Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Is Jason Campbell Un-clutch?

(By Nick Wass - AP)

One good thing about the pending end of this Redskins season: it could mark the end, for all time, of the incessant Jason Campbell debates 'round these parts.

"No way he's gonna be back," ESPN's John Clayton said on Mike and Mike Tuesday morning. "My guess is you're gonna see the Redskins draft a quarterback in the first round and then probably not try to resign [Campbell]. They may have to go out and get a veteran backup quarterback, but no, I think Jason Campbell's gonna be moving on."

If that's the case, we have four more weeks to debate the "Is Jason Campbell Clutch?" issue. And oddly, both sides got more ammo from this week's loss to the Saints.

Football Outsiders ranked Campbell the top NFL quarterback of the week, writing this:

His pick on the Redskins' penultimate drive was an awful, ill-advised throw, the sort of bad decision he usually avoids with a checkdown or a sack, but Campbell otherwise had his best day as a pro by shredding the league's best pass defense. His 275 passing [defense-adjusted yards above replacement] were the third-most in a game this year, and the best performance by anyone not named Drew Brees.

So with his offensive weapons disappearing and the NFC's best team in town, that's clutch. He played great and had his team in position to win. There's no question. On the other hand, the haters--and yes, I am one--point out that yet again, when given a chance to produce an iconic last-minute game-winning drive, Campbell failed, throwing an interception.

This sparked a lively debate on the Redskins Insider podcast, with me claiming this was symptomatic of Campbell's career, and Rick Maese ridiculing for me pinning this loss on Campbell after his best day as a pro.

To be clear, the haters don't blame him for this loss, in any way. We just think that the Vince Youngs of the world somehow find a way to win games like that, and more often than not, the Jason Campbells don't. If you're on a team that doesn't require late-game QB heroics, that's fine and dandy. For the Redskins, it doesn't work.

Anyhow, with all the vitriol on both sides, I figured we should at least make some small effort to gather a few facts. You could do this in lots of different ways; I chose to look at the 16 games in which Campbell and his offense received the ball with less than six minutes remaining, in a one-possession or tied game. I disregarded time-stopping spikes (not counting them as incompletions), and disregarded possessions that began with virtually no time remaining.

In those situations, Campbell has connected on two long touchdown passes for late-game wins (Carolina in '06, New Orleans in '08). He's also led two drives for game-winning field goals in overtime, although both were primarily run-based drives (Dolphins and Jets in '07). On the bad side, he's thrown four interceptions, been sacked five times, and fumbled three times.

In total, he's 44-82 for 584 yards, with those two touchdowns, those four interceptions, and a 64.3 quarterback rating. The Redskins are 4-12 in those 16 games.

Now, is it Campbell's fault that the Redskins' defense crumbled against the Saints? Of course not. Is it his fault that after his rushing touchdown tied the score against the 49ers last year, the defense allowed San Francisco a game-winning field goal? No, it's not. But here's why that perception persists: the last five times he's gotten the ball in one of these late-game, tied-or-close situations, the Redskins have lost.

That, to me, matters more than things like this, from a recent Tom Boswell column:

There are 12 quarterbacks on the planet who are clearly better than the one the Redskins already have. Their names are Brady, Favre, Brees, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, Warner, Roethlisberger, McNabb and, probably, Romo and Schaub, too....

There are also about a dozen other quarterbacks in the NFL who are just about as good as Campbell, give or take a bit. Statistically, they are grouped around his passer rating of 85.3 -- quarterbacks like Kyle Orton, Joe Flacco, Carson Palmer and Matt Hasselbeck.

(I haven't included the game-by-game breakdown of Campbell's late-game performances here, because it's kind of tedious, but if enough of you ask to see it, I'll come back and add them.)

UPDATE: Adam Schefter discussed the Campbell Question during his chat on Tuesday:

Q: How close are the Redskins from being able to compete in the NFC East again? Is a new coach really going to solve all their problems, or do they need new talent, too?

A: Loving these questions that provide double answers that have validity. The Redskins are not at the level of the Cowboys, Eagles or Giants right now, but they're not far off, either. The biggest difference between the Redskins and the rest of the teams in the NFC East is the play they are getting at quarterback. Now, I don't know whether it's the coaching, the play calling or the quarterback himself -- or maybe all three -- but the production the Redskins have gotten out of Jason Campbell does not match what the Cowboys have gotten from Tony Romo, the Eagles have gotten from Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb, or the Giants have gotten from Eli Manning. It's a quarterback league, and that's where the Redskins seem to be trailing right now. Special teams play hasn't exactly helped, either. If Shaun Suisham had made the kicks he should have this season, Washington's record would be two wins better. But any coach who goes in there is going to have to figure out how to get better and more consistent play out of the quarterback position -- whether it's with Campbell or someone else.

By Dan Steinberg  |  December 9, 2009; 12:18 PM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Best of the decade: local sports
Next: Abe Pollin celebrates his title


If you have to ask, then no, he's not clutch.

Posted by: peterandmeredith | December 9, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

i would say he's not clutch (though, for the eagles and this past game, fox showed a stat saying JC's led 7 game tying/game leading 4th qtr comebacks).

but i tell you who's NOT clutch: the Skins defense. it's pretty much a done deal when we give the opposition anything around 2 mins left, that they'll drive down and score

Posted by: 3tripleiii | December 9, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Considering that final interception felt so natural and inevitable, I vote for Un-clutch.

Posted by: asbloom | December 9, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is as clutch as the available timeouts and patchwork line allow him to be.

Posted by: StetSportsBlog | December 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

So you are damning him for not being one of the best of the best? Either Peyton Manning or bust? Those are the choices?

Posted by: LisainSilverSpring | December 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Romo is overrated. If he was in St. Louis, no one would know his name. Rank him with the average QBs.

Posted by: JohnnyRyde | December 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If Suisham made the field goal, is this even a story this week?

Posted by: kyureosity | December 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

He did have a great cant say clutch now he doesnt have the consistent weapons to be able be clutch. Where not going to get a qb at this time better then Campbell Mannings and bradys of the world arent coming through the door. Unrealistic to think otherwise. This years draft class is weak if everyone thinks Campbell not clutch i saw nothing from Clausen regarding leadership and clutch. Give Campbell big play reciever then lets talk. Was Campbell at fault losing and throwing a pick because he drove the team to a 23 yd field goal attempt that should been made. He wasnt given an opprunity in OT show he was clutch because oh wait another teammate laid an egg in Sellers fumbling.

