Thread: The Jason Campbell Quandry.............

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

You're right, no superbowl contending team would ever enter a season without a vet backup qb.... Well, other than pretty much every damn superbowl playing team in recent history

I'd give you stats, but we all know how you handle that.

It's a damn good thing that Baltimore had the veteran Tyrod Taylor backing upflacco. buacco.nd San Fran really fucked up by having a developing qb backing up alex smith.

GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE. I back what I say up with facts whenever I can and you can look at my response to MPs contentions about GBs's so called inexperienced UDFA for some facts or stats if you care to fucknuts. Here's a few more for you.

Kaepernick was in his 2nd year on the active roster so he wasn't just the developmental QB you contend he was or that some say we should just draft in April and make due with. He was also a top college QB and the 36th player taken in the 2011 draft so damn near a 1st round pick. That's damn sight better qualifications than Matt Blanchard has right now. Or if you can show me how we an afford to burn a late first or high second on a QB this year you may get my attention but with a 5th or 6th round pick not a chance.

SF also had Alex Smith who was a top five pick and in his 8th year in the NFL with over 75 starts so no matter who started there was at least some reasonable amount of experience behind the starter.

Taylor was also in his second year with the team so not totally inexperienced with their offense either but I'll give it to you on his 6th round draft status. That still trumps Matt Blanchard at this point in time and it will still trump any 6th round 2013 draft pick as well as far as experience goes.

So the two teams that made it to the 2013 Super Bowl had second year QBs as there #2 what about those other playoff teams? You want to present me with those guys as well? Hell let's just look at all 32 of them why don't we. MOST teams employ a backup with some degree of NFL experience. If you want to do a full statistical analysis of the average experience level of NFL backup QBs and post it the go ahead and prove me wrong and I'll be happy to admit it but so far this proves jack shit. Maybe we just disagree on what constitutes a developmental QB. To me that's a PS guy not a guy whose been on your active roster for a year or more and gone through a full training camp or two learning the offense. Matt Blanchard isn't even at that level yet.

Look I really don't give rats ass whether Emery re-signs Campbell or someone else but if one of the first things he did when he took over was to go out and sign a vet backup so there'd be no more Caleb Hanie's at #2 and if he hasn't released the guy I'd say there's a 50/50 chance he'll bring him back if he can. I'm not running the team and you're not running the team so in a lot of cases I'm simply looking at what I believe Emery will do. Whether I believe that's the best thing to do or not doesn't matter. I don't get a vote and neither do you so stop being such an asshole. I'm not expressing an opinion on what I'd do I'm giving my opinion on what I believe Emery will do.

The only stats that matter are the ones Phil Emery is gonna look at in arriving at a decision and that's it. What you believe or I believe or every other poster on this board believes isn't gonna change what he believes and most of the time I'm simply following his patterns. If Emery and Trestman want Campbell as their #2 QB then you all can bitch as much as you want but that's what will happen. Maybe I should just say when a team that Phil Emery is running is in contention for a SB THAT team will not have a totally inexperienced UDFA PS guy or lower round rookie draftee as his #2 QB. Would that make you any happier?

I deal with statistical analysis every day of my life and I'd think that you do to but maybe not. Maybe you prefer dart boards and popping balloons. I wade through tons of it to find what's useful and what's not so you can give me all the stats you want brother. We both know how they can be misleading, misapplied and misinterpreted. So whatever ones you think are valid and apply to the backup QBs of the NFL well just truck 'em right on out so I can look 'em over. Then we'll see how valid they are. But until then like I said to begin with GO FUCK YOURSELF with your insults.

Haha, that was awesome.

Originally Posted by soulman

Well one way or another we're gonna need another QB and I think with the other needs we have drafting one is only likely if there's a guy there who represents one hell of a good deal around the 5th or 6th round.

And even if we do draft a QB it's Blanchard he'd be competing with for a #3 spot as the developmental guy. We won't go into the season with a backup whose never played a single down of regular season NFL football. Not for a team with SB aspirations.

I don't see the need or reason to think this. There will be plenty backup QBs available before Camp starts and they will be cheap.

Reality says that we will not win the SB with a backup QB unless we manage to get Rodgers or Brady. We are screwed if Cutler can't play one way or another.


Skins made the POs with 2 rookie QBs playing

Soul, how many of those guys were "experienced vet backups?" How many of those guys were getting multi million deals and not brought in via the draft? How many were not starting on that team prior to being replaced by a better younger player drafted by the team?

Pitt is the only team in recent history to win a SB w/vet backups(Leftwhich/Batch) and NY Giants(Carr also not making anywhere near 4 mil) and I doubt they are making 4mil combined. GB nope, Indy nope, NE nope, NO nope. So the only 2 that did have vet backups, had washed up no bodies not hurting the cap(both under 1 mil contracts). Why? b/c the vet backup winning games for you is a F'n lie.They aren't carrying you to a SB, they aren't going to win games for you. It doesn't happen, it's a myth. It's the worst f'n thing you can spend actual cap money on.

And wanna know why that is fact and indisputable? B/c if they were any good, if they were capable of winning games and making playoff runs they wouldn't have EVER hit FA. They would have been traded(see Alex Smith). Are there excpetions to the rules? Sure; but it's rare(Brees was being replaced b/c he had lived up to the expectations regardless of how good he played that year b/c they had just drafted Rivers), Steve Young/Farve were not Steve Young/Farve when they were released...and btw they hadn't played a ton of games to earn the "vet backup title". It's not the norm...and far more often your "vet qb's" are washed out hasbeens/never were's like Tavaris Jackson, or David Carr or Leftwhich. They are there to sit there and make people feel good about the backup qb...they are not there to win games, b/c they cannot win games b/c if they could win games they'd be starting for a team b/c there are about 20 teams that NEED qb's that CAN win games.


How is Harrell proving your point? He's got 2 NFL career starts, he's not experienced. He's t he equivelent of Haine when he was the backup. Ya he spent a year in the CFL, but it doens't look like he played, he doesn't fit the bill of "vet backup" let alone a high priced one like Campbell is.

Flynn also is not a "vet backup" in the classical term, he didnt have a ton of starts w/a prior team, again he's more of a Haine developmental qb then a Campbell.

How are either Harrell or Flynn not more equivelent to Blanchard(entering his 2nd year w/the Bears any different then these guys in regards to his NFL experience), hell he's exactly like Flynn. Emery might well sign a vet backup(will be a big mistake) but Harrell/Flynn have no basis for argument as to why he will.