Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

09 Nov 2009

Jason Campbell's Sack Rate

The guys at Turf Show Times are wondering whether Jason Campbell might be a good fit for them next year as a free agent.

They raised several concerns about Campbell in the piece.

Concerns I have about Campbell: 1) How does the high sack rate impact his future, 2) He'll turns 29 next season, a year younger than Kyle Boller, is that too old for a rebuilding team, and 3) Is he enough?

I'm not sure about points two or three, but point one is pretty easy to look at. I went to the wonderful Play Index at pro-football-reference.com to create a list of similar players to Campbell.

Campbell has 228 attempts and 25 sacks through eight games, yielding a sack rate of 9.9 percent. If we double those totals, he'd be at 456 attempts and 50 sacks for a full season. To find similar quarterbacks to Campbell, I instructed the Play Index to find every quarterback since 1980 who had been sacked between 45 and 55 times in a season while throwing between 430 and 480 attempts.

The resulting list includes a few scrubs (David Carr, Tim Couch) and a LOT of good quarterbacks.

It's a list that Campbell's numbers, so far this year, belong in. He has a 66.2 completion percentage, higher than any of the quarterbacks on the list, while his 7.36 yards per attempt place him eighth out of 18. If you prefer to use p-f-r's Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt, he ranks ninth. (On the other hand, his adjusted yards per attempt, which doesn't include the effects of sacks, would be 15th.)

Looking at comparable seasons suggests that Campbell's performance this year is a positive indicator of his ability to play a successful quarterback going forward, perception be damned.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 09 Nov 2009

70 comments, Last at 11 Nov 2009, 7:53pm by sundown

Comments

1
by Jason Lisk (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 2:48pm

This is just me, but I would use the advanced stats option, which era adjusts the numbers. 100 is average. every 15 points above or below that is 1 standard deviation. Campbell is taking sacks at a higher rate than league average compared to some of those guys, because sacks are less frequent now. Same with completion percentage, as he clearly should be better than guys from 1983, since the league average is much higher.

As for the guys on the list, there are good names, but were there always good results thereafter? Lomax retired after the 1988 season because of a bad hip. O'Brien was effectively done as a starter within a few years. Cunningham made a comeback later, but blew out his knee the following season. O'Donnell was done as a starter. Jaworski and Bartkowski and Bledsoe, best days behind them.

Moon and Simms and Elway are the highlights in terms of future production. Well, and Roethlisberger?

I would limit the search to an age range similar to Campbell. I ran a search with all passers since the merger at age 27-29 (Campbell is 28 years old) who threw at least 400 passes and were near league average or better at both YPA (>=95) and Comp% (>=95), sorted by Sack Percentage Index, ascending, so the guys who took a higher percentage of sacks relative to the league will be at the top.

Here were the names of guys with a sack rating index below 90. Basically, these are guys that took sacks at a high rate, but were at least decent at yards per attempt and comp%.

Hugh Millen, 1991
Randall Cunningham, 1990
Eric Hipple, 1985
Ken O'Brien, 1989
Gary Danielson, 1980
Neil Lomax, 1988
Drew Bledsoe, 1999
Neil Lomax, 1987

Campbell would pro-rate to second on that list behind Millen in terms of worst sack %. Bulger in 2004 and 2006 is next on the list.

For some reason, the tiny URL isn't working or I would post it.

2
by tuluse :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 2:54pm

Just post the full URL, it doesn't stretch the site anymore, and tinyurls are dirty evil things that shouldn't be used.

3
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 2:58pm

What is Jason Campbell's QB rating when his team is winning, and what is it when his team is down 1 possession, and then what is his rating when his team is down 2 or more possessions?

He's young
He has no line
He has no receivers
He has bad coaching
He's been in different systems in the college & pros
He needs a defense (to win games, what his win pct.?)
He's still young, and needs more time.

Are his stats horrible? No, but neither were Byron Leftwhich's when Jack let him go. How did that move work out? Was he ever going to be worth of that 1st round draft pick?

Did he throw interceptions last year? NO, but did he throw touchdowns? He had one of the worst TD's to Pass attempts ratio's in the league last year. I can't remember if it was last year or two years ago but he went something like 8 games without throwing a TD pass to a WR. How many times has the Redskins offense broke 20 points this year? How about that offense at the end of last year or vs any half decent defense?

If you don't watch the Redskins I'm probably just a big old meanie. But it's funny when people say things like, " I don't normally watch Washington, but why did the QB keep throwing 2 yard passes on 3rd and 10"?

Is he Ryan Leaf bad? Of course not, but I'll pound my fist on the table and tell you he won't ever be a pick you apart quarterback. His mechanics & decision making won't let it happen. My track record with QB's has been pretty good.

If you are looking at JC to be a starter, you are wasting your time ( think Byron Leftwhich in Tampa). If you are looking at JC to be a backup QB to fill in a couple games that could work ( think Byron Leftwhich in Pittsburgh).

5
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:31pm

". But it's funny when people say things like, " I don't normally watch Washington, but why did the QB keep throwing 2 yard passes on 3rd and 10"?"

Its also funny when people ask why the coaches keep having all of their WR's running patterns like that.

Campbell might be a problem, who knows, but the coaching, and all the bubble screens most certainly is.

"He's young
He has no line
He has no receivers
He has bad coaching"

While the first one is pretty much irrelevant, the last 3 aren't, and they're all true.

11
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:23pm

He's young... Not really
He has no line... they said that even when he DID have a good line
He has no WR's... He has a pro bowl TE, Santana Moss, and high draft picks. It's sort of hard for the picks to be good WR's with HIM at QB.

He has bad coaching... He has one of the better QB coaches in the game.
He had Gibbs a hall of famer, Saunders a leading offensive coordinator, and now Lewis who was decent enough to come out of retirement.

Seriously, Campbell had more offensive pro bowl players around him last year than any other QB. Do you think M. Kelly and D.Thomas would have this kind of production if they were on the Saints, Colts, or Patriots?

Wasn't the Giants problem that they had "no receivers" once Plax went to jail?
Wasn't the Cowboys problem they had "no receivers" once Owens left?

Smith, Manningham, Nicks, Austin, etc. are developing... nicely. Kelly, Thomas and Davis aren't....

but of course, none of it is the QB's fault.

23
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:23pm

The fact that Gibbs is a hall of famer is irrelevant. He was a terrible coach in his comeback. Its similar to how Al davis is a hall of famer, but no one would call him a good owner right now. Things change.

The line has NEVER been good with Campbell, and Santana Moss is terribly overrated. He's too small to be the #1. He can't go up and get the ball, and they have no one that can.

26
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:45pm

He never had a good line?

LT: Samuels was never a good LT... Only the most important pass blocking position on the line...

LG: Dockery/Kendall were never good. Dockery was only good enough to sign a 90 or so million dollar contract in buffalo. He won the outland trophy award at Texas and was a strong run blocker...

C: Rahbeck was never a great pass blocker, but most centers aren't. He was an above average run blocker.

RG: Randy Thomas was a pro bowl caliber big signing from the Jets. He was strong and a good all round lineman. You can't complain about him.

