|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
We're gonna see more underclassmen than ever declaring this year. Locker would be stupid to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Depends on what Locker wants.
If Locker wants to get paid he'll come out.
If Locker wants to be a legitimate NFL QB, he'll stay.
Locker isn't ready. He's a gifted athlete playing quarterback, not a quarterback who's athletically gifted.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Just to Re-Iterate....
Mass vs. Moss
Stucki vs. Randel-El
Robiskie vs. Thomas
Royal vs. Cooley
Portis vs. Lewis
I'd say the Redskins have above average weapons. We have bottom of the barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
I think it's a sad state of affairs for us as fans when we are hoping for a marginally average QB to be on this team because it WOULD be a significant upgrade.
*sigh*
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
Quote:
I think it's a sad state of affairs for us as fans when we are hoping for a marginally average QB to be on this team because it WOULD be a significant upgrade.
*sigh*
Exactly. Campbell's garbage. Toad has a nice way of saying it ... but the end result is he's not much of an upgrade at all over what we got.
Sad state of affairs is true. I'm completely indifferent anymore to anything this team does.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
I'd Pass - no pun intended. He does have a very strong arm but:
1 - He isn't very adept at reading defenses
2 - His throwing motion is too long. By the time he winds up any decent Cb will read him and quickly close the gap.
3 - Not a very strong leader (as best I could tell).
4 - No, he isn't that accurate. You fooled because you are use to watching DA. True Campbell is more accurate than DA but no where near as accurate as an NFL Qb should be.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
NRTU, Rish.
Campbell does have more weapons than we do.
NAVY has more weapons than we do. 
To defend Campbell, because I think he can approach the high 80's and maybe even reach 90 in rating before his career is over, he's on a team with a pathetic offensive line, and is playing QB for a guy who's never even been an offensive coordinator before. The last actual job Zorn had was that of a QB's COACH, not a play-caller.
Campbell went down 38 times last year, and is on pace to go down 40 times by his 14th game.  Despite it all, he's still getting a little better each year. He's in a pathetic situation now, where they hired a guy who was calling Bingo at a retirement home two weeks ago to come in and call plays. 
I'd also say that Campbell IS a very accurate passer. In terms of being an NFL QB, his arm is special. He can put touch on short passes and fire rockets down the field. He continues to improve in that category.
There are honest criticisms with Campbell. The number of fumbles is alarming. That's a combination of mediocre pocket-awareness and a pathetic offensive line. He also isn't the kind to grab his players by the facemask and chew them out. Of course guys like Eli Manning, Ryan, and Flacco aren't that either.
Right now, Campbell is an average starting NFL QB. He does some good things, he does some bad things. But what's important is that he's trending upwards despite being in a horrific situation. He came into this season KNOWING he wasn't wanted by the people that sign his paychecks. If those same people had a track record of success, I'd be worried about my own evaluation, but we're talking about Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato here. These are the guys that fired Marty for Steve Spurrier.
Campbell would be an instant upgrade for this team, and he IS going to get better. Do I think he'll ever be a pro-bowler? Nah, but I never did. The thing is, you don't need a pro-bowler to win the Super Bowl. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
The thing is, you don't need a pro-bowler to win the Super Bowl.
Serious question who was the last non-pro bowl QB to win the superbowl? Would it be Dilfer? Cause Big Ben, Eli and Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady have been to pro-bowls Honestly Toad it appears now you do need a pro-bowler to win the super-bowl.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
My question: Do pro-bowl QBs grow on trees and where can we get one? Easier said than done IMO...... l isten to Redskins talk radio every day.Jason Cambell has a segment on the LaVar Arrington show. Campbell refuses to blame anyone for that mess and if anything he is a class act.His team mates have alot of support and respect for him. The play calling in DC: it's the execution that is horrible especially the blocking. I have a feeling,although JC doesn't say it, that if he had a chance he would get away from the totalitarian police state that Daniel Snyder and his evil henchmen are running.And I do mean evil...... Monday night Campbell got hit 16 times. Cooley went down for the year. Chris Samuels, their left tackle, went down with what is probably a career ending injury a few weeks ago as did Randy Thomas their starting guard. Stephon Heyer is their LT now and he was their RT and is really no more than a back-up anyway. Is Jason Campbell THE answer here? JMO, until we can get a legit pro-bowl QB he is probably a better option than we have right now. But the Redskins may not let him get away b/c they don't have a better option either. IMO the Redskins would let JC go if they thought they could get one of the high rated rookies in the draft. If we could trade down with them in a package deal for Campbell I would go for it in a heartbeat. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 664
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 664 |
Were there rumors of us going after him last off-season? I think I remember that we were, but I've been known to make a mistake or two in my life. ha ha.
