Romo vs Campbell 1st 16 games

[03EBZ06]

I have been impressed with Campbell this season. He throws a nice deep ball and can make all the throws. It is still early but i think over time this guy could be a good qb for the skins.

I guess we've been watching different games because I'm not impressed with campbell at all. He is indecisive, inaccurate, and doesn't read defense all that well and his numbers bear that out. Could he be a good QB, sure, but from what I've seen of him, I don't think he will, to me but only time will tell.

 

[WoodysGirl]

The biggest difference is how Romo was able to sit and Campbell wasn't. I don't know Campbell's potential level. That's a very debatable point for some people.

But I wonder if he's another of those that prolly should've sat for a little bit longer than he did. I just feel like the urgency to push QBs onto the field hurts them more than it helps them.

I really don't think it's fair to compare the two, truthfully. I've always looked at Romo as an inexperienced vet versus as a rookie.

 

[dguinta1]

I have been impressed with Campbell this season. He throws a nice deep ball and can make all the throws. It is still early but i think over time this guy could be a good qb for the skins.

I agree on this one. I think he has the potential and a few seasons under his belt with a quality balanced attack and the offensive scheme getting the wide outs more involved, he can be a pretty good QB. Just my .02

 

[03EBZ06]

The biggest difference is how Romo was able to sit and Campbell wasn't.

I believe Campbell was on the bench for 1.5 years so he was able to learn for awhile before he started for skins.

Also, Campbell was a first round pick and as we all know Romo was UDFA, and since Campbell played in a tough SEC conference, Romo had lot to catch up to Campbell in terms of bigger stage experience and because of that, I think Romo's 3.5 year and Campbell's 1.5 year learning equals out, IMO.

 

[Zaxor]

The biggest difference is how Romo was able to sit and Campbell wasn't. I don't know Campbell's potential level. That's a very debatable point for some people.

But I wonder if he's another of those that prolly should've sat for a little bit longer than he did. I just feel like the urgency to push QBs onto the field hurts them more than it helps them.

I really don't think it's fair to compare the two, truthfully. I've always looked at Romo as an inexperienced vet versus as a rookie.

I maybe wrong WG but didn't Campbell sit a year under Brunnell?

 

[WoodysGirl]

I believe Campbell was on the bench for 1.5 years so he was able to learn for awhile before he started for skins.

Also, Campbell was a first round pick and as we all know Romo was UDFA, and since Campbell played in a tough SEC conference, Romo had lot to catch up to Campbell in terms of bigger stage experience and because of that, I think Romo's 3.5 year and Campbell's 1.5 year learning equals out, IMO.

I maybe wrong WG but didn't Campbell sit a year under Brunnell?

Romo sat four years without throwing one pass. Regardless of their respective "pedigree" or draft status, the playing field evens out, because it's what you do once you get in the league.

I wonder if Romo would've been so spectacular if he'd come in after 1.5 years. So that's why I think maybe Campbell should've sat a little longer than the time he did. Some guys need more grooming to get that "it" that they need to succeed in the league.

 

[Rack]

Comparing Romo to Campbell is a laugher. Skins fans will do whatever they can to bash Romo and prop up Campbell. I will let them delude themselves, because there really is no comparison as Campbell -right now- is nowhere near Romo's league.

If you REALLY want to depress Skins fans compare T.O. and Brandon Lloyd.

- T.O. signed a 3-year $25M deal with only $5M guaranteed
- Lloyd signed a 6-year (or was it 5?) $30M deal with $10M gauranteed
- T.O. was an unrestricted FA signing that cost the Cowboys 0 draft picks
- Skins traded a 3rd and a 4th round pick for Lloyd (even though he was likely to get cut by SF)
- T.O. has 135 catches for 2035 yards and 21 TDs since joining Dallas
- Lloyd has 25 catches for 379 yards and 0 TDs since joining Washington.

Dallas got a MUCH better WR for less gauranteed money and it cost them no future players.

That's gotta hurt.

Campbell is a "rich man's" Quincy Carter.

That's only cuz QC blew all his money on drugs (literally and figuratively).

The biggest difference is how Romo was able to sit and Campbell wasn't.

Campbell sat for a year and a half. That's plenty of sitting time for a first round pick.

Romo sat four years without throwing one pass. Regardless of their respective "pedigree" or draft status, the playing field evens out, because it's what you do once you get in the league.

Agreed to a certain extent.

But if you can find me one NFL GM, Coach, Player, or "Expert" who expects an undrafted FA to be as good as a first round pick, or to be able to start as early as a first round pick, then I'll pay your bills for 6 months. And I'll wash and wax your car weekly for the rest of my life.

