PDA

View Full Version : McNabb to the Redskins


Pages : 1 [2]

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Campell has also started at least 3 times as many games as Quinn

at this point I would lean towards Quinn
He hasnt even started a seasons worth of games, he at least has the potential to be a very good qb
Campbell is 28 years old, I doubt he can improve just a whole bunch

and I dont think Quinn is good either, I think he kind of sucks, but Campbell isnt anything special either

No ****, and that's why he would be worth more then Quinn!!! 28 years old lol, please man. Campbell has had no constancy period. He has gone from new HC/OC pretty much every year he has been in the NFL and he still has improved pretty much every year. The guy had 3618, 20 TD's and 15 INT's. He completed 64.5 % of his passes and had a 86.4 rating. That's pretty much on par with our starting QB, and much better then anything the Bills, Rams, and Browns have on their rosters.

Br0nc0Buster
04-05-2010, 12:32 PM
No ****, and that's why he would be worth more then Quinn!!! 28 years old lol, please man. Campbell has had no constancy period. He has gone from new HC/OC pretty much every year he has been in the NFL and he still has improved pretty much every year. The guy had 3618, 20 TD's and 15 INT's. He completed 64.5 % of his passes and had a 86.4 rating. That's pretty much on par with our starting QB, and much better then anything the Bills, Rams, and Browns have on their rosters.

I would rather trade for a younger qb with potential than an older more experienced one who is average.

I mean hell Orton has tons more experience than than someone like Mark Sanchez, that doesnt make him worth more

Mr.Meanie
04-05-2010, 12:39 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Campbell-found-out-about-McNabb-trade-from-repor?urn=nfl,232069

haha... Campbell found out from a reporter about the deal. That's pretty jacked up.

azbroncfan
04-05-2010, 12:44 PM
IF you have ****ing screencaps, post them and shut azbroncofan up. No one is betting 5k on a message board and you know it.

I'll post if for him. He put me on ignore after I frauded him. I didn't say I didn't believe him at first just to post the screen image of it instead of running his mouth. Here it is and no matter how you slice and dice it it doesn't add up correctly anyway.

sixtimeseight, f34king loser.

lol, I have nothing to prove to you old man. sorry you're a losing gambler, but go be old and bitter somewhere else.

p.s.


Quote:
Date placed:
Jan 10, 2010 12:09p
Wager $1800 to win $2050

Date settled:
Jan 10, 2010 8:04p
Amount Paid: $2050
Single #164724895 (Win)
Football - NFL Lines (Game) Money Line
(108) Arizona Cardinals +3 (-130)
NFL PLAYOFFS - WILDCARD ROUND
Sun@4:40p


Final Scores
Green Bay Packers 45
Arizona Cardinals 51

Run along now old timer.

Bronco CB40
04-05-2010, 12:57 PM
Like the Broncos are the cream of the crop. :rofl:

Elway retired a long time ago my friend

You have no room to talk.

The Broncos did have the best record in the AFC West in the 2000s and it got a Hall of Fame head coach fired. There are high standards in Denver.

Only 1 out of 32 wins the Super Bowl every year.

baja
04-05-2010, 12:57 PM
Yep Shanny & McNabb is a scary duo.

Bronco CB40
04-05-2010, 12:59 PM
HoF QB?

Really?

Gotta say, I'd disagree with this fairly strongly

Dan Fouts and Warren Moon are in the Hall of Fame. McNabb's resume compares favorably with both of them. He still has 3-4 more years to pad his stats and sharpen up his resume.

baja
04-05-2010, 01:00 PM
I don't need to shut him up, I have him on ignore. And I don't need to prove anything to anybody, if someone wants to put some money where their fat mouth is, I would be happy to oblige them, otherwise I don't give a **** whether or not people believe me.

If anyone is serious about the bet, I'd do it for less, maybe $1k. Any takers?

so what are we betting on???

That One Guy
04-05-2010, 01:02 PM
I'll post if for him. He put me on ignore after I frauded him. I didn't say I didn't believe him at first just to post the screen image of it instead of running his mouth. Here it is and no matter how you slice and dice it it doesn't add up correctly anyway.

You know, I recall when this came up but I didn't even notice how his numbers were round. For an even 1800 to come out to a flat 2050, his odds would've had to have been +1.1388888888888889 (.88 endless) so it wasn't even a typo or mistake. Those numbers could not possibly fit any odds. They had to have just been thrown in there. So hillarious.

That One Guy
04-05-2010, 01:07 PM
By the way, check this out... Compare the bet #s

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=16005502&postcount=1614

Eagles fan in our midst? Copied someone else's bet? "Meager stakes"... hahaha...

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't need to shut him up, I have him on ignore. And I don't need to prove anything to anybody, if someone wants to put some money where their fat mouth is, I would be happy to oblige them, otherwise I don't give a **** whether or not people believe me.

If anyone is serious about the bet, I'd do it for less, maybe $1k. Any takers?

Right dude the only way you will clear your name is if someone puts money on it. Sounds to me like you have it bad with your bookie.

Merlin
04-05-2010, 03:09 PM
haha... Campbell found out from a reporter about the deal. That's pretty jacked up.
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

Mr.Meanie
04-05-2010, 03:46 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

I wasn't comparing anything, I just thought it was jacked up.

