Jason Campbell traded to Oakland

by **Countertrey** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:11 am

I believe that he can beat out what's in LA and do well.

Shouldn't be too hard... I mean... how much NFL talent is there in LA? :wink:

by **Deadskins** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:09 am

Countertrey wrote:
I believe that he can beat out what's in LA and do well.
Shouldn't be too hard... I mean... how much NFL talent is there in LA?

Last year's Super Bowl winners play in Louisianna.

by **Countertrey** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
I believe that he can beat out what's in LA and do well.
Shouldn't be too hard... I mean... how much NFL talent is there in LA?

Last year's Super Bowl winners play in Louisianna.

by the numbers...
1. The thread is about Campbell and his new team... Oakland...
2. The Raiders USED to play in LA as in the abbreviation for Los Angeles... not the abbreviation for Louisiana.
3. I'm pretty sure Vet was referring to the team that Campbell is now assigned to...

Hence, "how much NFL talent is there in LA?" (that answer would be NONE, btw)

Hard crowd... :roll:

by **Deadskins** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:10 pm

Countertrey wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
I believe that he can beat out what's in LA and do well.
Shouldn't be too hard... I mean... how much NFL talent is there in LA?

Last year's Super Bowl winners play in Louisianna.

by the numbers...
1. The thread is about Campbell and his new team... Oakland...
2. The Raiders USED to play in LA as in the abbreviation for Los Angeles... not the abbreviation for Louisiana.
3. I'm pretty sure Vet was referring to the team that Campbell is now assigned to...

Hence, "how much NFL talent is there in LA?" (that answer would be NONE, btw)

Hard crowd...

Just bustin' your chops, CT; didn't really need the explanation. But...

Could also have been Lower Alabama. He did play at Auburn, after all.

by **VetSkinsFan** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:16 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
I believe that he can beat out what's in LA and do well.
Shouldn't be too hard... I mean... how much NFL talent is there in LA?

Last year's Super Bowl winners play in Louisianna.

by the numbers...
1. The thread is about Campbell and his new team... Oakland...
2. The Raiders USED to play in LA as in the abbreviation for Los Angeles... not the abbreviation for Louisiana.
3. I'm pretty sure Vet was referring to the team that Campbell is now assigned to...

Hence, "how much NFL talent is there in LA?" (that answer would be NONE, btw)

Hard crowd...

Just bustin' your chops, CT; didn't really need the explanation. But...

Could also have been Lower Alabama. He did play at Auburn, after all.

Oh wow, my bad I didn't even catch the joke. or my mistake. I'm so busy ignoring these kinds of jokes with my kids, I guess it translated over here. I'll work harder in the future :roll:

by **Countertrey** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:30 pm

Vet! I knew exactly what you did... it was 5 years before I stopped calling the Raiders "LA" after they moved back to Oakland!

And, yes, DS... there are reports that he played at Auburn! :wink:

by **VetSkinsFan** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:22 am

Countertrey wrote:Vet! I knew exactly what you did... it was 5 years before I stopped calling the Raiders "LA" after they moved back to Oakland!

And, yes, DS... there are reports that he played at Auburn!

They're like ping pong balls...

by **skinsfan#33** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:36 am

cleg wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
cleg wrote:I think the Raiders will be much better than people think and Jason is going to be a big part of that. It would not surprise me at all if they make the playoffs next season. So Jason haters might have to see him in the playoffs while we sit home (mainly because of our division and schedule). I hope he does well and that people on this board debate for years that we should have kept him.

Sure cleg, if we think he's not a good quarterback that means we "hate" him.

You are deluded if you think 90% of what is represented on this board is just people expressing thier opinions that he is not a good QB.

Welcome to Fantasy Island!

I agree with Kazoo. Most people had a problem with JC's play and not JC. I have always been amazed by the insane amount of support from apologist that he got.

by **brad7686** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:41 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:
cleg wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
cleg wrote:I think the Raiders will be much better than people think and Jason is going to be a big part of that. It would not surprise me at all if they make the playoffs next season. So Jason haters might have to see him in the playoffs while we sit home (mainly because of our division and schedule). I hope he does well and that people on this board debate for years that we should have kept him.

Sure cleg, if we think he's not a good quarterback that means we "hate" him.

You are deluded if you think 90% of what is represented on this board is just people expressing thier opinions that he is not a good QB.

Welcome to Fantasy Island!

I agree with Kazoo. Most people had a problem with JC's play and not JC. I have always been amazed by the insane amount of support from apologist that he got.