Campbell is clutch in fact he had the Saints on the ropes 30 to 20 and he was great if not better then Bress, but we now question his clutchness because guys around cant before or predict the ball

kareem moore gets stripped
muffed punt
missed easy field goal
and sellers fumble when we just got a 1st down

Campbell put this game on a silver platter for us to win and i've stated this before the players around him are at fault. for this season. Its easy to question and put blame on Campbell but dont when most this year guys around him havent performed.

Now they finally show with key guys missing and look what he is doing with this offense now.

Posted by: cjdwolfpack | December 9, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is a tall, strong-armed, soft-spoken, clean-cut, respectful young man, the kind of character-guy who would help your grandmother across the street. He even held his temper when Snyder/Cerrato tried twice but failed to get a replacement for him, the ultimate vote of no-confidence. And that is the problem. Where's the fire? Where's the the wildness, the risk, the throw-the-dice and spit in the opponent's face (metaphorically, you know)? JC is a model young man. Give me Jim McMahon of the '85 Bears: horrible role-model, clutch performer, winner.

Posted by: eyestreet | December 9, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

See, this is why you need the geeks at profootballoutsiders: Dan Steinberg judges Campbell's performance against some mental image of an ideal QB. That's the lazy man's way. You should judge him against his peers -- who are other relatively young QBs on middle-of-the pack teams.

Like the folks who excoriated Jason last season, conveniently ignoring the fact that his stats placed him squarely with a group of playoff QBs.

Vince Young wins games because Vince Young can run better than any QB in the league except Vick, and because he plays on a team with Chris Johnson. Otherwise all teams have to make him do is throw deep until they get an INT.

Posted by: Samson151 | December 9, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Some frame of reference would be nice for this one. What is Brady's record when his team gets the ball back with under 6 minutes and needs a score to take the lead or tie the game? Or someone a little less epic like Hasslebeck or Mcnabb?

Honestly winning 25% (4-12 record cited above) doesn't seem all that bad to me, but maybe I'm just a pessimist when my team is losing at the end of games.

Posted by: Hobes | December 9, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

To me, what Campbell's improved play means is that he's less likely than ever to be a Redskin next season.

Posted by: Samson151 | December 9, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

At times he has been clutch, and at times he hasn't. I just don't think you can just pick a yes or no and be done with it.

How bout this question? Is the Redskins defense clutch? Ummm NO!

Posted by: REDneckSKINhead | December 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Give me Jim McMahon of the '85 Bears: horrible role-model, clutch performer, winner.Posted by: eyestreet"

You forgot "had Walter Payton at RB and the best defense ever."

In some ways, McMahon was Trent Dilfer.

Posted by: Samson151 | December 9, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I hope Jason gets out of this mad house. No one deserves the kind of crap he has put up with. No blocking. One system after the other imposed by Cerrato and Snyder. One day Jim Zorn is an offensive genius, the next Vinny's hiring consultants. Boz is exactly right. But the Redskins did not resign him when they could and humiliated him in the best Dan Snyder way. There is no way he will resign. He will make some team a great quarterback. All he needs is an offensive line. Danny will sign Colt McCoy or some other rookie and Vinny will turn him into another victim of a team without an offensive line. Every day a new offensive system. Too much Drama. Nothing will ever change.

Posted by: HelloNewman1 | December 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

There's already a term for 'un-clutch': choker. Campbell (and many of his teammates are CHOKERS.

Posted by: yatesc1 | December 9, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

no, he's not clutch, but, i'm campaigning to re-build this team the right way.

campbell should stay, since he has shown his (relative) durability and proficiency as an average to above-average QB in the league. we need to focus our draft on linemen!!

having a veteran qb enables us to be as successful as possible during the transition so we get to a point where inserting a rookie qb is not going to destroy his career...

Posted by: bacaje | December 9, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line, to me, is that JC17 makes too many mistakes in the clutch to be a franchise QB. That said, he still is far from the most pressing problem on this team. It would be nice if Skins mgmt used the off-season to fix the OL, get a real FS, & get a game-breaking RB, instead of drafting a QB with #1 draft pick, which would be a waste. I dont like our WRs, either, but like QB, this team has far more pressing problems right now. But, we will draft a QB at #1, and probably a WR or two for good measure. Fire Vinny, hire a real GM!

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | December 9, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Clutch? no....
If the Skins would just go for the TD instead of playing for the FG maybe he wouldn't have to be 'clutch'. How many times do you see JC actually attempt to throw into the endzone? I always see throws short of the endzone in which the WR get the TD on YAC or far out the back of the endzone.

Posted by: priceisright | December 9, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

No O line excuses here for Mr Checkdown or Mr DEADzone.....he!!...i just watched the Green Bay QB run for his life on Monday night and he's been sacked more than "3 and Out" this season.....How did that game end? I will be orgasmic when the deluded DEADskin fan excuse machine stops forever for this loser....

Posted by: FletcherChristian1 | December 9, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

You put Jason Campbell on the Vikings and they'd have a record of 9-3. I'd even say 10-2. Similar system, better offensive line, out-of-this-world running back and great defense.

Posted by: phatter1 | December 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

And when Mr Checkdown hits the road...take that other Auburn stiff with you !!!!!!!

Posted by: FletcherChristian1 | December 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Is Jason Campbell clutch enough? To do what? His problem is that he is a good not great passer who plays for a team that the management and a lot of the fans thinks is better than what anyone else thinks they are.

Posted by: john_baxter | December 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It takes Campbell 15 seconds to remember his name. He is slow on decision making and will never be the guy to lead this team to a championship. Move on.

Posted by: cbillman | December 9, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Soup's won 35% of his starts. That's not clutch.

Posted by: Realness1 | December 9, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

in the last 3 games i have changed sides to unclutch. i agree, however, with the posters who say JC is not the problem. i would like to resign him if we can for the right price and focus on the O-Line and other weaknesses (unfortunately, fletcher may get old one of these years...)

peyton manning never beat florida and it took him a few years to win a playoff game. now, i am not saying JC will grow into peyton manning, but maybe he will improve in "clutch" situations.

Posted by: dcalize | December 9, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

If not Campbell, who then? Turn it over to a rookie? Who's on the FA market?