Dagmar
04-05-2010, 03:49 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

What an unbiased and well thought out post.



























http://i38.tinypic.com/2dgm4nq.jpg

bowtown
04-05-2010, 03:53 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

Actually I think that's precisely the heart of the conflict with the whole Cutler saga. McDaniels is trying to install a system where those two QBs or any other player on your roster is not treated differently and is considered as major and minor as any other player on the team, and is expected to carry themselves and act as such.

Some players, some fans, and many posters here don't believe that's the correct way to approach things, and many do. Just depends on which camp you come down in.

Cito Pelon
04-05-2010, 05:20 PM
I think Mike knew there was no way in hell he was going to get a shot at picking Bradford and this must mean he really doesn't like Claussen all that much.

Heck, he might still draft Clausen as McNabb's replacement 3 yrs down the road. OTOH, that would ignite a QB controversy I guess. Stay tuned . . . .

Grabbing mcNabb sure opens up more options for the draft. I wonder if Shanny was shocked Philly would let McNabb go to the 'skins. WASH has the Hawaii QB on the roster still, right? The 2nd year guy?

This trade sure gives WASH a lot of options about how they draft the next few years, McNabb should be serviceable that long. Campbell doesn't seem like a great starter even with some more seasoning.

Shanny must be giddy about the possibilities for his team with some luck and some good drafts.

TDmvp
04-05-2010, 05:52 PM
the 'skins. WASH has the Hawaii QB on the roster still, right? The 2nd year guy?


Yup Pelon

Brennan is still there

Dedhed
04-05-2010, 07:10 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

Sorry, I thought the whole Cutler fiasco started because Cutler heard that his name was merely mentioned in trade, and got his panties all abunch because the coach didn't come to him first. That's where most of the McD haters began their campaign. Saying the coach was out of line. Seems laughably ironic that Shanny goes even one further by actually selling out his incumbent QB without so much as hint of it to Campbell.

Meanwhile McD makes sure that Orton is in the loop on the Quinn trade. I love irony it really is my favorite thing. There's really nowhere to go in this argument for those who have attempted to make McD into a swarmy player hater while idealizing Shanahan. They'll still try, and it will be great to watch.

baja
04-05-2010, 07:29 PM
Sorry, I thought the whole Cutler fiasco started because Cutler heard that his name was merely mentioned in trade, and got his panties all abunch because the coach didn't come to him first. That's where most of the McD haters began their campaign. Saying the coach was out of line. Seems laughably ironic that Shanny goes even one further by actually selling out his incumbent QB without so much as hint of it to Campbell.

Meanwhile McD makes sure that Orton is in the loop on the Quinn trade. I love irony it really is my favorite thing. There's really nowhere to go in this argument for those who have attempted to make McD into a swarmy player hater while idealizing Shanahan. They'll still try, and it will be great to watch.

na know ya can't make this shiit up.... ;D ;D

Dedhed
04-05-2010, 08:12 PM
na know ya can't make this shiit up.... ;D ;D

It's just great stuff.

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 08:28 PM
No ****, and that's why he would be worth more then Quinn!!! 28 years old lol, please man. Campbell has had no constancy period. He has gone from new HC/OC pretty much every year he has been in the NFL and he still has improved pretty much every year. The guy had 3618, 20 TD's and 15 INT's. He completed 64.5 % of his passes and had a 86.4 rating. That's pretty much on par with our starting QB, and much better then anything the Bills, Rams, and Browns have on their rosters.

Actually, Campbell's superior experience works against him, because it means it is much less likely he could improve. He probably is what he is at this point--a mediocre starting QB, whereas you could argue that Quinn was not given much of a chance in Cleveland and had poor weapons and could still be developed into a quality starter. Campbell does not have that excuse. He may fetch more than Quinn, but it won't be close to a 2nd or 3rd given what McNabb, an established star, just went for.

tsiguy96
04-05-2010, 08:31 PM
Actually, Campbell's superior experience works against him, because it means it is much less likely he could improve. He probably is what he is at this point--a mediocre starting QB, whereas you could argue that Quinn was not given much of a chance in Cleveland and had poor weapons and could still be developed into a quality starter. Campbell does not have that excuse. He may fetch more than Quinn, but it won't be close to a 2nd or 3rd given what McNabb, an established star, just went for.

if i cudl have chosen i would pick campbell. as gil brandt said on the radio, this guy is a really good athlete and football player that has been given bad coaching and nothing to work with in the NFL.

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 08:31 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

Actaully, it is you slobbering all over Cutler's jock (particularly since the poster you quoted did not even mention Cutler) by suggesting he deserves special treatment, and that it is somehow common sense to do so. Wrong, and myself and others with actual common sense are glad he didn't suck up to that moody, overrated turnover machine.

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 08:35 PM
if i cudl have chosen i would pick campbell. as gil brandt said on the radio, this guy is a really good athlete and football player that has been given bad coaching and nothing to work with in the NFL.

Say what you will about Zorn as a head coach, but he has a great reputation as a QB coach. He has also had a least decent players around him for the most part. Quinn had poor coaching, poor supporting cast, and limited starts. He has much more upsided. Campbell has probably peaked at his age (28) and level of experience.

baja
04-05-2010, 08:44 PM
Say what you will about Zorn as a head coach, but he has a great reputation as a QB coach. He has also had a least decent players around him for the most part. Quinn had poor coaching, poor supporting cast, and limited starts. He has much more upsided. Campbell has probably peaked at his age (28) and level of experience.