 

[03EBZ06]

Romo sat four years without throwing one pass.

Romo sat for 3.5 years, not four full years. If we are going to be precise with Campbell's grooming time then we should be with Romo's timeline as well.

Regardless of their respective "pedigree" or draft status, the playing field evens out, because it's what you do once you get in the league.

How does playing field even out then a player is not expected to make a team or have any expectation to a player who is drafted to be the QB of a team? The player who is drafted to lead the team is going to get best of everything, whereas an UDFA is looked upon as a TC fodder.

I wonder if Romo would've been so spectacular if he'd come in after 1.5 years. So that's why I think maybe Campbell should've sat a little longer than the time he did. Some guys need more grooming to get that "it" that they need to succeed in the league.

It's hard to say, but it's anyone's guess if campbell sat for 3.5 years, he would be performing at Romo's level. My guess is no.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Agreed to a certain extent.

But if you can find me one NFL GM, Coach, Player, or "Expert" who expects an undrafted FA to be as good as a first round pick, or to be able to start as early as a first round pick, then I'll pay your bills for 6 months. And I'll wash and wax your car weekly for the rest of my life.

Wasn't saying that, at all. Each player is different. Some are ready to go day one. Others need time. Only point I'm making as it pertains to Campbell is maybe he needed more grooming.

 

[Hostile]

Cue the Bleeder...

:laugh2:

I got it.

 

[Rack]

Wasn't saying that, at all. Each player is different. Some are ready to go day one. Others need time. Only point I'm making as it pertains to Campbell is maybe he needed more grooming.

Another half year or full year likely would of helped, but I think better coaching and better personell decisions probably would of helped too.


I really don't think Campbell is a "Bad" QB. I liked him coming out of college.

 

[THUMPER]

Romo sat four years without throwing one pass. Regardless of their respective "pedigree" or draft status, the playing field evens out, because it's what you do once you get in the league.

I wonder if Romo would've been so spectacular if he'd come in after 1.5 years. So that's why I think maybe Campbell should've sat a little longer than the time he did. Some guys need more grooming to get that "it" that they need to succeed in the league.

Romo sat for 3.5 years but he was showing his skills in pre-season after his 2nd season. I don't believe that sitting for another year or two would have benefited Campbell all that much. In fact, some QBs lose whatever they might have had by sitting for too long. They lose that competitive edge and leadership ability by becoming comfortable with the backup role.

In today's NFL a 1st rounder is expected to come in and play within a short time. A QB who sits more than a year is a rarity so I don't see this as a valid excuse for Campbell.

The skills/abilities that are missing from Campbell's game are not things that one learns from sitting anyway. He lacks courage under fire, which you either have or not. He panics when pressured and is afraid to throw deep. That is a natural ability, not an acquired skill. He takes too long to read defenses or to go through his progressions and usually just dumps the ball off quickly to Cooley or a RB rather than checking out the other WRs downfield which accounts for the lack of TD passes to the WRs and deep passes in general.

Derek Anderson of the Browns has "IT" and sat for 1.5 years. He is outstanding at making his reads and is constantly looking downfield. Again, this is not something that you can learn, you either have it or you don't and Campbell doesn't have it. His QB rating this year, playing for a poor team, is 90.7 and he is near the top in yards per attempt (Romo is 2nd only to Brady). He was a 6th round pick by the Ravens in 2005.

Maybe if Jason Campbell was playing for a top quality team, loaded with talent and lots of high paid veterans... oh wait, he is. DOH!

 

[WoodysGirl]

Romo sat for 3.5 years, not four full years. If we are going to be precise with Campbell's grooming time then we should be with Romo's timeline as well.

That's fine, though I wasn't trying to be that precise.

How does playing field even out then a player is not expected to make a team or have any expectation to a player who is drafted to be the QB of a team? The player who is drafted to lead the team is going to get best of everything, whereas an UDFA is looked upon as a TC fodder.

When it's all said and done, guys have to show something to the coaches, no matter the draft status. Of course a draft pick will get more of an opportunity, but if a team is going to invest time, even as little as Romo probably got, they still want to see a return on their investment.

It's hard to say, but it's anyone's guess if campbell sat for 3.5 years, he would be performing at Romo's level.My guess is no.

True. I just don't see the point of comparing when they're obviously at two different stages of development.

 

[bobtheflob]

Living in the DC area, I've seen a lot of Campbell. I think there's an even bigger difference in watching these players than the stats show.

With Romo, I'm always confident that he can make plays. 3rd and 8 doesn't scare me nearly as much as it used to because I know Romo can make it happen. When plays start breaking down I know that he can imporvise and make a play downfield.

