Jason Campbell vs. Kyle Orton (1 Viewer)

[dgreen]

It seems to me the popular opinion of Jason Campbell ranges from "He sucks" to "He's average". And, the popular opinion of Kyle Orton seems to range from "He's average" to "He's good". If this assumption is right, please explain it to me.

I've seen every game of Jason Campbell's career and I'm in the "He's average" camp. Obviously I'm biased, though.

I've only seen a handful of Kyle Orton games and I'm in the "He's average" camp.

If my assumption is wrong and they aren't viewed differently by most people (I guess we'll see from the poll results), then, well, um, talk amongst yourselves about who is better...or just let this thread fade away until the next pruning season.

 

[Phlash]

I think Jason Campbell is vastly underrated. He has a terrible O-line, his running game is bad, he has had bad playcalling, and he still produces good numbers. Not great or excellent, but good. If he had a halfway decent O-line and good coaches he would be a top 10 QB easily.

 

[thevidon]

I think Jason Campbell is vastly underrated. He has a terrible O-line, his running game is bad, he has had bad playcalling, and he still produces good numbers. Not great or excellent, but good. If he had a halfway decent O-line and good coaches he would be a top 10 QB easily.

He speaks the truth. Don't forget about the 18.75 different systems hes had to learn since he came in.

 

[hostile]

I think Jason Campbell is vastly underrated. He has a terrible O-line, his running game is bad, he has had bad playcalling, and he still produces good numbers. Not great or excellent, but good. If he had a halfway decent O-line and good coaches he would be a top 10 QB easily.

That's my take on Campbell too, whereas Neckbeard is a game manager with a some upside. With the above faults mentioned about Campbell, I'd also like to add he's had inconsistency in coaching which I believe has hindered his development.Campbell is on my "players to acquire" list in dynasty, as I think he's a solid "buy low" guy right now.

 

[switz]

I think Jason Campbell is vastly underrated. He has a terrible O-line, his running game is bad, he has had bad playcalling, and he still produces good numbers. Not great or excellent, but good. If he had a halfway decent O-line and good coaches he would be a top 10 QB easily.

The board hate for Orton is infamous, so I have no doubt Campbell will run away with this poll.Campbell is a horrible decision maker, and he holds on to the ball too long. Like Orton, his long ball is lacking accuracy. He is very tough, and I feel for him being on the Skins. I expect he'll improve if given the opportunity with Shanny, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they dump him for a better QB.In the grand scheme of things Orton is a better QB than Campbell.

 

[dgreen]

The board hate for Orton is infamous, so I have no doubt Campbell will run away with this poll.

Really? I know he had his bashers in the past, but I seem to remember a lot of love recently.

 

[dgreen]

The board hate for Orton is infamous, so I have no doubt Campbell will run away with this poll.

Really? I know he had his bashers in the past, but I seem to remember a lot of love recently.

Well, early voting has Campbell up 9-2. Maybe my exposure to many angry Redskins fans has clouded my view of what people think about Campbell.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Orton with or without neckbeard? This is important.

 

[TankRizzo]

I think Campbell is the more solid QB with better ability. Overall I think Campbell is the better overall QB, but if it's the 4th quarter and you're down by 7, I think I'd prefer Kyle.

 

[dgreen]

I think Campbell is the more solid QB with better ability. Overall I think Campbell is the better overall QB, but if it's the 4th quarter and you're down by 7, I think I'd prefer Kyle.

Orton has 5 4th quarter comebacks and 6 game-winning drives. Campbell has 3 and 6.

 

[B-Deep]

my gut says Orton, but I freely admit that I do not think Campbell has been put in a position to do well. I would not be the least bit shocked if with some stability and coaching he easily surpassed orton. guess a question for skins fans is, do you want your team to wait on him and hope that is true?

not sure how I would feel if I were a skins fan.

 

[TankRizzo]

I think Campbell is the more solid QB with better ability. Overall I think Campbell is the better overall QB, but if it's the 4th quarter and you're down by 7, I think I'd prefer Kyle.

Orton has 5 4th quarter comebacks and 6 game-winning drives. Campbell has 3 and 6.

