Campbell's numbers dont lie

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Buster

You're obviously NOT watching the games very closely. He is playing very well...unlike most of the team.

Campbell may be playing ok (and great based on stats alone), but he's sure not making any plays to win games - and he sure has made plays that have contributed to losses.

I try to be objective as possible but I know one opinion that I strongly believe in is- a great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Campbell may be playing ok (and great based on stats alone), but he's sure not making any plays to win games - and he sure has made plays that have contributed to losses.

I try to be objective as possible but I know one opinion that I strongly believe in is- a great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.

Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.

Sure it's not all on campbell, but redskins needs the qb to make plays to win the game.

He's not going to be Manning, but he needs to make plays to win games, not lose them. The stats don't matter if you don't make the plays and also make mistakes at crucial times.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Sure, with Peyton Manning maybe.

You could also say with a better defense we could be 3-0 or 2-1.

ive been thinking alot lately about the best approach to building a winning franchise after reading some of the lions fans forums. they seem pretty split on the two major approaches:

1) try to get lucky and get yourself a franchise qb in the draft.

or

2) build thru the trenches and draft to have a solid deep team in which you only need a decent/good qb

i am not the right person nor knowledgeable enough to put together a thread worth discussing but i do find it real interesting. either way has pros - cons. a great qb makes his line, recievers and coaches look better and it only takes perfect draft pick. but (imo) its easier to evaluate O line and D players in the draft than it is to land that special qb who only comes around once every few years. i would argue matt ryan was the one last year with flacco looking great under cameron.

lol you see im already all over the place in my thoughts.

does anyone know any real informative, history based intensive sports article regarding the best philosophy to build a winning franchise? has bill parcells written a book yet lol?

i should probably just google.

go skins!!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

ive been thinking alot lately about the best approach to building a winning franchise after reading some of the lions fans forums. they seem pretty split on the two major approaches:

1) try to get lucky and get yourself a franchise qb in the draft.

or

2) build thru the trenches and draft to have a solid deep team in which you only need a decent/good qb

i am not the right person nor knowledgeable enough to put together a thread worth discussing but i do find it real interesting. either way has pros - cons. a great qb makes his line, recievers and coaches look better and it only takes perfect draft pick. but (imo) its easier to evaluate O line and D players in the draft than it is to land that special qb who only comes around once every few years. i would argue matt ryan was the one last year with flacco looking great under cameron.

lol you see im already all over the place in my thoughts.

does anyone know any real informative, history based intensive sports article regarding the best philosophy to build a winning franchise? has bill parcells written a book yet lol?

i should probably just google.

go skins!!

You raise good points, but it you end up doing 1) and not 2) or 2) and not 1), the result isn't going to get you where you want to go.

The Skins made a nice value pick in Campbell at No. 25 in the 2005 draft. At that point, QBs are about a 50% proposition, and Campbell has certainly exceeded that expectation. But, through all the work I've done, they lagged along in the No. 2 department, making their investment in No. 1 kind of a waste of time.

They, of course, can go develop quality players around him whenever they want to including the remainder of this season. But our player acquisition abilities, while certainly not the worst, have been sub-optimal. And we kind of brought Campbell along slowly with the expectation that he could surprise a lot of people in 2008. But the execution of the plan was poor, and plan B was to freak out and try to go for the quick fix once again. As it normally is.

When we drafted Jason Campbell, we took a potential franchise QB, and I thought (outside of the way we shifted the offenses on him) we handled his development pretty well, but at this point, I'm seriously questioning whether the Redskins are ever going to get the payoff. Right now, Campbell is stranded on a team with a highly paid but sometimes average, usually crappy defense, no running game, and receivers that he needs to make better, not the other way around. It's just a horrible situation.

Maybe there's something to the fact that this team must be bad before things get better.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

A great qb is the start of a great team, a bad qb is the start of a bad team, and an average qb is the start of an average team. The redskins team is a bad team and it starts with campbell as a player.

And I am pretty sure with better qb play - the redskins would be 3-0 instead of 1-2.

I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.

Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses, but I don't necessarily disagree with your point that a great Offensive line can make an average QB look good and a good QB look great, etc. And a QB who has all day to throw can make average Receivers look good, etc. Even more evidence that picking 3 Receivers in the 2nd round was stupid. Who was Brady throwing to again when he won 3 Super Bowls? Branch and Gaffney? Skill positions don't mean jack.