You know what Shanny did, he watched all the film on Campbell than promptly went out and got McNabb hell he didn't even tell Campbell at all. Guess we know what Shanny thinks about him.

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 08:45 PM
Actually, Campbell's superior experience works against him, because it means it is much less likely he could improve. He probably is what he is at this point--a mediocre starting QB, whereas you could argue that Quinn was not given much of a chance in Cleveland and had poor weapons and could still be developed into a quality starter. Campbell does not have that excuse. He may fetch more than Quinn, but it won't be close to a 2nd or 3rd given what McNabb, an established star, just went for.

The fact that he has improved each year as a starter despite having to learn a new scheme each year doesn't bode well for your argument at all. Quinn is not even close to being as accurate as Campbell period. Not only that Campbell has played with arguably as bad of O-lines as Quinn and still he is able to attempt to throw a long pass. Something Quinn won't/can't do which is why his coaches had a hard time starting him over a very poor Anderson.

Campbell might not have as high as upside as Quinn but atleast he has developed into as you put it a mediocre starter. I don't find that to be true at all because I think Orton is a above average starter and Campbell is just as good as him. We don't even know if Quinn will progress into a solid enough back up for us.

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 08:48 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=5055786

This is from an Insider article by KC Joyner that is titled: "Redskins overpay for QB upgrade"

How much value should a team place on a second-round and third- or fourth-round draft pick? For all of the comments and questions you will hear about the Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins trade, that is the only question that really counts: Did Washington pay too much for McNabb?

This question can be best answered in the context of how much should McNabb be expected to improve Washington's offense. One way to determine this is to look at how McNabb's numbers fared against Jason Campbell's in 2009.

Let's start this analysis with the yards per attempt (YPA) metric. If pass-in-the-air penalties (pass interference, illegal contact, defensive holding, etc.) are factored into the equation, McNabb posted a 7.9 mark in this category last season. Using that same set of criteria, Campbell posted a 7.1 mark last season.

The next most impactful category for quarterbacks is interceptions. The raw numbers here can be helpful (McNabb 10, Campbell 15) but that total can be skewed by things beyond the passer's control. For example, three of Campbell's picks last season came as a result of the defender's catching the ball after his receiver had dropped it.

Situations like that are beyond the passer's control, so I instead focus on the bad decision metric. This number gauges how often a quarterback makes a mistake with the ball that leads either to a turnover or a near turnover (dropped interception, fumble that is recovered by the offense, etc).

McNabb posted a 2.3 percent bad decision rate in 2009, which means that about one out of every 44 passes were a potential turnover as a result of a mistake on McNabb's part. Campbell tallied a 1.9 percent mark in this category last season, which means his mistake rate was about once in every 53 passes.

Last up is rushing yardage. This used to be a strong suit for McNabb early in his career, but it has tailed off as he has aged. That is why he was able to put up only 10 yards per game on the ground last season. Campbell has been remarkably consistent in this metric: His 14.8 rushing yards per game in 2009 was very close to his career per game rushing average.

Now let's see the overall impact of these numbers. McNabb had an eight-tenths of a yard lead in YPA. It isn't a given that he will be able to tally that same total in Washington when you consider that (a) the Redskins' receiving corps isn't as good as the Eagles' corps and (b) a Shanahan passer has reached the 7.9 mark only two times in his head-coaching tenure (and one of those was in John Elway's second Super Bowl season). Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he will match his 2009 total, it would mean an increase of about 400 yards (0.8 times 500 passes).

Using that 500-pass mark as a guide, we can also determine that McNabb will force about 11 passes into coverage (500 divided by 44) versus Campbell's nine forced passes (500 divided by 53). Given that league-wide average of bad decisions that end up being picked off is usually between 40 and 50 percent, we can say that McNabb would end up with one more pick than Campbell. Most football statisticians estimate that the impact of an interception is around 50 yards, so let's debit McNabb with that total.

Using the per-game rushing average, we can estimate that, over the course of a 16-game season, Campbell would gain around 237 yards (14.8 times 16), McNabb around 160. That gives Campbell a 77-yard lead in that category, so that mark can also be subtracted from McNabb's passing yardage lead.

Totaling it all up (400 passing yards minus 50 interception yards minus 77 rushing yards), we come up with McNabb having a 273-yard lead over Campbell. How much of that was due to having better play calling and better receiving options is impossible to say, but I can say this: Trading a No. 2 and either a No. 3 or No. 4 pick to gain 273 yards worth of offense is a trade I wouldn't make.

baja
04-05-2010, 08:53 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=5055786

This is from an Insider article by KC Joyner that is titled: "Redskins overpay for QB upgrade"

How much value should a team place on a second-round and third- or fourth-round draft pick? For all of the comments and questions you will hear about the Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins trade, that is the only question that really counts: Did Washington pay too much for McNabb?

This question can be best answered in the context of how much should McNabb be expected to improve Washington's offense. One way to determine this is to look at how McNabb's numbers fared against Jason Campbell's in 2009.

