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

[quote=Dirtbag359;681269]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:
[YT]Q8uIfia12mo[/YT][/quote]

Yesterday was the day to post that.

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

[quote=Buster;681278]Yesterday was the day to post that.[/quote]

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.

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

[quote=Gtothearry;681220]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.[/quote]

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 _______

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

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.

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

I'd swap McNabb and Rodgers

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

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

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

[quote=Dirtbag359;681350]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.[/quote] 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".


[quote=tryfuhl]I'd swap McNabb and Rodgers[/quote]
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.

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

[quote=SirClintonPortis;681356]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.

[/quote]

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.

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

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?

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

[quote=GTripp0012;681368]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?[/quote]
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.

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

GTripp's qualitative QB analysis

[B]Elite quarterbacks[/B]: The elite few who are both excellent and would be as good anywhere as they are where they are now.

Peyton Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady (Brees and Brady are on the fringe).

[B]Franchise Passers:[/B] Play at somewhat below an elite level, but would be as good on any team as they are on their current team.

Eli Manning, Matt Ryan (I think), Carson Palmer, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner and Chad Pennington were here.
[B]
Top System Related Performers:[/B] these guys are top performers who probably wouldn't be if you took them off their current rosters. They are a big part of their teams success, but not much by themselves (Marc Bulger/Matt Hasselbeck used to be this player). [This is where Sam Bradford projects]

Old-man Brett Favre, Matt Schaub, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Jake Delhomme used to be here.

[B]Flawed players who are productive:[/B] You could make an argument for all of these guys as franchise quarterbacks, but every one of their teams has at least entertained the notion of going in a different direction. Difference between this category and the above isn't skill, it's context.

Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, David Garrard, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Trent Edwards, Chad Henne (maybe?), Kyle Orton

[B]Players who have no meaningful history of success, but offer plenty of speculative value[/B]

Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Charlie Whitehurst, Dan Orlovsky, Nate Davis, Matt Moore, the tattered remains of Tim Rattay from 2006

[B]Players who have failed early in their careers, but might have a second act (though unlikely)[/B]

Bruce Gradkowski, David Carr, Derek Anderson, SexyRexy Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson, Byron Leftwich (probably out of place here, but can't force him into McNabb/Campbell category), and Alex Smith's mother wants me to put him here

[B]Valueless players of various sorts:[/B]

Matt Hasselbeck, Marc Bulger, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Kyle Boller, Kerry Collins, Drew Henson, Drew Stanton, Jon Kitna, JT O'Sullivan

[B]QB Grab Bag[/B] (have no current or future value, but could possibly get some with some investment):

Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey, Daunte Culpepper, Jim Sorgi, Gus freakin Frerotte, Charlie Frye, Chris Redman, Tyler Thigpen, Shaun Hill, Josh Johnson, Seneca Wallace

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

[quote=SirClintonPortis;681389]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.[/quote]The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.

The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.

There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.

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

You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

[quote]The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.[/quote] Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.

[quote]The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.[/quote]

Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.

[quote]
There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list. [/quote]
Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.

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

Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth :)

Seriously though, good points on both sides

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

[quote=SmootSmack;681482]Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth :)

Seriously though, good points on both sides[/quote]

hahahaha

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

[quote=SmootSmack;681482]Anyone else remember that episode of South Park when the kids dress up as characters from Lord of the Rings and they go on some secret mission to return a videotape, and as they're crossing the neighborhood in full LOTR garb, they run into some kids dressed us as characters from Harry Potter? And Cartman looks at them in his LOTR gear and says "Ha...nerds!"

That's sort of what it feels like I'm watching as I see Tripp and SirClinton go back and forth :)

Seriously though, good points on both sides[/quote]

Tripp lost all credibility with me as soon as I saw that he didn't put Whitehurst in the top tier. Pffft "speculative value." What an idi0t.

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

[QUOTE=SirClintonPortis;681461]You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.



Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.


Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.[/QUOTE]I guess I'm trying to avoid being the guy who defines franchise quarterback and fits the definition to his argument. This is something you're avoiding as well. But I can see how, under a restrictive definition of the term, that you might only have 7 or 8 franchise QBs in the NFL (my top two tiers). I can also accept a more liberal/inclusive definition that allows for 18-22 franchise quarterbacks (including our own JC17). I personally don't care enough about the term itself to make a stand one way or another.

But my point of greater importantance is that Romo and Eli do bring (sustainable, repeatable) skills to the table that Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers do not, even if numbers wise, their per play and total production is indistinguishable. I'm not trying to disrespect Rodgers, Roethlisberger, or Matt Schaub here by declaring that they shouldn't be considered franchise quarterbacks even though their stats compare well to Romo and Eli, but that we should recognize the differences in context between "successful players" like those three, and players who have to deal with contextual deficiencies. Schaub, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger (and McNabb, really) all have high yards per attempt because they throw to a lot of WIDE open receivers downfield, and Campbell, Henne, Palmer, Garrard, and Cutler (09) really just don't have the same opportunities.

I think if they were in a great offense, Campbell's and Garrard's '09 production would be grounds for dismissal. (Sort of like '08 Cassel: you have that sort of production with the Redskins, you deserve a contract extension. With the Pats, it gets you traded.) However, neither gets pass protection, neither has a true downfield target that's ever open, both offenses lack ingenuity, and so then average performance looks kind of nice.

The problem with Hasselbeck is not durability (though that is a problem), it's that he's no longer in an offense where his familiarity with the timing of plays is useful. If he were producing like Campbell and Garrard, he probably would still have value. But he's played like a rookie in consecutive seasons, and replacement level (valueless by definition) would be a major improvement from the last two years. Hasselbeck used to be what Matt Schaub currently is: the system player who generates down-field plays in the context of the strong offense. He was a top quarterback as recently as age-33, but I do wonder if Matt Hasselbeck ever qualified as a franchise QB. Under the restrictive definition, I'd say: no. Same with Bulger, Delhomme, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, and McNabb to an extent. At all of their peaks, these guys were major cogs in an offensive juggernaut, but limited without their other parts. And so, if you restrict the definition of franchise QB to "guy who makes players around them better," none of these guys qualify. None of the older guys withstood the test of time, and I doubt that Rodgers/Roethlisberger can reverse the trend.

Agreed that trying to discern which players are responsible for which percentage of a given production total is painful, time-consuming, and ultimately requires the necessity to continually check your assumptions with objective evidence and never get too comfortable with any given opinion. But painful or not, it's still a major part of player analysis.

So while I'd agree that 3/4ths of the league can't just replace their quarterback with the best available player and expect no dropoff, only about 1/4 of the league has a truly indispensable player at the QB position. It's fashionable to call a guy a franchise QB right out of college, but one of the reasons I don't think people should be surprised if Bradford or Clausen ends up being the next Campbell or Garrard is because you can't mandate context before the draft.

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

'It's just totally different than it used to be' -Campbell. Yeah just one more thing needs to be changed... Jason.

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

^ Aannnnnnd.......he's back!

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

I don't thing GTripp is too off in his assesments. The only huge flaw, to me, was the thought that Peyton Manning would have success in another offense. More specifically, behind another o-line. Dude has all day ALL THE TIME! He's only gotten sacked 10 times this year. The last time we had a QB sacked so few times, his name was Rypien and he got us a Superbowl win. Manning has better hands to throw to as well. His TEs have better hands than all but maybe one of our receivers. The last time we had as many good hands on our team... wait, i refered to that year already.

I'm just saying that manning throws the ball away instead of taking sacks or taking chances. The last time we had a guy like that was Mark Brunell. If Manning was a Redskin, he'd have put up Mark Brunell numbers, not Manning numbers... okay, maybe Archie Manning numbers...

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

Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?

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

[quote=Beneil (diehard since 87);681710]Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?[/quote]

Badly.

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

[quote=Beneil (diehard since 87);681710]Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?[/quote]

Very badly.

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

[quote=Beneil (diehard since 87);681710]Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?[/quote]

(((Crickets)))

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

[quote=Beneil (diehard since 87);681710]Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?[/quote]

I would trade CP for McNabb in a minute, otherwise not really interested.