Posted by: fan-o-matic | December 9, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

It's not really a question of clutch vs. un-clutch. The problem is that Campbell just can't run a two-minute offense. I'd blame this on Zorn, but he couldn't do it under Gibbs either (see: Dallas, Tampa Bay). I think Campbell is a pretty good qb, and certainly better than anything else they could have next year; but you can't really win if you can't run an offense at the end of a game.

This, also, would explain his ability to lead drives in OT and earlier in the fourth quarter.

Posted by: jaycane40oz | December 9, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Is the oganization clutch?
Is the GM clutch?
Is the coach clutch?
Is the defense clutch?
Is the offense as a whole clutch?
Then how in the He!! is the QB going to be clutch???

Posted by: SPUD2 | December 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Tell me where the Redskins are going to find a QB off the street or in free agency that can throw for 200-300 yards per game? the free agents next year are Kyle Boller, Byron Leftwich and worse.

The issue with Campbell is not that he is clutch or pro-bowl material. The issue is evaluating the talent available and making the right GM decision. We can get rid of JC and seek the clutch guy, the next brady or Manning. but I assure you in the interim we will have NOTHING!!!!!!!

Please Redskins fans go back out and resing chase McDaniel. let the kid from Hawaii (Colt Brennan) play. And you will see that they wil suck for a time too.
JC is not Brady or Manning, but he's better than the rest of the folks out there.

There's so much more to this than the stats used. Anyone remember the game plan, and M.O. of the Redskins under Gibbs II. a completion over 10 yards was a surprise, let a lone a come from behind victory. this team has relied on Santana Moss as the only threat for 5-years now. A diminutive 5-8 170 pound WR that can be taken out the game. the Redskins have been a poor to mediocre team for the past 10-years. the sense of entitlement from Redskin fans and media is nauseating. We are not a good team for many more reasons than Jason campbell.

Posted by: oknow1 | December 9, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Totally agree w/ the claim that Campbell is un-clutch. But I'll qualify it with this statement: clutch quarterbacks are very rare. I think there are only 4-5 QBs in the league right now where, if you're on their team w/ a minute to go and need a TD to win or tie, you actually like your odds. So saying Campbell is un-clutch is as much of a criticism as saying that Campbell is not going to be in the hall of fame--the same can be said regarding 80% of current QBs in the NFL.

That being said, I like Campbell, but we got to move on and find ourselves a clutch, future Hall of Famer, QB.

Posted by: jkahn001 | December 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey steinberg, read the redskin insider, and look at his (campbells) stats, and the stats of cutler, sanchez. God it was a blessing the redskins didn't sign either of those two sub-par qb's.

Do you remember a qb named Mark Rypien, he led the redskins to a super bowl,and won the damm thing,and he was a average qb, but played behind a pro bowl laden offensive line.

Posted by: wwwgarnercrew215th | December 9, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I have not been a Campbell fan since he became the starter, however he has shown me a lot of improvement in recent games. It is as if a light bulb was turned on.
Sorry Coach Zorn, but the team has certainly improved on offense since you stopped calling most of the plays. I suspect that if Sherm Lewis would have been calling the plays down near the goal line..he would not have settled for a field goal. When you have only won 3 games..why not go for it? Regardless what he said about kicking the FG..I think it was a lack of confidence in his offense. they had been
very successful throwing all day long!!
JC is really getting a feel for making reads and getting the ball off quickly. This has helped him not to fumble..when he was once the NFL fumble king.
Depending on their draft pick..and who is available..I would go for linemen..Suh(if available) from Nebraska, and a bunch of O linemen. QB`coming out of college are chancy. A number of can`t miss kids..missed. There are always NFL caliber players available in lower rounds. WHY START OVER WITH A NEW QB..GET JASON SOME BETTER PROTECTION. WHAT ABOUT COLT..IS HE IN THE PLANS OR NOT?

Posted by: blazerguy234 | December 9, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

it's plain & simple, If Jason leaves after this season we are going to suck next year, if we don't fix the line regardless of the QB we are going to suck next year & if the WR & defense dont step up we are going to suck next year!!!!! fix the line, get a good 2nd WR & the D needs to start getting TO.

Posted by: Tonyp316 | December 9, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm mixed on Campbell. But in his defense, you have to recognize this. Campbell had 3 4th quarter drives vs philly, dallas and the saints -- drives that could have put the Skins up 2 scores in each game. Each of those drives ended in a FG attempt. AND ... these drives ended when the Skins tried to run the ball. The play callers took the game away from Campbell, ran the ball, and lost.

Against dallas, leading 6-0, Campbell moved the team to a 1st down at the cowboy 38 yard line, mostly on pass completions. The next 4 plays:

Run, Run, Run, Missed FG

Against philly, Skins get a turnover and Campbell completes a pass, for a 1st down at the iggle 11 yard line, with a 21-16 lead. The next 4 plays:

Run, Run, inc Pass, FG

Against the Saints, Campbell drives the team to a 1st down at the Saint 4, mixing pass and run. The next 4 plays:

Run, Run, Run, Missed FG

On the series that ended these drives, the mix was 8 runs and 1 pass. While the rest of the drives were largely driven by passing the ball.

Campbell's final drives have been bad ... but he did put the team in position to win ... and other players/coaches lost it.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | December 9, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Even with the improved play of the O-line over the last few weeks and the great play of guys like Fred Davis, has JC's accuracy really gotten any better? There were a couple of deep passes that Moss or Randle EL had to slow down to catch that might have been one-play TD's. Or how about that screen attempt to Sellers that was nowhere near him?

What's frustrating in general is the run-into-a-brick-wall impact of the mistakes made late in the game. You get excited that they could go back up by 10, and they can't convert an extra point distance field goal. Don't forget the "injury" to Haynesworth too. The Saints have no time-outs, the clocking is ticking and then he goes down and the clock stops. I don't know if that changes anything, since it only took them 33 seconds to score, but all of these little plays and mistakes add up to bite you in the end. They can't finish. They had 4th quarter leads against Dallas, Phila, and New Orleans (2 scores!). How foolish of me to think they would win that...

Posted by: tatem | December 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is a choker. He lost these 4 straight games in the 07-08 season:

• Eagles (late 4th quarter Campbell fumble to seal the game 33-25),
• Cowboys (Campbell 3rd quarter fumble and 4th quarter INT on potential game winning drive; 28-23 final),
• Bucs (2 INT’s and 1 lost fumble by Campbell, including a backbreaker INT on final drive in last 3 mins (sound familiar?); 19-13 final), and finally
• Bills (Campbell had 1 INT, 1 lost fumble and was sacked for a safety in the endzone; Skins lose 17-16).

