Per Vinny Cerrato, JC is our QB this season!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

and they were wrong. Mark Brunell looked like the best QB of all time against Dallas when we had that incredible comeback and during the game against the texans when he set the record for completions... but those were just individual games. You cant judge a QB by one game and you cant judge Campbell by 8. All the Campbell apologists focus on the first 8 games and ignore the last 8...

ask any of those "pretty respected sources" if they still feel "Campbell is the answer" now. I garauntee they would give you a different answer... one that would range anywhere from "undetermined" to "no." If Campbell really was the undisputed answer, then he'd have a new contract already. He doesnt. He was not the MVP of the league. He was not the MVP of the team. He did not go to the pro-bowl. He wasnt an alternate. Hes not on anyones list as one of the top QBs in the league. No respected sources are expecting him to become one this year. Fans HOPE he is... but no one who doest drink burgundy and gold koolaid is expecting it. Everyone else is doubting and watching with curiosity at most. That should tell you something.

Dude, I'm tired of you. One thing is to doubt the team you follow and hope they do something you think is better. But you're just trying to prove that you are right. I mean what type of "fan" writes long threads talking about how their team's QB is going to fail? People keep pointing out some factual errors on your argument, yet you just dismiss them as nothing. Shit, at least admit some of those mistakes.

- You stated that Jason Campbell has been in the same offense two years in a row (2006-2007 seasons). FACT: Jason Campbell started ONLY 6 games in 2006 and the whole season 2007. That is not two whole seasons. And the whole part is important, because we are talking about continuity and familiarity with the subject.

- You stated that Jason Campbell was not playing at the Pro Bowl level during the first half of the season. FACT: He was playing at a Pro Bowl level during the first 8 games. And respected sports journalists said so AT THAT TIME. Yes, he declined during the second half, for many reasons, however you dismiss JC's good play in those first 8 games because they don't fit with your anti-Campbell threads.

- You make arguments based on your opinion and treat them as facts. And make predictions that you are so certain about them, they sound fanatical. FACT: You and I are fans, not football experts. If you are one, please enlighten us then, but as far as what I know about you, you are not one (and neither am I).

- Finally, you DO realize that as fans we're supposed to drink the Kool Aid? Shit, I'm a big Maryland Terrapins fan, and I had them in the Sweet Sixteen in my bracket, not because it makes sense or I studied tape or I'm freaking Andy Katz, I did it because I'm a fan and as a fan I drink the Kool Aid.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Dude, I'm tired of you. One thing is to doubt the team you follow and hope they do something you think is better. But you're just trying to prove that you are right. I mean what type of "fan" writes long threads talking about how their team's QB is going to fail? People keep pointing out some factual errors on your argument, yet you just dismiss them as nothing. Shit, at least admit some of those mistakes.

Sorry if ive gotten under your skin, but please dont question whether i'm a fan - i love the Redskins. I think Jason Campbell is a horrible fit for our offense. I do not look at him through rose-colored glasses. I don't make excuses for him. I am confident that 2009 is going to be a wasted year if hes our QB. With that premise, and because i'm a fan, i want us to move on and start building around someone who can take us places. I don't want Campbell to fail because i want to be proved right or something crazy like that. I feel very strongly about my opinion of him and I want the TEAM to succeed. I feel the team has a better long-term chance of success with someone else under center. Right now, id rather have a 2nd round pick than Jason Campbell. Agree or disagree with me, thats fine. But its still my opinion, as a fan who wants this team to succeed.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

- You stated that Jason Campbell has been in the same offense two years in a row (2006-2007 seasons). FACT: Jason Campbell started ONLY 6 games in 2006 and the whole season 2007. That is not two whole seasons. And the whole part is important, because we are talking about continuity and familiarity with the subject.

How does the fact that he only started 6 games one of thoese years have anything to do with my saying he was in the same system two years? He competed for the starting job in 06 and "lost" to an aging Brunell (wrong decision by Gibbs) and went into 2007 as the starter. Granted, playing time is very very important, as is practice with the first team offense, but he was in the system two whole seasons. That was my argument. I never tried to say he was the starter for two whole seasons, so dont try to strengthen your argument by accusing me of saying things i didnt say.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You stated that Jason Campbell was not playing at the Pro Bowl level during the first half of the season. FACT: He was playing at a Pro Bowl level during the first 8 games. And respected sports journalists said so AT THAT TIME. Yes, he declined during the second half, for many reasons, however you dismiss JC's good play in those first 8 games because they don't fit with your anti-Campbell threads.

How is it a "fact" that he was performing at a pro-bowl level? Thats a matter of opinion. All campbell did was manage games and not throw interceptions - generally, that doesnt get a guy in the pro-bowl. In the first half of the season, Campbell only threw 8 Touchdowns - thats an average of one a game. usually, guys averaging 1 TD a game dont go to the pro-bowl.

