Jason Campbell, the Morning After
First, let's take on context.
Philadelphia Pass Defense
DVOA: 1st
DPASS: 3rd
NY/A: 2nd
They're good. It can be tough to adjust one's scouting expectations to the quality of the opponent, but it is a must. At the same time, we can't be sure the Eagles will continue to dominate at this level. Even opponent adjustment can sometimes underestimate how stark the contrast is between a top ten quarterback, and what Eagles opponents Oakland, Kansas City and Tampa Bay have started.
Let's just settle on good and go from there. The next thing to consider is context. Context can make a quarterback look better than he is or worse than he is. In a broad sense, it's much harder to play from behind than ahead. At some point the game is decided and it can become very easy to play from behind. It's really just a matter of game theory. When a team is behind but still somewhat in contention, that team must pass the ball and because the defense can expect the pass, the pass becomes much less effective. Contrarily, when a team is behind but very much not in contention, like Seattle against the Colts, the defense knows that passing yards can be exchanged for game clock.
Campbell played his best after his team was well behind. However, the game didn't seem out of reach and the Eagles did not play prevent. Nevertheless, it does queer his results some. By Win Probability, Campbell played almost no meaningful snaps.
My build up might be window dressing. The truth is: I would not judge Campbell from what I saw yesterday. Instead, I will simply attempt to highlight some impressions and reactions I had to his game.
Jason Campbell is hyper vigilant of pass rush: Campbell showed weakness making ordinary throws despite having time and very good arm strength. He misjudged pass pressure, anticipating blitzes that never arrived and ignoring blitzers that were closing on him. That caused him to routinely throw off his back foot and miss easy throws. It also, on one occasion, caused him to scramble out and attempt to pass down field even though Will Witherspoon was bearing down on him from behind. That led to a fumble. A fumble that Campbell owns.
Campbell is not at fault for his team falling well behind: Washington was down fourteen points before the end of the first quarter. Philadelphia scored on an end around on its first drive. It scored again after Campbell was intercepted and the interception returned for a touchdown. That play was a function of field position, Washington was on its 11, and luck. At worst, Campbell can be accused of throwing over a beat lineman, and that is a very minor mistake. The pass was tipped and as fortune would deign, fell into the arms of a defender with a clear path to the end zone. Very small mistake that resulted in a very bad outcome.
Campbell has a great arm: Captain Checkdown can sling it, and can make the two most important throws in the Greg Knapp offense: the short throw and the bomb. His short-range accuracy impressed me. Campbell may not be among the elite deep-throwers, but he has the tools to air it out too.
Campbell was not allowed to audible: That could hurt his passing numbers and increase his risk of being sacked. On one notable down, Campbell couldn't audible out of an overload blitz and was barely dropping back before being dropped.
This is a chicken and egg dilemma. Does an untrusting, targeted and inexperienced coaching staff mistakenly not trust Campbell, or has Campbell, considered unpolished most of his career and sometimes cited as having trouble reading the defense, never done enough to earn that trust? I don't know.
Campbell handles real pressure with aplomb: An interesting split, no doubt. Campbell struggled against perceived pressure, but stood tall against real pressure. We have seen this same trait from Seneca Wallace. Wallace will sometimes throw a strike with men in his face and then go goofy foot against a three man rush. It's possible both simply fail to see open receivers; that both struggle to read an NFL defense.
The public perception of Campbell is worthless: Jaws, fans, et al, sorry, but I am ignoring your opinion. It's too bad when a bad reputation haunts a player, but it's also rather unshakeable. For a second, let us see the world from Ron Jaworski's eyes. You are preparing for a Monday night game between the Eagles and Redskins. You know Campbell has struggled this season, up to and including being benched. You do not go into the broadcast green, instead you go in with some preparation for Campbell playing poorly and perhaps Campbell showing something.
Once the game starts, the early narrative is easily enough that Campbell is really struggling, but is he really? The Redskins first drive ended with a botched snap. Campbell deserves some small blame for not handling it better, but botched snaps are phenomenal thing. They are uncommon, constructed from singular events never repeated. If we are looking at Campbell himself, do we really discredit him for not handling the snap better? It seems like minor criticism.