Does anyone think we would have made the playoffs that year if Campbell had not been injured the following game against the Bears? Stats don't even begin to tell the story of his deer-in-headlights play in the 4th quarter. I would prefer any starter in the league over Campbell in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. He's not clutch.

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | December 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This article is decidedly un-clutch.

When did you turn in to sportstalk radio?

Posted by: jesuisunpizza | December 9, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Its easy to low rate JC on a 3-9 team, but has shown this season that he is a solid QB, and the Skins would make a huge mistake by not trying to resign him. It makes way more sense to fix things around him. Give him the same tools to work with as his NFC East counterparts. It will actually be his decision whether to stay or not. It will be a significant loss if he leaves and the Skins having to start over again.

Posted by: vze3c9qt | December 9, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess if you really want to do this you should compare against other QBs, not just the perception that all QBs lead comebacks.

Like Vince Young's stinker against the Colts this weekend. He didn't lead them back.

Maybe the analysis is that Campbell is good enough to keep a bad team close, but isn't good enough to help a bad team win.

Posted by: jesuisunpizza | December 9, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The only QB stat that counts is the W-L ratio... and JC's record is abysmal. Regardless of year, coach, supporting cast, cause or alibi -- the results of JC17's last 4 and half seasons with the Redskins show him to be a proven loser. I can't imagine why anyone would even consider keeping him around so much as a moment longer. Get rid of the bum!!

Posted by: Vic1 | December 9, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The question of JC being clutch or not needs to be looked at in a bigger picture than a 3 game span. There is a lot to like about the kid. The big picture question is, if JC goes, who takes his spot? There are a few college QB's coming out but none have been given raving kudos by NFL insiders. JC is a 5th year QB who still has difficulty making reads and snap decision, whether in the clutch or not. Have I been disappointed in his play over the years? yes. For every good/great game he has he has half-a-dozen bad games. The thing I look at is the passes he completes are to fairly wide open receivers - he doesn't throw into tight coverage and when he does they are usually picked - and a lot of times doesn't hit the receivers in stride - they have to stop/break stride to catch the ball. I think a bigger problem than JC is the O line, El, Portis, and a few others with issues like LL, D. Hall Rogers, etc. Getting rid of Portis and El should garner draft picks or decent trades for O linemen. Just a few thoughts with so little room to make solid cases.

Posted by: dmr0834 | December 9, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Dan, I'm not defending Campbell, but you are forgetting the come from behind TWO possession game in Dallas a couple years back. Doesn't fit your criteria, but actually even more impressive. With that said, Campbell is slow with his reads, holds on to the ball far too long, isn't particularly accurate, and seems a little too "aw shucks" to be a real take-the-team-by-the-horns leader. Maybe in a five-step drop offense he'd be a bit better, but it's getting old...

Posted by: jmink4a5 | December 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Can someone cite Donovan McNabb's 4th qtr record? Because I hear on WIP earlier this year he had ONE over his whole career and that, since the start of 08, the Eagles were 1-9-1 in games decided by 7 pts or less (since then, I think it is now 2-10-1). I'm not an Eagle fan, I don't know if it true or not, but it seems to me that someone out there knows for sure. Point being, he could well have a better clutch record than McNabb (who, to be fair, is not known as Mr. Clutch, more like Mr. Retch).

Posted by: gbooksdc | December 9, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It used to be ohhhh, Vince Young is a bust, only good in college blah blah bla, now you shamelessly hold him up as a pillar of the "clutchness" every qb should aspire to. Campbell is fine, and if he plays every week like he did vs the saints he won't be playing from behind much.

Suisham, now he was not clutch.

Fix the line and then worry about the qb. Last offseason shows this organization can't evaluate qbs.

Posted by: AdamCr | December 9, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I think ultimately Dan's question is 'should the Skins resign Campbell and keep him on the team next year?' I say this because his argument is just one more way to ask this question.

I think what we all may have to admit now is that recently Campbell has improved tremendously/significantly/notably in terms of getting the ball out of his hands faster while still being under a tremendous pass rush. He's learned how to play well without an "excellent" offensive line - something that Portis will never ever get.

Does his growth this year make him even better with an improved offensive line? Looking back to the first half of last season - with the best case scenario offensive line in tact - I'd have to say yes!

Keep him. There's no one else available that's better. Take a look a the difference between Cutler and Orton this year and be glad Cutler did not become one of "Cerrato's Kids"!

Posted by: BenThere | December 9, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Quick Question:

How many of their starting DBs did New Orleans even have ACTIVE, much less on the field Sunday?

To borrow a line from (ironically) the film "My Cousin Vinny"..., "Go on, you can say it, they know..."

Yeah...that's right, NEITHER starting N.O. Corner played, and their 3rd string safety saw a good bit of time.

And JC17 didn't even have enough to finish a depleted D-secondary...hmmmm. Does THAT nugget help answer JC's clutchness?

Follow Up Thought.

Campbell isn't clutch, and for that matter, he isn't automatic, either.

No, Campbell's not THE problem (though he is a big ingredient), but THE PROBLEM with him doesn't look like he can be the solution, either.

Posted by: ThinkingMan | December 9, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is a choker. He lost these 4 straight games in the 07-08 season:

• Eagles (late 4th quarter Campbell fumble to seal the game 33-25),
• Cowboys (Campbell 3rd quarter fumble and 4th quarter INT on potential game winning drive; 28-23 final),
• Bucs (2 INT’s and 1 lost fumble by Campbell, including a backbreaker INT on final drive in last 3 mins (sound familiar?); 19-13 final), and finally
• Bills (Campbell had 1 INT, 1 lost fumble and was sacked for a safety in the endzone; Skins lose 17-16).

Does anyone think we would have made the playoffs that year if Campbell had not been injured the following game against the Bears? Stats don't even begin to tell the story of his deer-in-headlights play in the 4th quarter. I would prefer any starter in the league over Campbell in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. He's not clutch.
Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | December 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

His first full year as a starter? To be expected. He's improved. You'd prefer anyone over him in the 4th? Even cutler and sanchez? Each have thrown multiple 4th q picks to end games this year.

Posted by: AdamCr | December 9, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

ThinkingMan, since that depleted NO secondary ate Tom Brady alive, does that make Campbell better than him? He played well, whoever started. Give the man his due. The guy who blew the saints game has been cut.

