Jason Campbell is a BELOW AVERAGE Quarterback

Henry said:

Why do that and not compare him to players that have equally crappy teams around them? Oh right. They didn't have those crappy teams around them during starts 8 through 24 or in starts 25 through 45 they played well despite having a bad line and a new coach... or something.

Yeah ... that's bending over backwards.

An average QB is going to lag behind good QBs. Of your list up there, the only QBs ahead of Campbell that aren't multiple pro-bowlers are Delhomme and Orton. And Campbell's play has been very comparable the play of those two. If you are suggesting that Campbell will not go to three or four pro-bowls in his career ... ok. There's a case to be made there. That makes him a not great QB. Not a BELOW AVERAGE IN CAPITAL LETTERS one.

The reason your list is so small is because bad QBs wash out as a starter after a season or two. Campbell, however, has not. If you want to argue that Campbell is near the bottom of not bad QBs, your list would be a good place to start.

That makes him an average student.

Click to expand...

Go back one page. I compared Jason Campbell in Year 2 to other quarterbacks in Year 2. Yet again, Campbell lagged behind his peers. And thanks for proving my point. Bad QBs are supposed to wash out as a starter after a season or two. Jason Campbell is at the bottom of list meaning he should have probably washed out yet for some unknown reason he was able to last as long as he did.

That makes him a good student and future first-ballot hall of famer. I don't think ANYONE is suggesting that's Campbell.

I'm telling you that Student 2 is much much better than Student 1, who is average to this point. That doesn't mean Student 1 hasn't shown improvement every year for the past four years.

Click to expand...

So what is your issue then with me giving Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb and so on the benefit of the doubt over Jason Campbell? What exactly are you arguing? Stop arguing about self-improvement. No one cares about self-improvement, the NFL is a competitive professional sports league where success is measured on results.

And yet, you've got this convoluted formula in which you only look at a very small sampling of players during a very small section of their careers, and then eliminate half of them so that you can plunk Campbell at the bottom of it. It doesn't work that way either.

Eh. The Redskins over the past few years have become an embarrassment. I'm not going to the mat for any of them. And that includes Jason Campbell. If the new front office wants to let him go so be it. I won't shed one tear. So no, I'm not making any excuses for the guy. I have no reason to.

But I know a faulty argument when I see one. Cherry-picking stats to the degree you have in this thread is a rarity. I just can't let that go.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concept of cherry-picking stats.

Cherrypicking stats is when you try to compare Jason Campbell to Stafford and Freeman. Something you tried to do. In essence, you want to compare a sixth grader to a first grader.

I compared a sixth grader to the other sixth graders.

Neophyte said:

If I didn't want to go there, I wouldn't have. If I did not consider it a valid line of reasoning, I would have left it unsaid.

The second year in a system that Collins told Brunell took 2 years to really pick up? That system?

Click to expand...

So Collins told Brunell it took 2 years to pick up a system and in two years Jason Campbell couldn't do it... Hmmm...

And that was Cutler's high point too. He really has never been as good again and he shown almost no improvement in his craft at the NFL level, unlike Campbell who has improved every year despite all the disruption on this team and on the offensive side in particular.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is if we have a quarterback with a 0 QB Rating, and he has a 1 QB Rating the next year, and a 10 the next year, he'd better than Jay Cutler as long as he was improving every yera.

Campbell's rating is very similar to McNabb's for this time frame. Sure he had fewer TD's but he was on a team that did it's best to establish the run first and then thrown. His arm was not only often not the first option in the Red Zone, it wasn't even the last option. Contrast that with Reid's offense that has never been anything close to run first. It might be fair to say that giving the chance to throw into the End Zone more, Campbell would have posted better numbers than McNabb.

Click to expand...

It might also be fair to say that if coaches trusted Campbell more, he would have had more chances to throw into the endzone. Or how about if Campbell led more drives into the redzone, he might have had more chances to throw into the endzone.

Likely future HoFer. In his league, Campbell ain't.

See above.

Second year starting but 4th year, both in the league and working under Mike Holmgren's WCO offense system.

Peers? You have 18 QBs on this list, at least five of whom are likely HoF inductees and a couple others who will get more than just passing consideration for it. Looks like a little cherry picking going on to me even though I am sure you just took the end of year list. There are more than 18 QBs in the league with 47-52 starts, even they were not starting this year (Michael Vick comes to mind) or finished the year on IR (Chad Pennington, Kerry Collins).