I still say Orton

 

[PantherPower]

I love the Skins, but no way is Campbell a better QB. TankRizzo said it best, even if you think you like Campbell better, if you're team is down in the trailing minutes of a game, you want Orton over Campbell. That says it all IMO.

 

[dgreen]

I think Campbell is the more solid QB with better ability. Overall I think Campbell is the better overall QB, but if it's the 4th quarter and you're down by 7, I think I'd prefer Kyle.

Orton has 5 4th quarter comebacks and 6 game-winning drives. Campbell has 3 and 6.

I still say Orton

Orton definitely has "winning" on his side. He has the slight edge in comebacks, but a commanding lead in overall record: 29-20 vs. 20-32 in the regular season.Of course, there are differing opinions on how important winning % is when comparing QBs.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Orton = Applewhite.

Campbell = Simms.

 

[SSOG]

Broncos fan. Voted Jason Campbell.

 

[Gopher State]

This like trying to decide which is better a rotten apple or a rotten orange

I think I pass on both

 

[adrenaline]

My vote reflects the future. I believe Campbell's situation is going to improve & I think Orton is going to lose Marshall.

 

[switz]

Broncos fan. Voted Jason Campbell.

We all knew you would. I think your bias against Orton is greater than my combined bias for Addai and Felix.

 

[destro]

They are both pretty mediocre, but I think it's pretty clear that Campbell COULD be better. Pro Bowl, better? I doubt it. But he has struggled through some pretty brutal coaching and questionable supporting casts, and it's hard to gauge exactly how good he could be in a better situation. It will be interesting to see what happens should he stick around in the Shanahan regime.

With Orton, though, does anyone really think he has some untapped potential that we have yet to see? Nope, I don't think so. We just saw him in about as good a situation as possible this year, and he's still clearly mediocre. Their overall performances were pretty similar despite the pretty clear disparity in their situations. This is about as good as Orton will ever be.

Because of his potential to be more, I would give a slight edge to Campbell.

 

[SSOG]

Broncos fan. Voted Jason Campbell.

We all knew you would. I think your bias against Orton is greater than my combined bias for Addai and Felix.

My bias against Orton? Oh, wait, I forgot... forming an opinion on a player that runs contrary to your own now officially counts as "bias". And here I thought that I just watched him play and decided for myself that he was on the low end of average. Or that I looked at his career numbers and decided for myself that his low turnover numbers were totally unsustainable. Fun fact: The last time I argued with you about Orton I mentioned that there was nothing in his history that suggested he had an unnatural ability to avoid interceptions and that he'd likely regress to his career average. Since then, Orton has thrown an interception on 3.54% of his passing attempts, which is a rate 30% higher than his career average. Just saying... score one for regression to the mean.More seriously, though... look at Denver's offense last year. Look at Denver's offense this year. I'm not saying that he's terrible or anything, but I don't see how anyone can look at the results and defend Orton as anything other than mediocre. He's a journeyman, a stop-gap. Right now, Jason Campbell is as well, but Campbell's never played in the same offensive system in back-to-back years, and Campbell's got more pedigree, and Campbell has better career numbers (better TD:INT rate, better career YPA, better career AYPA, better career ANYPA, better career QB rating, better career YPG), and he put up a comparable performance to Orton this year despite a significantly worse supporting cast, so I'm more willing to give Campbell the benefit of the doubt.

 

[gradin123]

I don't see a none of the above option!

 

[switz]

Oh, wait, I forgot... forming an opinion on a player that runs contrary to your own now officially counts as "bias". And here I thought that I just watched him play and decided for myself that he was on the low end of average. Or that I looked at his career numbers and decided for myself that his low turnover numbers were totally unsustainable.

It's not the factual stuff you throw out that seems biased, it's the no-factual stuff, or the over-exaggerated stuff. It's ok, I admit I'm likely overly biased toward certain players, and see good things in them many do not. You just happen to see bad things in Orton that others do not.In most cases, you're a very balanced poster, and we actually agree on a lot of players. But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.

Fun fact: The last time I argued with you about Orton I mentioned that there was nothing in his history that suggested he had an unnatural ability to avoid interceptions and that he'd likely regress to his career average. Since then, Orton has thrown an interception on 3.54% of his passing attempts, which is a rate 30% higher than his career average. Just saying... score one for regression to the mean.