Posted by: AdamCr | December 9, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Stats don't even begin to tell the story of his deer-in-headlights play in the 4th quarter. I would prefer any starter in the league over Campbell in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. He's not clutch.
Posted by: Kenbeatrizz

Amen brother. This year: A pick at Dallas, zero first downs at Philly, then a near fatal pick vs. NO. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL.

Posted by: peterandmeredith | December 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

To call Jason Campbell "clutch" will be appropriate only with the word (LOSER) right next to it, what an insult to all the clutch guys that ever played the position of quarterback in the NFL, he is a loser, he may be 7feet tall but how could anyone forget how scared he looked just before kick off on Monday night vs Philly,I dont even want him back as a backup on this team.

Posted by: zimife1999 | December 9, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Dan, for a while there I started getting a little respect for you, but this just lost it. Dude, you even attempting to take issue with something Boz wrote would be criminal if it weren't so hilarious. You're a few leagues below his, and it looks like you'll be staying there for quite a while.

Posted by: RIP-21 | December 9, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of people trying to compare Campbell to Brady or Manning or the like. Apples and oranges. Those QBs have developed with solid O-lines and a solid core of receivers over years, not to mention having additional years of experience. Campbell has had none of that, and yet has climbed to #14 in the NFL in his rating. He's shown steady improvement in each of his four years and will continue next year if given the chance (especially with a solid line, our rising receivers, and no Portis behind him).

Steinberg makes an interesting case, but how about this one instead -- Now that Campbell has attempted 1500 passes, he's listed for his career NFL stats. And with that, his QB rating (82.2) is above ALL but five former Redskins QBs (none of which are Theismann, Rypien, or Williams, by the way). In fact, here in his fourth season, his rating is a full 10 points above Theismann's in his fourth starting season (1981), and look what JT did the following year.

In fact, Campbell's career rating so far is above that of his recent critic, Boomer Esiason (81.1), and is nearly that of his ongoing critic, Sonny Jurgensen (82.6). Eli Manning, who has an additional year of experience, is sitting at 78.0 for his career so far.


It bugs the carp out of me that Dan and his Campbell-Haters can't let Campbell relish that performance on Sunday. Several other players were far more directly responsible for that loss -- Landry (14 pts), Moore (7 pts), Suisham (3 pts), and Sellers/defense (3 pts and the game). Conversely, Campbell was jointly responsible for 21 points.

"Clutch" isn't an issue... it's a factor. Games that Campbell "lost" because of what Steinberg writes could easily be considered lost by whatever points or plays were given up before Campbell had the ball in the fourth quarter. Plus, as some have pointed out on here, clutch QBs (as defined by Steinberg) are few and far between -- there are possibly three or four in the NFL right now, all of whom have more experience than Campbell and are in better team circumstances.

The reality is (a) the Redskins have more important positions to improve next year than QB and (b) Campbell has shown that he's fronted some of the best games against solid opponents the past four weeks.

Posted by: Andrew53 | December 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Additional to my last that got cut off...

Anyone remember that the Redskins averaged 15 points a game the first half of the season? And now in three of the last four games, they've averaged nearly twice that. What, no credit to Campbell?

Despite plenty of adversity, Campbell has climbed to #14 in the NFL in his rating so far this year. He's shown steady improvement in each of his four years and will continue next year if given the chance (especially with a solid line, our rising receiver corp, and no Portis behind him). Mark my words, under those conditions, he will be in the top 10 next year. But instead, there are always the people out there who want instant results and ignore the team-building reality of success. Remember, Doug Williams never had a season rating higher than 76.8 prior to his Super Bowl year, and Mark Rypien's ranged from 78.4 to 88.1 in his three seasons prior to his Super Bowl year. Both and Theismann were given the chance to improve, did, and ultimately led the team all the way. Campbell can do the same.

Posted by: Andrew53 | December 9, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Dan, Please don't ever bring Vince Young into this conversation ever again. The guy was considered the worst QB next to Jamarcus Russell less than 2 months ago. Now he has one great comeback win and he's one of the top QBs. Please. Check Campbell's stats. Probably way better than Young has ever had. Oh and I hope Campbell takes off when he lands at another team and beats these skins into submission because every person who thinks that he's the problem clearly doesn't understand the whole problem.

Posted by: blanknerc | December 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Andrew53, thank you. It's refreshing to hear a sane opinion, and one that's well informed. I only wish you had Steinberg's job.

Posted by: RIP-21 | December 9, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I so wanted Jason to be good, he's not a closer...if your team needs to march down the field and score...he's not the man!

Brunell did it twice with just about the same amount of time...he's put up some great stats except win loss.

Can you place all the losses on his shoulders...maybe, when there's time left and you have the ball...who you gonna give it to?

Not Jason...he's lost too many for us!

Posted by: getagrip5 | December 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

From the day Jason was signed, a huge group of Washington fans awarded him the "QB of the Future" award! That was before he ever played a game!! But after he did, they began their long list of excuses for his mediocre performance. First, he was a rookie - OK, I'll buy that one; next, he was under too many systems, somehow comparing his brain to that of a tree stump - haven't you heard? -- many QB's move around and are working in just as many systems (AND catching on to them); next, he doesn't get enough protection (have you noticed how often Ben Roethlisberger is running for his life, but still performing?); then, it's the defense, or the coaching, or the owners....anything but Jason Campbell. One former cornerback from the Patriots said on TV, "Campbell is a second-string quarterback at best." He was absolutely right. Brad Johnson was far more productive, got the team into the playoffs and then was run out of town on a rail. Why then do so many of us jump to Campbell's defense when the 'Skins have had terrible records with him at the helm?

Posted by: jaksprat1 | December 9, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

If you make major changes, like a new QB and/or a new head coach, that almost guarantees you at least one more miserable, frustrating year, if not several more. The only way most fans could accept that, I believe, is if Snyder finally relents and hires a top GM, and then butts out of football operations entirely while the new GM implements his plan. Good luck with that.

I haven't been a big JC fan for a lot of the same reasons mentioned earlier, but unless I'm hallucinating I think the guy's getting better. He's finally getting some timing down with his receivers and the routes they run. With a half decent o-line, the (hopefully) continued improvement of the young receivers, and some CONTINUITY IN THE OFFENSIVE SYSTEM, this guy might turn out to be a pretty decent quarterback. I think the fire-in-the-belly leadership could come in time too, but not if you keep changing things all the time.