RT: Jansen fell off in the last few years.. you could complain about him, and Heyer was an average at best RT but in reality a little bit worse.

That's 1/5 of the line you could complain about... You had 3 other very good lineman, and 1 average/above average lineman and 1 average/below average lineman. Portis was leading the league in rushing at the start/middle of last year, and he was running strong before that.... They were admittedly a better run blocking line than pass blocking, but that can help you set up the pass and put you in 3rd and short.

They have injuries now... but to say Campbell never had a line is a joke. Do you see teams with "no line" ever have league leading rushers? Which lineman do YOU object from besides Heyer/Jansen? Does Jason Campbell need to have 5 probowlers to have a "line"?

Does the QB have any bearing at all over his "line"?

Do you think David Diehl is a great left tackle, or Rich Seubert a great LG? How many teams lined up to sign Shaun O'Hara?

38
by dmb :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:40pm

Chris, I agree that saying Campbell "never" had a good line is incorrect, but the line you're talking about sure as heck isn't the one Campbell has had the past 16 games...

LT: Samuels has indeed done a fine job of anchoring the line for the past decade. Unfortunately, he's missed 8 of the past 16 games. As you pointed out, Heyer is average-at-best at RT, his natural position. And as you probably know, he's very clearly a better RT than a LT. Unfortunately, Heyer's replacements at RT were so dismal that for a time, Heyer was moved back there to stop the carnage, allowing the one and only D'Anthony Batiste to serve as Campbell's protection.

LG: You're right that Dockery is a very good run blocker, at least in terms of mauling the guy in front of him. He's so-so at pulling, and pass protection is not his strength. He does okay, but not great. As for Kendall, I did have a higher opinion of him than I think most did.

C: Rabach is fine, not great. If he's lined up against anyone good, he'll almost certainly need help ... but as you point out, you can say that about a lot of centers in the league.

RG: Randy Thomas has missed the past six games, and will miss the remaining ones on his schedule. His replacements have consisted of Chad Reinhart, who has done almost nothing positive in the time he's seen the field, Mike Williams, who weighed well over 400 lbs. at this time last year, and Will Montgomery, who has been serviceable at best.

RT: Heyer, who is average at best, has been the best option here. Unfortunately, since he's been needed at LT for several games and was injured for a significant portion of last year, the position has also been manned by the ghost of Jon Jansen, Mike Williams, and D'Anthony Batiste.

If you've really been watching every Redskins game, then you know that Campbell looked noticeably worse in the second half of last season and the first half of this season. You would also know that the lineman being "objected to" are Heyer (as a LT), Chad Rinehart, Mike Williams, and D'Anthony Batiste. Yes, Campbell occasionally holds onto the ball too long, but if you watch the games, he's had to deal with consistent pressure very shortly after the snap.

We've argued about Campbell plenty before, so I don't really want to get into it, but suggesting that the line has been peachy over the second half of '08 and the start of '09 is disingenuous at best, and bordering on dishonest.

54
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:06am

DMB-

I agree with your analysis 100% and you obviously know the Redskins. I don't think Campbell had a "good line" this year, and it did start to tail off at the end of last year. I'll agree with you there too.

The point I was making though is people say Campbell " never had a line" which is far from the truth. Yeah, when Randy Thomas comes out and Will Montgomery/Chad Rheinhard come in... or Heyer come in for Samuels it falls apart... Yes.

I'm trying to make a point here, but I'm not stupid man. Your line isn't going to be good with Heyer at LT and Montgomery at RG... NO.

but Campbell HAS had an offensive line. Not you, but some people act like he's been cursed with nothing but a scrub line, and scrub skilled position players around him his whole tenure in Washington... and if they only had a supporting cast around him... That's not true.

57
by dmb :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:36am

Right, but I think there's a pretty significant relationship between Campbell's play and the quality of the line he's got. As you pointed out, his line was pretty good in the first half of 2008, and Campbell played extremely well. Now, the line is pretty awful, and Campbell looks awful. I think this tells us a couple things: that Campbell is clearly not one of those QBs who can get the ball to an open guy regardless of the quality of his protection; and that the offensive line has been at least partially responsible for the deterioration of Campbell's play. Those checkdowns you harp on have increased dramatically as the line has become trashed, and I don't think that can be pinned on Campbell.

So yes, I agree with you that the suggestion that Campbell has "never had a line" is bunk. But if you take a look at his play when he has had half-decent protection compared to when he hasn't, I think it's difficult to conclude that the chaos in front of him shouldn't take a significant amount of blame for the team's offensive ineptitude. It seems like Campbell's play is very much affected by his surrounding cast, which means that he's not good enough to elevate the play of marginal players, but it also means that he's not bad enough to really hold a team of strong players back. Obviously, this would mean that he's far from elite, but it also makes him far better than some of the guys lining up under center.

58
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:58am

I think there is a correlation between a QB's success and his line for any QB.

The point I will argue with you on is that the number of check downs has gone significantly up. I don't see that at all. He's been a check down guy the whole time. It's not like he was whizzing the ball downfield on intermediate/deep routes before, and now he has no line and is forced to throw short stuff. This guy has been throwing smoke screens, RB passes, and 3 yard passes on 3rd and 8 the entire time. That's why I highly discount his stats. Show me the games where he's picking apart a defense over and over again? You could have a fluke 300 yard passing game where your WR turns a screen pass into an 80 yard touchdown, but it's a lot harder to beat a defense over and over again in the passing game 12 yards at at time.

I don't know where this "he played great at the start of 2008 came from". It probably comes from the media touting his "no interceptions". He also finished the season with what, 12 touchdown passes? This also comes what, a year after he finished 1/2 the year without throwing a TD pass to a WR? In early 2008, Clinton Portis was leading the NFL in rushing and the Redskins were beating up on less than spectacular competition ( minus a fluke win in Philly where the better team lost).

One thing you need to understand is that Campbell is at one level of extreme on the risk spectrum. On one end you have Favre, Warner, Delhomme, Grossman etc. At the far other end you have Campbell. Sure, if you aren't going to throw TDs/Yards/Picks then you aren't going to lose games for your team, but you aren't going to win them either... It can make your stats look rather average, maybe even better than average if you have a good cast around you. But don't be fooled.

It's especially not that good if the player is young... or middle aged and the guy is still playing ultra conservative. In some respects, I'd rather see a guy go through what Mark Sanchez, Matt Stafford etc. are going through NOW with the hope that they will learn and get better ( but in reality neither of these guys should be playing their rookie years).

NFL teams don't spend 1st round draft picks on guys to get Trent Dilfers... You spend a 1st round pick on a guy with the hope of having a competent passing attack that defenses will have to honor and that can win games in the 4th quarter during the 2 min drill.

This year even despite the weak schedule for the Redskins, They either fight out out with a top 5 worst team, or play a decent team, start losing, and then once the game is out of reach always seem to pad the stats with a TD or 2 to make the stat sheet look better.

43
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 1:13am

Chris, how many games did all those guys play together?

