Jason Campbell..Again.
by John Morgan on Apr 6, 2010 12:59 PM PDT
Email
PrintI let go of Jason Campbell a while ago. In fact, I named the piece Letting Go of Jason Campbell. Isn't that cute. The allure of Campbell was that, like Charlie Whitehurst, he was an inexpensive bridge while the Seahawks attempted to get their house in order. It's never good to have a terrible, terrible quarterback. It hurts a team beyond the obvious. Campbell is stuck between stations. He is possibly mediocre and possibly good, but probably never great nor terrible.
Well, following the Redskins trade for Donovan McNabb, Campbell is not just expendable but getting the Rob Sims treatment:
Since he was drafted in 2005, quarterback Jason Campbell has spent most of his time at Redskins Park. Apparently, that's about to change.
Following the Redskins' Sunday night acquisition of Pro Bowl quarterback Donovan McNabb from the Philadelphia Eagles, Campbell no longer will participate in the Redskins' voluntary offseason conditioning program at the complex, people with knowledge of the situation said Tuesday. Moreover, Campbell, among the league's most cooperative quarterbacks with the media, has told friends he does not plan to grant interviews until after his situation is resolved.
I think Campbell will find himself on another roster before long, and will cost surprisingly little. Seattle passed up a third-round pick to retain Matt Hasselbeck, but spent major resources to add Whitehurst. Maybe they could revisit that move. If Campbell could be had for less than a third-round pick, than Seattle could improve its draft position and swap Campbell for Hasselbeck. I think Campbell is an excellent fit for Jeremy Bates offense. Though maybe Mike Shanahan disagrees. Maybe Campbell is not a great fit for any offense. I never took much time to break down his performance. If Seattle wants to spend modest resources on a modest upside flier, it can double its chances by swapping Campbell for Hasselbeck. If nothing else, it gets younger, healthier and adds an arm that can execute a down field passing attack.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If we could get him for next to nothing
I don’t see why not. He’s younger than Hasslebeck and has more game experience than Whitehurst. The emotional scars or whatever might be too much, but for a next to nothing gamble I don’t see a real downside.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
My opinion as of now
Is that Carroll and Schneider are trying their damnedest to assemble the most mediocre sports team to ever grace the planet.
The draft will make or break that view.
I have a lot of faith in their abilities to draft well
if they screw that up I will abandon all hope.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
I have
always felt Jason Campbell would be a perfect fit for the Hawks. So either I need to take off my rose tinted glasses or maybe a change of scenery will do wonders for him.
Campbell would be a better stop gap measure
he has been okay and a pretty poor team and with no consistency and only two real playmakers around him.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
I said yes
But I would feel bad, doing Matt like that. I just want him to retire as our greatest QB and stop trying to “Play”, or “do what he loves”, or try to fit “the mold”.
I just looked at the Skin' roster
Might as well pen them in as 2006 SB champs.
by DJ C-Raig on Apr 6, 2010 1:25 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'd like Matt to be sent out properly with us
I don’t think he is going to retire this year when he has so much money coming in, and I don’t see anyone picking him up for 8 mil.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
For whatever reason I have it in my head that Campbell would excel in the same system Bates used Cutler in.
Seems like a good fit to me but like you said in your assessing needs post, Seattle seems like they should address quarterback but won’t.
I have this hope that
Q just turned to PM and said “Fuck, we should have waited on Aragorn.” Then I realize that is totally unrealistic and wish Pandora had just kept her God damned box closed.
by DJ C-Raig on Apr 6, 2010 1:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I vote no simply because Campbell is not the long term solution and so may stunt the growth of our young studs
You know, Whitehurst (a whole year younger!) and Teel and Claussen. I don’t think Campbell will do much more then Hasselbeck, except stay healthy for a whole year and keep everyone else off the field. He’s probably not the long term solution and will just be a delay the inevitable search for a real QB. Would Campbell be ok with that? Probably not, I don’t think he’d want to come here.
I would probably prefer Campbell over Whitehurst AND Hasselbeck though. As weird as that may sound. Just think, we could’ve (maybe) got a third for Hass, not traded for Whitehurst, traded cheap for Campbell, and come out of the whole thing ahead!
Adequate trade scenario
But why do that when we could just jettison talent, try to overspend, get totally tipsy off Jager bombs, prank call Green Bay, trade a third and swap seconds for Whitehurst, get tattoos together, shotgun some Vitamin R, trade for a couple freely available elephant ends, cry on the phone to Sark, sell our players low, and shit on Holmgren’s old desk? Like a boss?
by DJ C-Raig on Apr 6, 2010 1:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
Hasselbeck has played badly for two year now.