And sure, I am picking at knits a bit but then so are you when you ignore Campbell's lack of a stable environment, both in terms of system and the idea of "team". I mean, this guy suffered through one of the worst off seasons of any starting QB in recent memory in the NFL and still came back to improve in every category QBs are meaningfully measured. You could make the argument that he did more with less this year and had he had the better parts of the starting offense all year (I am thinking Samuels, Thomas and Betts here...not sure how I feel about Portis at the moment) he would have better numbers yet.

So what am I saying...? The guy is not a HoFer and it's a safe bet he won't ever be. However, he doesn't suck either. He is a guy who will do well with a solid team around him but can't make up for the missing pieces on his own.

Click to expand...

First things first, let's stop the speculative projections. Let's look at what's 20/20. Hindsight. Let's include whatever quarterback you feel deserves to be on the list provided they have the minimum number of starts to be able to be comparable to Jason Campbell. So now we have Chad Pennington, Michael Vick, and Kerry Collins added on. Chad Pennington also had more success than Jason Campbell prior to the comparative period and a lower QB rating in said period. Michael Vick can be argued either way. Kerry Collins ranks lower than Jason Campbell. This doesn't really help Campbell's standing.

Blackjack said:

In 2006.... Campbell's not good at playing catchup.... Ummm... That's a valid excuse?

Click to expand...

And once again, you are skewing the facts to fit your argument. The move you pulled in this quote is about as amateur as I have seen. I said that our defense was horrible that year! With a slew of injuries the defense was getting demolished, end of year ranking was 31st. That does not lend itself to a young QB in his 1st year starting who is trying to get accustomed to the NFL when he is being forced to play from behind all the time.

Campbell was not good at playing catch up and was forced into that position because his defense was the second worst in the NFL supporting my statement that he had an extremely poor supporting cast! But you choose to use only part of my statement quoting what you needed to use to fit your argument. Amateur!

Again, like many in this thread have stated, you have done an amateur job of proving a theory as is possible. You have taken numbers that favor your argument and tried to make the claim that Campbell is below average. You have massaged the stats to your favor.

If one person calls you a duck you can ignore them. If a second person calls you a duck, you might want to think about it. If a third person calls you a duck, then you better take a look in the mirror!

Take a look in the mirror, you have no one supporting your assertions in this thread.

But you gave it a valiant effort!

You know the funniest part of this is that many of the people you are arguing with are not the biggest Jason Campbell supporters.

Blackjack said:

So Collins told Brunell it took 2 years to pick up a system and in two years Jason Campbell couldn't do it... Hmmm...

Click to expand...

Yep and he never got the third year to see if it might have clicked. Shoot, he didn't get the whole second year.

Blackjack said:

So what you're saying is if we have a quarterback with a 0 QB Rating, and he has a 1 QB Rating the next year, and a 10 the next year, he'd better than Jay Cutler as long as he was improving every yera.

Click to expand...

Nope. What I am saying is that Cutler's rating has gone down every single year he has been in the league while Campbell's has climbed, even with the wacky world that is the Washington Redskins right now. Take from it what you will but I see a QB dropping off and a QB slowly figuring it out.

Blackjack said:

It might also be fair to say that if coaches trusted Campbell more, he would have had more chances to throw into the endzone. Or how about if Campbell led more drives into the redzone, he might have had more chances to throw into the endzone.

Click to expand...

Sure, that might be fair. I don't really remember them taking any more shots at the End Zone with Brunnell under center though and Gibbs certainly trusted him. I think the problem was as much philosophy as trust but that might just be me.

Blackjack said:

First things first, let's stop the speculative projections. Let's look at what's 20/20. Hindsight. Let's include whatever quarterback you feel deserves to be on the list provided they have the minimum number of starts to be able to be comparable to Jason Campbell. So now we have Chad Pennington, Michael Vick, and Kerry Collins added on. Chad Pennington also had more success than Jason Campbell prior to the comparative period and a lower QB rating in said period. Michael Vick can be argued either way. Kerry Collins ranks lower than Jason Campbell. This doesn't really help Campbell's standing.

Click to expand...

What speculative projections would that be?

And yes, hindsight is 20/20. You and I are apparently seeing different things though. I am seeing a guy who is improving every year and if the Front Office can solidify things around him might just surprise people. Remember, everyone wanted to bag on Brees as a bust too and all he did was go all rock star after 3 years in the league.

What about the trends? Those are important too as they give you an idea of where these players might be going in the future. Campbell has shown improvement under some seriously bad circumstances and while that does not qualify him for a big NFL payday as a starter in this league, I do think it should give him a chance with the new staff to show that he can continue to improve.

I guess my point is that everyone's maturation point is different. Not everyone is going to have the light switch go off in the third start or their first 40 games. Remember, Warner had a good bit of World and Arena League playing time under his belt and whether you credit it or not, he does.