56
by dmb :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:24am

If you count Jon Jansen as a starter last year, then seven. Considering that he only made it into the starting lineup when Heyer went out with a shoulder sprain -- and how he was absolutely wrecked by Pittsburgh -- I would classify him as a substitute last year. If he's considered a sub, then there have been two games out of the past sixteen where all five of the Redskins' "regular" starters played at their actual position. In eight games, one position was manned by a sub (to start the game), and there have been three games each of two or three positions being manned by a sub.

D'Anthony Baptiste played LT for most of the Carolina game, though Samuels got the start. (Samuels suffered his season-ending, and his potentially career-ending, injury in the first quarter.)

Here are the starters along the offensive line for the second half of '08 through this week. (s) denotes a substitute.

PIT: Samuels - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s)
DAL: Samuels - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s)
@SEA: Samuels - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s)
NYG: Samuels - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s)
@BAL: Samuels - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s) *
@CIN: Heyer (s) - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Fabini (s)
PHI: Heyer (s) - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Fabini (s)
@SF: Heyer (s) - Kendall - Rabach - Thomas - Jansen (s)

@NYG: Samuels - Dockery - Rabach - Thomas - Heyer
STL: Samuels - Dockery - Rabach - Thomas - Heyer
@DET: Samuels - Dockery - Rabach - Rinehart (s) - Heyer
TB: Samuels - Dockery - Rabach - Rinehart (s) - Heyer
@CAR: Samuels - Dockery - Rabach - Williams (s) - Heyer **
KC: Heyer (s) - Dockery - Rabach - Montgomery (s) - Williams (s)
PHI: Heyer (s) - Dockery - Rabach - Montgomery (s) - Williams (s)
@ATL: Heyer (s) - Dockery - Rabach - Montgomery (s) - Williams (s)
_____
*Both Samuels and Jansen left the game.
**Samuels left for good during the first quarter.

9
by cpt anonymous (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:16pm

I agree with everything you see. Im a skins fan and finally gave up on Campbell this season. He is an average qb. He's not going to win you any games you aren't supposed to win and he's not going to lose you any games you aren't supposed to lose. I have been encouraged the past two weeks because he's gotten his ass kicked and hasn't thrown any of those 3 yard passes on 3rd and 10 I'd grown accustomed to. If he stops doing that I think he can become an above average if not great qb. But its a little late to try and become anything at age 28.

63
by RickD :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 5:36pm

I would caution Skins fans to look at the dreck starting at QB for many NFL teams before getting too willing to jettison Campbell. Yes, Campbell is an average QB, but you could certainly do a lot worse.

So sure, if the Skins can get a young John Elway or Peyton Manning they should go for it, but I'd worry that they would be getting a young Brady Quinn or Alex Smith.

4
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:03pm

What is Jason Campbell's QB rating when his team is winning, and what is it when his team is down 1 possession, and then what is his rating when his team is down 2 or more possessions?

He's young
He has no line
He has no receivers
He has bad coaching
He's been in different systems in the college & pros
He needs a defense (to win games, what his win pct.?)
He's still young, and needs more time.

Are his stats horrible? No, but neither were Byron Leftwhich's when Jack let him go. How did that move work out? Was he ever going to be worth of that 1st round draft pick?

Did he throw interceptions last year? NO, but did he throw touchdowns? He had one of the worst TD's to Pass attempts ratio's in the league last year. I can't remember if it was last year or two years ago but he went something like 8 games without throwing a TD pass to a WR. How many times has the Redskins offense broke 20 points this year? How about that offense at the end of last year or vs any half decent defense?

If you don't watch the Redskins I'm probably just a big old meanie. But it's funny when people say things like, " I don't normally watch Washington, but why did the QB keep throwing 2 yard passes on 3rd and 10"?

Is he Ryan Leaf bad? Of course not, but I'll pound my fist on the table and tell you he won't ever be a pick you apart quarterback. His mechanics & decision making won't let it happen. My track record with QB's has been pretty good.

If you are looking at JC to be a starter, you are wasting your time ( think Byron Leftwhich in Tampa). If you are looking at JC to be a backup QB to fill in a couple games that could work ( think Byron Leftwhich in Pittsburgh).

6
by SOBL (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:33pm

Does campbell win a game for his team? Does Campbell run an effective 2 min drill when a team's defense is trying? Campbell is a leader in the 12-18 for 150 yards 1 TD game. That's great when you have a top notch D and run game, but not in Washington.

I didnt notice it before, but you guys do excuse almost every poor performance for Campbell. Is this just to defend the Lewin QB forecasting system? You guys are much kinder to Campbell than to, in his own division, Eli or Romo. I don't know anyone, even my skins fan friends, who would take Campbell in a draft over eli, romo, or mcnabb.

7
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:35pm

Campbell is basically David Carr, except he plays for a much better team.

The Redskins defense hasn't been bad the last few years, Santana Moss was a star with Mark Brunell (just before Brunell stopped being thought of as an NFL starter), And the Redskins spent three draft picks a year ago on receivers.

None of them panned out, because Campbell isn't an NFL quarterback, let alone a starter.

24
by Joe T. :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:29pm

I never understood the Brunell benching. Best QB in DC since Brad Johnson. Whole thing smelt of Snyder.

30
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:03pm

Wow. I hate Snyder as much as the next guy, but that is total revisionist history. Brunell's stats were OK that last year, but if you watched the games you knew that he was physically incapable of throwing the ball more than 5 yards downfield. You think the offense is restricted now? It was basically the same thing then except the QB had a noodle arm so he couldn't throw anything other than screens and hitches even if he had wanted to.

Yes, he was the best QB in DC since Brad Johnson, but he was absolutely D-O-N-E as a starter when they finally benched him. Gibbs loved Brunell and kept starting him long after his time as an effective player was over. If Snyder intervened, it was the right call (but I don't remember any suggestions that Snyder was involved).

8
by jklps :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:57pm

A quote from a great Belichek inverview last week on Yahoo Sports:

"As long as the guy is a good decision-maker and he’s accurate and he’s consistent, you can give him something you can count on and you have a pretty good chance. The hard part is when they’re inconsistent or they’re not very accurate or they don’t make good decisions because ultimately you’re going to need a throw, they’re going to miss it; you’re going to need a decision, they’re not going to make it and that’s when it comes apart."

So really a QB needs to be:

Good Decision Maker
Accurate
Consistent

My evaluation of Jason Campbell as a Redskins fan, one who thought this potential 2-14 season was coming for awhile.

Good Decision maker - not really. Maybe there is too much information in his head, but he doesn't make good decisions decisively and naturally.

Accurate - Jason has poor footwork, often not stepping into throws.

Consistent - Jason is consistent, but not in the good way.

I truly like the guy and hope he gets another shot somewhere else, but forgetting statistics and by going from what I see from watching and charting Redskins games, is that Jason's a backup.

10
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:17pm

Good decision maker: Yeah, if you want to run a no risk no reward offense. If not making mistakes, and picking up 5 yards on 3rd and 10 is fine with you.

Accurate: He actually has a strong arm, but isn't very good at throwing the deep ball. His accuracy on deep throws is well below average.