Its nice to say "he was performing at a pro-bowl level" but what does that really mean? To make it to the pro-bowl, Campbell would have be one of the top 3 QBs in the NFC (1 Starter, 2 alternates). Was he?

For their first 8 games of the season, Kurt Warner (14TD, 6 INT), Drew Brees (15TD, 7 INT), Tony Romo (14-5 in only 6 games before injury), and Aaron Rogers (13 TD, 5 INT) were all performing at a higher level than Campbell. (I looked up TDs and INTs online but not yards and other stats because i dont have the time). Campbell was playing exceptionally effecient, but he wasnt doing enough to garner serious pro-bowl consideration. he certainly couldnt be considered better than Warner, Brees or Romo, although an argument could have been made for Rogers. Either way, he wouldnt have been in teh top 3. During the first half of the season, Campbells play was more in line with that of guys like Eli manning and Donovan McNabb - good, but not good enough to go to the pro-bowl.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

- You make arguments based on your opinion and treat them as facts. And make predictions that you are so certain about them, they sound fanatical. FACT: You and I are fans, not football experts. If you are one, please enlighten us then, but as far as what I know about you, you are not one (and neither am I).

- Finally, you DO realize that as fans we're supposed to drink the Kool Aid? Shit, I'm a big Maryland Terrapins fan, and I had them in the Sweet Sixteen in my bracket, not because it makes sense or I studied tape or I'm freaking Andy Katz, I did it because I'm a fan and as a fan I drink the Kool Aid.

Fans are not "supposed" to drink the koolaid - if you do, thats your choice and thats fine - but drinking the Koolaid only results in disappointment. I have found in my years of being a skins fan, that I enjoy the games much more if i have realistic (ie lower) expectations. Like you said, we are both fans. I'm not an expert and usually dont have time to do mountains of research. I base most of my opinions off of what I personally see, what I read, and what my friends see. None of my friends are Redskins fans, and i find their opinions are often far more objective.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

How is it a "fact" that he was performing at a pro-bowl level? Thats a matter of opinion. All campbell did was manage games and not throw interceptions - generally, that doesnt get a guy in the pro-bowl. In the first half of the season, Campbell only threw 8 Touchdowns - thats an average of one a game. usually, guys averaging 1 TD a game dont go to the pro-bowl.

Its nice to say "he was performing at a pro-bowl level" but what does that really mean? To make it to the pro-bowl, Campbell would have be one of the top 3 QBs in the NFC (1 Starter, 2 alternates). Was he?

For their first 8 games of the season, Kurt Warner (14TD, 6 INT), Drew Brees (15TD, 7 INT), Tony Romo (14-5 in only 6 games before injury), and Aaron Rogers (13 TD, 5 INT) were all performing at a higher level than Campbell. (I looked up TDs and INTs online but not yards and other stats because i dont have the time). Campbell was playing exceptionally effecient, but he wasnt doing enough to garner serious pro-bowl consideration. he certainly couldnt be considered better than Warner, Brees or Romo, although an argument could have been made for Rogers. Either way, he wouldnt have been in teh top 3. During the first half of the season, Campbells play was more in line with that of guys like Eli manning and Donovan McNabb - good, but not good enough to go to the pro-bowl.

This is your best, and most realistic argument in the thread, not to mention that you've gone out of your way to support it.

For the record, I didn't agree with Ron Jaworski at the time he said that Jason Campbell was the first half league MVP. I thought he was the second or third most valuable player on the offense in that half of the year. He was definately very valuable to us, but not moreso than Brees or Romo or Warner, I would agree.

However, Jason Campbell was the only one of the players on our offense who actually improved the level of play in the second half of the year (well, Fred Davis if you want to go there). The only empirical evidence I can back this up with is his efficiency on QB rushes, non-existant in the first half as the offense was a burden to learn, but more effective in the second half of the year than any other QB in the NFL. Throuough tape study backs my opinion here. Moss pulled his hammy at the end of the Detroit game and was not productive from that point on. Randle El stayed productive through December 1st and then fell off of the face of the earth. Portis was half as effective as he was in the first eight games (this was mostly because of the run defenses we faced, our OL was simply overmatched). Cooley was rather inconsistent. Devin Thomas never did get it together. By the final three weeks of the year (mind you after playing 4 of the 5 best defenses in the second half of the year during the prior 6 weeks), the running game was practically non existant. Campbell, in essence was the entire offense.

He was making faster, smarter reads on the whole (he made some big mistakes against Philly), but most telling, started to deliver first down passes on the money while getting drilled in the chops. Scouts will tell you that those plays are what separates franchise QBs from the rest. Maybe they just think that. Maybe it doesn't matter. Point is, unlike critcisms like reads and progressions, that actually happened.

On the macro level, the national media sees the decline in the total production of the Redskins offense, they don't take into account that they played three awful Ds in October (masking when the decline began), while playing 5 top defenses in November and December. So they see decline, and they start pointing fingers at the most noticible culprits. Sadly, this passes for football analysis these days. Hey, gotta get columns out somehow.