to the final margin of 8... even with 3 TD passes, that critical turnover makes him a goat in this one too...

On 11/18 against the Cowboys, the Skins REALLY turned Jason loose, letting him throw the ball 54 times... he completed 33 of them, for 348 yards and 1 TD, but he also threw an int and had a fumble... and of course, his interception late in the 4th quarter ended the Skins' comeback hopes, and they lost 28-23... another set of goat horns for my man Jason, please...

The following week against the Bucs, Jason completed 30 of 49 for 301 yards, 1 TD and 2 ints, and another fumble lost... that made 3 turnovers in the game for Jason, including 2 4th quarter ints, and the Skins lost 19-13... Jason was again the goat (or at least one of the goats) in this loss...

Finally, the next week against Buffalo, Jason completed 21 of 37 for 216 yards, 0 TDs and 1 int, and yet another fumble lost... both of those turnovers came in the third quarter, and led to Bills' field goals, and the Skins lost 17-16... his turnovers obviously hurt, but I won't go so far as to label him a goat in this one...

So for those 7 games where the Skins let him play "aggressively", he went 165of 281 for 1684 yards, 8 TDs, 6 ints and 8 fumbles lost... that's 14 turnovers, in 7 games... the Skins averaged 16.4 points per game in those 7 games, somewhat lower than their regular season average... that's a quarterback average of 76.7, compared to his season rating of 77.6... his yards per attempt was 6.0 in those games, compared to his full season average of 6.5 YPA...

Doesn't look like he "did better" in those games where they let him "play aggressively" in 2007 either... looks like he did a little worse, actually, particularly in the realm of turning the ball over (of course, fumbles don't affect quarterback rating)...

So, in the 10 games in which the Skins have let Jason Campbell throw the ball over 30 times thus far in his career, he has a quarterback rating of 77.1, slightly lower than his career rating of 77.3... this does not constitute "doing better"... his yards per attempt is 6.0 in those games, lower than his career average of 6.4... this does not constitute "doing better"... his completion percentage in those games is 58.1, which is SLIGHTLY better than his career percentage of 57.7...

And the Skins are 0-10 in those games, averaging 17.4 points per game in those 10 games... over the last 2 years, they've averaged 22.5 points per game in those 22 games where Campbell did not throw the ball over 30 times... again, this does not constitute "doing better", to the contrary, it's pretty clear that the offense did not function particularly well when it comes to the most important stat, putting points on the board, when Campbell threw the ball a lot...

Most telling of all is the number of turnovers he's had in those games, and how very often those turnovers have come late in the game, at critical times, when the Skins still had a chance to win... 17 turnovers in 10 games is WAY too many...

This is what I find time and time again with you Skins fans, you seem to have a massive case of selective perception when it comes to Jason, all you see is when he does something right, but you seem to miss it, or ignore it, when he hurts your team... I watch the same games you do, and see him throwing a lot of dump stuff, yet still not completing a particularly high percentage of his passes (not for somebody throwing short as much as he was), and I see him making critical turnover after critical turnover, and I see the Skins losing every time they ask him to throw the ball over 30 times, and I see a cause and effect, but you guys just don't...

You think that he did well in those games where they opened the offense up, I think he pretty much stunk in those games (even when he threw for 348 against the Boys, it took him 54 attempts to put up that many yards, and in his other 300 yard game-- 301 yards, to be exact-- he threw it 49 times)... and the numbers reflect my take on his play in those game, not yours...

I didn't said he'll be good. I said given what we know right now, it doesn't stand to make a judgment either way.

Did I suggest the Skins should cut him or something?? You guys are stuck with him, at least for a little while longer... but I have a hunch that after watching Todd Collins move the team like Campbell couldn't last year, if Jason struggles at all early on, it won't be long before he'll be in the fans' doghouse, and they'll be screaming for the backup...

I want to compare his stats to Hasselbeck's first year in Seattle next year and go from there.

I wonder what you think that will prove... first off, Zorn was not the offensive coordinator, let alone the head coach, when Hasselbeck came to Seattle... he was just the quarterbacks coach...

More to the point, Hasselbeck didn't step right into the starting lineup in Seattle, in his first 2 seasons up there he 22 of the 29 games he played... he didn't become the fulltime starter up there until he was in his third full season, at which point he put up an 88.8 quarterback rating... it was 87.8 the year before, when he started 10 of 16 games...

If you think that Jason Campbell has Matt Hasselbeck potential, you're deluding yourself...

I didn't say he played well. I'm just saying that all Betts had to do was extend or cut inside and all of a sudden a stupid and wierd stat goes away. Again, just pointing out the fallacy of your purely statistical analysis.

Again, ROTFLMAO... my analysis is "fallacious", but to prove it, you have to rely on a series of "what ifs"... well, I have one response to the ever-so-weak "what if" argument:

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle... you're trying to make Betts the goat in order to excuse Jason's play in that game, and that won't fly...

He needs to protect the ball better, that's for sure. But maybe, gasp, he'd not have to worry so much if he wasn't missing the right side of his line. Didn't seem to be a big issue last year when the line was healthier.

Chuckle... now who's "talking out of both sides of his mouth?? Earlier in this thread, you were saying your depth at RT was actually pretty good, bragging about how the quality of the play didn't drop off that much when your starter went down, or even when your backup went down... now, you're saying that missing that right tackle excuses Jason's turning the ball over so often, implying that the right tackle situation was a problem area for your team...

Sure do wish you'd pick an argument, and stick with it...

Right dude. Which is why he did so well with a west coast in his last season in college.

Man, you really don't even know your own QB, do you??

Fact check time here-- Campbell never even passed for 200 yards in a single game his senior year... his high game was 184 yards... he only threw 11 TDs that season, and he only threw a total of 149 passes... he never threw more than 23 passes in any one game, and had six games where he threw 11 or fewer...

Auburn relied on its potent running game and a stingy defense that year, Campbell was the quintessential "bus driver" on that team... once again, your perception of Jason Campbell is at odds with reality; you think he was a stud his senior year, and he averaged 101.3 yards per game passing...

But you're right, he is going to go through *more* growing pains as he switches to yet another system (ugh) and in time, he'll gain some recognition and become a better QB.

Worse for you, I highly doubt that Zorn will last more than a season or two, so before much longer, Jason will likely have to learn yet ANOTHER new system...

Zorn took Hasselbeck (6th or 5th rounder I believe) and turned him into a perennial probowler, so we'll see.

