Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

[Player_HTTR]

O-Line = Field of Dreams

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Can't believe no one decided to show Tony Romo.

We expect bad plays from him...we wouldn't be proving anything.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Except Campbell has more lowlights than most NFL QB's

Not true at all, he put up very respectable numbers in a complete mess of a team lead by a incompetent coach and with no protection last year.

You want lowlights, look at the guys we were considering downgrading from Campbell for...Jay Cutler and Fez Sanchez.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Buster

You want lowlights, look at the guys we were considering downgrading from Campbell for...Jay Cutler and Fez Sanchez.

Cutler is actually more disapointed then anyone in his performance from last year and has decided to train his butt off. Here's some footage:

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Gtothearry

There are only 7-8 franchise qb's in all of the NFL. Seems like we complain about our QB situtation much more then other teams fans. Maybe we should open our eyes and realize the situation at QB for us isn't that bad.

Not really, though we're listed as one of the teams needing one in the media frequently. Plenty of Philly fans hate McNabb and so on and so on.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Cutler is actually more disapointed then anyone in his performance from last year and has decided to train his butt off. Here's some footage:

Yesterday was the day to post that.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Buster

Yesterday was the day to post that.

But that would suggest it was an April Fools joke and on this one I'm dead serious. Jay Cutler realizes that his O-Line isn't going to block for him so he's going to have his muscles block for him now. Campbell would be wise to follow suit.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Gtothearry

There are only 7-8 franchise qb's in all of the NFL. Seems like we complain about our QB situtation much more then other teams fans. Maybe we should open our eyes and realize the situation at QB for us isn't that bad.

Hmm, let's see.

The "never-dying legend" tier
Favre

The "certainly established" ones
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Rivers
Ben you-know-who
Rodgers

The ones who "probably are"
Schaub
Palmer
E. Manning
Romo
McNabb
Ryan
Flacco

The "high-hope bringers"
Moore
Freeman
Sanchez
Stafford
Cutler

The "still good has-beens"
Hasselbeck

"Has-been"
Bulger


The "ok ones"
Orton
Pennington
Gradkowski

The "wildcards"
Alex Smith
Vince Young
Cassel

"Doubtful"
Leinart

The "very doubtful ones"
Campbell
Garrard

Utter suck
Derek Anderson
JaMarcus _______

[Dirtbag59]

Nice list. I think if I could change it I would be tempted to drop Ben down one rung but I don't think I would go through with it. I also think that Flacco and Ryan deserve to get bumped up a level. Leinart should be a wildcard.

[tryfuhl]

I'd swap McNabb and Rodgers

[BigHairedAristocrat]

i'd be tempted to put Gerrard in utter suck and Alex Smith in very doubtful. otherwise, great list.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Nice list. I think if I could change it I would be tempted to drop Ben down one rung but I don't think I would go through with it. I also think that Flacco and Ryan deserve to get bumped up a level. Leinart should be a wildcard.

IMO, I think he solidified his status midseason in 2008. I caught some Pitt late games and the announcers kept on going on and on about how he basically stopped trying to overdo it and lose the game for his team after the reg. season San Diego game.

Done for Ryan and Flacco.

I can understand the sentiment on Leinart, but both Smith and Young actually made contributions of some substance the past season even though Young's numbers weren't wowzers and Smith needs to play in a spread system. Perhaps he should be just "doubtful" instead of "very doubtful".

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I'd swap McNabb and Rodgers

I think McNabb is treading dangerously close to "still-good has been". If he gets traded to somewhere like Oakland, he certainly will be going there soon. He also is more inconsistent; he goes into periods of utter suckitude sometimes.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

IMO, I think he solidified his status midseason in 2008. I caught some Pitt late games and the announcers kept on going on and on about how he basically stop trying to overdo it and lose his team the game after the reg. season San Diego game.

Yeah with Ben maybe it's just that he's not really as flashy as the other guys at the top but when you put up multiple 90+ seasons (4 with 2 of them being 100 plus) and at least one 4,000 yard season then you deserve to be there. Also leading his team to the Super Bowl twice and being a major part of the second Super Bowl win isn't to shabby.

[GTripp0012]

Ben and Rodgers are out of place with Manning/Rivers/Brees/Brady, but with that said, I think I would just give them their own category. They could conceivably rate anywhere from 5-6 to 13-14 overall in the NFL based on how you see this year going for them, but even in the best case scenario, neither is going to be confused four one of the Elite Four.

The rest just seems really arbitrary. Campbell and Garrard don't bring any hope, while Bruce Gradkowski, and Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Alex Smith and Matt Cassel do? If those were two separate lists, I know where my hope is going: not with the sucky guys. Is Hasselbeck really still good? How's Bulger any different?

Also are those listed in order of quality from top to bottom? Is being a "has-been" better than being just OK?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ben and Rodgers are out of place with Manning/Rivers/Brees/Brady, but with that said, I think I would just give them their own category. They could conceivably rate anywhere from 5-6 to 13-14 overall in the NFL based on how you see this year going for them, but even in the best case scenario, neither is going to be confused four one of the Elite Four.

The rest just seems really arbitrary. Campbell and Garrard don't bring any hope, while Bruce Gradkowski, and Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Alex Smith and Matt Cassel do? If those were two separate lists, I know where my hope is going: not with the sucky guys. Is Hasselbeck really still good? How's Bulger any different?

Also are those listed in order of quality from top to bottom? Is being a "has-been" better than being just OK?

Favre's tier is a tad tounge-in-cheek because I have to account for the fact that he may not be coming back.

Ben has ridiculous pocket presence and by extension, ability to extend the play along with sufficient accuracy and late-game reliability.

I'm not the biggest proponent of using stats, but Rodgers has been amazingly consistent production-wise.

Besides, all that tier means is whether or not one should be certain that they've established themselves as QBs that the franchise can rely on, not whether they're going to the HOF.

Gradkowski has better pocket presence than Campbell and is stuck on bad team with arguably the most toxic work environment as well.

Moore helped revitalize a stagnant Carolina team and posted good stats against Minny.

Smithy can at least run the spread well.

Orton is a good game manager who doesn't shit things up and has good accuracy on shorter passes.

Lack of durability doesn't imply lack of ability in the case of Hasselbeck.

Bulger's "has-been" tier means just that. He may not be able to win outright against Campbell in a QB war NOW, but he would have crushed him in his prime.

Individual order within tiers doesn't matter. I've had enough of that reading debates on Fire Emblem units.
I'll move the "ok" tier above the wildcard one to stay consistent with the principle that tier represent [perceived] diminishing quality, with Bulger's tier and Favre's tier being the exception.