Let's start this analysis with the yards per attempt (YPA) metric. If pass-in-the-air penalties (pass interference, illegal contact, defensive holding, etc.) are factored into the equation, McNabb posted a 7.9 mark in this category last season. Using that same set of criteria, Campbell posted a 7.1 mark last season.

The next most impactful category for quarterbacks is interceptions. The raw numbers here can be helpful (McNabb 10, Campbell 15) but that total can be skewed by things beyond the passer's control. For example, three of Campbell's picks last season came as a result of the defender's catching the ball after his receiver had dropped it.

Situations like that are beyond the passer's control, so I instead focus on the bad decision metric. This number gauges how often a quarterback makes a mistake with the ball that leads either to a turnover or a near turnover (dropped interception, fumble that is recovered by the offense, etc).

McNabb posted a 2.3 percent bad decision rate in 2009, which means that about one out of every 44 passes were a potential turnover as a result of a mistake on McNabb's part. Campbell tallied a 1.9 percent mark in this category last season, which means his mistake rate was about once in every 53 passes.

Last up is rushing yardage. This used to be a strong suit for McNabb early in his career, but it has tailed off as he has aged. That is why he was able to put up only 10 yards per game on the ground last season. Campbell has been remarkably consistent in this metric: His 14.8 rushing yards per game in 2009 was very close to his career per game rushing average.

Now let's see the overall impact of these numbers. McNabb had an eight-tenths of a yard lead in YPA. It isn't a given that he will be able to tally that same total in Washington when you consider that (a) the Redskins' receiving corps isn't as good as the Eagles' corps and (b) a Shanahan passer has reached the 7.9 mark only two times in his head-coaching tenure (and one of those was in John Elway's second Super Bowl season). Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he will match his 2009 total, it would mean an increase of about 400 yards (0.8 times 500 passes).

Using that 500-pass mark as a guide, we can also determine that McNabb will force about 11 passes into coverage (500 divided by 44) versus Campbell's nine forced passes (500 divided by 53). Given that league-wide average of bad decisions that end up being picked off is usually between 40 and 50 percent, we can say that McNabb would end up with one more pick than Campbell. Most football statisticians estimate that the impact of an interception is around 50 yards, so let's debit McNabb with that total.

Using the per-game rushing average, we can estimate that, over the course of a 16-game season, Campbell would gain around 237 yards (14.8 times 16), McNabb around 160. That gives Campbell a 77-yard lead in that category, so that mark can also be subtracted from McNabb's passing yardage lead.

Totaling it all up (400 passing yards minus 50 interception yards minus 77 rushing yards), we come up with McNabb having a 273-yard lead over Campbell. How much of that was due to having better play calling and better receiving options is impossible to say, but I can say this: Trading a No. 2 and either a No. 3 or No. 4 pick to gain 273 yards worth of offense is a trade I wouldn't make.

what a narrow view.....

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2010, 09:02 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=5055786

This is from an Insider article by KC Joyner that is titled: "Redskins overpay for QB upgrade"

How much value should a team place on a second-round and third- or fourth-round draft pick? For all of the comments and questions you will hear about the Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins trade, that is the only question that really counts: Did Washington pay too much for McNabb?

This question can be best answered in the context of how much should McNabb be expected to improve Washington's offense. One way to determine this is to look at how McNabb's numbers fared against Jason Campbell's in 2009.

Let's start this analysis with the yards per attempt (YPA) metric. If pass-in-the-air penalties (pass interference, illegal contact, defensive holding, etc.) are factored into the equation, McNabb posted a 7.9 mark in this category last season. Using that same set of criteria, Campbell posted a 7.1 mark last season.

The next most impactful category for quarterbacks is interceptions. The raw numbers here can be helpful (McNabb 10, Campbell 15) but that total can be skewed by things beyond the passer's control. For example, three of Campbell's picks last season came as a result of the defender's catching the ball after his receiver had dropped it.

Situations like that are beyond the passer's control, so I instead focus on the bad decision metric. This number gauges how often a quarterback makes a mistake with the ball that leads either to a turnover or a near turnover (dropped interception, fumble that is recovered by the offense, etc).

McNabb posted a 2.3 percent bad decision rate in 2009, which means that about one out of every 44 passes were a potential turnover as a result of a mistake on McNabb's part. Campbell tallied a 1.9 percent mark in this category last season, which means his mistake rate was about once in every 53 passes.

Last up is rushing yardage. This used to be a strong suit for McNabb early in his career, but it has tailed off as he has aged. That is why he was able to put up only 10 yards per game on the ground last season. Campbell has been remarkably consistent in this metric: His 14.8 rushing yards per game in 2009 was very close to his career per game rushing average.

Now let's see the overall impact of these numbers. McNabb had an eight-tenths of a yard lead in YPA. It isn't a given that he will be able to tally that same total in Washington when you consider that (a) the Redskins' receiving corps isn't as good as the Eagles' corps and (b) a Shanahan passer has reached the 7.9 mark only two times in his head-coaching tenure (and one of those was in John Elway's second Super Bowl season). Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he will match his 2009 total, it would mean an increase of about 400 yards (0.8 times 500 passes).

Using that 500-pass mark as a guide, we can also determine that McNabb will force about 11 passes into coverage (500 divided by 44) versus Campbell's nine forced passes (500 divided by 53). Given that league-wide average of bad decisions that end up being picked off is usually between 40 and 50 percent, we can say that McNabb would end up with one more pick than Campbell. Most football statisticians estimate that the impact of an interception is around 50 yards, so let's debit McNabb with that total.