Uhhh, 3 Pro Bowls in 10 years does not make you a "perennial pro bowler"... "perennial" means every year, though in sports terms we've widened the definition to somebody who makes it almost every year... but 3 times in 10 doesn't come close to "perennial"...

I rather suspect that Hasselbeck's raw talent was more of a factor in his making the Pro Bowl than Zorn's coaching, anyway... I read an article on one of these message boards about Zorn a coupla days ago, and it was not complimentary toward Jim's ability as a coach...

But given that he's had to learn a new offense in each of his years in college, I don't think that's a legit criticism. Struggling with a new offense is taking 3 or 4 years to learn one. Taking more than just a summer, not so much.

You keep telling yourself that, but one Auburn assistant coach, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had to pare their playbook down to a "high school playbook", in order for Campbell to grasp it... you hear criticisms about his intelligence, which is the handicap for him learning new systems, from many, many sources... I didn't just make this up...

I don't know that he has such a problem learning new systems, he just hasn't been given any time (that is more than just one season) to actually grow comfortable in it. Most QBs take more than one season to pick up and be able to execute a new system.

Last year was his second year in Saunders' system, I didn't see any quantum leap forward in his numbers...

Now in conclusion, after reading your next post in this thread, I really have no desire to flame you, or annoy you, or anything like that... I don't hate everything associated with the Skins, the way most Cowboys fans are supposed to... when I give you my take on Jason Campbell's abilites, it's coming from a nonpartisan, rational analysis of his numbers, combined with what I saw on the field... my nephew/roommate is a diehard Skins fans, and even he has come to agree with my perception of Jason, a result of watching the games and listening to my commentary as the games went on... he seems to be capable of recognizing reality, even when it comes to his favorite team, and he is most assuredly not a big Jason Campbell fan...

But you make an effort to treat us with respect in here, an effort I have noted and appreciated, and it distresses me a little that I might be tickin' you off by arguing this with you...

 

[silverbear]

Clinton Portis is one of the most underrated players in the NFL. Dude does nothing but produce despite some of the worst conditions to play under, he's a great locker room guy and is just damn entertaining to watch and there are even Skins fans who think Betts is just as good.

I like Portis just fine, but I think a wise coach will try to limit him to around 300 carries per year... he's just not big enough to take the pounding of a lot of carries, and it has started to catch up with him in recent years...

When you have a good backup like Betts on the roster, you need to get him some touches too...

I don't know if you watched, but Landry instantly got a lot better when we moved him to FS.

I did notice, and I wasn't surprised at all... he's been a natural FS all along...

Cooley is my fav current Skin. He's just hilarious (met him at a wine tasting in the VA countryside) and all those things he does are just elaborate jokes. He tried to deposit his $12M bonus in a drive-thru bank. He's just an awesome dude and a great football player.

And he has a questionable sexuality, LOL... any guy who would wear those gawdawful hot pants, you have to wonder about...

Seriously, he's a very good player... I like Jason Witten a little better, though...

Betts I'm not so sold on, he's decent but he's injured a lot, has fumblitis and lacks ideal burst through the hole. I like him as a back-up though. Rock Cartwright is a good special teams player, solid kick returner (though he's not a threat to score very often) and supposedly one of those guys who gets everybody else fired up. Shawn Springs is clearly the leader of our defensive backfield.

Right on all counts in that paragraph... Springs has gotten to be a little fragile in recent years, though...

As for me, in interest of full disclosure, I like Newman a lot. I think he can improve a lot and is not a game-changer in the sense of the word, but he is about as solid in coverage as you can get. Ware is a beast, though I'd like it if he had a bit more attitude in his game. I actually like TO, though I'm not above making fun of him for crying about people making fun of Romo, it was too similar to Chris Crocker. Witten I think is a solid guy and I like the way Barber runs. Romo, though I don't like him on a personal level, is a good QB. I think he'd do REAL well playing under Zorn's system here in DC.

Got no problems with any of that take about my Boys... kudos for being able to outline what you like about your most hated enemy...

Before anybody asks, I do watch every single cowboys game (my bro is a huge fan and we always watch the Skins games and Cowboys games so we can rag on each other).

Like I said in the last post, I watch all the Skins games, too... but it's MY house, and if the Skins and Boys are on at the same time, we're watchin' the Boys, and the Skins game is getting recorded... the nephew hates that, of course, but he doesn't pay any rent, so tough...

 

[silverbear]

Daniels is being moved to back-up DT

If the Skins try to use a 275 pound DT, they'd better be ready for teams to run it up the gut on them...

Either way, TO is 34 and if you lose him, you guys went from a good offense to mediocre as teams double Witten and dare Crayton to beat a number one corner (assuming you don't need Glenn and he'll be out like he was last season).

Except the Boys are almost certain to draft a WR early, and if the right opportunity to sign a proven vet comes along, they'll look into it... besides that, they think that Isaiah Stanback will be ready to step forward and improve the receiver corps...

You're right, but it bears in mind to keep it in perspective. You are playing a game of semantics. Yes, technically it is below average. Barely.

Actually, YOU'RE the one playing semantic games... you said he was "average", and he's not, by any definition of the word... doesn't mean he's AWFUL, but he hasn't yet risen to the level of average, period...

Far lower completion percentage? Romo's completion percentage is 64. Campbell's sits around 58. We're talking about 1 in 18 passes. That can be accounted for by Moss' uncharacteristically bad hands this year. Cooley also had a case of the dropsies a little earlier in the year. Hardly far lower.

Well, that's rather disingenuous of you... first off, Romo's career completion percentage is 64.8, Campbell's is 57.7... that's 7.1 percentage points higher, or one extra completion in 14 attempts... which works out to 2.0-2.5 additional completions per game, which is a fairly significant advantage for Romo...

That advantage becomes even more significant when you compare the two QBs' yards per completion average (I use yards per completion here instead of yards per attempt because YPA is affected by the completion percentage, YPC is not)... Romo averaged 12.8 yards per completion, Campbell averaged 11.1, indicating that Tony was looking downfield more often than Jason was...

And generally speaking, you'd expect the guy throwing more of the shorter stuff to have the higher completion percentage, not the other way around... so if you factor in that Romo is throwing more lower percentage passes, and STILL has the higher completion percentage, then it's clear who the more accurate passer is...

 

[firehawk350]

I like Portis just fine, but I think a wise coach will try to limit him to around 300 carries per year... he's just not big enough to take the pounding of a lot of carries, and it has started to catch up with him in recent years...

