Per Vinny Cerrato, JC is our QB this season!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I dont know what factual evidence i can provide that i havent already. I dont use circular logic. I have an opinion, based on facts. You have an opinion, also based on facts. Which facts we chose to use to support our arguments reinforces our existing beliefs. You reject the arguments I make, exaggerate my position to the extreme to make it look foolish and ive taken similar approaches myself.

I would like nothing more than to be wrong about Campbell, because it would mean:

1) Cerrato and Snyder knew what they were doing when they paired the Square peg and round hole... therefore the franchise is in more capeable hands than we thought.

2) We wont need to go shopping for a QB in 2010 when the market will be thin and we'll be crammed for cap space (Roger Godell thinks the CBA will be extended before 2010).

3) We can probably afford to trade Brennan for picks in 2011.

4) We'll have some freakin' stability at the position for the first time since i cant even remember.

5) Zorn will stay, meaning we wont need to continue the constant merry-go-round coaching turnover that happens every few years... the entire franchise can be stable again.

And all that would be nice... but im just not drinkin the koolaid.

I've never asked you to slurp the Kool-Aid, dude. Just to try to see what you're doing in perspective. My goal certainly wasn't to make you look foolish, but I think that's been a byproduct of the back and forth we've had.

In reality:

1) Jay Cutler isn't getting traded (the reasons for this are economic in principle, not cap-wise, but like bargaining wise) even though the trade rumors will continue throughout the offseason.
2) Jay Cutler will likely have continued success in the Denver offense
3) Jason Campbell will continue to improve here, just as the offense around him does
4) We'll look back on this thread hilariously in a year, and realize that this debate was a waste of time. Unless the search function breaks, then we'll never see this again.
5) Zorn probably will stay through 2010 at least.

It's somewhat demeaning that you still want to think there were facts used to back your position, and that the trade proposal wasn't totally ludicrous, but don't you worry, I'll get over it.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've never asked you to slurp the Kool-Aid, dude. Just to try to see what you're doing in perspective. My goal certainly wasn't to make you look foolish, but I think that's been a byproduct of the back and forth we've had.

In reality:

1) Jay Cutler isn't getting traded (the reasons for this are economic in principle, not cap-wise, but like bargaining wise) even though the trade rumors will continue throughout the offseason.
2) Jay Cutler will likely have continued success in the Denver offense
3) Jason Campbell will continue to improve here, just as the offense around him does
4) We'll look back on this thread hilariously in a year, and realize that this debate was a waste of time. Unless the search function breaks, then we'll never see this again.
5) Zorn probably will stay through 2010 at least.

I have a feeling if Campbell succeeds here, i'll be eating alot of crow for a long long time. Then again, what happens if he succeeds here but we cant afford to keep him because the Cap doesnt go bye-bye? Do i still eat crow then too?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I have a feeling if Campbell succeeds here, i'll be eating alot of crow for a long long time. Then again, what happens if he succeeds here but we cant afford to keep him because the Cap doesnt go bye-bye? Do i still eat crow then too?

There are only four things that can happen with Campbell's game:

1) Campbell can not improve, in which case we go another direction (the reasons this is almost certain not to happen are numerous, but it requires an accurate understanding of the reason for the statistical decline in Campbell Weeks 10-17 last year)

2) Campbell does improve, but the team is oblivious to this for whatever reason (misses playoffs, etc), and goes another way for bad reasoning (I'm a lot more fearful of this than No. 1)

3) Campbell improves, and we extend or tag him. Basically, if he becomes our franchise QB, we keep him, regardless of the cost to us in 2010. (That cost, unfortunately, might be Rogers, worst case)

4) Campbell gets injured and misses 2009. In this case, all bets are off.

No idea if you'll hang around here long enough to eat crow, or whether I'll even care if you do. Seasons a long time away.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

On this level I've gotta admit a level of admiration for BHA, he doesn't mind verbally sparring with the bullies who are kicking him senseless while he's already down, metaphorically speaking.

Meh, I don't know. There's a certain honor and dignity to knowing when to stop don't ya think?