"The Browns are a club contenders probably don't want to face right now. Their physicality cannot be questioned."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
The Redskins were in the Jay Cutler sweepstakes.
I don't believe that JC can be happy about that,although he does not say.
Also, JC was benched 2 games ago ,and again although he won't say it, he is prolly be less that thrilled about that as well.
IMO Campbell would not be opposed to coming to Cleveland if it meant getting out of the present H3LL that he is in now. Dan and Vinny don't want him and have made that clear.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
The thing is, you don't need a pro-bowler to win the Super Bowl.
Serious question who was the last non-pro bowl QB to win the superbowl? Would it be Dilfer? Cause Big Ben, Eli and Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady have been to pro-bowls Honestly Toad it appears now you do need a pro-bowler to win the super-bowl.
Eli Manning two years ago (73.9 rating). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. Ben Roethlisberger in 2006 (75 rating). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. Backing up a little bit, Brad Johnson in 2003 (81 rating, 21 td's 20 int's). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. And of course Dilfer in 2001.
BUT, it's not that simple of an answer. If you look at all the teams that have won Super Bowls, was it because of the QB's, or because of the rest of the team?
Of the last 8 Super Bowl winning teams, 5 were won by the Steelers and the Patriots. They won because of defense.
Yes, of course having a pro-bowl QB helps, but if the rest of the team is sound, suddenly good QB's............like Johnson, Manning, and Rottenberger..............become great ones.
People want to just reach out and find a pro-bowl QB. Goodluck with that. Sometimes you have to take something a little less perfect when the entire team needs help.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
you mention the Steelers and Patriots....and they did win with their defense.
however, they also had QBs (and offenses) who you not only believed could run down the field and score with 2 minutes, but you expected them to do it.
so, while you don't need a probowl QB, you better have a QB who you trust making that last drive of the game.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
I agree with that. But I think it's worth pointing out that those QB's were in development when they won their Super Bowls. The offensive lines were in good shape, they had bigtime defenses and running games as well. They were in positions to succeed. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY can tell me Jason Campbell has been in a position to succeed over there.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The thing is, you don't need a pro-bowler to win the Super Bowl.
Serious question who was the last non-pro bowl QB to win the superbowl? Would it be Dilfer? Cause Big Ben, Eli and Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady have been to pro-bowls Honestly Toad it appears now you do need a pro-bowler to win the super-bowl.
Eli Manning two years ago (73.9 rating). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. Ben Roethlisberger in 2006 (75 rating). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. Backing up a little bit, Brad Johnson in 2003 (81 rating, 21 td's 20 int's). He wasn't a pro-bowl QB. And of course Dilfer in 2001.
BUT, it's not that simple of an answer. If you look at all the teams that have won Super Bowls, was it because of the QB's, or because of the rest of the team?
Of the last 8 Super Bowl winning teams, 5 were won by the Steelers and the Patriots. They won because of defense.
Yes, of course having a pro-bowl QB helps, but if the rest of the team is sound, suddenly good QB's............like Johnson, Manning, and Rottenberger..............become great ones.
People want to just reach out and find a pro-bowl QB. Goodluck with that. Sometimes you have to take something a little less perfect when the entire team needs help.
Roethlisberger's rating in 2005...their Superbowl year, was 98.6. 17 TD's 9 INT's.
They went 8-8 when he had the 75.4 QB rating. I'll argue Ben's performance that year killed them. I wish he could smash his face into a windshield more often...
Brad Johnson had a 92 rating the Bucs Superbowl year (2002)...22 TD's 6 INT's.
I don't know why you're choosing the year AFTER they won the Superbowl to make your argument.
The Eli and Dilfer arguments are legit...but Eli played on a whole other level in the playoffs in 2007.
Last edited by Ammo; 10/30/09 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
IMO Campbell would not be opposed to coming to Cleveland if it meant getting out of the present H3LL that he is in now.
Out of the frying pan and straight into the fire.. 