You should probably limit just about every back's carries to 300-325 or so. I think his problem is he was misused under Gibbs in that they wanted a power back so Portis put on 10-20 pounds and it messed with his explosiveness. I think if he takes that weight off, he could be in the top 3 undoubtedly.

When you have a good backup like Betts on the roster, you need to get him some touches too...

I agree, but how many do you take away from Portis? I would like 20-25 to Portis and 10 to Betts, but that's just a guideline. It's hard to really say honestly.

I did notice, and I wasn't surprised at all... he's been a natural FS all along...

And he has a questionable sexuality, LOL... any guy who would wear those gawdawful hot pants, you have to wonder about...

Questionable sexuality, have you SEEN Terry Glenn? Kidding, I read an interesting article about that actually (Cooley's pants). Apparently it really increases mobility and is a lot cooler (in the strictly literal sense of the word). A lot of the guys said if they had the guts, they would wear them (including Jon Jansen and he's the consummate country boy). A lot of the girls I know around this area think they are hot too. I'd say he's a fav among a lot of the younger female fans.

Seriously, he's a very good player... I like Jason Witten a little better, though...



Right on all counts in that paragraph... Springs has gotten to be a little fragile in recent years, though...

Other than 06, he hasn't missed an exorbinent amount of time (Springs). He's more nicked up and misses a game or two than takes two to get back to full strength. It's more annoying than really detrimental. A lot like Moss, I don't think he's really fragile, just injury prone. Somebody get them some freaking hot compresses or SOMETHING.

Got no problems with any of that take about my Boys... kudos for being able to outline what you like about your most hated enemy...

Like I said in the last post, I watch all the Skins games, too... but it's MY house, and if the Skins and Boys are on at the same time, we're watchin' the Boys, and the Skins game is getting recorded... the nephew hates that, of course, but he doesn't pay any rent, so tough...

Haha, it's no big deal. In my job, you have to admit where the enemy is strong. That inevitably turns into a compliment of sorts. I forgot to mention that I like Canty (or did I, I forget). It doesn't seem like he has an overload of physical tools but I think he's a lot more instrumental in the defense than most think. You never hear about him during gamedays and his pressure and push really enables Ware and Ellis to make plays.

Either way, I'm a bit more knowledgable than my bro about football (everyone just made that exact same joke in their head, you can probably save it), so I kind of let him know who the Boys are picking up, letting go, scheme changes and all that action and most of the time, he's like, WHO?! What does that mean exactly??? So I try to be objective as possible and give him the plus/minuses of the move. I realize that I can't be objective completely but I try.

Luckily, last year, the games weren't on at the same time so we didn't have any problems. As far as what we'd do, I have no idea. I guess it depends on whose house we decide to go over to. Neither of us can stand seeing the score before we watch the game though, it takes away from the game, so we'd probably end up blocking out the bottom of the screen.

He has directv so has Sunday Ticket, I have comcast but most of the cowboys games are accessible from my set anyways and I have the nicer TV (1080p and better contrast ratios), so it's always a toss-up. Paper rock scissors solves many a problem.

 

[firehawk350]

If the Skins try to use a 275 pound DT, they'd better be ready for teams to run it up the gut on them...

Well I heard he's only going to be there for passing downs. They'd put him, Carter, Wilson (who is going to do real well I think) and maybe Griffin on the line. Of course, that's supposing we pick up a DE which is supposedly a big priority of ours. Who knows?

Except the Boys are almost certain to draft a WR early, and if the right opportunity to sign a proven vet comes along, they'll look into it... besides that, they think that Isaiah Stanback will be ready to step forward and improve the receiver corps...

I don't think there are any vets out there right now, available not via trade, that could really challenge teams to roll coverage away from Witten. The draft is a crapshoot. We'll see on Isaiah Stanback, intriguing prospect. There's another guy in the draft who measures out really crazy like Stanback, I forgot his name, but might be a guy somebody takes in the 4th or 5th.

Actually, YOU'RE the one playing semantic games... you said he was "average", and he's not, by any definition of the word... doesn't mean he's AWFUL, but he hasn't yet risen to the level of average, period...

Well, that's rather disingenuous of you... first off, Romo's career completion percentage is 64.8, Campbell's is 57.7... that's 7.1 percentage points higher, or one extra completion in 14 attempts... which works out to 2.0-2.5 additional completions per game, which is a fairly significant advantage for Romo...

That advantage becomes even more significant when you compare the two QBs' yards per completion average (I use yards per completion here instead of yards per attempt because YPA is affected by the completion percentage, YPC is not)... Romo averaged 12.8 yards per completion, Campbell averaged 11.1, indicating that Tony was looking downfield more often than Jason was...

Eh, whatever honestly. I think Romo's stats are affected by playing with TO and TO really helps out EVERYBODY's stats he plays with. Look at Garcia and McNabb when they played with him.

 

[firehawk350]

OK, the first thing I'm gonna say is I really liked your next post in this thread, so I'm gonna discuss this issue with you in a bit less confrontational manner than is my norm...

Well, as we are turning down the rheotric... Either way, these posts are getting LONG... Oh well, let's get this going.

Now, regarding your observations regarding making the playoffs with your injuries, that's the result of something entirely separate from the quality of your depth... the plain truth is, at the time Sean Taylor was murdered, the Skins were circling the drain, headed straight for about a 6-10 record... but when he died, in spite of all the adversity, that team pulled together the way you rarely get a pro team to bond... everybody stepped their game up, some of them played better than they are, and the whole "team" thing made the whole greater than the sum of its parts...

And you actually got lucky that Campbell got hurt, if that hadn't happened you would not have made the playoffs, you probably would have been sub-.500... so that particular injury actually worked to your benefit...

This is all quite strange, but it's exactly what happened... and to be fair, it's to the Skins' credit that they were able to rally around each other that way... you have every right to be proud of that...

We'll see, I think it a bit too early to start making predictions. After all the coaching turnover, the ability of Zorn to develop and relay his version of the WCO, it could be a horrible year and we are in a transition phase. However, sometimes a guy is just a better candidate and just does better things with the roster and he might be able to get everyone to a new level. Who knows?

We rallied in 05 too with no death needed. We just may be a team that plays above it's level in December. OR we don't play to our level in October/November. We usually have good Septembers though for some reason. I'm hoping we do better without Brandon Lloyd being a loser on the sideline, addition by subtraction. What an embarrassment.