Blackjack said:

Go back one page. I compared Jason Campbell in Year 2 to other quarterbacks in Year 2. Yet again, Campbell lagged behind his peers. And thanks for proving my point. Bad QBs are supposed to wash out as a starter after a season or two. Jason Campbell is at the bottom of list meaning he should have probably washed out yet for some unknown reason he was able to last as long as he did.

Click to expand...

He hasn't washed out because he's not a bad QB. Again, you picked a list of 18 QBs, most of whom are multi-time pro-bowlers and/or future HOFers. The guys on that list who don't fall into that category are comparable to Campbell.

Your arguement seems to be that if a QB only looks average for four seasons he's actually bad. That if there's no great season sprinkled in somewhere to show a flash of greatness, he's actually bad. I disagree. I think if a guy looks average for four years, he's probably average.

So what is your issue then with me giving Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb and so on the benefit of the doubt over Jason Campbell? What exactly are you arguing? Stop arguing about self-improvement. No one cares about self-improvement, the NFL is a competitive professional sports league where success is measured on results.

Click to expand...

YOU don't care about self-improvement. Oh wait, yes you do. According to you, rookies can suck because they are rookies. Improvement is expected, which is why you decided to compare QBs after 37 starts or something. Otherwise, you'd just look at the 2009 list, see Campbell in the middle of it, and conclude that he's average. So improvement does count for something, even to you.

I don't think you understand the concept of cherry-picking stats.

Cherrypicking stats is when you try to compare Jason Campbell to Stafford and Freeman. Something you tried to do. In essence, you want to compare a sixth grader to a first grader.

I compared a sixth grader to the other sixth graders.

Click to expand...

Nah, you are attempting to narrow the parameters of your list too, just in a different way. You are solely focusing on number of starts. That isn't any more accurate than focusing solely on the quality of players surrounding a QB, which I said in my original post wasn't accurate either. That was kinda my point.

So let's meet in the middle. Here's a new list. Campbell's TRUE peers. The draft class of '05. Tell me where Campbell fits on this list. And to spot you a favor I'll leave out the guys that totally crashed and burned:

Alex Smith
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell
Charlie Frye
Andrew Walter
Kyle Orton
Derek Andersen
Matt Cassel
Ryan Fitzpatrick

These are the guys with the same amount of league experience as Campbell. These guys have all had a chance to start and play in this league, for teams of varying quality. Some of them have been able to earn and retain starting spots. Some haven't, which is why they won't be on your list of guys with 37 starts or whatever.

On this list, I see one player that is clearly better than Campbell: Rodgers.
I see maybe three players that are on par with Campbell: Orton, Andersen and Cassel. (And I think I'm being generous here.) Feel free to disagree with me and we can go over the numbers.

The rest don't measure up. THOSE are the bad QBs.

If that list isn't big enough, we can add '04 and '06 and bring in guys like Rivers, Manning and Rotheslisberger, J.P. Losman and Shaub, Young and Leinart, Cutler, Kellen Clemens and Tavaris Jackson ... and I think Campbell will end up in the same place: Right in the middle.

And again, I'm totally cool with cutting Campbell loose. But if you do it, you'd better have a plan in place beyond 'Campbell sucks.' That's not good enough. Saying he's not Brady or McNabb or Rodgers doesn't upgrade the position, and that's what we need to do if we get rid of him. If you've got a plan I'm all ears. If you're just here to bitch about the highest-profile position on a lousy team ... eh. Not interested.

On this question, in order that I avoid being accused of cherry-picking stats, or trying to skew them to confirm any predisposition I may have-I just went to NFL.com and looked at their overall QB rankings for the regular 2009 season.

Among all 32 starting QBs Jason Campbell's final season ranking is #15.

Here's the link to the NFL.com stat page for QBs.http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...rience=null&tabSeq=1&qualified=true&Submit=Go

I was just listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they were talking about the Vikings, and what they should do about the Brett Favre situation. They both agreed that should Favre retire, the Vikings had to bring in a veteran QB because they are too close to contending to wait for a young guy to develop. Greenie threw out Vick's name and Golic immediately shot it down, suggesting that he hadn't played QB in a long time. Then Greenberg suggested Pennington, and Golic said that was an ok choice but he has such a weak arm that you take the big play away from the offense.

So then Greenberg said (and I'm paraphrasing) "So who else would you take? It's not like there are a lot of veterans available." After a bit of this he finally says what about Jason Campbell.

Long pause.

Golic says "That's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that ... interesting idea."