With Campbell, it looks like he's playing in a highly controlled atmosphere. It looks like they give him very few reads to make. It seems like he has one option, and if that's covered he dumps it off. When he does throw it downfield, you can tell it has nothing to do with coverage. He throws it deep no matter how well his guy his covered, so it looks to me that the coaching staff wants to take advtantage of his arm on deep throws without trusting his ability to make reads.

 

[THUMPER]

After running the numbers on Derek Anderson, he is a much better comparison with Campbell but I also believe he has a much better upside than JC as well.

Both sat for 1.5 years but Anderson is much further along and is an excellent deep passer. And he is doing it with a whole lot less talent around him than Campbell is so the excuses for Campbell don't hold water.

Anderson has thrown 25 TDs in only 13 games (11 games as a starter) compared with Campbell's 21 in 16 games. He has thrown more INTs as well but that's because he is willing to take chances and doesn't have much of a running game to rely on. He is also improving in that area, only throwing 1 INT over the last 4 games compared with 9 TDs over that same period.

He has been sacked at a lower rate than either Romo or Campbell and has only fumbled 5 times, losing 2, in 13 games.

His 82.8 QB Rating ranks him well ahead of Campbell (79.8) but far below Romo (95.1).

The fact that he was a 6th round pick by the Ravens and they spent 2 1st rounders to get the overhyped Brady Quinn and he is STILL starting says a lot for his ability IMO. I would take him over Campbell any day.

 

[Rack]

After running the numbers on Derek Anderson, he is a much better comparison with Campbell but I also believe he has a much better upside than JC as well.

Both sat for 1.5 years but Anderson is much further along and is an excellent deep passer. And he is doing it with a whole lot less talent around him than Campbell is so the excuses for Campbell don't hold water.

Anderson has thrown 25 TDs in only 13 games (11 games as a starter) compared with Campbell's 21 in 16 games. He has thrown more INTs as well but that's because he is willing to take chances and doesn't have much of a running game to rely on. He is also improving in that area, only throwing 1 INT over the last 4 games compared with 9 TDs over that same period.

He has been sacked at a lower rate than either Romo or Campbell and has only fumbled 5 times, losing 2, in 13 games.

His 82.8 QB Rating ranks him well ahead of Campbell (79.8) but far below Romo (95.1).

The fact that he was a 6th round pick by the Ravens and they spent 2 1st rounders to get the overhyped Brady Quinn and he is STILL starting says a lot for his ability IMO. I would take him over Campbell any day.

What?

Braylon Edwards is EONS better then any WR on the Skins roster (including Moss) and Cooley can't hold Winslow's jock (eventhough he probably wants to).

And the Browns OL is one of the best in the league this year. Joe Thomas would be Rookie of the Year if not for Adrian Peterson.

Portis is better then Jamal Lewis , but Lewis is still a pretty good RB.

OVerall, the Browns have more talent on offense then the Skins. It's not even close IMO.

 

[THUMPER]

I just don't see the point of comparing when they're obviously at two different stages of development.

It isn't that they are at two different stages of development but that they are at two different levels of talent. Romo is and will always be a whole lot better than Campbell. They have both started 16 games (in my comparison anyway) and that is where the majority of experience is going to come from, not from sitting on the bench year after year. A year or two learning from a veteran helps but the real experience comes from playing not from watching.

Also, Campbell was usually the #2 guy or was at least active when he wasn't starting whereas Romo was inactive for most of the years he wasn't starting. I seem to remember that he was on the practice squad for a while too but I can't be positive about that. Guys who are 3rd or lower on the depth chart don't get many reps in practice so the amount of time Romo sat is not necessarily the same in terms of reps as Campbell's.

 

[Rack]

Romo was never on the practice squad and even if he wasn't "Active" he still suited out every game (Inactive QB rule).

 

[THUMPER]

What?

Braylon Edwards is EONS better then any WR on the Skins roster (including Moss) and Cooley can't hold Winslow's jock (eventhough he probably wants to).

And the Browns OL is one of the best in the league this year. Joe Thomas would be Rookie of the Year if not for Adrian Peterson.

Portis is better then Jamal Lewis , but Lewis is still a pretty good RB.

OVerall, the Browns have more talent on offense then the Skins. It's not even close IMO.

That's not what the Commanders fans say.

 

[THUMPER]

Romo was never on the practice squad and even if he wasn't "Active" he still suited out every game (Inactive QB rule).

Inactive players don't suit up as you can only bring 45 players out of 53.

Still, the main point was that he wasn't getting many reps in practice as the 3rd string guy.