Yup... you won't have the whole "let's win this one for Sean" thing working for you any more, that mojo evaporated up in Seattle... as I said, but for that your record would have been a couple-three games worse than it wound up being... but with your talent level, and the limited potential to improve that the draft will offer, your team will need to stay pretty healthy to win 10 games... bluntly, you guys overachieved last year, particularly at the end of the year...

I agree that the momentum or emotion drained in Seattle. I think we were playing above our level and eventually just burnt out. We could only ride that emotional wave for so long. I think it's going to be a motivational factor for a lot of the guys and will provide a common bond that will enhance team chemistry so I don't think that is going away, it's just not going to be very noticeable to anybody not in the organization now.

That's the thing about the draft, you could have to cut all but one or two players (Pats) or you could have 6 or 7 guys contribute, it's really impossible to say. However, there are a lot of guys (rookies and 2nd year players) that are on the team that Skins fans are excited about. HB Blades at MLB (almost a clone of Fletcher and the guy I think we targeted to learn under him... almost resembles a plan actually), Lorenzo Alexander at OG (supposedly by far the strongest dude on the team and just an animaL), Heyer (everyone knows about him), Anthony Montgomery (dude had physical tools, just not his head in the game, worked hard and was doing REALLY well), Chris Wilson (notched 5 sacks I believe in his rookie year as a DE).

When the going gets tough, I'll take the team that has more talent... and as I said, it might have been a little harder for your tough to get going, absent the huge emotional wave they rode in the wake of the Sean Taylor murder...

That's the deal with Gibbs though, I think he was too much a grandfather figure. It took all the chips being down for his motivational style to be effective. But when they were, it was effective. We'll see with Zorn. He seems like he shoots straight from the hip, so I'm hoping he can motivate them from the get-go.

Yeah, you more or less have to, don't you??

I'm assuming so, I don't feel like scrolling down to find out what this is response to.

1) You "did okay"?? Hmmmm, seems to me that the Skins ranked 15th in yards per game, tied for 18th in points per game, were 20th in yards per play, and 14th in 3rd down conversion percentage...

Hey, it that's good enough for you, then who am I to point out your offense wasn't really all that good last year??

That sounds like the definition of okay. We had a lot of room for improvement but neither were we bad, or to coin your favorite term, below average. No, it wasn't good and I think we left points on the field but it was decent.

2) IIRC, one of the biggest reasons y'all got beat in the playoffs by the Seahawks is your right tackle got used and abused, badly... DE Patrick Kerney and OLB Leroy Hill combined for 1 sack and 5 hurries... Chris Samuels had a rough day with Julian Peterson too...

So perhaps citing the play of your RT to prove your point isn't your best avenue of rebuttal...

Hey, given we were on 3rd string and the UDFA rookie was playing a good DE, it's solid. A lot of vets have problems with Kerney. Would you feel solid if you had to play McQuistan against Kerney? Chances are he'd struggle too.

And yet, the Cowboys gave up 3409 yards passing last year, the Skins gave up 3424... and our two top cornerbacks only started 21 of a possible 32 games... this is the exact same number of games your top two cornerbacks started...

And yeah, we consider our corner depth (or rather, our lack of corner depth) to be one of our bigger problem areas... but you focus on one area where we freely admit we need to improve our depth, and even then, even though we used our depth in that area as much as you used yours, our pass defense functioned as well as yours did, even fractionally better...

And you might have noticed, we've let our 3rd and 4th cornerbacks go without even trying to keep them around... obviously we see a need to upgrade there...

You cite a total of 15 yards over the whole season as evidence that you were superior? You also had more pressure FWIW on the QB and that hides a lot of problems. And a lot of games I can remember Henry or Newman didn't start but ended up getting significant action. I don't think it's very truthful to say your starting cornerbacks missed as much time as ours did.

I believe the Skins are citing cornerback as one of their need areas as well though. I am among those. As a matter of fact, I think we are targeting a CB at 21. CB is one of those positions where an elite prospect makes all the difference. At WR, there just doesn't seem to be a huge delta between drafting in the first and drafting in the next two rounds. I don't see the value being there for DE at our spot, unless inexplicably Long or Gholston drops to us. So CB is the only real way to go.

Doughty is a fair to middling backup, I liked him coming out of college... but he lacks real speed, and if you guys are forced to use him for an extended period, he will be victimized... at the very least, you're gonna have to come up with ways to cover for his speed inadequacies, which takes away from other areas of your defense...

Doughty was victimized a bit in his first start but he shored it up quite a bit from there. In week 17, against the Boys, he was able to get to a well-placed pass 20 yards down the field against Jason Witten, who has victimized much better safeties than him. I know it's only one play, but I don't remember him a part of too many plays and for a DB, that isn't too bad of a thing. I think he'll be a serviceable starter for us, he'll man the position ably. No, he'll never make a pro-bowl and won't ever have more than a handful of INTs throughout the years, but I think he'll end out being one of those unsung heroes. A bit of a Canty if you will.

Of course I can see that, but in your case, some of the injuries (specifically Campbell's) worked to your advantage... more to the point, you guys were able to use a tragedy as a motivating force, that allowed you to overcome for a few weeks the lack of talent in your reserves...

Regardless of your individual nitpicking (Gurode is the best center in the NFC, regardless of your exaggerating his issues with deep snaps), 15 of the Dallas Cowboys have played in the Pro Bowl in the last two seasons... this is what, three times the number of Skins who have played in that game over the last two years??

Obviously, this reflects a more talented base of players in Dallas than there is in Washington...

It is more indicative of a more popular base of players.

You and I have clearly divergent opinions on Gurode and given we both watch the games and there are no real stats to back-up either assertations to speak of, I guess we should just agree to disagree. There were some deserving Skins that should have gone, but didn't, Portis being chief among those.

OK, but you're gonna wind up wishing you'd done the math yourself before issuing this "challenge"... I'm working from the depth charts provided by NFL.com, except they're still listing Oliver Hoyte as our starter at FB, and he's not on the team any more, so I went with his backup, Deon Anderson, instead...

Average age of the Cowboys' starting offense, on or around opening day 2008:
28.9 years old...

Average of the Skins' starting offense: 30.1, 1.2 years per man older than the Boys...

Average age of the Cowboys' starting defense: 28.0

Average age of the Skins' starting defense: 28.6, .6 years per man older than the Boys...