Are you really trying to make a 12 INT season look like a bad thing? You realize 16 QBs threw more INTs than Orton, right? Including greats like Peyton Manning. And including your so-called great, who threw the MOST INTs this year, Jay Cutler. Orton's INT% this year was 2.2%, Campbells was 3.0%. The only time Orton's INT % was over 2.6 was his rookie season. This argument is a perfect example of your bias.

More seriously, though... look at Denver's offense last year. Look at Denver's offense this year. I'm not saying that he's terrible or anything, but I don't see how anyone can look at the results and defend Orton as anything other than mediocre. He's a journeyman, a stop-gap. Right now, Jason Campbell is as well, but Campbell's never played in the same offensive system in back-to-back years, and Campbell's got more pedigree, and Campbell has better career numbers (better TD:INT rate, better career YPA, better career AYPA, better career ANYPA, better career QB rating, better career YPG), and he put up a comparable performance to Orton this year despite a significantly worse supporting cast, so I'm more willing to give Campbell the benefit of the doubt.

Orton was in a new system this year as well, and it was his first season with better weapons (who got benched a few times) than Campbell has had. Campbell also has had better coaching the last two years (as much a Zorn sucks as an HC, he's a great OC and QB coach).I'll give Campbell the benefit of the doubt, but there are more things to like about Orton's game than Campbell's IMO.BTW, this season, Orton threw more TDs, more yards, less INTs, took fewer sacks, and had a better passer rating, and better TD to INT ratio than Campbell. Again, this was Orton's first year in a completely new system, with new WRs to work with, and it was Campbell's second season in a system with players he's played with for some time.

 

[dgreen]

(as much a Zorn sucks as an HC, he's a great OC and QB coach).

What supporting evidence do you have that Zorn is a great OC?

 

[gianmarco]

But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.

Not sure you really know what the word biased means.

 

[switz]

But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.

Not sure you really know what the word biased means.

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

 

[FavreCo]

I think Jason Campbell is vastly underrated. He has a terrible O-line, his running game is bad, he has had bad playcalling, and he still produces good numbers. Not great or excellent, but good. If he had a halfway decent O-line and good coaches he would be a top 10 QB easily.

The board hate for Orton is infamous, so I have no doubt Campbell will run away with this poll.Campbell is a horrible decision maker, and he holds on to the ball too long. Like Orton, his long ball is lacking accuracy. He is very tough, and I feel for him being on the Skins. I expect he'll improve if given the opportunity with Shanny, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they dump him for a better QB.In the grand scheme of things Orton is a better QB than Campbell.

I have no idea why this is in favor of Campbell. No WR has any value with that guy at QB. I'd guarantee that Marshall's #'s would be worse with Campbell.

 

[fatness]

(as much a Zorn sucks as an HC, he's a great OC and QB coach).

What supporting evidence do you have that Zorn is a great OC?

Zorn is an awful, awful playcaller. The only time he's ever done it was this year with the Redskins, and he was stripped of that responsibility mid-season due to terrible offensive performance (which improved after someone else was calling plays). And he's never been an offensive coordinator --- that title was held this year by Sherman Smith.

 

[gianmarco]

But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.

Not sure you really know what the word biased means.

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

Good. Now where in any of SSOG's statements about Orton does he reveal any prejudice? If I had to pick ONE guy on these entire boards that looks at facts more than anyone and shows less bias and prejudice than anyone on these boards, it's SSOG. Just because he happens to disagree with you on whether or not Orton has any potential does NOT make him prejudiced or "biased". Reread your statement that I quoted. Just because he's examined the #'s or watched Orton play and doesn't feel he has potential does NOT mean he's pretty biased as you stated. Your understanding of that word there is just not very good. He's used plenty of stats to defend his viewpoint that Orton is average and lacks potential. Bias, as is often used here, is having a certain viewpoint about a player and failing to acknowledge or change that viewpoint despite evidence to the contrary. It's spinning and distorting facts to fit your preconceived, prejudiced viewpoint. SSOG has not been guilty of that at all that I've seen with Orton. For a good example of what I'm trying to describe, go read some of your posts re: Addai or Felix Jones. We're all somewhat biased here as there are players we like and players we don't like and it's easy to find numbers to back up almost any viewpoint. SSOG is the least likely to do so. You, on the other hand, take it to the extreme the other way. There's a reason everyone here says it or calls for you when players you have obvious bias for or against are talked about. Addai could average 1.2 ypc for the next 5 years in a row and you'll find some positive thing to say about the status of the O-line, his injury, his workload, his anything you want aside from the actual truth of the matter. And you'll never change that viewpoint and admit you're wrong. That's why it's kind of funny to see YOU call someone biased. It's a big reason why people have a hard time taking what you say at face value even when you actually have something of value to add.