In the end neither one shot the Campbell idea down, but neither really endorsed it either. It was just an interesting idea.

Anyway, I thought I'd share given that we're having such a spirited discussion about Campbell right now.

Neophyte said:

What speculative projections would that be?

And yes, hindsight is 20/20. You and I are apparently seeing different things though. I am seeing a guy who is improving every year and if the Front Office can solidify things around him might just surprise people. Remember, everyone wanted to bag on Brees as a bust too and all he did was go all rock star after 3 years in the league.

Click to expand...

Jason Campbell is going into his sixth year. Bad comparison to Drew Brees.

What about the trends? Those are important too as they give you an idea of where these players might be going in the future. Campbell has shown improvement under some seriously bad circumstances and while that does not qualify him for a big NFL payday as a starter in this league, I do think it should give him a chance with the new staff to show that he can continue to improve.

Click to expand...

I think the new staff will only give him a chance if that is their best option, not because they looked at his stats and said his QB rating is trending upwards.

I guess my point is that everyone's maturation point is different. Not everyone is going to have the light switch go off in the third start or their first 40 games. Remember, Warner had a good bit of World and Arena League playing time under his belt and whether you credit it or not, he does.

Click to expand...

My point is... That switch never went off in his first year. Not in his second year. Not in his third year. Not in his fourth year. Not in his fifth year. Maybe that switch will go off next year, but compared to his peers up until his point, he has been below average.

Henry said:

He hasn't washed out because he's not a bad QB. Again, you picked a list of 18 QBs, most of whom are multi-time pro-bowlers and/or future HOFers. The guys on that list who don't fall into that category are comparable to Campbell.

Click to expand...

I picked a list of 18 QBs who lasted as many starts as Jason Campbell did. I didn't purposely choose multi-time pro-bowlers and/or future HOFers. I reiterate, I picked a list of 18 QBs who lasted as many starts as Jason Campbell did. There is a logical correlation between a quarterback's longevity as a starter and the quality of the quarterback. Campbell is obviously an outlier.

Your arguement seems to be that if a QB only looks average for four seasons he's actually bad. That if there's no great season sprinkled in somewhere to show a flash of greatness, he's actually bad. I disagree. I think if a guy looks average for four years, he's probably average.

Click to expand...

I'm saying he looks below average compared to other quarterbacks through four seasons.

YOU don't care about self-improvement. Oh wait, yes you do. According to you, rookies can suck because they are rookies. Improvement is expected, which is why you decided to compare QBs after 37 starts or something. Otherwise, you'd just look at the 2009 list, see Campbell in the middle of it, and conclude that he's average. So improvement does count for something, even to you.

Click to expand...

You know what I meant. Success is built on how you compare to the competition. Obviously self-improvement will help you achieve that success. But if you fail to achieve that success, you don't fall back on self-improvement.

Nah, you are attempting to narrow the parameters of your list too, just in a different way. You are solely focusing on number of starts. That isn't any more accurate than focusing solely on the quality of players surrounding a QB, which I said in my original post wasn't accurate either. That was kinda my point.

So let's meet in the middle. Here's a new list. Campbell's TRUE peers. The draft class of '05. Tell me where Campbell fits on this list. And to spot you a favor I'll leave out the guys that totally crashed and burned:

Alex Smith
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell
Charlie Frye
Andrew Walter
Kyle Orton
Derek Andersen
Matt Cassel
Ryan Fitzpatrick

These are the guys with the same amount of league experience as Campbell. These guys have all had a chance to start and play in this league, for teams of varying quality. Some of them have been able to earn and retain starting spots. Some haven't, which is why they won't be on your list of guys with 37 starts or whatever.

On this list, I see one player that is clearly better than Campbell: Rodgers.
I see maybe three players that are on par with Campbell: Orton, Andersen and Cassel. (And I think I'm being generous here.) Feel free to disagree with me and we can go over the numbers.

The rest don't measure up. THOSE are the bad QBs.

If that list isn't big enough, we can add '04 and '06 and bring in guys like Rivers, Manning and Rotheslisberger, J.P. Losman and Shaub, Young and Leinart, Cutler, Kellen Clemens and Tavaris Jackson ... and I think Campbell will end up in the same place: Right in the middle.

And again, I'm totally cool with cutting Campbell loose. But if you do it, you'd better have a plan in place beyond 'Campbell sucks.' That's not good enough. Saying he's not Brady or McNabb or Rodgers doesn't upgrade the position, and that's what we need to do if we get rid of him. If you've got a plan I'm all ears. If you're just here to bitch about the highest-profile position on a lousy team ... eh. Not interested.