Average of the Cowboys' starting punter and kicker: 26.0

Average age of the Skin's starting punter and kicker: 26.5

Average age of the Cowboys' starting 24: 28.2

Average age of the Skins' starting 24: 29.1, .9 years per man older than the Boys...

Another way of looking at it is the Skins have 14 of 24 starters who will be 29 or older on or around opening day 2008, the Boys will have 11...

So we are a whole year older huh? I fail to see the big deal in that. We should probably wait until our rosters are more settled before we really look at it. Daniels is moving out, as is probably Terry Glenn. I wouldn't be surprised if El was replaced if we take Sweed early too. Likewise, will Spencer start over Ellis at any point or will you start a RB if you pick up one in the first two rounds? After the draft, I will revisit it.

And of course, when you go to looking at backups, well, the Cowboys have been using all of their draft picks in recent years, even trading for more, while the Skins have been trading their draft picks away wholesale... you can guess who has more young talent sitting on their roster...

Well, we all know how dumb those mistakes were, but we have been hitting on a couple of draft picks lately too and UDFAs have been doing well for us as well. Lorenzo Alexander, Chris Wilson, Stephon Heyer, Anthony Montgomery were all dudes who actually contributed in a meaningful way last year. There's a buzz about Anthony Mix, supposedly he's been impressing lately too. I mentioned HB Blades as well, so no need to go over that.

I see, Adams is about done at 33, but Jansen, Thomas and Samuels all have years ahead of them... I mean, Jansen and Thomas are "only" 32, Samuels is "only" 31 (or will be when next season kicks off)...

FWIW, the Boys only have three players 33 or older in their starting lineup-- Ellis, Adams and Owens... Henry will be 31 at the start of next season, and it's no sure bet that Glenn will even be playing for the Boys next season... Patrick Crayton is our starting WR opposite TO these days... but the Skins have 5 starters who will be at least 31 come opening day-- Sellers, Kendall, Springs, Daniels and Fletcher... they have 2 more who will be 32 at that point, Jansen and Thomas... that makes 7 starters over 32, while the Boys have 3...

Huh??? Didn't you just say that a year was a significant advantage? Yet Adams is 2 years older than Samuels and a year older than Jansen and Thomas. Anyways, I think Adams has a year or two before there's a decline and another 2 before he becomes below average, so that gives you 3 or 4 years of productivity. So Jansen and Samuels have 4/5 and 5/6 which is plenty of time to find a suitable replacement. Randy Thomas plays guard so his effective time is different. He doesn't need much speed at guard.

Either way, since we are going with who is supposed to be starting next year (which is how you put the Skins) so it doesn't bear to disinclude Glenn and include Jansen and Thomas given they both pretty much missed all of last year. The boys, if you include the roster in it's state now, have 5 players over 31, the same number as the Skins. We have 7 players over 32, you have 4 and we have 3 over 33, whereas you have 4. So depending where you set that bar at, if you look at the "old guys" on each roster, you get a different picture. After the draft and over preseason (if Hurd or Stanback can replace Glenn, if whoever we pick up to replace Daniels can or if Lorenzo Alexander can replace Kendall, if Rogers can rehab quickly enough to take over for Smoot as #2) the picture may be much different.

Question regarding the number though, did you make Glenn or Crayton the starter?

Like I said, the Skins have more old guys nearing the end of their careers in their starting lineup than the Boys have in theirs... but the Boys have a few heir apparents already on the roster for some of those aging vets-- for example, Anthony Spencer will be quite ready to take over for Greg Ellis when he hangs up the spikes...

I've already explained that some of the aging vets have their replacements on the roster (Jansen/Heyer, Kendall/Alexander, Fletcher/Blades) where as others, I'm not so sure of. Some of those guys need another year of seasoning though. And again, it depends what you define as the end of their career. It's too subjective. TO will probably go strong for another 2-3 years whereas Glenn (same age) is about done. Ellis looks strong still and so does Sellers. Chris Samuels has missed half the games as Flozell Adams and that bears mentioning too.

Actually, 17th would be slightly below average, and 20th is below that, so I'm both literally and semantically correct when I say he played below average last year...

Of course you're literally and semantically correct. That's not the point. When you say below average, you are implying that he is bad when that is the case. I see average as a bracket, there are about 8-10 average QBs in the league. If you put the line at 16.5 that goes to 12 and back to 21. The rest are below average, bad, above average and great. I guess the miscommunication comes from the way we see the word average. If you use it in the mathematical sense, then there is no arguing it (when talking about QB rating). But if you use it in the literary sense, obviously that is more subjective.

I'd call ALL of them below average last year... the key here being last year; Bulger had some good years in the past, but he was not good last year, period...

As for invoking Edwards' name in this discussion, permit me to laugh at you for a second... you're talking about a rookie who wasn't even the starter at the beginning of the season, who was thrown into the fire, jerked from the lineup, then thrown back into the fire again... the Bills mishandled him dreadfully, and they had an AWFUL offense to begin with...

If Campbell wasn't able to outplay that poor kid, in that situation, then he should never take another snap in the NFL... to offer Trent Edwards up as a comparison to Jason is just laughable... for openers, Jason was a late first round pick, Edwards was a late third round pick, meaning expectations for Jason should have been higher at the outset... and of course, Edwards was a true rookie, Campbell was not...

See, here's another thing that I don't like with any Cowboys fans' comparison between Romo and Campbell. Campbell sat for a year and a half before making his first start. Campbell was also thrown on a team that nothing to play for, so obviously that affects a lot of things too. Romo sat for 3 and a half years. That really makes a difference.

And he CONSISTENTLY made critical mistakes in tight ball games... that's a problem of his own creation, not something he was forced "to deal with"...

Romo consistently falls apart in Dec and the playoffs. So, should we just write him off in that timeframe?

That, of course, would be ********. It's just a barrier he's got to break through, like JC.

Good QBs can overcome the kind of adversity that Jason experienced, indeed Todd Collins came in and immediately played better, even with having to deal with those same problems... and he's not really "good"...

In that case, Todd Collins either WAY outplayed his ability or just about every other QB in the league was not really "good". He was voted NFC offensive player of the month for december if I remember correctly.

Let me ask you this then. If Collins is so good and played better than just about any other QB in the league, as well as lead the Skins to an almost flawless record, wouldn't that either say (A) Collins is better than Romo or (B) our offense is better than yours?

Before you reply actually, let me just say that I don't believe either of those things. It's just using the Todd Collins example doesn't really bear out in comparisons. He's not good but just caught lightning in a bottle.