 

[switz]

But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.

Not sure you really know what the word biased means.

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

Good. Now where in any of SSOG's statements about Orton does he reveal any prejudice? Bias, as is often used here, is having a certain viewpoint about a player and failing to acknowledge or change that viewpoint despite evidence to the contrary. It's spinning and distorting facts to fit your preconceived, prejudiced viewpoint. SSOG has not been guilty of that at all that I've seen with Orton.

Really? Like citing a 3.54 INT % across a very small sample of games to try to imply that Orton is INT prone? Dpite him never having a > 2.6 INT% for a season outside his rookie year?

 

[JJP]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

 

[dgreen]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

Yes, the 2009 Broncos were much more talented than the 2009 Redskins. I'm interested to see all the guys the Redskins started on the OL this year and then see how many of them are anywhere a starting position next season.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I'm interested to see all the guys the Redskins started on the OL this year and then see how many of them are anywhere a starting position next season.

Apparently, it's the guys they never gave a chance to start that you have to keep an eye on.

 

[JJP]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

Yes, the 2009 Broncos were much more talented than the 2009 Redskins. I'm interested to see all the guys the Redskins started on the OL this year and then see how many of them are anywhere a starting position next season.

I don't buy that for a minute. Look at the 2009 season over/under win totals out of LV: Washington was 8, Denver was 7 1/2.

 

[thevidon]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

I HATE these arguments. Just about as much as I hated when people said "Rex Grossman led the Bears to a superbowl." Grossman didn't lead anyone anywhere - has was along for the ride. Same as Orton is.

 

[fatness]

I don't buy that for a minute. Look at the 2009 season over/under win totals out of LV: Washington was 8, Denver was 7 1/2.

Look at the actual play on the field. Denver was clearly more talented.

 

[Catbird]

If it is the OP's perspective that these guys are essentially equal, shouldn't his poll offer an 'essentially equal' option? If it had, I could have voted.

On another front, bias is often in the eye of the beholder. Any of us who are so neutral and evaluative that in the midst of heated argument we don't tend to ignore some stats (and the underlying information they represent) which don't support in favor of some which do ... are awfully rare.

At least switz and SSOG both argue facts and use accurrate meaningful statistics. Arguying a position, based usually of heartfely belief, understandably makes them look at the more favorable application of those stats - which will sometimes slide off neutral and detached evaluation by a full step or two. But we sure arent' talking LHUCKS and kremenull here. I think you just take the writer into account with what's written and go on.

 

[dgreen]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

Yes, the 2009 Broncos were much more talented than the 2009 Redskins. I'm interested to see all the guys the Redskins started on the OL this year and then see how many of them are anywhere a starting position next season.

I don't buy that for a minute. Look at the 2009 season over/under win totals out of LV: Washington was 8, Denver was 7 1/2.

So your support for them being good is the LV o/u before their 16 games rather than the actual 16 games?And, that's a 0.500 prediction for Washington. They happened to be 0.500 (2-2) with Chris Samuels. But he got hurt. Then they weren't 0.500. They finished 4-12. They were horrible.

 

[switz]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

I HATE these arguments. Just about as much as I hated when people said "Rex Grossman led the Bears to a superbowl." Grossman didn't lead anyone anywhere - has was along for the ride. Same as Orton is.