Click to expand...

All right, you've convinced me. Why limit it to 2004, 2005, 2006, and just the draft classes at that. There had to have been over two hundred or more quarterbacks to have been signed by an NFL roster or even to the practice squad since 2004. Out of all those guys, Jason Campbell ranked #15 in 2009.

That means at worst, Jason Campbell's in the Top 7.5% Percentile.

Great thread! What if we compared him with other Redskin's first and second round draft choices at QB. Didn't we take Gary Beban in the 2nd one year.

Blackjack said:

I think you missed my point. The point of my thread was that you're not supposed to be comparing him to Matthew Stafford or Matt Cassel or Josh Freeman or Brady Quinn. The point was to compare him to other quarterbacks at similar stages in their career. My premise is that he lags behind his peers and is therefore below average.

It isn't really bending backwards either... I think it's simple common sense.

Student 1 (Jason Campbell) gets a C+ on an exam. His previous scores were D, and C.

Student 2 (Tom Brady) gets a C+ on an exam. His previous scores were a B and an A.

Are you telling me you're not convinced Student 2 deserves the benefit of the doubt that he is a better student than the first?

Jason Campbell is a bad quarterback, and to tout improving on himself as an achievement is hardly compelling. Remember, you're not competing against yourself, you're competing against 32 other teams. You're competing to be the best at your position. You're not competing to set your own personal records which fall way short of everyone else's.

The worst part is that somehow, Jason Campbell is picking up all these excuses that other people are setting up for him. After the 2008 season, Jason Campbell went on record as to say that he felt he had a good season. What?

Here's what Aaron Rodgers said after his 2008 season where he posted 28 TD, 13 INT, and a 63.6% completion percentage:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/09000d5d811dedcd/Aaron-Rodgers-interview

It's just completely night and day.

Click to expand...

Student 2 (Brady) wasn't drafted in the first round. There are way too many Qbs(Alex Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington,Tim Couch, Brady Quinn, Demarcus Russell, Jason Campbell...and so on) drafted in the first round or early 2nd to really high guaranteed contracts that go to struggling teams and fail to support any statistical evidence that they became the face of the franchise.
I prefer to look at Brady as an example he came in what the 5th round? Cassell looked pretty darn good playing in NE. In KC? Not so much. So I can't draw any conclusion from stats given while playing behind a lousy Oline.

Blackjack said:

I picked a list of 18 QBs who lasted as many starts as Jason Campbell did. I didn't purposely choose multi-time pro-bowlers and/or future HOFers. I reiterate, I picked a list of 18 QBs who lasted as many starts as Jason Campbell did. There is a logical correlation between a quarterback's longevity as a starter and the quality of the quarterback. Campbell is obviously an outlier.

Click to expand...

So of the list of top QBs in the league Campbell is near the bottom.

That makes him average.

I'm saying he looks below average compared to other quarterbacks through four seasons.

Click to expand...

To other QBs good enough to be named a starter through four seasons. Some QBs start a season, get benched for awhile, start some more, get benched again ...

Kyle Orton, for example. Guy started a season. Sat a season. Started a few seasons. And the only season in which he has finished ahead of Campbell is this one. By four-tenths of a passer rating point.

And yet you assert he's a better QB.

You know what I meant. Success is built on how you compare to the competition. Obviously self-improvement will help you achieve that success. But if you fail to achieve that success, you don't fall back on self-improvement.

Click to expand...

You are not saying Campbell is not successful. You are saying he's BELOW AVERAGE. Campbell has not failed to be average compared to his competition. On a list of pretty good QBs, he's gotten to the point where at some random set of games started, he falls in the middle of the pack. And during the year in which those starts actually occured, compared to all starting QBs in the league, he also falls in the middle of the pack.

Yet somehow you're arguing that he's secretly at the bottom. In capital letters no less.

All right, you've convinced me. Why limit it to 2004, 2005, 2006, and just the draft classes at that. There had to have been over two hundred or more quarterbacks to have been signed by an NFL roster or even to the practice squad since 2004. Out of all those guys, Jason Campbell ranked #15 in 2009.

That means at worst, Jason Campbell's in the Top 7.5% Percentile.

Click to expand...

You know what I meant. I picked QBs that have been in the league about as long as Campbell that weren't complete scrubs. That's just as legitimate a list as a list of QBs who's started X amount of games regardless of any other factors.

My point is that bad QBs don't keep starting. They either get sat until they don't suck, they become career backups, or they wash out completely.

Considering there are a lot more bad QBs than good ones, a QB falling around the top 7.5 percentile would probably be an average starter.