That's the point you continually avoid, that you really ought to face up to-- for all you Skins' fans alibi-making for Jason Campbell, when he was replaced by Todd Collins, who has never been anything more than a journeyman, Collins outplayed Campbell decisively... so a mediocre quarterback was more effective than your alleged quarterback of the future...

That SHOULD give you cause for wonder, cause for concern, and I think you know it...

Again, what is that indicative of? Collins outperformed a lot of QBs with supposedly better rosters so would that make Collins better than them as well? Of course I wonder about it. I'm not concerned as Collins had the benefit of catching the team on an upswing, having the trust of Saunders and being in a system that rewards execution of the system over ability.

Yeah, I don't think he'll ever be successful with the Skins... I think that we've seen what the guy brings to the table, and it's not good enough... he doesn't see the field well, he's not an accurate short passer, and he's not a particularly smart QB, which is the root of those critical mistakes he keeps on making...

How are you determining the intelligence of this dude anyways?

And frankly, after 20 games he hasn't been nearly productive enough to believe that he'll ever be a force in the league... unless, of course, you're a Skins fan heavy into wishful thinking...

A lot of QBs aren't productive over the first 20 games. Didn't Troy Aikman really struggle in his first year or two? IF message boards were around back then, I bet there was an exact opposite debate. Of course we know how that turns out. Most QBs start out slow. Very few come out and tear up the league.

I have allowed for the possibility that he'll still develop into a semi-capable quarterback, and have even outlined the situations in which I think he could be semi-successful, but those conditions simply don't exist in Washington right now... I could actually see the guy playing subpar again this year, playing out his contract, the Skins letting him hit the free agent highway, then finding a better situation for his skills, and emerging as a better weapon... but if Zorn's gonna put in the West Coast offense, and we have to assume that's what he was hired for, Jason Campbell is a terrible fit...

All those are possible. I think Zorn is going to be here for at least 3 years and if things are still bad, he will have his 4th on the hot seat and we'll bring in somebody else. I'm not ruling out the possibility of Zorn pulling in a QB of his own and sitting on JC until he's ready to put his guy in there. Especially if he doesn't like what he sees. Let's be honest though, Zorn knows WAY more about QBs than you and me ever will, so chances are he knows if JC is what he wants for a QB in his system so we'll probably know by April next year (ie, he drafts a QB) if JC is the guy or not. We may even draft one this year.

You did no such thing, and he did no such thing... you guys won that game in a freakin' romp, 34-3... the defense won that game, giving up 144 yards of total offense... putting a game on a quarterback's arm means opening up the offense in a shootout-type game... the Lions never got closer than 3-14... the Skins ran the ball 35 times in that game, threw it just 29...

Now, I'm not saying Jason didn't play well in that game, but it's ridiculous to say he won it with his arm...

True, but he won it and played well.

207 net yards passing, 1 TD pass, 20 points scored... 6 carries for 39 yards... basically, he hit one 48 yard TD to Moss, had one 20 yard carry, and Ladell Betts took a short pass and turned it into a 28 yard gain...

That was the extent of Campbell's big plays in this game... that ain't all that good, hoss...

I'd have to research it and this post is going to be long enough as it is.

Probably because Danny Boy told him the team is committed to going with Campbell...

And why would he do that?

Collins didn't get a starting job offer because no other team considered him to be good enough to be a starter, obviously... they're right, of course, the guy's got extremely limited talent...

But he DID outplay Campbell, working behind the same banged-up offense, and you know it...

And he DID outplay Romo too, doesn't mean that he's better. Like I said, statistically Collins was a phenom. We all know that he's not that good.

Both, actually... first, the Taylor murder rallied the Skins, then Campbell went down and Collins came in and played more efficiently... don't know why you think that has to be an either/or situation, indeed the two went kinda hand in hand...

They may have both contributed, but I don't think they go hand in hand either. Obviously, Sean Taylor was the driving force but maybe Collins was just the embodiment of that force. I don't really know, and neither do you. Chances are neither do the Skins.

There's often more than one reason to explain a situation, you know...

Say it aint so! You mean the universe works on more than one driving force.

He did indeed, but YOU were the one who introduced the last FOUR games as the parameter for this argument... so now, I follow YOUR parameters, and you tell me I'm "way off"??

Next time you want to argue with me, and I graciously let you determine the parameters of the argument, it would be nice if you stuck with your own rules... but I guess you have to keep changing the parameters if you keep getting beat on the issues of your own choosing, LOL...

I meant the last four games including the playoff game. I just forgot to add the actual playoff game. Oops... Either way, I forget why I brought it up to begin with, so let's move on.

ROTFLMAO... the reason the Skins don't LET Campbell play that aggressively is he keeps on killing the team when he does... every time you've let Jason throw the ball over 30 times in a game, he's LOST THE GAME FOR YOU...

In the 3 games in 2006 where he threw over 30 times, he went 58 of 103 for 633 yards, 5 TDs, 3 ints and no fumbles lost... the Skins went 0-3 in those games, they scored under 20 points per game (19.7), and he averaged a paltry 6.3 yards per attempt... that's a 56.3 completion percentage, again rather bad... his quarterback rating for those 3 games was 78.7, which is only SLIGHTLY better than his full season rating of 76.5... he didn't play significantly "better" in those 3 games where the Skins let him "play aggressively"...

See, I don't think pass attempts are a great indicator of aggressiveness. I think passing 20 times deep and intermediate is more aggressive than just passing 30 times. Sounds like he did a lot better though. No fumbles lost, 3 INTs and 5 TDs. Hey, haven't you just discounted YPA (or you do further down) as a very good stat. It was in a comparison to Romo, I know that. Yet, a lot of your criticism comes from YPA.

And in 07, well, let's look at each of the games where he threw the ball over 30 times, then we'll look at his combined numbers for those games:

On 9/23, against the Giants, he went 16 of 34 for 190 yards, 1 TD and 0 ints... but he also had a 4th quarter fumble he lost, with the game tied at 17, and 4 plays later the Giants scored the TD that gave them the 24-17 win... Jason's fumble was the key play of that game...

Tom Brady struggled against the Giants a lot too. The problem with this game is we throttled way back when we got the lead. Jason and the offense built a nice lead in the first half, Gibbs went to his run, run, pass offense and the Giants pinned their ears back and went after Jason. The goat in this game was Gibbs/Saunders and not Jason. He was doing well in the first half, they throttled him down in the second until the game was in jeopardy then suddenly, asked him to throw again. He did very well the last drive, taking us all the way to the 1. A lack of push from Betts cost us that game. He was the goat.