On shorter throws, he holds onto the ball too long, and has a mechanical release. I don't think his accuracy is a throw per say, but how could you tell when he's throwing so many dump offs?

Consistant: Once again, how often does the guy go off and throw for 300 yards? Ok, how about 250? Ok, how often does his team score more than 20 points?

How does he do vs terrible defenses, how does he do against good defenses? How does he run the 2 min drill? How well does he do in the red zone?

There are a number of guys who can't start at QB in the league because of being inconsistant. They might throw for 300 yards, 3 TD's 0 int's in one game, but throw for 112 yards, oTD's and 4 INT's in another game. The Good Rex Bad Rex syndrome.

Campbell on the other hand doesn't have those terrible games, but when does he have the really good ones? His best games are a collection of screens, dump offs, and maybe 1-2 deep passes on play action when the defense isn't expecting it. Has he ever thrown for 3TD's in the game? It isn't likely.

I do feel like when ever Romo, Mcnabb, Eli have bad games people are rabid after these guys... " Ohhh, I never did believe in Romo/Mcnabb/Eli anyway".

When Campbell has a bad game... " he has no talent around him, he's still young, blah blah blah". He's by far the worst QB in the division.. a division of good yet railed on QB's.

14
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:36pm

I don't understand why anyone would even argue with C at this point - sure, Campbell's coaches, o-line and many of his team-mates stink, but that doesn't mean Campbell is good. Campbell clearly is mediocre at best - the only data point in his favor is that his team also stinks. Campbell will be an ok back-up someplace but he's never going to lead a team deep into the playoffs - maybe he can pull a Trent Dilfer, but that's the absolute ceiling for that guy. It seems plain as day at this point...

15
by amh (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:36pm

While he might be right on Campbell, people keep arguing with him because he's insanely insistent that the team and organization around Campbell doesn't suck.

21
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:16pm

While he might be right on Campbell....

Then what's the point of arguing??? My point is that he's mediocre at VERY best and probably not even that... I was saying that back when people actually liked him too...

I'm sick of this guy being protected from any and all criticism. He's in a division with

Romo... who gets trashed after every bad game
Mcnabb ... who gets trashed after bad games
Eli... who gets trashed after bad games

These are 3 of the better QB's in the league and after one of them doesn't lead their team to victory, or commits 3 turnovers, you get the " Romo/Mcnabb" won't ever win the big one... they don't have what it takes yadda yadda yadda. Or when Eli has a bad game... " Ohhhh I never believed in him anyway".

When Jason Campbell has a bad/average game, what do you get? A pile of half baked excuses. It's not his fault, never is, never will be. It's the same crap Michael Vick had. The guy could rush for 75 yards 1TD, throw for 105, 2 interceptions, and no matter what it was always his Shoddy Roddy White WRs, or his line, or his coaching staff etc.

Once people get an impression in their heads, it's hard to get them to change their minds. Mike Vick is good right? When stuff goes wrong is MUST be the other guys because Mike Vick is good.

When do the outsiders ever dog on Jason Campbell? He has put up average/below average numbers without turnovers via a no risk/no reward offense, and always gets excused from criticism. I was also pounding the table on Byron Leftwhich... that he'll never be good.... but people still believed in him... Now his mechanics are viewed as a joke even by NFL laymen.

Campbell had more pro bowlers than any other NFC Quarterback last year. The way you say he has no team around him you'd think he were in a Calvin Johnson-less Detroit. He had the left tackle... he had a pro bowl TE... Moss is a legit WR... Mike Sellers is a pro bowl fullback and good blocker... Portis was still decent up to the middle of last year ( and is still probably the best blocking HB in the league)... Does he have a dominant dummy proof offense around him? NO... but until the injuries hit a couple of games ago, he wasn't unfairly disadvantaged.

You yourself don't believe he will ever be good, but everybody has to act like it isn't Jason's fault. If Romo or Mcnabb were in Campbell's shoes, I hardly think they'd be getting all of this slack the way he does.

Look at Aaron Rodgers too. A guy that HAS put up numbers. When he gets sacked 5 times, everybody says... Rogers got sacked 5 times... he holds onto the ball too long. When Campbell gets sacked 5 times... "Jason Campbell has no talent around him".

For some reason David Carr was another guy that got none of the blame for his sacks (maybe because he was mobile). He has horrible awareness all around, yet hardly got the blame, while everybody said the Texans need to just draft lineman for years... David Carr won't ever be good because he's mentally handicapped, stared down WRs, not because he had "no line".

12
by ammek :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:29pm

Can we have an irrational Campbell-hate thread, please?

13
by chemical burn :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:35pm

There's nothing irrational about saying Campbell stinks. His DVOA is on the level with Seneca Wallace and Byron Leftwich - two players (on comparably bad teams) that no one in their right mind would say are worthwhile starters. Campbell is going to be Leftwich 2.0 - get ready to enjoy him stinking up some team like the Bills or Rams next year for 4 or 5 games until making a justified segue to the bench...

22
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:19pm

and that's what this nutcase has been saying for probably 3-4 years here. He is Byron leftwhich 2.0. He's be some teams backup QB, or pull a Byron in Tampa where he goes to some QB-less team and starts for a few games as he gets the seat warm for the latest greatest draft pick.

To finanlly NOT be mocked, and to hear other say it now is gratifying.

20
by SOBL (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:10pm

Is this sarcasm or are you mocking those of us who are fed up with Campbell apologists who cut him slack for mistakes that would merit derision about inconsistent eli or braindead romo? As a non-Redskins fan, I have never feared Jason Campbell with a game on the line. Skins fans, I feel your pain.

The comment about FO not giving up the narrative is spot on. Something does not feel genuine about FO's reactions to or typed analysis (non-stat) of his play. That's why I made the comment on the Lewin QB forecasting system.

16
by anonymiss (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:43pm

It's not Jason Campbell's fault. The FO guys aren't letting go of that narrative, no matter what. Campbell played like dirt in Philly until garbage time but that game wasn't dissected. Hmm, wonder why?

I also think an apology to Michael Turner is long overdue.

18
by amh (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:51pm

For what? He's been putting up a negative DVOA going into this week and was eighteenth in DYAR.

17
by Paulo Sanchotene, RS, Brazil (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:50pm

FO ranks him this season (weeks 1-8),
DYAR (64): 21st
DVOA (-6.8%): 23rd
EYds (1,271): 18th

Just to compare, he is between,
DYAR: McNabb (20) and Pennington (22)
DVOA: Leftwich (22) and Garrard (24)
EYds: Cutler (17) and Hasselback (19)

His EYds-Yards equals -93.

19
by hubcap (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:57pm

Yup. As a Redskins fan I say to everyone defending Campbell with stats: I hope that your team signs him next year, then you can experience the joy for yourself.

Like anyone who reads FO, I like stats. But I don't care what stats you come up with, Jason Campbell is not a very good QB. It's all been said - he doesn't see the field, his decision-making is a beat slow, and he's not terribly accurate.