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

[quote=Beneil (diehard since 87);681710]Hey guys, how would you react to us pulling in McNabb?[/quote]

In Madden? That's the only way it would happen.

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

I hope this never gets traction..........ugh....

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

[quote=Mattyk;676747]Meh... sounds like a guy who was stopped in the hall at Redskins Park and asked a few questions.

His job being on the line is nothing new.[/quote]

Still it's a very different dynamic then last year. You have to wonder how Jason is handling all this. Last year he seemed to have more of an outlet to voice his frustration (though he did so very sparingly), at least the second time around with Sanchez. This time around he's practically forced to watch as the Redskins inquire about every available QB and he knows if he says anything he's as good as gone. Last year he ironically had a lot more leverage despite putting up much less in terms of stats.

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

Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't. It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.

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

[quote=jdc65;681823]Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't. It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.[/quote]

I disagree. We've lost more "expensive vets" than we've signed. Our receiveing corps is slightly different since the two 2nd rounders are better now, Santana is the same, and El is out. We have room for a good rookie to add. At QB, say what you want about Mr Chicago, be's better as a number 2 than Todd Collins. As for our HB situation. Assuming CP keeps his spot, who's better, Betts or Larry johsnon? Who's better on 3rd down, Rock or Fast Willie?

That's the way I see it.

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

[quote=jdc65;681823]Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, [B]I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't.[/B] It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.[/quote]

I understand. But so far this offseason the upgrade choices have been few. Let's see what happens at and after the draft.

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

[quote=jdc65;681823]Different attitude definately, more upbeat and respected viewpoints from the players is a positive. Still, I would like to see a noticeable upgrade on the roster, and at this point, I don't. It looks to me like they are still paring down expensive vets, and signing 1 year stop-gap players before the rebuilding process starts next year.[/quote]
Rome wasn't built in a day.

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

[quote=Lotus;681862]I understand. But so far this offseason the upgrade choices have been few. Let's see what happens at and after the draft.[/quote]

Good point Lotus. People are judging our offseason and we haven't even made it to the draft. There are months of FA after that. Plus, too many people are discounting the difference of having Shanahan.

Doc Walker has consistently said something that I found interesting. He said that all of the problems with the O-line that we had were correctable. I believe him.

Look at what Pittsburgh corrected in 08 and then compare what we went through.

What is the difference? Pittsburgh has a great coaching staff we had the bike riding West Coast Spouting buffoon who got humilated by a guy who delivered Meals on Wheels.

Now, we not only are on a level playing field, our coach most likely has the advantage.

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

Agreed with all the above. The day we need to cash in on our offseason is still three weeks away. The best thing we can do in the time leading up to the draft is simply not trade away our picks.

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

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;681881]Doc Walker has consistently said something that I found interesting. He said that all of the problems with the O-line that we had were correctable. I believe him.[/quote]

By "correctable" does he mean it can be corrected by all new players? Or just a new coaching staff?

Coach Bugel wasn't exactly chopped liver.

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

[quote=Beemnseven;681926]By "correctable" does he mean it can be corrected by all new players? Or just a new coaching staff?

Coach Bugel wasn't exactly chopped liver.[/quote]

Nah, Buges was good. We outright dominated the Saints' D.

A bad conditioning program and lack of talent is more to blame, IMO. If our fat boys don't have the proper cardio and strength training, it's not a wonder why they have been suck the past couple years.

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

[quote=GTripp0012;681668]I guess I'm trying to avoid being the guy who defines franchise quarterback and fits the definition to his argument. This is something you're avoiding as well. But I can see how, under a restrictive definition of the term, that you might only have 7 or 8 franchise QBs in the NFL (my top two tiers). I can also accept a more liberal/inclusive definition that allows for 18-22 franchise quarterbacks (including our own JC17). I personally don't care enough about the term itself to make a stand one way or another.