I've said time and time again that I think Campbell could take a team like the Titans of last year deep into the playoffs. I just don't think he's good enough to overcome deficiencies in other parts of the Offense. If everything else is perfect (Elite O line, Elite Defense, Dominant Running Game), I don't see any reason Campbell couldn't win a Super Bowl like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer did. Of course, both went on to become back-ups, but at least they got their ring.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Hasselbeck is legit and Brees and Rodgers were victims of poor Defenses

I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense.

And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense.

And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.

He doesn't need to overcome anything. I hate to be redundant, but all he needs to do as quarterback is to make big plays. And I know it's better said than done, but without the qb making plays then you can't be a considered a superbowl contender- unless you have an all-time great defense. 2 losses that easily could have been won by campbell if he makes the plays - this is the difference between 10-6 and 8-8 of last season.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

2 losses that easily could have been won by campbell if he makes the plays - this is the difference between 10-6 and 8-8 of last season.

Surely you're kidding. I hope you're also prepared to GIVE credit to the QB for every game in which the Redskins won and at least one first down was gained due to a completed pass.

The story of this team the past 5 years is measured in made or missed field goals, one TD or less. You start trotting out examples of games that "coulda shoulda" been won, you need to put all the games that WERE won up as well.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by dgack

Surely you're kidding. I hope you're also prepared to GIVE credit to the QB for every game in which the Redskins won and at least one first down was gained due to a completed pass.

The story of this team the past 5 years is measured in made or missed field goals, one TD or less. You start trotting out examples of games that "coulda shoulda" been won, you need to put all the games that WERE won up as well.

Of course, I would be giving credit- IF the redskins had a winning record. But they are at 1-2. It wouldn't make sense to look at the wins from the previous seasons and giving out credit, when they are losing and not performing well now.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I consider Hasselbeck average because he has had five "good" seasons out of eleven, and most of his career was spent on a team with a dominant run game and above average defense.

And my point for adding Brees and Rodgers was to illustrate the fact that even they could not overcome deficiencies on their respective teams. Right now, I think the only quarterback that you could add to a below average team and possibly make the playoffs is Peyton Manning.

I'd say 6 years and he was a back-up for the first 2 and injured the last couple. And he still kicked our asses when we knocked his dominant running back out of the game in the first quarter of the playoffs a few years back. BTW, I didn't say he was hall of fame material, but he's a legitimate, unquestioned and un-threatened starter. My point in previous posts with Campbell is that I don't think any other team would take him to be their guaranteed starter if we were to let him walk at the end of the season. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I completely disagree. Teams are built on the offensive and defensive lines. A great offensive line can make an average to below average quarterback look amazing(Rypien, Doug Williams, Matt Hasselbeck, etc.), and bad offensive lines can make even elite quarterbacks look average or worse.

Plenty of teams have had elite quarterback play and have still been average to bad. The Saints of 2007 were 7-9 with Drew Brees. The Packers went 6-10 last season with Aaron Rogers.

I agree that if you put Peyton Manning on this team, it may be worth a few extra wins, but the biggest problem with Washington is absolutely not the quarterback.

The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking. The issue with the quarterbacks you listed is that they proved themselves with good and great teams, and it all started with the quartebacks. They made the big plays. It can't be overstated the impact that the quarterback makes on any team.

Not advocating starting Collins, but I will say that the same O line looked much better when Collins was behind center than it did when Campbell was the QB. The backs had bigger holes to run through (maybe because Defenses had more respect for the passing game) and pass protection was not a problem (maybe because Collins got the ball out quicker). The Receivers and Defense played better as well. But I will acknowledge that Campbell is better now than he was then and Collins is probably worse now than he was then (playing in Saunder's system)

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

The offensive line can't be attributed to his mistakes or his lack of playmaking.

Does that mean that Tom Brady's mistakes and lack of playmaking in the Super Bowl against the Giants was entirely his fault, or do you think it had something to do with the Giants front four manhandling the Pats offensive line?

Basically, my point is the quarterback is the top brick of the pyramid that is the 53 man roster, and you don't build a pyramid by trying to place the top brick, first.