I don't think people hated JC, a lot of people just have unrealistic views of how bad he is, which is where "apologists" (none of which said he was great) come in and try to reason with people that think he is the worst qb of all time.

by **skinsfan#33** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:38 am

brad7686 wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
cleg wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
cleg wrote:I think the Raiders will be much better than people think and Jason is going to be a big part of that. It would not surprise me at all if they make the playoffs next season. So Jason haters might have to see him in the playoffs while we sit home (mainly because of our division and schedule). I hope he does well and that people on this board debate for years that we should have kept him.

Sure cleg, if we think he's not a good quarterback that means we "hate" him.

You are deluded if you think 90% of what is represented on this board is just people expressing thier opinions that he is not a good QB.

Welcome to Fantasy Island!

I agree with Kazoo. Most people had a problem with JC's play and not JC. I have always been amazed by the insane amount of support from apologist that he got.

I don't think people hated JC, a lot of people just have unrealistic views of how bad he is, which is where "apologists" (none of which said he was great) come in and try to reason with people that think he is the worst qb of all time.

I don't think anyone here ever posted or thinks that JC was the worst QB ever. What I think a lot of people thought was that JC has certain flaws that will never go away no matter how good a team is around him. He could be a guy that won't screw up a good team and he definitely should improve the Raiders.

You can see he may not have reached his ceiling yet, but he sure isn't going to get much better. My personal opinion is if he was at the helm of the 91 Skins, there would only be two trophies in Ashburn. So much of that team’s success was built on hitting Monk, Clark or Sanders deep when the defense cheated up to stop Byner or blitzed. JC is an inept downfield passer and that offense would have strugled with him at QB.

I am done with a QB that can’t be a difference maker. If he can’t be clutch some times, I don’t want him and JC was “Captain Un-Clutch!”

Just slightly better QB play would have won us six more games last year. I have heard people say that Peyton, Brady or Breese wouldn’t have done better than JC on this team, well if that isn’t the dumbest thing I have ever heard I don’t know what is.

by **KazooSkinsFan** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:52 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:I don't think anyone here ever posted or thinks that JC was the worst QB ever

Agreed. You would wonder also if people are confident in their views why they would need to ridiculously exaggerate their opponent's. The need to do that in debate is a sign of weakness of one's position, not strength.

by **brad7686** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:36 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:Just slightly better QB play would have won us six more games last year.

Yea because our line was so great, our running game was so amazing, and our receivers had such great hands, and our d caused so many turnovers, and our kicker made so many field goals.

If only we had a better qb... 10-6! Playoffs baby!

-drinking

by **langleyparkjoe** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:53 am

My view of JC is simple... He needs a sliding coach but he's one heck of a great guy.. :lol:

by **skinsfan#33** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:49 am

brad7686 wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Just slightly better QB play would have won us six more games last year.

Yea because our line was so great, our running game was so amazing, and our receivers had such great hands, and our d caused so many turnovers, and our kicker made so many field goals.

If only we had a better qb... 10-6! Playoffs baby!

We lost more than 6 games by a TD or less. And yes a better QB play could have resulted in a win! If you don't believe what a QB can do for a team, just ask Minny, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, or Dallas. Or wait until the Cardinals fail to win 6 games this year. Or see how many more games the Raiders win with slightly better QB play.

If Peyton Manning ever misses most of a season the Colts will be lucky to have a winning record.

QB play is that important and good QB play covers up for a lot of team weaknesses.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think a good QB wouldn't have won us atleast half of those 6 games, if not all of them.

by **brad7686** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:22 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
brad7686 wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Just slightly better QB play would have won us six more games last year.

Yea because our line was so great, our running game was so amazing, and our receivers had such great hands, and our d caused so many turnovers, and our kicker made so many field goals.

If only we had a better qb... 10-6! Playoffs baby!

We lost more than 6 games by a TD or less. And yes a better QB play could have resulted in a win! If you don't believe what a QB can do for a team, just ask Minny, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, or Dallas. Or wait until the Cardinals fail to win 6 games this year. Or see how many more games the Raiders win with slightly better QB play.

If Peyton Manning ever misses most of a season the Colts will be lucky to have a winning record.

QB play is that important and good QB play covers up for a lot of team weaknesses.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think a good QB wouldn't have won us atleast half of those 6 games, if not all of them.

I've seen McNabb, who most would agree plays slightly better than JC, if not much better, go 8-8 with Philly in situations where they had more talent than we had last year. If you want to make the argument that better qb play, an actual kicker, and a more organized punt return would have caused us to go 10-6, I'd be a little more willing to go along with that. The QB isn't the only position on the field. If it was, The Dolphins would have won a lot of Super Bowls in the 80's.