Using the per-game rushing average, we can estimate that, over the course of a 16-game season, Campbell would gain around 237 yards (14.8 times 16), McNabb around 160. That gives Campbell a 77-yard lead in that category, so that mark can also be subtracted from McNabb's passing yardage lead.

Totaling it all up (400 passing yards minus 50 interception yards minus 77 rushing yards), we come up with McNabb having a 273-yard lead over Campbell. How much of that was due to having better play calling and better receiving options is impossible to say, but I can say this: Trading a No. 2 and either a No. 3 or No. 4 pick to gain 273 yards worth of offense is a trade I wouldn't make.

For some reason, I'm just not buying this crap...

That One Guy
04-05-2010, 09:10 PM
Apples-Oranges

tsiguy96
04-05-2010, 09:50 PM
That was in poor taste by the skins, but that does not compare to the Denver fiasco. Campbell is not worth a straight trade with McBeard, whereas Cutler was worth 2 firsts and McBeard. And before anyone comments on the Bears being fullish, before the trade was made, analysts predicted Cutler was worth at least 2 first rounders. Obviously it is far too simplistic to compare the two situations (not that you were doing that, your post is just convenient), and anyone who thinks the two QBs should be treated the same should really take a break from slobbering all over McD's jocks, your common sense is being distorted.

this is exactly whats wrong with fans and teh NFL in general. you think that general respect of a player should be directly correlated to how good they are. not elite players? treat em like ****, dont bother telling them they lost their job to someone else they traded for. great player? forgive everything they ever do and treat them like gods.

these guys absolutely deserve to be treated the same.

Requiem
04-05-2010, 11:11 PM
I think Joyner's article is an interesting take on the trade. McNabb with solid targets and interesting options on offense "production" opposed to Washington's mediocrity all over the board on offense for Campbell is a fair one to make. Washington has some talent on offense, and maybe McNabb under Shanahan presents more of an opportunity. I think both teams, if the Eagles draft well -- will be very pleased.

NFLBRONCO
04-05-2010, 11:26 PM
Philly call Denver for trade up

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 11:45 PM
The fact that he has improved each year as a starter despite having to learn a new scheme each year doesn't bode well for your argument at all.

Except you're wrong. He has NOT improved each year as a starter. He was far more turnover prone in 2009 compared to 2008. That is a step back. So you are dead wrong.

Quinn is not even close to being as accurate as Campbell period.

Again, you are not necessarily correct. Campbell had better players around him overall and a bigger sample of games on which to judge his accuracy. If you play in an inferior system with inferior players, your completion % won't be as high. Orton is a great example. After posting completion percentages of 51.6%, 53.8%, and 58.5%, he improved significantly to 62.5% playing with better talent and in a more QB friendly system.

Not only that Campbell has played with arguably as bad of O-lines as Quinn and still he is able to attempt to throw a long pass.

Campbell may have had similar poor lines (debatable), but he unquestionably played with better skill players. And he had a far larger sample of games on which to improve. Unless a guy just looks awful, you can't accurately judge a guy after 12 starts like Quinn has had. Given his 10 to 9 TD to INT ratio, no rational person can claim that he is a confirmed bust. He simply has not played enough to tell for sure. Campbell's sample size is far more definitive.

Something Quinn won't/can't do which is why his coaches had a hard time starting him over a very poor Anderson.

Anderson had an historical anonamly on his side...his 29 TD season in 2007. That could easily account for the Browns willingness to stick with him despite poor performance...past success.

Campbell might not have as high as upside as Quinn but atleast he has developed into as you put it a mediocre starter.

Right. But the point is that it is not very likely he will improve significantly at this stage of his career. NFL trade values are calibrated as much on potential as anything, right or wrong. Quinn's scant sample size of 12 games and numbers that at least aren't awful (9 INTs in 12 starts, for instance, is an excellent ratio) trumps Campbell's significant advantage in playing time and advanced age (28) in terms of value and potential for future success.

I think Orton is a above average starter and Campbell is just as good as him. We don't even know if Quinn will progress into a solid enough back up for us.

You can make aruments about Campbell vs. Orton, but remeber that Orton's singular value was not really that great in the Cutler trade. He was essentially a throw away even though he was only 26 years old. That was because he had a large sample size with medicore results (in terms of individual stats, anyway; his W-L record, of course, was very good), just like Campbell. The point being, Campbell is not likely to fetch 2nd or 3rd round value as colonelbeef claimed. That should be obvious as hell given that McNabb, a potential HOF QB, couldn't even fetch a 1st rounder (although his age--33--no doubt played a part in that, it was not old enough to be a signifcant value dipper given that he is coming off a solid season and that are numerous recent examples of QBs playing well into their late 30s).

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 12:26 AM
Except you're wrong. He has NOT improved each year as a starter. He was far more turnover prone in 2009 compared to 2008. That is a step back. So you are dead wrong.
LOL one thing he didn't improve on and you are claiming a he stepped back? Yards, completion %, QB rating, and YPA TD's all career highs. So I stand by what I claimed he has improved as a starter every year. You are just being stubborn here.