Last year a friend and I were discussing Campbell. I was mildly defending him. I said "Campbell's ceiling - if everything works out - then he's Jake Delhomme." This was before Jake's epic playoff meltdown. But I still think that's right. Pair Jake with an all-world WR (Steve Smith in his prime), a butch running game and a tough D and he's just fine. But anything less than that and it all goes to hell.

I guess Campbell is better because instead of taking a chance and throwing a pick, he just tosses to his checkdown or takes the sack. But as Derrick Coleman said, "whoop-dee-damn-doo." Two-yard checkdowns on 3rd-and-5 kill you slower than pick-sixes, but you're dead all the same.

Having said that, he seems like a good guy and it pained me to watch him get the crap knocked out of him these past two weeks. Nobody deserves that.

25
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:34pm

Exactly. I don't care what the stats say.

Throwing 2 yard passes on 3rd and 5 over and over and over again don't kill your stats, but they are the same thing as pulling a Delhomme and throwing ill advised pickles.

I've argued over and over again that FO stats favor guys with say 0 TD's and 0 INTS, as opposed to say a QB with 3 TD's and 3 INTs. They overrated Byron Leftwhich and they are too easy on Campbell. Sure the stats don't look bad, but it's not sustainable. A guy like Aaron Rodgers picking defenses apart ( when he's not getting sacked) is much harder to do than throw 2 yard passes, and hope your WR jukes out the corner to turn it into a 12 yard gain. Throwing the 12 yard passes is a lot harder than throwing the 2 yard pass with 10 rac yards...

A young guy who throws 3 TD's and 2 or 3 int's might learn, grow, and start throwing 3 TD's and 1 or 0 int's and then you have something. You might have a Rex Grossman who won't learn, or you might have a Drew Brees who does figure it out. A guy that can beat you with the pass is a dangerous thing as playing NFL qb is the hardest position in all of sports.

throwing 0 td's and 0 int's... say Campbell in 2007, or Byron Leftwhich when people thought he was alright in Jacksonville isn't that hard. Hand it off to your RB's, throw swing passes, check downs and dump offs. Maybe your coach will call a deep fade once or twice a game to try and keep the defense honest, but it's not like you read the coverage and threw that long pass to exploit the defense... you were told to throw that deep ball.

The Redskins in all reality have Campbell for 8 more games. I'd open up the playbook and force the guy to throw... NOOOO more checkdowns. If it's 3rd and 10, and there is a guy 12 yards downfield with a defender semi on him, or a check down 1 yard downfield to a wide open back with the defender 5 yards behind him... I'd make him throw the 1 on 1's... Take some chances... see if he could make those strong accurate throws. I don't think he could but at least see what you have. Because you aren't going to win with a QB that can't throw the ball downfield.

If you looked at guys on the risk spectrum, Rex Grossman might be on the far end of too much risk, while Campbell is the extreme most conservative QB in the league.

Favre would be on the risky side... Most TD's and most picks, but I'd still argue that Favre is more valueable than a equally talented guy on the opposite end of the spectrum and that FO's stats are more biased towards conservative play.

I don't think they neccesarily penalize the riskier guys too much, like Warner, Favre etc., but I think they are too lenient on the guys that don't make enough big plays.

34
by Independent George :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:33pm

Everything you're describing actually does sound like a good fit for a certain type of team. To use your own comparison with Sexy Rexy, Campbell playing for the 2006 Bears might have won the Super Bowl. I'd rate him well above 2000 Trent Dilfer, but below 2002 Brad Johnson. He might have won playoff games for the mid-90s Chiefs, or the 2007-8 Vikings.

27
by josh the funkdoc (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 6:04pm

anyone notice how chris bashes almost every black qb

i really think he believes the rush limbaugh stuff re: the media, but he's too scared to come out and say it

33
by Paulo Sanchotene, RS, Brazil (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:30pm

I think there is a misunsderstading over Limbaugh statement. He said that McNabb was overrated because he is "black" (I would put "be considered 'black'", but it seems that in America people are actually divided in "blacks" and "whites", so, never mind).

There are two ways of understading this, the first being "since McNabb is 'black' he cannot be as good as people say he is". But that wasn't the way he wanted to put at all.

What he said, being right or wrong (it's another problem), is that McNabb is a common QB as a lot of others QB in the league, but, because he is "black", people think he is better than he really is (in opposition of those days that almost every single "black" player was underrated only because they had a darker skin tone).

Either way, it still is a very unfortunate way to express oneself. But nobody needs to put other words in Limbaugh's mouth in order to denigrate him. He is very good with his own words already.

64
by RickD :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 5:43pm

I think the criticisms of Limbaugh were based on the notion that he was really quite wrong about Donovan McNabb's talent level.

Limbaugh is a football fan, but he doesn't really know all that much about football. It was ridiculous to give him the ESPN gig, and it's a good thing they yanked him before Tom Jackson throttled him on the air.

And that's where that "experiment" was heading.

36
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:43pm

I bash over rated quarterbacks and quarterbacks who don't belong in the league black and white and have a very good record doing so.

By the way, I think it's pretty weak to throw stones and play the race card behind the comfort and safety of the internet. Don't debate the issue at hand, just unfairly throw out the race card out there when nobody once mentioned anything about that.

49
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 7:39am

I'm going to back Chris up on this, actually. I don't ever remember him saying anything unduly negative about McNabb, who is and has for some time been the only actively good black QB in the NFL. In fact, his comments elsewhere on this thread suggest that he regards McNabb fairly highly. Nor do I ever recall him bashing Garrard, who I think most reasonable people will agree is a competent starter, neither more nor less. He has virulently attacked Vick as being not an NFL passer - does anyone, anywhere disagree with this? He savaged Leftwich for his release at a time when many people, including myself, thought Leftwich had it in him to be a decent player. Leftwich's spells in Atlanta and Tampa Bay seem to strongly suggest that Chris was right and we were wrong. He now claims that Campbell is significantly worse than his numbers would indicate, and has no business being an NFL starting quarterback, for reasons he goes into in this thread and elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on Campbell: it's possible that the various external difficulties he encountered are responsible for his troubles, and he's a roughly average NFL starter, but it's equally possible he's a hopeless bust. My own feeling (and I don't watch the Redskins much, so I'm hardly an expert) is that he's probably about the 25th best quarterback in football - starting him's not the end of the world, and replacing him may not necessarily be priority number one, but you'd be well advised to do it sooner rather than later. To my mind, of the three quarterbacks Chris has repeatedly attacked, he has been proven right on two and the jury's still out on the third. I find it pretty hard to see how you get from there to racially motivated bias. He may harp on on certain subjects, and I can understand that some readers are turned off by his tone, but I can't think of many posters on this site for whose scouting insight I have more respect.

Incidentally, Chris, have you had a chance to watch Freeman yet? I was very dubious of that pick when it was made, but watching him at Wembley, as a rookie seeing (I think) his first live action on a hopelessly overmatched team, I was impressed. His poise and awareness seemed streets ahead of what it seemed reasonable to expect. Audibles seem to suggest he looked good against GB, too.