That drive had accomplished 22 yards against a defense that has allowed 22.03 yards per drive. Had the snap not been fumbled, Campbell could have extended and likely at least put the drive into the good category. He was responsible in part for 21 of the drive's 22 yards.
On the next drive, Campbell missed a pass and threw another incomplete. The drive stalled.
Then all hell broke loose and the Redskins were suddenly well behind. At that point, it's Jason Campbell playing behind and against one of the best pass defenses in football.
So, yes, it's all pretty inconclusive. I did not see the ability to read a blitz or a coverage scheme I would have liked, but Philly has been confusing quarterbacks forever. We'll just have to revisit Cambell and double check. Right now, I still think he is worth a contract, but I also feel ambivalent. Pocket presence and read are not qualities I expect a veteran quarterback to develop.
0 recs |
123 comments
|
Comments
Hmm...
“Jason Campbell is hyper vigilant of pass rush: Campbell showed weakness making ordinary throws despite having time and very good arm strength. He misjudged pass pressure, anticipating blitzes that never arrived and ignoring blitzers that were closing on him. That caused him to routinely throw off his back foot and miss easy throws. It also, on one occasion, caused him to scramble out and attempt to pass down field even though Will Witherspoon was bearing down on him from behind.”
How is that different from Locker as a comparative, as I recall you commented on it for Jake?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 2:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not enough snaps to be sure
but Campbell was facing the NFL Eagles, so that matters. I think Locker would have crumbled if he was somehow transported onto the Redskins roster and forced to start. Just different degrees of the same problem.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different degrees of the same problem brings up an interesting counterpoint.
Campbell has been an NFL starter for how long and still hasn’t figured out how to control this problem of his, while Jake has seemed to improve upon it this year compared to past, simply given a new QB-guru coach type guy.
I’m not saying Jake is the answer (though I admittedly would like him to be) but I do think one other part that I didn’t quote and you pointed out would fall in Jake’s favor— the fact that he got caught from behind. Jake seems not to get caught once out of the pocket unless pressure comes from directly in front of him and he gets stuck in backpedal mode, and also he doesn’t fumble once out of the pocket, he may run too often, but he doesn’t fumble.
Just wondering if even though the 2009 Campbell might be at 95% or whatever, compared to the 55% of max Locker, if by 2010 those things that Campbell still hasn’t improved on may be passed by at the speed of light by Locker.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Locker could, of course
if people were projecting Locker’s future as Jason Campbell, he wouldn’t be in the discussion. However, I think Campbell’s pocket awareness, if not what I want to see from a pro, is well ahead of Locker’s. Campbell looks like a quarterback that might be mired in mediocrity. Locker looks like a good prospect with enough red flags that he could bust outright.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great job on this.
I guess you’re right it wasn’t conclusive, and wasn’t encouraging. After Jaws mentioned the lack of an audible, did you hear Gruden say (I think) Portis had said recently he hadn’t heard an audible since 2003, or something like that? It couldn’t possibly be a systemic design, could it?
by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Could be I guess
More fuel for my the most influential coach is the bad coach thinking.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see the logic in that. I like that.
I guess my assumption was that audibling was a standard commodity in the league by now, so I find it surprising.
by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A tipped pick is different from a regular pick
but the QB in both cases is responsible for throwing the ball at/towards/near a guy who wasn’t the intended receiver.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 27, 2009 3:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Then I think that could indicate an inability to find good passing lanes, particularly if this happens to him often.
Appears to me that it’s another feel for the game intangible that is on the same level as pocket presence. Or, maybe I’m reaching…
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're reaching.
Balls tipped at the line are on the O-Line.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 27, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless the QB is 5'11" and has a cereal named after him...
then his lack of ht. is a factor as much as the O Line.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It can't be 100% random.
Taller QBs probably have less tipped balls. Guys who pass over the middle more often probably have more tipped balls.
by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess when you never throw the ball more then 5 yards it happens alot to.
When all you do as a QB is check down and throw short passes the probability of tipped balls go up. Lineman anticipate what he’s going to do because he does it often. When he starts legitamately throwing the ball down field those tipped balls won’t happen as often from the D-line. But in Campbells case he doesn’t look downfield.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Wallace for Campbell? I wouldn’t be against it, I have always seen Campbell as someone who has the basics and just needs someone to mold him. However, do we have anyone to work with him who now that Holmgren is gone? I don’t see Mora and Knapp as QB gurus.