Walter Jones has been on the decline for two years. In the last five years, we’ve drafted one lineman in the seventh round, signed an Eagle’s sixth round pick and took Unger in the second round. Unger is the most recent and the only starter.
Hasselback would play better behind a better line. The way to get a better line is to draft a lot of them and draft them as high as possible. They’ve got a lower probability of flopping than other positions and they cost less relative to draft position to boot.
Any quarterback would play better behind a better line, but a better Hasselbeck is a very bad quarterback.
He needs a complete career renaissance.
Who's the most dirtbagy dirtbag in this year's crop of potential first round picks?
I know Dez Bryant has a bad reputation, but I don’t know what for. Any others?
The most substance I see for his "bad rep" is his mom was a prostitute/addict.
In other words, nothing but “truthiness”. Same with Clausen and his pointing at other coaches (which would be funny if true). Uh…Blount maybe. Dunlap?
Blount has anger issues but otherwise isn't a dirtbag
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Apr 7, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, the dude just gets pissed and punches team mates.
If that makes him a dirt bag then who isn’t?
we really need a sarcasm font for subject lines
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Apr 7, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Flozell Adams is a FA dirtbag.
Dez’s rep is also tainted by his lying about his involvement with Deion Sanders.
Didn't vote either way as I don't see Q/PM pursuing Campbell
In a vacuum, yes I would do this. Hasselbeck is in decline and it could be better to have two younger veterans (using the term loosely for Whitehurst) competing with each other than one broken-down Hass and Whitehurst pushing him. But I think that’s the model Seattle has decided on for 2010: Hass, project backup Whitehurst, Teel/low-round rookie.
I'd be down.
Hass isn’t going to accomplish anything in the next few years, so why bother? Let’s take a flier on someone else and hope they stick.
6/14/60. Sweet.
They wouldn't.
That’s why the poll says “indirectly”. It would mean we trade Hasselbeck to another team, and then use the pick we recieve to trade for Campbell. The only problem is, what team would give up a pick for Hasselbeck, when that same pick could be used to get Campbell?
by Mind of no mind on Apr 6, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I interpreted the post as dealing Hass for Campbell with pick swaps in the later rounds (maybe a future pick to WAS)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
^^similar to the Sims for Henderson deal with Detroit
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I doubt the Redskins would want Hasselbeck
but supposedly someone was willing to offer a third for him, and I think a third would be sufficient to land Campbell.
Why would that third team not just choose Campbell over Hasselbeck themselves?
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Is this a trick question?
Because they think Hasselbeck is better than Campbell. It’s not an unheard of opinion.
Hasselbeck may be better than Campbell.
That doesn’t make signing him over the much younger Campbell a better move. Hasselbeck is still almost 35.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
I think the real question is why they would take that kind of risk on Matt and not just sign Marc Bulger
At least we aren't the Raiders?
If Carrol & Schneider (Schneidrol?) is serious about competition at every position...
this is a “duh” move. The Skins are probably motivated to resolve the Campbell situation quickly, and I think they’ll try to send him to a good situation. He’d have a shot to be the primary backup to a guy with zero experience. The major complication is the franchise’s more or less sentimental attachment to Hass.
It’d be a perfect play for the Raiders, but Campbell might decline.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I agree that the Raiders would make a lot of sense.
They traded away their 2011 first round pick for Seymour last year, so I think they should be feeling a lot of pressure to win and make sure that they didn’t give up a top 10 pick.
It sucks, but I’m going to be rooting like hell for the Raiders this year, because my worst nightmare would be for the Raiders to tank and the Patriots to land Locker with the top pick to sit behind Brady for a couple of years. Then they’d probably trade Brady for a 1st rounder when Jakes ready to step in. Although I have to admit, that would probably be the absolute best possible senario for Locker.
by Mind of no mind on Apr 6, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
This is why I didn't like the trade for Whitehurst.
Either Whitehurst or some other QB like Jason Campbell was going to be released. Carroll was too impatient for the market to play out.
I'd say too late to worry about it now...
but we’ll have all next off-season to think about it when we’re staring at that 3rd round hole in our draft. He might not even be on the team at that point!
I didn't see the McNabb trade coming that way.
I saw him going somewhere like Minnesota after the draft and Campbell probably would have been available if they went for Clausen and he impressed in camp.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Apr 7, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