55
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:24am

Thanks Shush

I don't think I've bashed him as much around FO, but I was shorting the stock of JP Losman big time. It wasn't even just for his play, the guy had an immature Ryan Leaf like attitude.

I was also a huge huge huge David Carr basher. Everytime David Carr came up, it was " he doesn't have a line". Not that the Texans line was great, but he had some of the worst pocket prescence I have ever seen... He starred down WR's. Kubiak said he was his guy early on, but dumped him after even he couldn't teach him.

Mcnabb is good... very good and for some reason people don't see that. Some people in Philly want to bench Mcnabb after he has bad games. He isn't the most accurate guy in the world, but Mcnabb is a very hard worker and a film study buff and it shows. The WCO is a version of hot potato where somebody is going to be open. If they play zone, somebody will get open and Mcnabb makes smart decisions. I'd rather have a smart QB like Mcnabb who can read a defense and find the open guy ( granted sometimes make inaccurate throws), then have a medium intelligence QB with a very accurate arm. If you want to complain about not having talented WR's around for much of your career... Mcnabb is your guy to complain about. Unless you think James Thrash and Fredex are decent.

I was anti-Tavaras Jackson for many reasons
I said Brady Quinn over Jamarcus Russell
I was the most anti-Michael Vick person you could find online.

I wouldn't give up on Vince Young just yet. I'm not saying he will be a top 10 quarterback, but people talk about him like he's some after thought bust. I'd buy low for a chance to sell high on this one. I'm not sure he will ever be a top 10 passer with that throwing motion, but he has a chance to be a top 10 quarterback.

I'm not giving Joe Flacco my endorsement yet. I talked with some oddsmakers in Vegas and one of the guys who makes the pointspread liked Flacco. I'm still not there yet. He does some things well, but I want to see some consistancy before I give him my endorsement. I'd still easily take Matt Ryan over him.

Before the season I gave my endorsement to Aaron Rodgers and he has a chance to really be special. The argument against Rodgers is that he holds onto the ball and gets sacked too much. Granted he has had some injuries on the line... but you can't fault Rodgers for his decision making, Red Zone play, 2 min drill... the thing is sometimes he holds onto the ball and gets sacked. I think if he had a better line it would make his job easier and the big thing is he's in his 2nd freaking year as the starter... I'd expect that as his # of starts go up, he will learn, be more confident and speed things up... If he lowers his sack rate than he could be a truly special player. The Packers have something with him.

Josh Freeman. I haven't seen enough of him to make a definitive statement. His completion pct. in college don't bode well though. He has the size, arm, and mobility that you like though. In the Packers game he did a good job of looking downfield when he was scrambling out of the pocket, and you usually don't see 21 year old rookies do that (kudos to Freeman)... In reality, mobile rookie QB's run and pick up the 7 or so yards, not look downfield and hit their WR's. I don't think he played as well as his stats said in the Packers game, but he wasn't bad. As a rookie, I'd expect some decent games, and also some of those ugly road games where the QB loses the game for his team... like a rookie. I haven't seen enough of him to form an opinion, but he didn't look terrible in his first start.

65
by ammek :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 8:03pm

C, you're a great read when you're not talking about Jason Campbell. All of this is damn good, well argued, well observed. And level-headed.

I half-agree with you about Campbell but you turn it into some kind of breast-beating vendetta which is boring and pointless. And very repetitive. It stops me reading what you write — which is a shame, given the above content.

28
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 6:32pm

A someone who never reads all this crazy Campbell ranting (on both sides, since I don't have anything invested in him I'll say the following)I'll throw in my 2c.

He always looks super average to me. Don't understand all the hate. I think that is why FO defends him. People hate hate hate when he is average.

Is her ever going to be a top 10 QB, almost certainly not. But he is and could be a very serviceable starter for a team without a clear franchise guy.

He is about as low a level of a QB you can be and still be secure in your starting job. There is nothing wrong with that, someone has to be that guy. I bet the Vikings would lvoe to have him next year if Favre is gone. He might not do as well as Favre, but he would be better than T Jackson.

37
by dmb :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:09pm

I agree. I've been one of Campbell's "defenders" on this site before, and although he has fallen a bit in my estimation, I've never claimed that he is, or would necessarily become, a top-10 QB. He was pretty average when he started playing, and to me, that was a good sign; most young QBs would be happy to be average when they start playing. It doesn't seem like he's progressed a whole lot during his career, and it definitely seems like he's regressed this year, even taking into account the lunacy going on around him. Even so, there's always been at least a handful of quarterbacks -- and in my opinion, at least 10 -- who are almost certainly worse than Campbell. I don't understand why people think he's a backup, or UFL material, or whatever the hyperbole of choice is.

29
by Paul A (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 6:46pm

So, if I understand C correctly, if Eli/Romo/McNabb were on the Skins, their offense would not suck; and if Campbell were on the Giants/Eagles/Cowpies, their offense would suck. Just in the interest of science, maybe we could trade Campbell and Zorn for McNabb and Reid. Oh, and also I want a pony.

41
by Marko :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 11:05pm

I think you are on to something here. But just putting Eli/Romo/McNabb on the Skins wouldn't be enough. They would have to be disgraced further. Perhaps Eli/Romo/McNabb could be framed for theft, arrested and then also face drug charges after PCP is planted on them. And Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche could make a $1 bet on whether the Skins offense would not suck with Eli/Romo/McNabb and whether the Giants/Eagles/Cowboys offense would suck with Campbell. Hilarity ensues.

31
by Dunbar (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:09pm

I absolutely agree with everyone who says that Jason Campbell is overrated by the FO guys (not their stats, which peg him pretty well as an average starting QB). Their constant defense of him is a little strange, since I don't think most people (outside of C, who I'll get to) think he's all that bad. I think most people think he's just mediocre, and not the lasting solution in Washington unless their defense gets much better. The fact that the FO guys keep defending him indicates that they think he's better than that, but no one's seen any evidence to support that contention.

All that said, I also don't understand what drives C (Chris from NYC, right?) to write these long-ass posts every week or two bashing him. I would understand if he were a Redskins fan, since I had a similar reaction to mediocre quarterbacks like Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox as a Steelers fan, but he isn't. Since he's not a Redskins fan, and Campbell has never done anything to strike much fear into the hearts of Giants fans, his burning hatred of Campbell seems rather inexplicable. Unless Campbell has some sort of heinous off-the-field record that only C is aware of, it might be time to dial down the hatred.

32
by Boston Dan :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:29pm

C's problem isn't with Campbell, but with the Outsiders. See the audibles.

35
by C (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:39pm

First of all, it's not hatred to Campbell. I have nothing against the guy. That's where people put words into my mouth.

I live in Washington and grew sick of hearing how the Redskins were going to win the super bowl every February after they signed the latest and greatest free agents.

I grew sick of the Campbell praise after he came in and relieved Mark Brunell ( yes, Brunell was done and couldn't throw the ball 10 yards when he was yanked). If you listened to talk radio everybody was so done with Brunell you could have given them anything and they would have liked it better... I watch all of the Redskins games and it was painful to watch their version of the prevent offense with Campbell throwing check downs...