Yes, Orton clearly didn't throw for 3,800 yards... that was Josh McDaniels in Orton's uniform, and the stellar running game in Denver this year made the offense click. Orton regressed the second half of the season, same as he did last year. Incidentally, in both seasons he left a game with a bad ankle injury, and played through it the rest of the season, and wasn't as good. The question now is, was it the ankle, or can he only sustain being good for 7-8 game stretches? I think we'll find out next season. But there's no question Orton has ability to put up very solid numbers (even with Bears WRs, and Marshall-less Bronco WRs). The hate for Orton just makes no sense to me. I don't think anyone thinks the guy is a HOF, or even a Pro Bowler necessarily, but he's a LOT better than many on this board seem to want to make him out to be.His A/YA is 15th among starting QBs, ahead of both Campbell and Cutler. And of note, it's better than Cutler's was last year in DEN. He's not a sluch QB, game manager, journeyman QB.

 

[thevidon]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

I HATE these arguments. Just about as much as I hated when people said "Rex Grossman led the Bears to a superbowl." Grossman didn't lead anyone anywhere - has was along for the ride. Same as Orton is.

Yes, Orton clearly didn't throw for 3,800 yards... that was Josh McDaniels in Orton's uniform, and the stellar running game in Denver this year made the offense click. Orton regressed the second half of the season, same as he did last year. Incidentally, in both seasons he left a game with a bad ankle injury, and played through it the rest of the season, and wasn't as good. The question now is, was it the ankle, or can he only sustain being good for 7-8 game stretches? I think we'll find out next season. But there's no question Orton has ability to put up very solid numbers (even with Bears WRs, and Marshall-less Bronco WRs). The hate for Orton just makes no sense to me. I don't think anyone thinks the guy is a HOF, or even a Pro Bowler necessarily, but he's a LOT better than many on this board seem to want to make him out to be.His A/YA is 15th among starting QBs, ahead of both Campbell and Cutler. And of note, it's better than Cutler's was last year in DEN. He's not a sluch QB, game manager, journeyman QB.

I don't hate him - he is just a very average QB. When I say he isn't leading his team anywhere, I mean that he is not at the level of tier 2 QB's like Big Ben, Rivers and Rodgers (much less tier 1) who can dominate games. He can play well enough to not hurt the team, but that's his ceiling.

 

[JJP]

Say what you want about Orton but he's got about a 60% winning percentage as a starter. I know Campbell is nowhere close to that. Granted, you do rely on teammates but was the 2008 Bears or the 2009 Broncos that much more talented than the recent Redskin teams? Edge to Orton.

Yes, the 2009 Broncos were much more talented than the 2009 Redskins. I'm interested to see all the guys the Redskins started on the OL this year and then see how many of them are anywhere a starting position next season.

I don't buy that for a minute. Look at the 2009 season over/under win totals out of LV: Washington was 8, Denver was 7 1/2.

So your support for them being good is the LV o/u before their 16 games rather than the actual 16 games?And, that's a 0.500 prediction for Washington. They happened to be 0.500 (2-2) with Chris Samuels. But he got hurt. Then they weren't 0.500. They finished 4-12. They were horrible.

Its all about expectations. The expectations for both teams was similar. I forgot there's such brilliant talent judges on this site who proclaim that Denver had loads more talent than Washington. These people apparently have 3-D glasses that the rest of us can't see through.

 

[JJP]

BTW, with both teams having similar win total expectations, I would argue that would make Washington definitely better because they play in a much tougher division than Denver.

 

[Buffaloes]

This will be interesting to follow since legend has it McDaniels and Denver had similar offers from Cleveland and Washington that would have sent Quinn and Campbell to Denver instead of Orton. I've read that Orton was McDaniels pick out of the 3. I voted for Orton, btw. I think he is severely underrated and I assume he will grow in what's supposedly one of the more difficult schemes for a QB to master.

 

[SSOG]

1) In most cases, you're a very balanced poster, and we actually agree on a lot of players. But in Orton's case, you just seem to be unable to see any potential in him, or anything good at all. That's pretty biased IMO.2) Are you really trying to make a 12 INT season look like a bad thing? You realize 16 QBs threw more INTs than Orton, right? Including greats like Peyton Manning. And including your so-called great, who threw the MOST INTs this year, Jay Cutler. Orton's INT% this year was 2.2%, Campbells was 3.0%. The only time Orton's INT % was over 2.6 was his rookie season. This argument is a perfect example of your bias. 3) BTW, this season, Orton threw more TDs, more yards, less INTs, took fewer sacks, and had a better passer rating, and better TD to INT ratio than Campbell. Again, this was Orton's first year in a completely new system, with new WRs to work with, and it was Campbell's second season in a system with players he's played with for some time.