Posted by: clfrdj | December 9, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, one more comment....for those of you who want to look at stats, how many passes has Campbell completed that are for more than 10 yards? I'm not talking about a five yard pass that the receiver RUNS for twenty, I'm talking about the big..down the field pass that runs up the score and wins games. Jason's biggest achievement is in getting the Redskins into the red zone by using short passes, but then we nearly always have to settle for a field-goal. Those little passes will run up his stats, but they don't win games.

Posted by: jaksprat1 | December 9, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

This whole article is a perfect example of the quarterback getting too much of the credit and too much of the blame. Jason may not be the greatest quarterback in the league, but he is not this teams big issue. They have a patchwork offensive line, a starting tailback that can't stay healthy anymore, recievers that don't seem to be able to get open often enough, and defensive backs that don't play with discipline. Not to mention play calling that at times has looked like someone learned offense by playing video games.
Drafting a rookie QB now will not fix this team. It will just make matters worse probably for the next 2 or 3 years. And even then, if these other things aren't fixed, it won't get better. My vote is keep Jason, trade Vinnie for offensive linemen, a young star running back (Mark Ingram), or a DB that will do what he's told to do.

Posted by: etschrum | December 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

jim mcmahon was a bonafide FRAUD a back stabbing punk(when he was on the eagles)weak armed no mobility loser that played with a great defense,great running back and good o-line, mcmahon could NOT take a hit either much of his career was spent on IR. I would take campbell over mcmahon any time. campbell may walk any way from the treatment of sirRATO and snyder those 2 indefatigable football genuises. zorn should be stripped from all PLAY CALLING INCLUDING THE RED ZONE,he is the moron that play's safe football not going for the win let sherm lewis call all the plays and allow campbell to audible any where on the field. lewis should be the next head coach when zorn is fired I hope.

Posted by: wathu19 | December 9, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The last thing the team needs is more change. What I have seen the last four weeks from Campbell is encouraging. Is he Peyton, no, but he is playing about the same as Cutler. How many boy wonder QBs have been mediocre or worse in the NFL?

So you have to think maybe play calling is part of it. Also the receivers are finally starting to perform. I say wait one more year, leave things as they are, add some top o-linemen, young running back and either keep Sherm Lewis or get an offensive coordinator that knows this offensive and see what happens.

These players are playing hard for Zorn. To me that means something. I don't think they have been out of any games. Especially if the offense starts to produce.

This team needs stability and wholesale changes would just mean starting over.

Yes the defense not holding a lead at the end is an issue. Are they wearing down at the end? There are a number of games that might have been different at the end if the defense were as stingy at the end as in the rest of the game.

Missing three kicks in the last few games would mean they would be 5-7.

Campbell did not fumble the ball or give up two long TDs and he did not get stripped of a ball that was run in for a TD.

Posted by: chtraywick | December 9, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Campbell is a great guy. I'd love to see him succeed. But, the fact is, he's a bad QB. He is in the bottom 1/3 of QBs in the league:

Top 1/3:
Manning, P
Manning, E

Middle 1/3:

Bottom 1/3:

It' no surprise, teams with a QB in the bottom 1/3 are already out of the playoffs.

I still think we should draft some linemen the next few years and then get a young QB once the line if fixed... no sense drafting a QB now and giving him the Patrick Ramsey treatment.

Posted by: jgarrisn | December 9, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Dan's analysis would be helpful if there were a baseline to compare with. My guess is that in potential game-winning drives (i.e., clutch situations), ALL quarterbacks experience an elevated number of sacks, interceptions, and fumbles. By their very nature, "clutch" situations are high-risk and high-reward. I think pulling out statistics from Campbell's "clutch" performances and talking about them on their own w/out comparison to other quarterbacks leaves a lot missing from the analysis.

Also, clutch-play is one component of a quarterback's game. Granted, it can be a big component, such as it was for Joe Montana, or not, as in the case of Mary Rypien, not exactly known for his clutch play but marvelous at executing throughout the game -- when it counts. Of course, everyone wants their quarterback to excel in clutch situations, but more important is a solid performance before the game's final two minutes -- which Campbell excelled in against the NFL's best pass defense.

Posted by: berkeleyhoya | December 9, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

You are just know figuring this out?
How much does the Post pay you?
Jason is also a "Coach Killer"

Posted by: rjclay | December 9, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

jgarrisn, I agree with you we should invest in oline before qb, but what in the world are you basing that list on??

Sanchez? Young? Henne? Just wow.

Fortunately for those of us who haven't quit on Jason, guys like Warner were once firmly in the bottom of those sorts of lists and are now considered the toast of the league.

Posted by: AdamCr | December 9, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

no, he's not clutch, but, i'm campaigning to re-build this team the right way.

campbell should stay, since he has shown his (relative) durability and proficiency as an average to above-average QB in the league. we need to focus our draft on linemen!!

having a veteran qb enables us to be as successful as possible during the transition so we get to a point where inserting a rookie qb is not going to destroy his career...

Posted by: bacaje | December 9, 2009 2:15 PM

yes, FINALLY some sense - the problem with the Redskins ARE THE PROBLEMS you know, those pesky annoying little things like GM & Owner etc - BUT if we just focus on players (for now) kicking out Campbell and drafting ANOTHER unproven rookie QB isn't the answer either. What about those other annoying factors the AGEING and injury prone D-LINE (Daniels Griffin Wynn Fletcher mid 30's+ etc) and that pesky O-LINE problem that NEVER gets addressed - The Redskins need LINEMEN - and lots of them too and we might just also need a Running Back and a case can still be made for a No1 Receiver too (Thomas has had only 1 good game)

So what do the Redskins do - logic would suggest that Campbell will continue to improve especially as his playbook familiarity continues and a much needed upgrade of his supporting cast (Oline RB WR is built thru drafting)

Remember THEY (fans) hated Bradshaw and Plunkett also (but what do we know, really) - both had at least 4 bad years before superbowl glory.

But both QB's had a ton of talent around them also - AND THAT IS MY POINT !!!!

The truth is that the Redskins actually have OTHER much more important needs than QB - RIGHT NOW - don't waste our picks on rookie QB's - BUILD THE DAMN TEAM FIRST and if Campbell still sucks - get a QB then, when the pieces are in place so that the NEW ROOKIE has the best chance to succeed - not just to get on the same dysfunctional merry-go-round AGAIN

Otherwise - it's groundhog day all over again

Posted by: tele1 | December 9, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

RIP-21 -- You're welcome, and thanks for the acknowledgment. I've been on the Campbell bandwagon for some time, trying to shoot down some of the emotion around canning Campbell.