Again, you are not necessarily correct. Campbell had better players around him overall and a bigger sample of games on which to judge his accuracy. If you play in an inferior system with inferior players, your completion % won't be as high. Orton is a great example. After posting completion percentages of 51.6%, 53.8%, and 58.5%, he improved significantly to 62.5% playing with better talent and in a more QB friendly system.
So by your logic here it's possible for Orton to improve from 51.6%, 53.8% and 58.5% to 62.5% when he gets better talent around him right? So clearly that means something around the same would be true for Quinn but not Campbell? Right on. Campbell is sitting around 64.5% right now so under McD he should jump to 73% using your logic so he would still be miles ahead of Quinn. Also I would debate how much better the talent is around Campbell vs Quinn. At least Quinn had a pro bowler watching his blind side and half way decent running game with Jerome Harrison. Not that it matter Quinn couldn't beat out Anderson.


Campbell may have had similar poor lines (debatable), but he unquestionably played with better skill players. And he had a far larger sample of games on which to improve. Unless a guy just looks awful, you can't accurately judge a guy after 12 starts like Quinn has had. Given his 10 to 9 TD to INT ratio, no rational person can claim that he is a confirmed bust. He simply has not played enough to tell for sure. Campbell's sample size is far more definitive.
I never called Quinn a bust but he isn't proven either. The fact that he has only started 6 games in 3 years is alarming regardless of the talent you think he has around him. Campbell is battle tested. He has won more then 6 NFL games. I would take his accomplishments over Quinn's every Sunday.


Anderson had an historical anonamly on his side...his 29 TD season in 2007. That could easily account for the Browns willingness to stick with him despite poor performance...past success.



Right. But the point is that it is not very likely he will improve significantly at this stage of his career. NFL trade values are calibrated as much on potential as anything, right or wrong. Quinn's scant sample size of 12 games and numbers that at least aren't awful (9 INTs in 12 starts, for instance, is an excellent ratio) trumps Campbell's significant advantage in playing time and advanced age (28) in terms of value and potential for future success.



You can make aruments about Campbell vs. Orton, but remeber that Orton's singular value was not really that great in the Cutler trade. He was essentially a throw away even though he was only 26 years old. That was because he had a large sample size with medicore results (in terms of individual stats, anyway; his W-L record, of course, was very good), just like Campbell. The point being, Campbell is not likely to fetch 2nd or 3rd round value as colonelbeef claimed. That should be obvious as hell given that McNabb, a potential HOF QB, couldn't even fetch a 1st rounder (although his age--33--no doubt played a part in that, it was not old enough to be a signifcant value dipper given that he is coming off a solid season and that are numerous recent examples of QBs playing well into their late 30s).

As for the rest it's just more crap. You made the statement that Campbell isn't worth more then Quinn who you but the value on him as a 5th rounder. I guarantee teams will give more then a 5th rounder for a proven starter that is still young.

For crying out loud Charlie Whitehurst is one year younger then Campbell got traded for a 2011 3rd round pick, swapped 2nd round picks which has a value of a 4th rounder and he hasn't even recorded a completed pass and you for some ****ed up reason seem to believe that Campbell isn't worth more then Quinn. Please dude you have no logic at all to stand on in the argument period.

BroncoInferno
04-06-2010, 01:09 AM
As for the rest it's just more crap. You made the statement that Campbell isn't worth more then Quinn who you but the value on him as a 5th rounder. I guarantee teams will give more then a 5th rounder for a proven starter that is still young.

No, they won't. I doubt the Skins will even trade him, primarily because no one believes he will ever be better than mediocre, and for good reason--he's 28 with a large playing sample. Typically, you don't see much improvement from that.

For crying out loud Charlie Whitehurst is one year younger then Campbell got traded for a 2011 3rd round pick, swapped 2nd round picks which has a value of a 4th rounder and he hasn't even recorded a completed pass and you for some ****ed up reason seem to believe that Campbell isn't worth more then Quinn. Please dude you have no logic at all to stand on in the argument period.

You can curse all want; doesn't change your ignorance of how the NFL trade market works. Whitehurst has never started, but of course he has played behind Brees and Rivers his whole career. When he came out of college at Clemson, he was considered a 1st round physical talent who did not quite live up to that in college because he played in a different offensive system 3 of his 4 years and his OLs absolutely sucked his final two seasons. In other words, he's a guy with a ton of potential who after 4 years of learning a single offense and sitting behind pro bowl players, he now can step into a starting role as ready as he'll ever be. Does that mean he will succeed? Of course not, but I'd say the relatively modest investment in Whitehurst (2 years $8 million) is far more sound and less risky than a guaranteed $40 million dollar investment in Sam Bradford, for instance.

Popps
04-06-2010, 02:41 AM
Oh god, please let this offseason be over. Please let it be preseason tomorrow when I wake up.

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 11:46 AM
No, they won't. I doubt the Skins will even trade him, primarily because no one believes he will ever be better than mediocre, and for good reason--he's 28 with a large playing sample. Typically, you don't see much improvement from that.