[The Goat]

This thread makes me so pissed I could kick a puppy... to read arguments that JC has an above average line and solid WR corp to work w/ is beyond the pale. He had a very good run-blocking line and a Pro-Bowl RB for 8 games. After that most games looked like the '08 SB... NY's front seven smashing Brady into the turf. The difference... Campbell doesn't complain, but don't be a foolish, the results are nearly the same. QBs who get no time to throw and take a pounding every week (38 sacks on the season and most came in the last 8 games) don't go to the Pro-Bowl.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This thread makes me so pissed I could kick a puppy... to read arguments that JC has an above average line and solid WR corp to work w/ is beyond the pale. He had a very good run-blocking line and a Pro-Bowl RB for 8 games. After that most games looked like the '08 SB... NY's front seven smashing Brady into the turf. The difference... Campbell doesn't complain, but don't be a foolish, the results are nearly the same. QBs who get no time to throw and take a pounding every week (38 sacks on the season and most came in the last 8 games) don't go to the Pro-Bowl.

JC didn't exactly help himself either Goat. I don't think he should be ragged on super heavily for sure, but he wasn't exactly lighting it up during the 6-2 run. We were winning, but not by much. We made Detroit look decent even. I could have swallowed JC throwing a few picks in return for half a dozen TDs during that 6-2 run. At least we would look like a somewhat efficient offense.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

JC didn't exactly help himself either Goat. I don't think he should be ragged on super heavily for sure, but he wasn't exactly lighting it up during the 6-2 run. We were winning, but not by much. We made Detroit look decent even. I could have swallowed JC throwing a few picks in return for half a dozen TDs during that 6-2 run. At least we would look like a somewhat efficient offense.

The Moss TD after he shook the unblocked guy was crazy awesome.

And, yeah, it was the Lions, but he did throw for 350 or something that day.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Moss TD after he shook the unblocked guy was crazy awesome.

And, yeah, it was the Lions, but he did throw for 350 or something that day.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid maaaan. LOL. :smashfrea

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Moss TD after he shook the unblocked guy was crazy awesome.

And, yeah, it was the Lions, but he did throw for 350 or something that day.

350 yards and how many TD's? THe point of the game is to get the TD's. And my point about lighting it up was talking about points. Give me JC throwing for only 200 yards a game with a couple scores and I would be a happy camper. As with babes, the object of the game is to score!!!!!!!!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

350 yards and how many TD's? THe point of the game is to get the TD's. And my point about lighting it up was talking about points. Give me JC throwing for only 200 yards a game with a couple scores and I would be a happy camper. As with babes, the object of the game is to score!!!!!!!!

One or two? I don't remember, it was significant in the outcome of the game though.

Did you really just respond to my fawning over a Campbell TD pass by stating that the point is to get TDs, implying that Campbell isn't getting it done?

[tryfuhl]

Can't we just hug it out?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Can't we just hug it out?

This looks more like sumo wrestling. LOL.

[MTK]

Generally you pass more when playing from behind. It didn't have anything to do with Zorn trying to open things up. He's not that dumb, with a broken down OL he wasn't trying to open things up just for the sake of showing off his offense. In the 2nd half of the season they were playing from behind more and hence throwing the ball more. Pretty simple.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Generally you pass more when playing from behind. It didn't have anything to do with Zorn trying to open things up. He's not that dumb, with a broken down OL he wasn't trying to open things up just for the sake of showing off his offense. In the 2nd half of the season they were playing from behind more and hence throwing the ball more. Pretty simple.

Plus, since the running game kinda went south, what else were we suppose to do? Punt?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Generally you pass more when playing from behind. It didn't have anything to do with Zorn trying to open things up. He's not that dumb, with a broken down OL he wasn't trying to open things up just for the sake of showing off his offense. In the 2nd half of the season they were playing from behind more and hence throwing the ball more. Pretty simple.

Not to be argumentative, but do you have stats to back that up? I dont remember us being from behind any more in the 2nd half than we were in the first. To the contrary, in the first half of the season i remember several games where we came from behind and won games in the 4th quarter.

And I also remember blowing alot of early leads in the 2nd half of the season - specifically, our defense seemed to get tired and cave in when we were trying to hold on to a narrow lead.

What you say makes a nice argument on paper, but i just dont remember the games that way. I think a good way to test your statement (and mine) would be to look at the first quarter of every game in 2008. Generally speaking, whats done in the first quarter would be a good representation of the teams basic philosophy. Unfortunately, i did a google search and couldnt find anywhere that had these stats. Any ideas?