The only reason Campbell might come here is because he would be Mangini's boy, therefore he would get every chance to succeed... unlike those who are NOT Mangini's boys.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
Quote:
Quote:
IMO Campbell would not be opposed to coming to Cleveland if it meant getting out of the present H3LL that he is in now.
Out of the frying pan and straight into the fire..
The only reason Campbell might come here is because he would be Mangini's boy, therefore he would get every chance to succeed... unlike those who are NOT Mangini's boys.
would you want to play or work for Hitler and Goring ????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I don't know why you're choosing the year AFTER they won the Superbowl to make your argument.
Well, for one, I had the years mixed up because I'm doing this while doing menu revisions for work. 
But thanks for the corrections, hehehe.
Still, by showing they had flawed years, it just proves that it doesn't take a Peyton Manning to win a Super Bowl. Maybe those players had pro-bowl years but were they the Super QB's that everyone seems to believe you must have to win the big game? No, they weren't.
Great teams win Super Bowls, not great QB's. You don't have to have a pro-bowl QB to win it all.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Still, by showing they had flawed years, it just proves that it doesn't take a Peyton Manning to win a Super Bowl. Maybe those players had pro-bowl years but were they the Super QB's that everyone seems to believe you must have to win the big game? No, they weren't.
Great teams win Super Bowls, not great QB's. You don't have to have a pro-bowl QB to win it all.
That's sort of true, but it's kind of like the argument, "You don't need a salary cap in baseball because every once in a while the Rockies or Marlins win the world series."
No, you don't NEED a pro-bowl QB to win the superbowl.. but look at the teams that are fixtures in the playoffs, they all have very consistent high level play from the QB...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Yes...........but why?
All tend to have good-to-great offensive lines, running games, and skill position players. All tend to have good-to-great defenses. All that leads to good QB play.
We're getting close to splitting hairs here. I think this is becoming a polarizing group effect where the opinions naturally begin to seep out towards the extreme.
To win with a bum like Dilfer is rare..........virtually impossible. The other extreme is a belief that you have to have one of the top-5 QB's in the league to win a Super Bowl. All a team REALLY needs is a good............team. As long as the QB is solid, that's enough.
I believe we're stuck right now mentally because teams like the Pats and Steelers have won most of the last several Super Bowls. It's natural to then believe it takes QB's like 'Berger and Brady to win it all, when a guy like Brad Johnson can win it just as easily.
So let's back this up and get it back to Campbell. Right now he's an average NFL QB. I believe most would agree. He does some good things, he has some flaws. My side of this discussion revolves around his lack of stability around him as well as his continual trending upwards throughout his career.
So, because you have to assume he's going to be available to have this discussion, the question then becomes would we be better served to have someone like Campbell come in, or risk spending a 1st rounder on a developmental QB?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
We aren't splitting hairs because we agree more than we disagree, so let's get that out there first...  Quote:
All tend to have good-to-great offensive lines, running games, and skill position players. All tend to have good-to-great defenses. All that leads to good QB play.
Yes, good players make a QB better... but good QB play also makes everybody else better... no need on beating each other up over the chicken and egg, which is more important... they are both important to some degree.
Quote:
To win with a bum like Dilfer is rare..........virtually impossible. The other extreme is a belief that you have to have one of the top-5 QB's in the league to win a Super Bowl. All a team REALLY needs is a good............team. As long as the QB is solid, that's enough.
Maybe this is the hair we need to split... do you want to be good? or do you want to be great? Good teams tend to have one or the other, great teams have both. We've sucked for so long that yes, "good" sounds wonderful right now... Peyton Manning would make our current team better.. probably couldn't even get us to "good" and certainly couldn't get us to "great"... we need improvement all around, my point is that if/when we get those other key players, to be great, we need a really really good QB.
Quote:
It's natural to then believe it takes QB's like 'Berger and Brady to win it all, when a guy like Brad Johnson can win it just as easily.
A guy like Brad Johnson can win it.. can he win it just as easily? Not even close. Here are the last 17 super bowl champion QBs... other than Johnson one year and Dilfer one year, every other QB on that list is either already considered great, or very well could be at some point.. and not just flash in the pan great, consistently great.