And how can a team run an offense if the QB doesn’t have at least a handful of audibles available to him? How do they ever accomplish anything? Do they just pick plays out of a hat and hope for the best?
by Kevin M Smith on Oct 27, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's what yesterday's game looked like.
Plays from a hat.
Not to nag, but please use the subject line.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, my first thought was, gee I wish we had Zorn around to mentor Campbell.
by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well let's give the new guys a chance
I keep reading about Seattle’s inability to develop a quarterback without Holmgren and Zorn, but Teel looked better as a rookie than Greene ever looked.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we trade Wallace for Campbell
I demand draft picks. That trade straight-up I have a problem with because I think Seneca has slightly more value than that. And with his great stat-padding skills he could bag more.
Broncos 12 Bengals 7: The story of the 2009 Seattle Seahawks.
by SSreporters on Oct 27, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why they would make that trade with us
But I think Campbell’s the one with more value. Wallace has plateaued and has little chance of developing further. Campbell still has upside.
by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be ecstatic if we could flip Seneca for Jason Campbell.
Jason Campbell may be a crappy starting QB, but a starting QB nontheless.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your right.
Though I wouldn’t trade Seneca for Campbell. It’s headache B for Headache C. We already know what Wallace can do and know what he can’t. I’d rather manage a game as his coach knowing this. I actually think Wallace is a better QB then Campbell though.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this might fall under 'no one cares about your fantasy team'
but I wanted readers to know I have some business to attend to on my wife’s day off (third in four days! woot!) and will not be posting further today. Tomorrow she’s back on shift and I will be back to a normal schedule.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't see how this is a 'no one cares' issue.
Thanks for the heads up.
by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Business?
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 27, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe pleasure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V_-iZYIofU (wish I knew how to link w/o showing the link…)
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Type what you want to use as a link, highlight it and then click the "link" button.
by thebyron on Oct 28, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh...
sweet. Thanks!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can not trade Seneca for Campbell, as Jcampbell's an FA this offseason and
the trade deadline is already over this season.
by redwolf75 on Oct 27, 2009 5:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Seneca comparison isn't bad but man is that team dysfunctional.
I’d still really like to see what he can do in a Seahawks uniform. If it’s a low risk pick up that would allow the Hawks to move on if Campbell can’t break out of his mediocrity I’d be really excited.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 27, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Campbell would be nice but
heres my scenario. We could sign Campbell and draft a QB in either the late first round(Which is Denvers pick) or the second round and have those 2 guys compete for the BACKUP job cuz i feel Hasselbeck still has 2 years left of him and could be our starter. Basically it could be a Tampa Bay Quarterback situation for us next year.
by Seahawksfan23 on Oct 27, 2009 7:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the last season and change have taught us anything
it’s that we shouldn’t count on Matt to be healthy beyond his current contract.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care what you say and how well you can say it, John...
There’s no way you can sell me on the idea of Jason Campbell, a possible future starting quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks. I refuse, REFUUUUUUSE, to listen.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Oct 27, 2009 7:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I've seen several mocks with us taking Bradford at 10 or so.
I bet that’s your ideal scenario right?
by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is, indeedy.
But that has me curious: When and where did you see those mocks?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Oct 27, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
13 TDs being a career high for a season never sounds good no matter how you word it.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree.
As fragile as Hasselbeck is, the only person who should be replacing him is the person who’ll be the franchise QB once his era is done. Campbell is a stopgap measure, and John says as much.
I think when/if we’re mathematically out of the playoff hunt, the best course of action would be to use Teel on a limited basis to warm him up to NFL speed. Then, next season, we have someone other than Seneca who can step in during Hasselbeck’s eventual 3-week injury, and perhaps an heir to the starting job when Hasselbeck steps down.
by Hmph on Oct 27, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we should tank this year and next in hopes a 6th round pick will pan out to avoid a potential stop gap?
by Nate Dogg on Oct 27, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather do a complete retooling of the team
Rather than a stopgap measure.