On 10/14, against the Packers, he went 21 of 37 for 217 yards, 1 TD and 1 int... no fumbles in this game, and his int was in the second quarter, in Packers' territory, but it really wasn't a key point in the game, IMO... the Skins scored 14 points, and lost by 3, though, so perhaps if he hadn't committed that turnover, the Skins could have gotten the 3 that would have wound up sending the game into OT... but I won't call him a goat in this one...

Definitely not. It was Moss' fumble in the 4th. He played well, not great though.

Against New England on 10/28, he went 21 of 36 for 197 yards, had 1 TD and 1 int, and lost THREE fumbles... it's hard to label any one player a goat in a game in which you get beat 52-7, but 4 turnovers earns you a pair of goat horns...

Hardly his fault, we had a horrible time with one of the LBs, who caused every fumble. He was badly harrassed that game and nobody decided to help him out. But in a game like that, you're right, everybody sucked.

On 11/11 against the Iggles, he went 23 of 34 for 215 yards, 3 TDs and no ints, and he lost another fumble... this one also came in crunch time, in the 4th quarter, and the Iggles scored a TD on the very next play, stretching their 1 point lead to the final margin of 8... even with 3 TD passes, that critical turnover makes him a goat in this one too...

No way it does. The defense was, easily. He was the reason why we were even close in this one. The defense was the one who gave up 33 points.

On 11/18 against the Cowboys, the Skins REALLY turned Jason loose, letting him throw the ball 54 times... he completed 33 of them, for 348 yards and 1 TD, but he also threw an int and had a fumble... and of course, his interception late in the 4th quarter ended the Skins' comeback hopes, and they lost 28-23... another set of goat horns for my man Jason, please...

That was a bad INT, I believe by Terrence Newman. I don't really remember too much, but he had plenty of yards, a TD and an INT. He could have definitely done better but I don't think he's the goat either.

The following week against the Bucs, Jason completed 30 of 49 for 301 yards, 1 TD and 2 ints, and another fumble lost... that made 3 turnovers in the game for Jason, including 2 4th quarter ints, and the Skins lost 19-13... Jason was again the goat (or at least one of the goats) in this loss...

I actually agree with this one. The first INT was understandable, though unbearable (Ronde Barber is an all-pro) but the second one was undefensible.

Finally, the next week against Buffalo, Jason completed 21 of 37 for 216 yards, 0 TDs and 1 int, and yet another fumble lost... both of those turnovers came in the third quarter, and led to Bills' field goals, and the Skins lost 17-16... his turnovers obviously hurt, but I won't go so far as to label him a goat in this one...

Yeah, obviously the two timeouts by Gibbs makes him the goat. The entire freaking team came out incredibly flat but that's to be expected. They had a lot more on their minds.

So for those 7 games where the Skins let him play "aggressively", he went 165of 281 for 1684 yards, 8 TDs, 6 ints and 8 fumbles lost... that's 14 turnovers, in 7 games... the Skins averaged 16.4 points per game in those 7 games, somewhat lower than their regular season average... that's a quarterback average of 76.7, compared to his season rating of 77.6... his yards per attempt was 6.0 in those games, compared to his full season average of 6.5 YPA...

Doesn't look like he "did better" in those games where they let him "play aggressively" in 2007 either... looks like he did a little worse, actually, particularly in the realm of turning the ball over (of course, fumbles don't affect quarterback rating)...

I like those stats better (even though the QB rating was slightly lower). His fumbles are a problem but hardly one that is uncurable. Also, you have to note that a lot of those games were with teams with better defenses (Eagles, Tampa Bay, New England) so it would stand to reason that he would have a slightly lower QB rating.

So, in the 10 games in which the Skins have let Jason Campbell throw the ball over 30 times thus far in his career, he has a quarterback rating of 77.1, slightly lower than his career rating of 77.3... this does not constitute "doing better"... his yards per attempt is 6.0 in those games, lower than his career average of 6.4... this does not constitute "doing better"... his completion percentage in those games is 58.1, which is SLIGHTLY better than his career percentage of 57.7...

What does your scout's eye say though? And if you factor in the Eagles game where he threw 29 times, that has to affect that rating too (given his rating for the game was 120+). His stats are all that bad though.

And the Skins are 0-10 in those games, averaging 17.4 points per game in those 10 games... over the last 2 years, they've averaged 22.5 points per game in those 22 games where Campbell did not throw the ball over 30 times... again, this does not constitute "doing better", to the contrary, it's pretty clear that the offense did not function particularly well when it comes to the most important stat, putting points on the board, when Campbell threw the ball a lot...

And again, we just went over it game by game. Sometimes the stats add up and equals what you think it should, sometimes it doesn't. Like the Bills game, 5 INTs by Romo? There was no defense of his play, he played horrible statistically and in reality. But, he came back in the end and by an improbable FG by Folk and a very long arm of Crayton, he was vindicated.

Most telling of all is the number of turnovers he's had in those games, and how very often those turnovers have come late in the game, at critical times, when the Skins still had a chance to win... 17 turnovers in 10 games is WAY too many...

A major knock on his game, but with experience comes cool (he never does seem to get rattled) and the game slows down. It may actually not for him, but it's too early to expect it will.

This is what I find time and time again with you Skins fans, you seem to have a massive case of selective perception when it comes to Jason, all you see is when he does something right, but you seem to miss it, or ignore it, when he hurts your team... I watch the same games you do, and see him throwing a lot of dump stuff, yet still not completing a particularly high percentage of his passes (not for somebody throwing short as much as he was), and I see him making critical turnover after critical turnover, and I see the Skins losing every time they ask him to throw the ball over 30 times, and I see a cause and effect, but you guys just don't...

Trust me, we aren't ignoring what he has done wrong. He's just done enough right, given his experience, to warrant a look at 2008. If he hasn't shown any marked improvement, I'll be all for drafting *insert first round QB's name here* next year.

You think that he did well in those games where they opened the offense up, I think he pretty much stunk in those games (even when he threw for 348 against the Boys, it took him 54 attempts to put up that many yards, and in his other 300 yard game-- 301 yards, to be exact-- he threw it 49 times)... and the numbers reflect my take on his play in those game, not yours...

In the Cowboys game, I see a QB who had to carry his offense the entire way. He didn't do overly well, but he did well and he was the only reason we were even in that game.