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - SB XXVII
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - SB XXVIII
Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers - SB XXIX
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - SB XXX
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers - SB XXXI
John Elway, Denver Broncos - SB XXXII
John Elway, Denver Broncos - SB XXXIII
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams - SB XXXIV
Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens - SB XXXV
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - SB XXXVI
Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - SB XXXVII
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - SB XXXVIII
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - SB XXXIX
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers - SB XL
Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts - SB XLI
Eli Manning, New York Giants - SB XLII
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers - SB XLIII
So can it happen with a mediocre QB? Yes.. is it "just as easy"? not even close.
Now, I went back 17 years for a reason. If you go back farther than that, you get into the Rypiens, and Hostetlers, and Phil Simms, and McMahon, and Doug Williams.. to me that shows you how the NFL has changed. It's a pass happy, vertical game these days, you have to have a QB that is smart enough to pick up the complexity, mobile enough to move around, accurate enough to hit his target, and strong enough to get it down field.. those guys are rare and the two areas hardest to find are the smarts and the accuracy.. those, IMHO, are the two most important and if I was drafting, that is what I'd be looking for first.. smarts and accuracy. I don't care if you can run around like Vick or Young or throw it 50 yards on your knees like Russell... I want a guy that is smart and accurate.
Quote:
So, because you have to assume he's going to be available to have this discussion, the question then becomes would we be better served to have someone like Campbell come in, or risk spending a 1st rounder on a developmental QB?
If you are proposing Campbell as a band-aid, I would be more on board and here's why... I'm not convinced he's that much better than what we have right now, BUT.. he doesn't have the baggage either of our QBs have. So if that's what it takes to have a year or two without a QB controversy, while we build the other pieces, then ok, go for it.... then draft your franchise QB.. I don't think Campbell is the franchise QB.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
So can it happen with a mediocre QB? Yes.. is it "just as easy"? not even close.
We could build a new forum for the ensuing discussion regarding whether those QB's were great by their own accord, or if they had amazing talent all around them. So while showing all those teams would make a compelling argument, I'm of the opinion that the parts became the whole, so the QB isn't great by his own standards, but rather great because he's good and the rest of his team was great.
Quote:
Now, I went back 17 years for a reason. If you go back farther than that, you get into the Rypiens, and Hostetlers, and Phil Simms, and McMahon, and Doug Williams.. to me that shows you how the NFL has changed. It's a pass happy, vertical game these days, you have to have a QB that is smart enough to pick up the complexity, mobile enough to move around, accurate enough to hit his target, and strong enough to get it down field.
Which begs the question: Is the "greatness" of these QB's a result of this pass-happy era? Who's to say that the QB's from the early 90's and late 80's couldn't have racked up the "great" numbers of today's QB's? The league has favored more passing and thus opened up for QB's. Such things as protecting the QB has gone a long way in helping that, because it allows offenses to open up more than in years past.
We can use Rypien and Williams as great examples because they were good QB's who became great on a great team. I don't believe you can discount them because they didn't fall into this era of the vertical game. They had receivers that would be stars today........but they also had good defenses with HOF players and a running game and offensive line to be proud of.
I think the protection afforded QB's as well as the further development of the passing game has made these QB's the "stars" that they are today. Given the same opportunities, I think QB's of the 80's and early 90's would be producing like-numbers.
So all this comes back to Campbell. Can he be great? Does it matter if he's only "very good?"
I believe if we build a team worthy of winning a Super Bowl, he's good enough to get it done. I DON'T believe he's the kind of guy that can take a team to the Super Bowl by his own playmaking ability, like a Roethlisberger or a Manning. BUT, expecting or hoping to find that guy is futile. Sometimes you have to upgrade with what's available.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So while showing all those teams would make a compelling argument, I'm of the opinion that the parts became the whole,
Toad, all of the parts are the reason they won championships, but the QBs, by their own right, were great.... that's why Tom Brady has won 3 and Payton Manning has won 1... even though I think Manning is the better QB. He suffered for years with little to no defensive help while Brady had a more complete team.
Quote:
so the QB isn't great by his own standards, but rather great because he's good and the rest of his team was great.
Just like any other position on the team or any other occupation in life, some QBs are great. It takes help to win games and win championships, but some QBs are great. Was Jim Brown great or was he good and his blocking and team made him great?
Quote:
Is the "greatness" of these QB's a result of this pass-happy era?
