Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   good news and bad news for Oakland (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/36454-good-news-and-bad-news-oakland.html)

Rainy Parade 05-03-2010 10:26 AM

good news and bad news for Oakland
 
hey guys (and gals if you're out there...)

as some of you know, i write an NFL column for realfootball365.com. i mostly cover the Redskins and the Raiders (one out of interest, the other as assigned by the site), but i also do various league-wide stuff like my weekly "picks" column during the season.

anyway, for this week's Raiders column i thought we could give them some real insight on Jason Campbell. the talking head experts can give them the basics "he has a big arm, played under a zillion different systems/coordinators, had dysfunction in Washington, had a bad offensive line," etc....

but i thought if everyone wanted to chime in with a "good news bad news" sentence or so, i'd cull the best (or simply the ones i choose to use) and offer their fans a real portrait of Jason by the real redskins fans who actually watch all the games.

i'd prefer that it doesn't become an overly negative "campbell sucks" kinda thread, that's why i've framed as "good news bad news" so you can give one positive and one drawback. can be simple/obvious or complex and insightful.

mine might be "the good news is Jason Campbell has very similar rating and W-L record as Jay Cutler who's an alleged franchise QB and the bears gave up a LOT more for him. The bad news is Campbell has a similar rating and W-L as Jay Cutler."

or

The good news is Campbell is tough as nails and is a real pro's pro who never complains and just goes about his business. The bad news is his quiet demeanor leads some to speculate that he doesn't have the "IT" factor people like to see for leadership from the QB position.

anyway, have at it. post them all here...
if you dont want me to use/publish your comments then either specify that or dont post here. also, let me know if you'd like to be anonymous, identified by WP screen name, or perhaps your real name. (if you want to use your real name but dont list it here, just put "PM me for real name" after your post and i'll do so if i use your comment.)

hope to have some fun with this, and also might be a nice way to put a bow on the J-Soup era. if you're tired of discussing JC and think it's a dead horse, feel free to check out all the other threads.

thanks in advance!!

hooskins 05-03-2010 10:31 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Campbell is consistently inconsistent. He has great potential and at times he looks amazing, and at other times he looks completely rattled and misses wide open receivers.

Put a good bunch of players around him and Campbell can win, but I dont see him winning games by himself for a mediocre team.

johno 05-03-2010 10:36 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
The good news is that Jason Campbell isn't going to lose you many footballs games. The bad news is that he won't win you very many either. If nothing else, the guy is a class act all the way.

Ruhskins 05-03-2010 10:39 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
First of all, be prepared to hear from some fans who believe that JC is worst than JaMarcus Russell, an old Jake Delhomme, and this past season's Derek Anderson combined times infinity. That being said, I will try to give you a fair assessment from what I know.

Negatives:
- Campbell tends to hold on the ball too long
- Has problem reading some defenses
- Will throw a costly INT or fumble the ball at key situations
- Accuracy issues when throwing the deep ball
- Once again he will be learning a new offensive system
- May or may not have been shellshocked here in DC
- Can be too quiet at times

Positives
- Great character
- Tough as nails
- May have been in the wrong system here in DC
- Had his best statistical season last year with bad players around him
- Can make plays with his feet, pretty athletic
- Has a strong arm
- A good offensive line that he can trust may fix some of the problems mentioned above
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.

53Fan 05-03-2010 10:41 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
The good news is he can throw a mile. The bad news is he's rarely had time to.

Rainy Parade 05-03-2010 10:44 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
[quote=Ruhskins;697524]
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]


interesting. but didn't we spend a fairly big price to move up to grab JC?

and does oakland really want him there, or is it just a solid move to give up a future 4th rounder to please the fanbase by looking like you made a big move to bring in a new starter? i dont know.

anyway, everyone else can carry on, just wanted to jump in with Ruhskins on that side note.

firstdown 05-03-2010 10:45 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
[quote=Ruhskins;697524]First of all, be prepared to hear from some fans who believe that JC is worst than JaMarcus Russell, an old Jake Delhomme, and this past season's Derek Anderson combined times infinity. That being said, I will try to give you a fair assessment from what I know.

Negatives:
- Campbell tends to hold on the ball too long
- Has problem reading some defenses
- Will throw a costly INT or fumble the ball at key situations
- Accuracy issues when throwing the deep ball
- Once again he will be learning a new offensive system
- May or may not have been shellshocked here in DC
- Can be too quiet at times

Positives
- Great character
- Tough as nails
- May have been in the wrong system here in DC
- Had his best statistical season last year with bad players around him
- Can make plays with his feet, pretty athletic
- Has a strong arm
- A good offensive line that he can trust may fix some of the problems mentioned above
- Oakland actually wants him there*

*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. [B]Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB,[/B] he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]

Gibbes trade up just to get JC so that does not make one bit of sense. JC had plenty of good situations here over the years its just that he is what he is a very average QB. For the record I would not quote Greenberg as a source for football knowledge.

jdlea 05-03-2010 10:45 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Jason's passing stats have improved every season since he became a starter, that's saying something considering what he's had to deal with in Washington. At this point, he's about an average starter and you can do better, but you can also do a whole hell of a lot worse that Jason Campbell.

SBXVII 05-03-2010 10:46 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Ruhskins, not to change the topic but the same could be said about the people J.Campbell had to throw to...the WR's. I'm refering to picking and developing.

Mattyk 05-03-2010 10:51 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Good news: He's not JaMarcus Russell.

Bad news: He's only Jason Campbell.

Rajmahal33 05-03-2010 11:37 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Good News: No one knows if Campbell is a bad QB
Bad News: No one knows if Campbell is a good QB

freddyg12 05-03-2010 11:57 AM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
The good news is that he's a major upgrade over JaMarcus Russell and he still has some upside that is yet untapped. He should improve some simply due to maturity, if the system around him is stable and he has decent personel. He is a solid person and has shown he can lead by example, and understands how to act professionally off the field.

The bad news is that he has shown a tendency to fold under pressure, throwing crucial interceptions to end games, and he needs virtually all of the pieces in place in order to become a consistent, winning quarterback. In this regard, Joe Gibbs might've been thinking that since he won a SB w/Mark Rypien he could win w/Jason Campbell. Campbell is much better than Rypien, but Rypien had the hogs & the posse, Campbell didn't.

bigmarley4 05-03-2010 12:23 PM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
Good news: Improved every year
Bad news: Only as good as people around him.

BigHairedAristocrat 05-03-2010 12:24 PM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
The good news is Campbell is a major upgrade over JaMarcus Russell and brings dignity and class to an organization that has none. The bad news is the Raiders owner, head coach, offensive coordinator, and quarterbacks coach are all morons, so, in the end, it won't make much of a difference.

SmootSmack 05-03-2010 12:30 PM

Re: good news and bad news for Oakland
 
[quote=Ruhskins;697524]*I was listening to Mike & Mike, and I thought Greenberg had a point regarding Campbell. He thought JC was never in a good situation here in DC. He seemingly fell to the Redskins when they picked, I've heard rumors that the Skins wanted Rodgers and they settled for JC. Gibbs never wanted to develop a young QB, he had a preference of working with older veterans, and maybe he had a win-now attitude with all the pressures of being a Redskins coach (hence why he didn't bother with Ramsey). Also, once JC didn't immediately pan out, Snyder wanted a new QB. I just hope the team does a better job in the future with QBs; because I feel that starting with Ramsey, we didn't do a good job at either picking QBs or developing them.[/quote]

They said all this on Mike and Mike today?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.08924 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25