I lived through the 90’s with the Seahawks, I can handle waiting.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stopgaps QBs and acquiring a QB of the future aren't mutually exclusive.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we sign Jason Campbell you know full well we aren't drafting a QB in the first round.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps not this season, but there's nothing stopping us from taking a 1st round QB a season or two later.
Even then it could still happen.
Signing someone like Jason Campbell buys the team time to figure out what’s going to be the long-term answer at QB. As things stand now, we’ve got one season left of Matt Hasselbeck under contract after this season. That’s a very tight window to get things figured out.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming we sign Campbell for 4 years,
we’re probably going to let Hasselbeck go in free agency and then try to see what Campbell does on the field for at least a season or two. It isn’t a horrible idea but who knows what the drafting situation is like for QBs.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let the Rams sign Campbell.
I’d rather take a chance on greatness (rookie QB in draft) than sign a player proven to be mediocre (Campbell).
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*doh! repeat..fail! *see below
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love for the Rams to sign Campbell.
And then make him their starting QB.
Problem is, there’s every reason for Spags to draft his own guy and have job-security while the young’n develops.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you couldn't have said it better.
Campbell is not an WCO guy. I’m sorry. Just not turning over the ball isn’t enough. He doesn’t make plays. He’s so concerned with the rush that he doesn’t look down field and is to eager to check down. He was a better fit for Gibbs system then ours.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Campbell..let's get Vick
I’d rather take a chance on Vick then Campbell. He knows Knapps system and has weapons here unlike he did when he was in Atlanta. If we take a chance on anyone it should be Vick. He’s still young, has fresh legs and a rocket arm. He proved he could take his team to the NFC Championship without any receiving threats. Give him our WR’s and he can make Knapp look like a genius. His escapability alone works well with our depleted O-Line. We need a mobile QB right now who can make plays out of the pocket. Campbell is not that guy. Vick is. GET ME VICK!
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Vick got sacked at a rather high rate despite playing behind a pretty good O-line.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Oct 27, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but he made plays to.
His WR’s were so bad he had to hold the ball and try to make plays with his legs. He will have good WR’s if he comes here. I’d rather Vick then Campbell. Vick is a proven winner.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather neither.
Draft a quarterback and build an offense around him.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think we can draft a QB but we would if we got Campbell to
Vick has tremendous upside. He still has a cannon and knows Knapps offense. He gives us chance to move pass the Hasslebeck era much quicker. He did well in Knapps system and gives us a chance rebuild our O-Line to.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was a pretty bad QB before he got sent away
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weren't his WR's Rody White and Michael Jenkins?
The same two WR’s that have flourished with Matt Ryan?
by MFAN on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure he had Roddy, but even if he did...
it would have been very early in Roddy’s career, and very few WR’s shoot out of the gate at a star level, regardless of the QB throwing them the ball.
That doesn’t mean I think he was a good QB, just that it is unfair to use their expanded success against him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had Roddy's first two years I believe,
a time when Roddy admits himself he was lazy.
by LantermanC on Oct 28, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which again proves my point...
that you can’t hold that tangibly against Vick, though you could say that Vick didn’t use his Favre/Brady/Omnipotent influence all great QB’s adorned by Peter King have to motivate him.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say let the Rams sign Campbell and leave one more college QB on the board.
I’d love to hear an objective case against Campbell from the same author as this case for him. I’d rather take a chance on greatness than sign a player of proven mediocrity.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But we'll get Campbell in his peak seasons.
So he can throw for 15-17 TDs the next few years instead of just 10-13.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Touchdowns are a product of the quarterback and quarterback alone.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you dare try to insinuate Campbell has had a bad offensive supporting cast in Washington.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOLSKINS and all that aside,
You could do far worse than Chris Cooley, Santana Moss, Antwaan Randle-El, and a bunch of young WRs for a receiving corps, and a dose of Clinton Portis before he fell off the cliff this season.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 27, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at touchdowns as your primary evaluation tool is highly results-based and can be highly misleading.
It’s misleading for the same reason pitcher wins and ERA is misleading. There are lots of factors outside of the player’s control.
Do what John’s doing and look at the process behind the results.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What John seems to be doing is making a case for Campbell.