No more than the greatness of MJ is because the refs let him get an extra step and called fouls on anybody that touched him... Aikman, Manning, Brady, Favre.. they are great quarterbacks in the era in which they played.. just like Unitas and Tarkenton were great in their day. We need a QB that will be great for the next 10 years, not one that would have been great in the 80s.... even though some just transcend, Joe Montana would have been great in any era, as would Manning and Unitas... because they are great and they have all of the tools.
Quote:
I don't believe you can discount them because they didn't fall into this era of the vertical game. They had receivers that would be stars today........but they also had good defenses with HOF players and a running game and offensive line to be proud of.
I discounted them for just that reason. They played with WRs who were great, they had good running games and good defenses, their supporting casts stayed relatively constant because players weren't being shuffled in and out every year... yet guys like Rypien, Williams, Hostetler.. they had 1, maybe 2, good years... they had the talent around them and for whatever reason they had 1 really good season, they couldn't sustain it even with the talent around them.. why? Because they weren't that good... they lacked that consistency that it takes to play at that level... like a Manning or a Brady or a Favre or an Aikman that did it year after year after year after year.
Quote:
I think the protection afforded QB's as well as the further development of the passing game has made these QB's the "stars" that they are today. Given the same opportunities, I think QB's of the 80's and early 90's would be producing like-numbers.
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.. go back and look at Foutz, Tarkenton, Unitas, Bradshaw, Staubach... there have been great qbs in the vertical passing game through all of the eras of football.. Go back to the period in question, 80s and early 90s... Why did the Redskins win a super bowl or 2, the Giants won 1 or 2, the Bears won 1, the Raiders won 1.. but the 49ers won 5.. why? Consistent QB play... that's the biggest single thing that separates them from the others... so yes, some QBs from other generations would be producting like numbers today.. Rypien, Williams, Hostetler and McMahon just aren't on that list.
Quote:
So all this comes back to Campbell. Can he be great? Does it matter if he's only "very good?"
No it doesn't, certainly not at this point... if he doesn't suck it will be an improvement. Seriously, if he can be very good and then become our weak link, then I will be extremely happy because that will mean we have built one heck of a team....
Quote:
I believe if we build a team worthy of winning a Super Bowl, he's good enough to get it done. I DON'T believe he's the kind of guy that can take a team to the Super Bowl by his own playmaking ability, like a Roethlisberger or a Manning. BUT, expecting or hoping to find that guy is futile. Sometimes you have to upgrade with what's available.
If Rypien, Hostetler, Williams, and Dilfer can win a super bowl then there is NO reason for me to believe that Jason Campbell can't.. but then again there is no reason for me to believe that Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson can't either... This is where we are talking about two different things, a lot of things have to happen to build a team that can win a super bowl with a mediocre QB (and that's what I think Campbell is)... I think we need to build a BETTER team, then go get a playmaker at QB.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
I kind of agree with what your saying Toad. My idea would be to sign Campbell and give him a few years to prove himself by providing talent around him through the draft and FA. If we still suck we can draft Matt Barkley in future to be our true franchise QB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 508
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 508 |
Wonder if he will be benched as really it just isn't him, it is the entire team that has them at 2-5!
May Day, May Flowers, Memorial and Mother's Day!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
Quote:
My idea would be to sign Campbell and give him a few years to prove himself by providing talent around him through the draft and FA. If we still suck we can draft Matt Barkley in future to be our true franchise QB.
If we're in a position to draft Barkley, we really will suck.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Realistically, our next QB will serve as punching bag for a year or two.
Form opinions from there, but that's the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Phil, I can't agree with that because what we're doing now opens up the ability to sign true quality guys next year.
The last good offensive line we had.........2007.........was built by free-agent money. The signings of Stein, McKinney, Bentley, and Shaffer proved it. Now people can say what they want about what happened in subsequent years, but the fact remains we were able to sign those guys because of what we sacrificed the previous years. Hence, the next QB we get won't be a punching bag IMHO.
Now will he have any receivers to throw to? That's more of a pertinent question to me........
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
If we aren't going to bring in quality offensive linemen keep Anderson or bring Campbell in. Let them get beat up until or O-Line can prevent sacks.
If we do bring in quality offensive linemen draft and can protect the QB then draft a QB and start him from day one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,654 |
At this point in time I would be thrilled with a QB that puts up consistent 85 ratings.
A better line and he would do better.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Official Jason Campbell thread
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