The same overly excited fans that were predicting Super Bowls every February went all in on Campbell and I just didn't see it. The whole way I was pointing out flaws and nobody seemed to care. If he was a stock I would have been shorting him very early on when other people still liked him.

Doc Walker knows the NFL and he had an irrational love for Campbell. He was so biased it wasn't even funny. You would have thought Campbell was the next Tom Brady when you hear the guy talk on Mondays. Walker knows football and gives some of the best analysis you will hear on the radio, but he polluted the airwaves with his head over heels in love for Campbell...

Your analysis of Campbell is pretty good. The reason I state my opinion is because A) I can't stand the Redskins... B) I think he's overrated. On a website that's dedicated to better finding "true value", I think it should be noted. It's not like every week I say " Jason Campbell sucks"... I point out his flaws. You said you don't like hearing about mediocre quarterbacks right? Maybe when the pop media is stroking them off it gets a little annoying eh? Well I do watch all of the Redskins games, and I'm sick of people defending him and I'm sick of none of his mistakes being his fault.

Now I'm not saying the announcers should bash the guy before games Joe Buck style... but when there is a below average player they'll usually say stuff they have to work on... None of that for Jason Campbell... When a good play happens they'll pump him up ... when a bad play happens it's not his fault. Phill Simms or one of the other guys even said " well there are people who don't think he's very good, but I'm not one of them". Gee ya think? I'm surprised they even mentioned that one air. I'm also surprised Rodney Harrison called him out on football night in America a few weeks ago too.

39
by Dales :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 10:47pm

If Campbell can ever be a successful NFL QB I think depends on if he'll continue to get the opportunity and how one defines successful.

I look around the NFL, and for the next season and a half, I see 16 quarterbacks I would clearly rather have (salaries aside): all 3 of the other NFC East QBs, all NFC North QBs other than Stafford, Brees and Ryan from the NFC South, Warner for the NFC West, Brady from the NFC East, all except the Browns QBs in the AFC North, Manning and Schaub from the AFC South, and Rivers from the AFC West.

I think there are only a handful of QB situations that I would clearly prefer having Campbell to-- the Raiders, the Browns, the Bills, the 49ers, the Rams, the Titans, the Panthers. There are a few teams where he's clearly better now but I am not sure he'll be better in the long term than who they have- the Lions, Jets, Bucs.

I basically have him in the same general grouping as Garrard, an aged Hasselbeck, an unproven Henne, Cassel, Orton. In other words, if everything works out for him, he'll be in the upper part of the bottom half of NFL quarterbacks.

40
by Banzai (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 10:50pm

Nope, Campbell is not Tom Brady. But right now he's not the biggest problem with the Redskins. That's the offensive line. I have watched the Redskins play (as a lifelong Redskin fan, it's my painful duty).

The danger is focussing all the attention on replacing Campbell is an "oooo shiny!" attractor for fantasy-football-analyst-turned-owner Snyder. QBs are marketable and interesting (unlike most offensive linemen), but if the Redskins draft the best rookie out there while not improving their OL in a BIG way that QB will be a bust. Period.

So what the Redskins should consider doing is trying to keep Campbell around 2-3 more years while getting him first-rate OL, a new LB (Fletcher ain't getting any younger), and depth in other positions. Along with a rookie QB they can bring along with Colt for a year or two to develop slowly. Neither Brady nor Romo were thrown onto the field at first, and I think sitting behind Brees helped Rivers as well. The Redskins will be better longer if they invest in their overall talent base and do not pursue a glamor QB. Of course, Snyder still owens the team...

Banzai

42
by Red (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:32am

While Campbell's 7.4 YPA and 66% completion rate look good on paper, it seems like he racks up most of his numbers in garbage time. In the first half he throws a bunch of 3-yard passes, his team falls behind, then he pads his stats against a prevent defense while down 21 points in the 4th quarter.

Despite Jason having an above average passer rating of 86.5, the Redskins have only scored 12 offensive touchdowns in eight games. That's 1.5 TD's per game, which is pathetic. The fundamental job of the QB is to drive his team into the endzone, and Jason Campbell has been a miserable failure in that regard.

44
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 1:19am

"In the first half he throws a bunch of 3-yard passes, his team falls behind, then he pads his stats against a prevent defense while down 21 points in the 4th quarter."

He throws lots of 3 yard passes because his offensive line sucks ass. Theres no time to wait for anything longer to develope.

48
by anonymiss (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:23am

While Campbell's 7.4 YPA and 66% completion rate look good on paper, it seems like he racks up most of his numbers in garbage time. In the first half he throws a bunch of 3-yard passes, his team falls behind, then he pads his stats against a prevent defense while down 21 points in the 4th quarter.

Agreed. Look at the final 10 minutes of the Philly game; that's exactly what Campbell did. Heck, look at Campbell's first-half stats vs. his second-half stats this year, a HUGE disparity. Ask yourself why that is so. I think this post above is right on.

53
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:02am

Ding ding ding We have a winner.

45
by Dice :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 1:31am

I never drunk the Campbell koolaid. He just never showed anything. On paper, he does everything I like: has a big enough arm, moves in the pocket, keeps looking downfield, can break off a run or two. But its all for naught because he won't throw down the field until the game is out of reach. How much of his DVOA comes from garbage time in the shotgun?

Fair backup, nice guy, not an NFL starter on a bad team like the 'Skins. They need to let him off the leash, and go deep, Rex deep, the rest of the season. Just to see what he can do. Either way, the team(and fans)is primed for the next rookie QB that will "save the day".

I will also say that IMO, those dump offs and not going deep stem from watching Gibbs and Brunell. "Just don't lose the game for us."

50
by Dales :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 8:29am

Don't have DVOA numbers, but:

When leading by 1-8 points this year, he's 24-35 for 224, 68.6% completion pct, 6.4 Y//A, 0 TDs, 1 int. Passer rating of 74.

When behind by 1-8 points this year, he's 40-71 for 477, 56.3% completion pct 6.7 Y/A, 2 TD, 6 int, rating of 51.2.

When behind by 9 or more, 37-50 for 436, 74.0% 8.72 Y.A, 4 TD, 1 int, 118.4.

Last year, his splits were similar. Two years ago, they were not. It probably is just a fluke and probably does lead to the perception that he is worse than he is. However, despite being better than I think he is perceived, he is nothing more than a somewhat below average starting caliber NFL quarterback.

66
by Red (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 9:24pm

Dales, where did you find those splits? I've been looking for that kind of data for a long time.

67
by Dales :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:23pm

On ESPN. Here's Eli's, and you can either navigate to other players or search to find them, then hit the 'splits' button.

71
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 7:53pm

Great stats. Not really sure how these make him look better or worse than he really is. He just is. When ahead he's okay, when they're just a bit behind (basically the heart of the game when both the offense and the defense is playing according to the game plan) he's not good at all, but once they fall behind enough and the D loosens up and starts giving some yards to kill clock he improves.