I’d like to hear him make the case against him. His research methods are sensible and admirable. I think if he wanted to, he could convince many of us to not to like him, too.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not reading this article that way at all.
by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John wrote two big front-page pieces on the guy
And he has no connection, whatsoever, to the Seahawks franchise. There are no suggestions from anywhere but here that the Seahawks would trade or sign him. These pieces have not been disinterested evaluations.
John is suggesting this, if not pushing for it.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of John's interest stems from the fact that Campbell is the type of player Ruskell would persue.
by MFAN on Oct 28, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm having a difficult time understanding why Ruskell would be interested in him
The only support for Ruskell’s putative interest I’ve read are (1) mobility, (2) boy scout and (3) cheap.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Played at a big school in college.
I think he was a 4 year starter? I could be wrong though. Good fit for knapp’s offense. I’m sure there are a couple others I’m missing.
by MFAN on Oct 28, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he really a good fit for Knapp's system?
Does Knapp’s system require a “mobile” QB? Doesn’t Knapp’s system use longer passes than Holmgren’s?
Campbell is a guy Ruskell could look at and probably will look at, if only for the sake of doing due diligence, but there’s no suggestion in my mind that Campbell is a guy that Ruskell is interested in (more than any of the other dozens of FA 4-year QBs, like Rex Grossman).
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This might come as a shock but Campbell isn't incredibly mobile.
Campbell would fit in with Ruskell’s normal free agency plan of filling all potential needs with medium to low cost vets allowing him to pursue the best player available in the draft. Campbell could also allow the Hawks to maximize the peak years of players like Lofa, Carlson, Housh (kinda), Burley, Hill, Trufant, etc. instead of letting those guys get old while a rookie QB develops. And yes, choir boy.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 28, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Campbell would fit in with Ruskell’s normal free agency plan of filling all potential needs with medium to low cost vets allowing him to pursue the best player available in the draft."
Is this always the best idea, though? Especially at QB, when this is probably the best chance at a franchise QB for the next several drafts? If I’m not mistaken we were very close to Alge Crumpler in a Seahawk uniform before he backed off for Tennessee, and White Jesus would have been a Saint.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best available player could be a quarterback.
Signing Campbell could allow the Hawks to be more 2005 Packers than 2009 Jets.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 28, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John said he had "a mix of arm strength and mobility"
I’m just parroting what I read.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe mobile in the pocket?
He rushed for 250 yards last year so I might be wrong, he doesn’t strike me as any kind of threat on the ground.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 28, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe John meant "athletic"
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Black QB's are always athletic, dammit!
Seriously though, most all NFL guys are pretty damn “athletic” one way or another. I’ve seen two QB’s “dunk” over the crossbar in the last week alone, one was Drew Brees, who I thought was short and not an incredible athlete for the position. The crossbar is 10’ high, so it’s a basketball dunk only in cleats w/o a wood floor for added spring. I don’t doubt at least 20 starting QB’s can’t dunk a basketball, and Campbell is in the 20.
He doesn’t strike me as either mobile or immobile.
He’s run of the mill in every aspect of his game.
Strong but not incredible nor weak arm.
Not molasses slow but not quicksilver.
Good size, not too big nor too small.
Solid touch, but not pinpoint accuracy.
Decent decisions, may check down too much but doesn’t force it.
Zzzzzzzzz…. unless the rest of our team is so damn good as to be able to win a SB w/o an elite type QB, this just doesn’t impress me. I want a QB who will win me some games, not a guy whose sole job is not to lose them…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 29, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Campbell is far from inspiring.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 29, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your exactly right.
John has been having a secret love affair for Campbell this year.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should look at his INTs and fumbles.
Dude is JT O’Sullivan in disguise,..
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
O'Sullivan had 3.38 fumbles and picks per game to Campbell's 1.66, not even close.
Hasselbeck’s is 1.32 over his career.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 27, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious, what's Vicks F & P per game?
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think this stat means anything really, I was just responding to Misfit's comparison
Vick’s is 1.6
by Nate Dogg on Oct 27, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected.
Where do you get that info, btw?