Speaking of which -- JGARRISN -- did you just make up that list from your imagination? Campbell is not in the bottom 1/3 in just about any stat, except sacks. And you've somehow got him well below Cutler and Sanchez (not to mention Eli Manning)... what are you smoking? His current QB rating has him at #14 out of 33, slightly above average. What is your crazy list based on? Plus, read what I wrote in my posts above for more perspective.

Lastly, go to
and you'll see under "Advanced Passing" that Campbell (a) has significantly improved each year and (b) is this year sitting slightly above the average mark of 100. Mark Sanchez, by comparison, is below 100 across the board.

Posted by: Andrew53 | December 9, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

JC sucks. Even in his best game as a pro he managed to screw it up when the team needed him to play his best. Whatever it takes to bring your team back in close games JC doesn't have. The team is 3-9, he has had one good game in which they lost. If this were his first year as a Redskin, I could see bringing him back , but we know that's not the case. I, for one , am sick and tired of the Jason Campbell experiment.

Posted by: theBozyn1 | December 9, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Good bye...JC

Posted by: LongTimeSkinsFan | December 9, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I was so excited when the Redskins drafted J. Campbell. Unfortunately, he has not delivered during clutch situations. I fail to believe that he would start with any other organization... Maybe a decent backup at best. He appears to be a great guy, but, it's not enough... Not for the burgundy and gold. To sum it up, he's not clutch.

Posted by: mbriscoe4 | December 9, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

WOW!! So, let me get this straight. If you were to replace Campbell with one of the great QBs in the league, with everything else being exactly the same, the Skins would be a Super Bowl contender? GET REAL!! How many QBs that are drafted highly turn out to be long standing Pro Bowl caliber signal callers? I have news for all you Campbell haters. Strictly going by the stats on 1st round QBs--it is highly unlikely that we will get one out of the upcoming draft class. If you take a look at Campbells college career, we've probably gotten out of him what should have been expected. He had one good season, where he was supplemented with a good running game--sound familiar? He didn't have the long continually improving college careers that a McCoy, Bradford, Locker, or Clausen did, yet we have the same level of expectations for him since he was a 1st round pick. Yes, one of those will likely be drafted by the Skins in the next draft, and likely will fall short of first round expectations using history as a guide. How is Jay Cutler working out behind a suspect line, and with limited receiving options in Chicago? How has Mark Sanchez progressed in his rookie season? Both were sought after in the off season, both have fallen from grace. Oh, and Kyle Orton? The throw in of the Cutler trade, is having a career year in Denver, where, you guessed it, he has a great line, a nice running game, and some targets to throw to. Who'd of thunk it? Where we did miss the boat on Campbell is in the class and grit departments. He has shown far more of those traits than we could have reasonably expected, something some of his teammates should take notice of!!!

Posted by: jwat2410 | December 9, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Tish tosh...the Bucks had a quarterback that was fairly miserble, he hung around the league, went to Baltimore and they won a Super Bowl with him. He is Drent Dilfer now somekind of football analyst on ESPN. Thinks he is a big shot too. As I recall Baltimore didn't score an OFFENSIVE touchdown for SEVEN games in a row with Dumpster at the helm. Their defense was so good ( as is the Redskins if you think about it ) they didn't need him to do anything but hand the ball off. But you at LEAST need an offensive line to do that. Come to think of it, our offensive line is OFFENSIVE though isn't it? In a year like this, there is so much blame to go around...really. But Jason Campbell? He may not be the greater problem anymore. I would try to resign him, draft who you want and let the best arm win.

Posted by: Blueslegend | December 9, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

There are very few 'great' QBs in the NFL at any time. Campbell is good, not great. He can start but is not likely to deliver a championship to a team, he's just not that kind of QB. With the right team and the right protection, he will do very well over his career, but doesn't seem like he can win it all. He's also not a young QB anymore, he's been in the NFL for quite a while now - long enough to have made a signature drive somewhere along the way. The problem is no one knows who the next Mark Warner or Philip Rivers will be. I am sure the Redskins 'brain trust' will take a QB in the first round - maybe McCoy if he's around, or Clausen, but not Tebow. It's not what they can afford with their long list of needs, but they'll do it. I suggest trading down or whatever it takes to build the O and D lines, and stay with Jason, and give Colt a chance, or bring Chase Daniel back. As Ken Beatrice ("You're Next!") used to say - 'he's just good enough to lose.' That's my take on Jason. I am sure he is the finest of young men, but that doesn't make you a great QB.

Posted by: bfjam | December 9, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

the redskins play better as a team w/out portis. i wonder if they could get any thing for him. jim fenton

Posted by: freebutch1embarqmailcom | December 9, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

As much as I like Campbell you can't avoid the fact that he has come up small at the end of games. He has enough experience and unlike Jason Reid and others you can't keep laying all the blame on the Offensive Line, Clinton Portis, the young receivers, and the Front Office.

Posted by: moseley_brian | December 9, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

winners win.
losers lose.

winners score TDs in late game-winning drives.
losers throw the INT.

JC is a loser.

no QB is not the only problem on this trainwreck of a team but it's certainly one of the many big problems.

Posted by: greatteamdan | December 9, 2009 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Do people know that yahoo keeps splits for game conditions?
Jason here:
Vince Young here:

Jason ain't great late and close, but he's the same as Mr. Cluch McCutcherson.

Jason has only 7 overtime attempts. A sample size of nothing. In the 4th quarter he's a 60% passer with 15 TDs 11 ints. In the two minute drill he's 55% with 8 TDs and 9 ints.

In close games he's 61% passer, with 35 TDs and 23 ints. Late & close he's 56% 5 tds 8 ints.

The problem is sample size: In 33 close games he has 1000+ atts. In the 36 late and close he has 198 atts. Bummer he didn't do great but 198 attempts aint that many.

In close games Vince Young has 12 TDs & 16 ints, late and close he has 4 TDs and 4 ints. MR CLUTCH!!!

Posted by: OrganicWater | December 9, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of clutch, Suisham has a better career 4th quarter % than 1st.

On all downs not the 4th, which would seem to mean a last minute kick he is career 7-10.