But my point of greater importantance is that Romo and Eli do bring (sustainable, repeatable) skills to the table that Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers do not, even if numbers wise, their per play and total production is indistinguishable. I'm not trying to disrespect Rodgers, Roethlisberger, or Matt Schaub here by declaring that they shouldn't be considered franchise quarterbacks even though their stats compare well to Romo and Eli, but that we should recognize the differences in context between "successful players" like those three, and players who have to deal with contextual deficiencies. Schaub, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger (and McNabb, really) all have high yards per attempt because they throw to a lot of WIDE open receivers downfield, and Campbell, Henne, Palmer, Garrard, and Cutler (09) really just don't have the same opportunities.

I think if they were in a great offense, Campbell's and Garrard's '09 production would be grounds for dismissal. (Sort of like '08 Cassel: you have that sort of production with the Redskins, you deserve a contract extension. With the Pats, it gets you traded.) However, neither gets pass protection, neither has a true downfield target that's ever open, both offenses lack ingenuity, and so then average performance looks kind of nice.

The problem with Hasselbeck is not durability (though that is a problem), it's that he's no longer in an offense where his familiarity with the timing of plays is useful. If he were producing like Campbell and Garrard, he probably would still have value. But he's played like a rookie in consecutive seasons, and replacement level (valueless by definition) would be a major improvement from the last two years. Hasselbeck used to be what Matt Schaub currently is: the system player who generates down-field plays in the context of the strong offense. He was a top quarterback as recently as age-33, but I do wonder if Matt Hasselbeck ever qualified as a franchise QB. Under the restrictive definition, I'd say: no. Same with Bulger, Delhomme, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, and McNabb to an extent. At all of their peaks, these guys were major cogs in an offensive juggernaut, but limited without their other parts. And so, if you restrict the definition of franchise QB to "guy who makes players around them better," none of these guys qualify. None of the older guys withstood the test of time, and I doubt that Rodgers/Roethlisberger can reverse the trend.

Agreed that trying to discern which players are responsible for which percentage of a given production total is painful, time-consuming, and ultimately requires the necessity to continually check your assumptions with objective evidence and never get too comfortable with any given opinion. But painful or not, it's still a major part of player analysis.

So while I'd agree that 3/4ths of the league can't just replace their quarterback with the best available player and expect no dropoff, only about 1/4 of the league has a truly indispensable player at the QB position. It's fashionable to call a guy a franchise QB right out of college, but one of the reasons I don't think people should be surprised if Bradford or Clausen ends up being the next Campbell or Garrard is because you can't mandate context before the draft.[/quote]tl:dr
I just simplify my explanation. It's a bunch of hopefully self-evidently described tiers that are of the "closeness" a QB is to franchise status. "High-hope bringers" are exactly that, for example. They've done enough to at least give subjective optimism that they'll be something of worth in the future, and you can't have that if they did not a least do something on an objective level. They MAY flame out in the future, but as of now, they have shown that they could be something

Does other talent matter? Hell yes. But there are other QBs in the league that do not provide negative "utility" or provide more "utility" than other QBs. And IMO, JC17 is like a musket. If you have to use him, you will, but you ditch it for a rifle ASAP because of its unreliability and the amount effort just to get it to work.

Anyone would kill for Rapistberger's pocket presence and relative durability. Sure he may throw to wide open dudes, but there are some QBs who can't even get it open to wide open dudes.
And Favrah is NOT a system QB. He was CAPABLE of picking up any O and letting it rip, but since he was so ingrained in the WCO, that become his specialty. There have been a lot of WCO QBs, but some magnify what its capable of while others floundered in it, like Steve Deberg. Favrah fits in the former category. Hell, even if he struggled with the Jets' playbook, they still had a good offense before his bicep tendon decided to act up on him.

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

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


I bet it is.

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

Sorry Jason, seems the same to me.

[url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Campbell-wasnt-told-of-trade-89888252.html]Campbell wasn't told of trade | Washington Examiner[/url]

No respect at all.

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

[quote=drew54;683381]Sorry Jason, seems the same to me.

[url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Campbell-wasnt-told-of-trade-89888252.html]Campbell wasn't told of trade | Washington Examiner[/url]

No respect at all.[/quote]

I posted this somewhere as well but Campbell has said different things regarding how he found out. He has told different people "heard it from a reporter" "saw it on tv" "got a text" "Coach called"