I numbered your post for easier responding.1) I see a lot of potential in Orton. He's Chad Pennington-lite. He's a guy who is not going to get you killed like a Delhomme or a Russell or an Anderson. He's a journeyman. Just because he's not the long-term answer doesn't mean he can't be the short-term answer. I don't think Denver has a pressing need to upgrade its QB situation- Orton is more than capable of holding the fort until Denver's fixed the rest of the team, first.2) I'm not making a 12 INT season seem like a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that you were saying 10 weeks ago that Orton was brought in because he had some magical ability to avoid Interceptions, and I was saying that there was nothing in his career that suggested he had such an ability. And after we had that exchange, Orton started throwing INTs at a rate well above his career average, which just demonstrates that he doesn't have a magical ability to avoid INTs.3) You conveniently forgot to mention that Orton had more pass attempts, while Campbell had a better comp%, higher ypa, and a nearly identical QB rating (86.4 to 86.8). You also conveniently forgot to mention that Orton dueled Campbell to what was essentially a draw despite Orton being surrounded by a RADICALLY BETTER supporting cast, including the coaching staff (it's funny that you called Zorn a great OC, since he's never actually been a coordinator in the NFL in his entire life).

I have no idea why this is in favor of Campbell. No WR has any value with that guy at QB. I'd guarantee that Marshall's #'s would be worse with Campbell.

Marshall's numbers NEED to be worse. That whole "hey, let's only look at one guy all game long" thing has never worked for Denver. Spreading the ball around = bad for Marshall, but good for Denver's offense.

Really? Like citing a 3.54 INT % across a very small sample of games to try to imply that Orton is INT prone? Dpite him never having a > 2.6 INT% for a season outside his rookie year?

There's a big difference between calling Orton INT-prone (which is not what I did) and saying that there's no reason to believe that Orton is NOT INT-prone (which is what I did). Orton does not have a magical ability to avoid Interceptions. Also, I never said that Orton was more likely to throw an INT than Cutler, I was saying he was every bit as likely as Cutler to make a negative play. Negative plays include INTs (which Cutler is more prone to throw), Sacks (which Orton is more prone to take), and fumbles (which Orton is more likely to make).

 

[destro]

BTW, with both teams having similar win total expectations, I would argue that would make Washington definitely better because they play in a much tougher division than Denver.

Do you really think they don't factor that kind of thing in already? You aren't adding any value to those expectations.

 

[JJP]

BTW, with both teams having similar win total expectations, I would argue that would make Washington definitely better because they play in a much tougher division than Denver.

Do you really think they don't factor that kind of thing in already? You aren't adding any value to those expectations.

Of course they factor it in. I'm not questioning Vegas/offshore's ability to make season O/U win totals. All I'm saying is that similar win total expectations do not reflect the same relative abilities. A team with an O/U of 8 in a strong division is definitely better than a team with the same total of 8 in a weak division.

 

[buster c]

(as much a Zorn sucks as an HC, he's a great OC and QB coach).

What supporting evidence do you have that Zorn is a great OC?

esp considering that Zorn has never held the position of OC

 

[Da Guru]

Campell is a poors man David Garrard.

 

[switz]

(as much a Zorn sucks as an HC, he's a great QB coach).

What supporting evidence do you have that Zorn is a great OC?

<_< esp considering that Zorn has never held the position of OC

Yeah, leave out the OC stuff, though technically he was the Skins OC for a month, in which they didn't lose a single game (they didn't win either but that not important).

And it could be argued he wasn't a QB coach long enough to be good or bad, much less great.

So now my minor aside in the argument about coaching differences has been totally blown out of the water.

 

[PantherPower]

I don't see how anyone that watches a lot of football, and watched both of these QBs play this year, can say Campbell is better, and I'm a life long diehard Skins fan. I can count on 1 hand how many times Campbell hit a WR in stride when he was more than 20 yards down field. He CAN NOT throw an accurate deep ball to save his life. Add in all the sacks and fumbles he had, and you've got one of the worst starting QBs in the league.