47
by anonymiss (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:20am

I think I speak for many of us (not all of course) when I say that it bugs me to see FO being so *defensive* with Campbell as a general rule. It's like they're the legal firm hired to explain all of Campbell's sins away. It would be nice to think that FO is watching and evaluating his play without any back tie to what positive things they at one time predicted for him (in fairness to FO, the 2009 projection for Campbell was pretty tame).

And anytime a QB takes a lot of sacks, the line is an easy target. You don't get a sack without a pass rusher. But look at the words of the pregame show, "pass protection is more dependent on the QB himself than people realize." Why is this rule of thumb never held to Jason Campbell?

At the end of the day, it looks like FO is going to hold the line, protect the narrative. And I'm glad some people are annoyed by that, as I am.

52
by C (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:01am

Trust me man, I'm captain annoyed.

51
by Podge (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 9:02am

I saw this article last night. I'm a Rams fan, and I'd be quite happy if we signed Campbell. I'm guessing as a free agent he'd be on a fair amount of money, and I'm not sure we can really afford that for a guy who isn't going to be any better than, at best, the 10th best QB in the league (and even that is stretching it), especially given that we have Bulger on frankly ridiculous money which will obviously have a cap impact next season whether he stays or goes.

I dunno, it looks like the Rams will have to invest quite a bit of money in the QB position next season, and I can't decided whether I'd rather that was on a highly drafted untested rookie who could be a top 3 QB in the league but could also be about as useful as me at QB in the NFL, or spend a bit less on a proven veteran who's unlikely to be much more than average.

Ideally I'd like us to take someone else at the top of the 1st and have every team pass on one of the highly-touted QBs now so we can pick him at the top of the second. No one wants that Bradford fella now do they?

59
by Jimmy :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:40pm

Campbell's problem is that he takes forver to go through his reads. You can't throw deep against an NFL defense when it takes you several seconds to go through your progressions (unless they are just playing a prevent defense). Zorn (and every other coach he has had in the pros) tries to call plays that get the ball out quickly to compensate - ie slip screens and TE screens - but it is only papering over a massive crack. I watched him very closely last year when he was in the middle of his best streak of play as a pro at the start of the year and it would take him the entirity of a five step drop to get off his first read and start going to his second. That is three seconds of staring at one receiver basically just hoping that he would come open when a proper QB would know immediately that he had to look elsewhere. It takes him five or six seconds to make two reads and that is an eternity for an NFL QB.

60
by hubcap (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 3:47pm

"Fair backup, nice guy, not an NFL starter on a bad team like the 'Skins. "
===
That's the general opinion around my group of Redskins fans. We don't hate Campbell and we don't think he's the problem. But he's also not the solution.
===
Campbell's problem is that he takes forever to go through his reads.
===
Here's a fun JC game: watch him when he drops back and his first option is covered. He scans the field, then taps the ball with his left hand, THEN does something. A friend of mine tipped me to this and said, "that tap - that's when he should have made his decision. But it takes him one or two beats more to make his move, and that's when he gets killed."

The opening "drive" against the Bucs was a super-awesome example of this. Campbell drops back, pocket collapses (as always), he taps the ball, then lowers the ball...SACK. If he had done something when he tapped the ball, he'd have had a chance. But he waited too long and was doomed. Then he did the same thing the next play, only it was a sack-fumble.

On Sunday nite vs. the Eagles, Campbell dodged the blitzers and rolled out right...and everyone in the world watching the game except Campbell saw the Eagle closing in behind him. Campbell looked downfield, tapped the ball, lowered the ball, and WHAM!

Maybe FO can come up with a stat for that.

61
by DC-31 (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:56pm

Brunell was painful to watch. Just painful.

I don't think I have missed a 'Skins game in 10 years. I have seen them all. Campbell is a nice guy, the city's populace likes him, and we all rooted for him, gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped it would all work out.

But it's not going to. The Leftwich comparison is a good one. Another would be Brian Griese. Different style of play, but same general prognosis. Not necessarily a "failed" starter, but a "tweener" starter/backup. Joey Harrington is another one.

62
by DC-31 (not verified) :: Tue, 11/10/2009 - 5:14pm

Good points hubcap, and I say that having played with a QB like that in high school. Big arm, could throw 70+ yards in the air (once broke three fingers in my hand when I tried to catch one of his passes) and accurate enough...but couldn't make the reads quick enough. It was maddening to be open, oh, so very open, but you just knew he wasn't going to get the time to come around to you unless you were option # 1 or # 2 on a play.

I have a theory (so does most of the NFL world) that the ability to make those reads is akin to the curling your tongue; you can either do it or you can't.

Funny thing is you can even tell this in Madden (not that a grown man like me with kids would ever play a video game). Some guys can make the reads on the fly and hit the open receiver, some guys have to hit that button that shows the routes drawn out three times before they hike it because they have to plan what option #1 and #2 are for that play - and they can't deviate. Their minds just don't work well that way. No doubt they are good at other things in life, but they stink at making progressions.

68
by TracingError (not verified) :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:34am

Worth pointing out:

C derides James Thrash as an Eagle and doesn't want to use the bad WR excuse for Campbell.

Last year, FIVE YEARS after 28 year old Thrash was cut by the Eagles, broken down James Thrash started 5 games for the Redskins, and was on the field an awful lot. Now that is WR suckage that no QB could fully overcome.

Second: JC was drafted to be Mark Rypien, Stan Humphries, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams. None of those guys was a great qb. And if they had been on bad teams they would have looked as bad. But you can win, and win Super Bowls with a Jason Campbell. You need good defense, a superior offensive line, a superior running game, and very good wide receivers. The Redskins won three Super Bowls like that.

This year, they were misguided in evaluating their o-line and running backs (Portis is killing JC and the offense) and probably the receivers, and injuries have taken their best two linemen, and so they suck.

Also, the red zone play calling has shied away from passing, and Campbell could easily have a higher TD% if not for Zorn and for at least one if not two easy touchdowns that were dropped.

So, while it's true I thought JC had a bit more in him than he has shown, I believe if put in the situation he was drafted for, he would do fine.

69
by Eddo :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 11:50am

"Second: JC was drafted to be Mark Rypien, Stan Humphries, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams. None of those guys was a great qb. And if they had been on bad teams they would have looked as bad. But you can win, and win Super Bowls with a Jason Campbell. You need good defense, a superior offensive line, a superior running game, and very good wide receivers. The Redskins won three Super Bowls like that."

I grow tired of Chris's shtick as well, but I think you're wrong here. You don't trade up to the first round to draft a QB unless you think he'll be a reason your team will win in the future, not just someone who doesn't screw it up.

You can win a Super Bowl that way, but it's a terrible use of resources.

70
by Dice :: Wed, 11/11/2009 - 12:04pm

Williams and Rypien were accurate downfield. Campbell, first half of last season certainly, had the running game, and had tons of time in PA passes(fear of Portis), but didn't produce. I see your POV, I really do, and like I said in my first post, he does everything well on paper: looks downfield, moves in the pocket, can scramble, has a big arm, certainly demonstrates touch on his dumpoffs...but just can't seem to put it together.