You can curse all want; doesn't change your ignorance of how the NFL trade market works. Whitehurst has never started, but of course he has played behind Brees and Rivers his whole career. When he came out of college at Clemson, he was considered a 1st round physical talent who did not quite live up to that in college because he played in a different offensive system 3 of his 4 years and his OLs absolutely sucked his final two seasons. In other words, he's a guy with a ton of potential who after 4 years of learning a single offense and sitting behind pro bowl players, he now can step into a starting role as ready as he'll ever be. Does that mean he will succeed? Of course not, but I'd say the relatively modest investment in Whitehurst (2 years $8 million) is far more sound and less risky than a guaranteed $40 million dollar investment in Sam Bradford, for instance.
Oh I get it now Whitehurst gets a break because he was considered "first round talent" that got drafted in the 3rd round. Also he just got unlucky and played behind two better QB's. Then he had to play with 3 different offensive systems. Makes sense. It's not like Campbell has had to learn 5 different offensive systems in 5 years and WAS drafted in the first round. The fact is Whitehurst has not completed a NFL pass and he is 27 years old (soon to be 28 and done improving) you have no idea what he can do at the NFL level. You knock Campbell for being 28, but at least he has thrown a NFL pass during a game.

Anyways I'm done with you. For some reason a backup QB with no game experience at all is worth a 4th and a future 3rd but Campbell isn't. I'm the one that is ignorant, right on man. A article already claims a team has a offer in place for Campbell. I think he will be traded and I think that team is going to be the Cards.

azbroncfan
04-06-2010, 12:06 PM
The fact is Whitehurst has not completed a NFL pass and he is 27 years old (soon to be 28 and done improving) you have no idea what he can do at the NFL level.

Age determines when you quit improving? At some point yes but as a QB it can go into your mid 30's before you quit. Rich Gannon is a good example.

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 12:32 PM
Age determines when you quit improving? At some point yes but as a QB it can go into your mid 30's before you quit. Rich Gannon is a good example.

I don't think that at all. Sorry for the mix up but that's what BroncoInferno keeps claiming about Campbell. Personally I think if Campbell ever gets into a system that doesn't change from year to year he will improve a lot.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 12:33 PM
K.C. Joyner was the same dip**** that wrote Ed Reed was a mediocre safety because he freelanced too much.

Florida_Bronco
04-06-2010, 12:37 PM
K.C. Joyner was the same dip**** that wrote Ed Reed was a mediocre safety because he freelanced too much.

And a couple years ago the Ravens almost benched him because of it, so he obviously has a clue what he's talking about.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 12:51 PM
And a couple years ago the Ravens almost benched him because of it, so he obviously has a clue what he's talking about.

Do you have a link to the news of Reed possibly getting benched?

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 12:55 PM
Do you have a link to the news of Reed possibly getting benched?

It was talked about quite a bit.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 12:59 PM
It was talked about quite a bit.

It doesn't matter anyway. One off-year doesn't make a career. Ed Reed is going to have a bust in Canton some day. His reward for being a playmaker >>> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/non_offense_td_career.htm , a NFL Defensive Player of the Year and a four-time All-Pro.

elsid13
04-06-2010, 03:31 PM
interesting note from the press conference today. Shanahan stated that Bruce Allen was the guy that put the trade together and done all the work. That they had talked about the possibility of McNabb a month ago and Allen decides to pursue it. Campbell was also told that if he can find a trading partner by the 15 April 2010, the Skins would trade him if the value was met.

bowtown
04-06-2010, 03:40 PM
interesting note from the press conference today. Shanahan stated that Bruce Allen was the guy that put the trade together and done all the work. That they had talked about the possibility of McNabb a month ago and Allen decides to pursue it. Campbell was also told that if he can find a trading partner by the 15 April 2010, the Skins would trade him if the value was met.

That's not really any different than it's always been with Shanahan though. He makes the decisions and then someone else goes and does the work. Allen may have put the trade together and done the work on it, but you better believe if Shanahan had not given his approval, it never would have happened or even have been set in motion.

It's the same stuff we always got from him about Sundquist. He always talked up Sundquist like he was instrumental as a GM, but it's always Shanahan pulling the strings.

Florida_Bronco
04-06-2010, 04:26 PM
Do you have a link to the news of Reed possibly getting benched?

I sure do.

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=59086&highlight=reed

It doesn't matter anyway. It doesn't matter when your team tells you "Hey dickhead, you keep freelancing and leaving your teammates out to dry. Knock it off or sit your ass on the bench."?

Wow.

One off-year doesn't make a career. Reed has had the same problem since College.

Ed Reed is going to have a bust in Canton some day. His reward for being a playmaker >>> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/non_offense_td_career.htm , a NFL Defensive Player of the Year and a four-time All-Pro. I highly doubt we'll see Reed in the HoF.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 04:28 PM
I highly doubt we'll see Reed in the HoF.

Wanna bet?

Rabb
04-06-2010, 04:29 PM
That's not really any different than it's always been with Shanahan though. He makes the decisions and then someone else goes and does the work. Allen may have put the trade together and done the work on it, but you better believe if Shanahan had not given his approval, it never would have happened or even have been set in motion.

It's the same stuff we always got from him about Sundquist. He always talked up Sundquist like he was instrumental as a GM, but it's always Shanahan pulling the strings.

little plausible deniability on Shanny's part

there is a reason many others were canned before Shanny was here

Florida_Bronco
04-06-2010, 04:32 PM
Gotta love Med's comments from the thread as well.