Did I suggest the Skins should cut him or something?? You guys are stuck with him, at least for a little while longer... but I have a hunch that after watching Todd Collins move the team like Campbell couldn't last year, if Jason struggles at all early on, it won't be long before he'll be in the fans' doghouse, and they'll be screaming for the backup...

Of course, the fans are fickle. I'll default to Zorn's judgment until it becomes crunch time. If we're on the cusp of the playoffs, Campbell is clearly struggling and turning the ball over in the 4th, there will be considerable pressure to pull Campbell. I think it wouldn't do well because Collins is as new to the WCO as Campbell and therefore lost his major advantage (that is, knowledge of the system). After the season, obviously a more in-depth look is warranted and we go from there. Fan reaction is hardly a good indicator of what should be done.

I wonder what you think that will prove... first off, Zorn was not the offensive coordinator, let alone the head coach, when Hasselbeck came to Seattle... he was just the quarterbacks coach...

More to the point, Hasselbeck didn't step right into the starting lineup in Seattle, in his first 2 seasons up there he 22 of the 29 games he played... he didn't become the fulltime starter up there until he was in his third full season, at which point he put up an 88.8 quarterback rating... it was 87.8 the year before, when he started 10 of 16 games...

Hasselbeck has directly attributed his rise to stardom to Zorn. That's why I want to compare the two. If Zorn can make Jason match Hasselbeck's growth in the system then obviously it's a good chance that Jason can continue that trend. In his first two seasons, he was the primary starter. He missed a couple of games (7 over two years) but I don't feel like researching it.

If you think that Jason Campbell has Matt Hasselbeck potential, you're deluding yourself...

We'll see, he's got all physical tools.

Again, ROTFLMAO... my analysis is "fallacious", but to prove it, you have to rely on a series of "what ifs"... well, I have one response to the ever-so-weak "what if" argument:

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle... you're trying to make Betts the goat in order to excuse Jason's play in that game, and that won't fly...

Who drove us to the 1? Campbell... Who couldn't, on two consecutive plays, couldn't gain one yard? That'd be Betts. I actually make Portis, who I admit to liking, the goat. He should have been in there.

Chuckle... now who's "talking out of both sides of his mouth?? Earlier in this thread, you were saying your depth at RT was actually pretty good, bragging about how the quality of the play didn't drop off that much when your starter went down, or even when your backup went down... now, you're saying that missing that right tackle excuses Jason's turning the ball over so often, implying that the right tackle situation was a problem area for your team...

It dropped off plenty, no doubt about that, but given we were playing a third stringer against 1st string DEs, I think it's as good as most other teams could put out there. That still is good, but that still will mean too much pressure. It's hard to keep a good defense off the QB under the best of circumstances.

Man, you really don't even know your own QB, do you??

Fact check time here-- Campbell never even passed for 200 yards in a single game his senior year... his high game was 184 yards... he only threw 11 TDs that season, and he only threw a total of 149 passes... he never threw more than 23 passes in any one game, and had six games where he threw 11 or fewer...

Auburn relied on its potent running game and a stingy defense that year, Campbell was the quintessential "bus driver" on that team... once again, your perception of Jason Campbell is at odds with reality; you think he was a stud his senior year, and he averaged 101.3 yards per game passing...

That's wierd, NFL.com has 2700 yards, 20 TDs and 7 INTs as his stat line for his senior year. Interesting. So did he play 27 games or what? Confusing I tell you! What's your source?

Worse for you, I highly doubt that Zorn will last more than a season or two, so before much longer, Jason will likely have to learn yet ANOTHER new system...

I like Zorn, every time I hear him speak he comes across as a no-nonsense, straight shooter. As to how long he'll last, we all know it's directly tied to the wins.

Uhhh, 3 Pro Bowls in 10 years does not make you a "perennial pro bowler"... "perennial" means every year, though in sports terms we've widened the definition to somebody who makes it almost every year... but 3 times in 10 doesn't come close to "perennial"...

But aren't those 3 in the last 4-5 years? Didn't he sit for 3 years behind Farve anyways?

I rather suspect that Hasselbeck's raw talent was more of a factor in his making the Pro Bowl than Zorn's coaching, anyway... I read an article on one of these message boards about Zorn a coupla days ago, and it was not complimentary toward Jim's ability as a coach...

Hasselbeck would disagree with you. But I guess the message board guru you talked to knows more about Hasselbeck then Hasselbeck.

You keep telling yourself that, but one Auburn assistant coach, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had to pare their playbook down to a "high school playbook", in order for Campbell to grasp it... you hear criticisms about his intelligence, which is the handicap for him learning new systems, from many, many sources... I didn't just make this up...

Never heard that. I'm interested. Linky goodness?

Last year was his second year in Saunders' system, I didn't see any quantum leap forward in his numbers...

Saunders is the owner of the world's most complex system. A LOT of QBs would have problems grasping that.

Now in conclusion, after reading your next post in this thread, I really have no desire to flame you, or annoy you, or anything like that... I don't hate everything associated with the Skins, the way most Cowboys fans are supposed to... when I give you my take on Jason Campbell's abilites, it's coming from a nonpartisan, rational analysis of his numbers, combined with what I saw on the field... my nephew/roommate is a diehard Skins fans, and even he has come to agree with my perception of Jason, a result of watching the games and listening to my commentary as the games went on... he seems to be capable of recognizing reality, even when it comes to his favorite team, and he is most assuredly not a big Jason Campbell fan...

But you make an effort to treat us with respect in here, an effort I have noted and appreciated, and it distresses me a little that I might be tickin' you off by arguing this with you...

Nah, it would take a LOT more than this to tick me off. Football has ceased, with rare exception, to make me mad at all. The only time I was geniunely upset was the debacle that was the Bills game. I wasn't upset that we lost, I was upset that we didn't play with fire and passion. After the initial burst of anger (which almost included a broke remote), I talked to my bro and began to understand that they weren't fired up but rather grief-stricken.

I'm hardly a JC fan. I want him to work it out, that's obvious. He frustrates me but just for now, I withhold judgment. I have to let him develop. Maybe that is it, if so, then I have no problem looking in another direction.

 

[theebs]

I hope no one quotes the last post.

 

[Hostile]

Depends on how hard he is thrown to the turf.

 

[firehawk350]

I hope no one quotes the last post.

In politics, it's called a filibuster.

 

[thewireman]

Jeez what is this, a battle on who can type the longest post