Posted by: OrganicWater | December 9, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

No O line excuses here for Mr Checkdown or Mr DEADzone.....he!!...i just watched the Green Bay QB run for his life on Monday night and he's been sacked more than "3 and Out" this season.....How did that game end? I will be orgasmic when the deluded DEADskin fan excuse machine stops forever for this loser....

Posted by: FletcherChristian1

fletcherchristian1, even aaron rogers can somewhat depend on a a run game to take pressure off his shoulders. you really don't know anything about football because you talk the same bullshyt when you post and it all amounts to nothing. there are so many aspects of football on offense that can make or break a qb and you fail to realize that. i guess when you got shyt for brains, deep thinking isn't a strong suit. clutch qb's have a dependable o line so you can't say aaron rogers is clutch simply because you watched him "run for his life on monday night football". clutch qb's have a solid system with which to work under which is why brady, p manning, mcnabb, rivers and even romo tend to play well. clutch qb's have a running back that can carry the rock and draw that extra defender up near the line. clutch qb's have a playcaller actually going for the td on 1st down at the 1 yd line instead of calling for a fuqqin sweep or consecutive failed run plays. campbell may not be clutch but if you don't account for all the other factors that winning teams have, you don't know shyt. and as far as you being "orgasmic" the fact that you can manage to post a comment without constantly jacking yourself.

Posted by: charronegro1971 | December 10, 2009 3:52 AM | Report abuse

JC 's a great guy but not clutch at all. He cannot get it done. If the skins re-sign him they should let him compete for the job. In the 5 years he's been here he's had the position given to him on a platter but has not stepped up

Posted by: pathmo | December 10, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Relying on Adam Schefter to make your point? The guy looks the redskins for five minutes each week and draws a conclusion.

Using him to bolster your argument does nothing more than undermind your point. Your point is: you don't think JC is good enough. OK, smart guy, then what is the alternative? 10 more years of looking for a QB. Nice alternative there. (Did you SEE Colt McCoy last Saturday? AWFUL).

Posted by: whughes1 | December 10, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Everyone wants Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but guess what they already somewhere else. Redskin fans live in fantasy land and blame everything on the QB. Joe Theisman, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien will never be in the Hall of Fame but they won Super Bowls. They had great TEAMS around them. I hope JC leaves and goes to a TEAM with at least a good O-line and consistently good RBs and an organization that actually understands the neccessity for a good O-line and D-line. I am a Redskins fan but I am disgusted by the criticism of JC. I hope he leaves and we draft Colt McCoy or Jimmy Clausen. Who will you blame then when we lose? Snyder and Cerrato will sell more jerseys to Redskin fans who have no clue what it takes to build a team. Have any of you actually watched either of these QB's in college? They are not NFL caliber. Will you give them the time to develop in the SAME system over three or four years? How are Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco doing this year without the rest of their team playing at a high level?

Posted by: aaka94 | December 10, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

If Romo is so clutch, why hasn't he won a playoff game? He's been in more than a couple. I guess he is a loser.

And on the Campbell talk. I guess he should have thrown his 4th TD of the game to win it. 3 some how wasn't enough to win the game. It wasn't like he was the only source of Redskin's touchdowns Sunday... WAIT HE WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF REDSKINS TOUCHDOWNS!!!!!

Landry doesn't bite on one of the two double moves he was burned on or that other defensive back lays down at near the end of the half after the interception, no need for Suisam or begging Campbell to throw his 4th TD of the day.

Posted by: GC4Life | December 10, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Okay, let's put some perspective on this. Campbell is in just his third full season as a starter. (He only started in 7 games in 2006). So, I pulled the ratings for a bunch of "great" current and former QBs, as well as Jay Cutler since he was almost in Campbell's shoes. Below are their ratings in their third full seasons (meaning having started in at least 10 games those seasons).

You'll notice that there are FAR MORE quarterbacks below Campbell in this regard. The four above Campbell are phenomenal (well, maybe not Hasselbeck). Of course, I'm NOT saying Campbell is as good as those on this list -- too early to tell -- but what I am saying is Campbell IS developing and is NO slower developing than the vast majority of other successful QBs in history. As I wrote before, Theismann was in his fifth full year (1982) as starting QB before he broke out and took them to the playoffs.

People who think "Project Campbell" has taken too long are just impatient and ignoring how much time it typically takes for a QB to truly deliver. History is the best predictor of the future, and Campbell has gone up a few rating points each year. His trajectory shows that he'll be in the 90s next year if the Redskins have the sense to keep him here (and give him a solid line).

That would put him on track with the majority of successful QBs, who hit their stride in their fourth to sixth years with ratings from the 90s to 100s.

Kurt Warner 101.4 (2001)

Peyton Manning 94.7 (2000)

Brett Favre 90.7 (1994)

Matt Hasselbeck 88.8 (2003)

Jason Campbell 87.7 (2009)

Boomer Esiason 87.7 (1986)

Troy Aikman 86.7 (1991)

Tom Brady 85.9 (2003)

Sonny Jurgensen 85.4 (1964)

Donovan McNabb 84.3 (2001)

Mark Rypien 78.4 (1990)

Doug Williams 76.8 (1981)

Joe Theismann 75.2 (1980)

Eli Manning 73.9 (2007)

Ben Roethlisberger 75.4 (2006)

Jay Cutler 75.3 (2009)

Terry Bradshaw 64.1 (1972)

Posted by: Andrew53 | December 10, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

All stats aside, NOT clutch. That horrible INT against the Saints overrules his entire game's successes. And it's just the latest example of his failure to deliver when it really counts.

NOT clutch.

Posted by: SkinsfaninNebraska | December 10, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who follows the Redskinz knows that Campbell isn't clutch...but the TRUE factor is....

Who will we replace him with?

Repair the front line and let Campbell have another year at the least.

Posted by: thedynamichooper | December 11, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Listen people, football is an ultimate team game. You can't blame JC for games (that we ultimately lost)in which he drove us down the field for a chance at a 2 score lead and either the: 1) Playcalling is too conservative, 2) missed FG, 3) defense blows lead. Of the games we lost and had a final drive with a chance to win the game, we have had 2 losses (his 1st yr starting) to teams, teams that had good/great Ds- TB and Dall. We all know anout the Phila and Saints and Dall game this yr- those losses should not be attributed to JCs lack of "clutch-ness." Case in point, Brady's SB rings- he put his team in position to win with FG kicks- and the kicker made the kicks. Who exactly was the clutch performer in those games? NFL= the ULTIMATE TEAM SPORT!

Posted by: HogheadGs | December 15, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company