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.
by Misfit74 on Oct 28, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PFR, just added their career picks and fumbles and then divided by games started
It’s just fumbles, not fumbles lost (but thats just luck anyways) and it’s not the total games they’ve appeared in, although for those particular players that doesn’t really change much.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 28, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BrianL's a Nazi, it is unwise to dare him to do anything.
by LantermanC on Oct 28, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh. Sorry.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do look at this article as a defense of what John said about Campbell before the MNF game
This article has defense of Campbell written all over it. John made a case for Campbell before the game and new after the game what we all saw on MNF that we were going to be hammering Campbell for that horrid performance. I think it was a way to pre-empt the blowback. An objective look at a subjective view. All in all Campbell still sucks and we should take a flyer on him. My wish is Vick but I wouldn’t mind taking a longer look at Teel or maybe looking Colt Brennan, David Carr, but drafting Bradford might be an option to. There’s really not that much out there but if Vick doesn’t come here I think were looking at Hass as our QB for the next 2 years.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 28, 2009 12:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm still not convinced
that Hasselbeck is BOUND to fall off. Statistics be darned! that age-performance projection dealie is only a generalization. He’s had an injury history but if we can build up the O-line to keep him safe for the next two years then we won’t need some interim QB. O-line is still a more desperate area that we should be investing in anyway – even if Hasselbeck falls off a little, I don’t see Campbell or Vick being an improvement.
And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.
by Cheddar28 on Oct 28, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
OLine first and foremost…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very much agreed
If we can improve the O-line through free agency, and draft Bradford with a view to him not playing for another two years, it puts us in a far better spot than chucking Campbell out there. I can’t see why nfl experience is seen as a positive when JC’s never progressed beyond sometimes mediocre, sometimes a liability. If I jumped into a swimming pool a few times and managed to hold out longer each time before having to be rescued by a lifeguard, it doesn’t make me a proven swimmer
by ciarannh on Oct 28, 2009 7:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha I like that analogy.
Campbell is often drowned in a sea of defenders isn’t he?
And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.
by Cheddar28 on Oct 29, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wish Zorn would come back to Hawks as OC
http://www.bangcartoon.com/2009/flawed_execution.htm
HC is like being a general. Coughlin (or Holmgren, or Cower, or …), like Patton, gets the most out of his players by pre-stressing (disciplining) them to their limit, like requiring attention to detail in practice and fining them for every infraction (ask the shoot-himself-in-the-, Plaxico) and getting them to relieve that built-up stress by taking it out on their next opponents. Meanwhile, the general’s staff programs the best possible strategy to defeat their opponent and help convert that strategy into play by play calls on the field. Zorn is a staffer, he thinks of (and treats) his players as adults, not juveniles to be manipulated (or disciplined) and they love him for it, but the team is at a disadvantage without the prestressing that other head coaches give their teams.
by 008klm on Oct 28, 2009 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Colonel Dax, you're a disappointment to me.
You’ve spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men, and you were not angling for Mireau’s command. You are an idealist – and I pity you as I would the village idiot. We’re fighting a war, Dax, a war that we’ve got to win. Those men didn’t fight, so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist that he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?
by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was pretty damn funny.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see another place to post this so
Sad sad day. Thank you Walter.
by m_b on Oct 28, 2009 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No worries, sad news but kind of expected.
Sounds like this might be it for Big Walt.
by MFAN on Oct 28, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, I don't understand how smart websites sometimes get the users that they do.
I will not go into specifics, but the quality of the responses in this thread, and the logic used to create said responses, has made my heart frown.
by BrettJMiller on Oct 28, 2009 11:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did you just call out every commenter in this thread?
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
BJ M’s inescapable logic tells him that you’re a mouthbreather with a funny haircut.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My sinuses are inflammed.
Sheesh.
by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's kind of a dick move
and a little confusing, considering that there are a lot of conflicting comments.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 28, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That must mean you are one of the idiot commentors...
you don’t see where and why BJM is the smug brilliance!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 29, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could you elaborate...?
And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.
by Cheddar28 on Oct 29, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John...
Do you think this scenario could actually play out for the Hawks.
If you had to put a percentage on the possibility of Cambell getting picked up by the Hawks next year, what would that percentage be?
EXAMPLE
Drafting a QB 49%
Signing Cambell 51%
I ROCK out with my HAWK out, therefore I am....
by durteehawk on Oct 28, 2009 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