He is one of the most talented players in the game, but he hurts that defense just as much or more by freelancing. You missed the fact that he was directly responsible for 7 passing TD's last year by BLOWING HIS COVERAGE ASSIGNMENT. That means he hung his teammates out to dry in order to gamble, especially against CIN who has owned that defense the last three years. He just fails to do his JOB in that defense more than other safeties in the league.

Sure, he makes a few INT's by gambling and even takes one or two back a year. That's because that whole Defense is talented beyond any other team except possibly SD and he benefits greatly becuase of them. Put Ed Reed In Cleveland, and his performance would be average and below average if he gambled like he does with BAL. Is he talented, yes. Does he execute the defense well, no. Basically, he says me making plays is more important than the team and winning.

That's funny slap, because it was KC Joyner who called Ed Reed overrated and Not FO who worships his DPAR ;D Other Scouts have brought this up, and teams have started to throw deep and double move his side of the field the last 3 years. Those are the facts, not interpetations. Oh, and KC works for ESPN as well LOL

BTW, if you had time to actually read what FO and Joyner say about their work, you would realize that they put a disclaimer on playcalling and coverages as they are impossible to be 100% accurate from TV footage alone. However, they grade EVERY SINGLE PLAY and not just the highlights that ESPN grandioses for entertainment value. They take the good with the bad instead of the single minded highlight mentality.

However, they NEVER say they are right all the time and that this work is anywhere near perfect. Quite the contrary. The function of this is to dispel the misperceptions the highlight only mentailty fosters. Unfortunately, what happens is that some people find them sanctimonious, defensive, arrogant, and condescending. They shake the status quo with what they do and people do not like that.

I am wrong an awful lot, but I do my best to not post before I check and recheck what work I have done. Their work allows me to check my assuptions after I have tested them. Sometimes they do not jive and I have to look somewhere else for answers. They are not the authority on what happens, but a tool to further explore options and check a hypothesis. I have deleted more posts than I have ever made, because the research does not match my initial response. And after watching tape, I see more and different things than the result of the play.

Sounds like HoF material to me.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 04:34 PM
Gotta love Med's comments from the thread as well.





Sounds like HoF material to me.

Go ask Miami Dolphins fans which player single-handedly sank the dagger into their hearts in the 2008 AFC Wild Card game?

Florida_Bronco
04-06-2010, 04:45 PM
Go ask Miami Dolphins fans which player single-handedly sank the dagger into their hearts in the 2008 AFC Wild Card game?

I'll think I'll go with Mediator on this one.

elsid13
04-06-2010, 04:47 PM
That's not really any different than it's always been with Shanahan though. He makes the decisions and then someone else goes and does the work. Allen may have put the trade together and done the work on it, but you better believe if Shanahan had not given his approval, it never would have happened or even have been set in motion.

It's the same stuff we always got from him about Sundquist. He always talked up Sundquist like he was instrumental as a GM, but it's always Shanahan pulling the strings.

Shanahan the VP of football operations. And like all managers his job is to set the course, make sure everyone understand the direction and monitor to ensure the work gets done. Allen and Sundquist get paid to do a job, they don't need Shanahan holding their hands or wiping their asses.

Cito Pelon
04-06-2010, 04:51 PM
The fact that he has improved each year as a starter despite having to learn a new scheme each year doesn't bode well for your argument at all. Quinn is not even close to being as accurate as Campbell period. Not only that Campbell has played with arguably as bad of O-lines as Quinn and still he is able to attempt to throw a long pass. Something Quinn won't/can't do which is why his coaches had a hard time starting him over a very poor Anderson.

Campbell might not have as high as upside as Quinn but atleast he has developed into as you put it a mediocre starter. I don't find that to be true at all because I think Orton is a above average starter and Campbell is just as good as him. We don't even know if Quinn will progress into a solid enough back up for us.

I was surprised to see Campbell's stats are so good from what you posted a couple pages ago. He never impressed me much seeing a few games he played, but those stats are actually pretty good.

Bronco CB40
04-06-2010, 04:56 PM
I'll think I'll go with Mediator on this one.

Mediator's post was from 2006. That was a short-term snapshot of Reed's career. Since then, Reed has been named first-team NFL All-Pro twice. Do you have any new material supporting your claim regarding Reed's performance from 2007-09?

Reed's career is one of the big reasons why Eric Berry is so highly valued in this draft.

Florida_Bronco
04-06-2010, 09:03 PM
Mediator's post was from 2006. That was a short-term snapshot of Reed's career. Since then, Reed has been named first-team NFL All-Pro twice. Do you have any new material supporting your claim regarding Reed's performance from 2007-09?

Reed's career is one of the big reasons why Eric Berry is so highly valued in this draft.

2007 actually, and yeah I'm well aware of his awards. He got the same awards while playing so poorly the Ravens threatened to bench him.

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 09:19 PM
I was surprised to see Campbell's stats are so good from what you posted a couple pages ago. He never impressed me much seeing a few games he played, but those stats are actually pretty good.

He is a strong armed QB that is very accurate. The biggest thing working against him is he doesn't wow people. I think that has something to do with the systems changing every year. He hasn't had any sort of stable system in place from his senior year in college on into his 5th year as a pro.

I think the Cards really need to trade for him. Even a conditional 2011 pick would be better then just going into the season with Matt Leinart as your starting QB. They still have a chance to add Campbell and win the NFC west. With Leinart as the starter I don't think they win it.