SB Nation - Brad Johnson

Why does the turnaround have to happen on defense?

Niko Houllis — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:30:37 -0000

by Chris O'Meara - AP

Could multiple offensive celebrations be a part of the near future for the Bucs?

In 1996, the Bucs started to turn their fortunes around as the defense developed into the historically dominant entity it became. It didnt happen overnight..the first game was a slaughter. But it got better, and before you knew it, there were several games in a row where the defense didn't give up more than 13 points. The offense? well Trent Dilfer made it look like both sides of the ball were improving, but we know better. The optimistic Dilfer of 1996-97 gave way to the disapointing 1998 and the downright nightmare of 2009! It was so bad, even a rookie with less than adequate arm strength actually improved the position for a year or two. It wasnt until Brad Johnson playing in his slightly past prime part of his life was there to add some quality to Quarterbacking the Buccaneers.

So when we look for the team to start turning around again, why do we expect a direct repeat? Doesnt the law of averages say this franchise is due to have a powerful offense one day? Didn't we finally get a good successful coach when we looked away from the obvious choices like Jimmy Johnson, Steve Spurrier, or Bill Parcells. Instead a lesser known assistant named Tony Dungy came in and helped things turn around under his watch.

So maybe the Tampa Bay Buccaneers finally find an offense under a defensive Head Coach in Raheem Morris? Is it any stranger than the fact that this team has NEVER had an offense to even talk about? Twice the Bucs had a 10th ranked offense, in 1984 with James Wilder running the ball for over 1500 yards (still a Bucs record), and 2003. Thats right, 2003, under Jon Gruden, the year after the Superbowl, and the only year under Gruden in which he had a Quarterback who started every single game. That's moving the ball though, getting yards. As far as scoring, 2000 was the best season in Bucs history, with 388 points. While that is our best ever, in 2000 it wasnt more than top 5. Colts, Raiders, Broncos and Vikings all scored more points. Of course, the defense probably had a lot to do with that. The reward for scoring the most points ever in Bucs history; Offensive coordinator Les Steckle was fired, and Shawn King was rewarded......by being replaced with free agent Brad Johnson! Tampa Bay; where no good deed goes unpunished?

But that's it folks. Oh sure, the Bucs were a big play waiting to happen in the Doug Williams era, and were a good consistant running team during the Alstott & Dunn years. But this team has had defense as a main ingredient since the creation. In 1977 it was top ten, and number 1 in 1979, 2002, and 2005. We have had so many linebackers that were solid stars its not even funny. Richard Batman Wood, Cecil Johnson, Hugh Green, Scott Brantley, Eugene Marve, Winston Moss, Broderick Thomas, Jimmy Williams, Lonnie Marts, Shelton Quarles, Hardy Nickerson, Derrick Brooks, Just to name a few. What about secondary? Mark Cotney, Mike Washington, Cedric Brown, Ricky Reynolds, Mark Robinson, Harry Hamilton, Marty Carter, John Lynch, Donnie Abraham, and Brian Kelly just off the top of my head.

Try to name 10 offensive stars. You will struggle after 7, because the bottom line is we have not had a history of success on that side of the ball.

34 years is a long time..the Pittsburgh Steelers were a lousy team for 40 years before the Rooney family put the pieces together and now have more Superbowl rings than any other NFL team. The law of averages, and time, say there was no way the Bucs could have continued to have double digit losing seasons for too much longer than the 14 years it did. The Cardinals took that to the extreme, but even they went to the Superbowl last year, and are one of the better teams in the league for a change for this perenial bottom dweller.

So maybe the laws of averages have caught up to us. Maybe, Tampa Bay fans will finally be able to go to the stadium and watch a team that is able to light up the scoreboard. Yes, we are trained to cheer our teams D linemen, LInebackers and it's secondary. But I'm willing to bet Raymond James patrons wont have a problem watching an offense putting points on the board instead.

On This Day- Nov. 3rd, 2002- Bucs demolish Vikings, again

Niko Houllis — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:11:10 -0000

For three years as we have seen lately, all right around the same time of the season, the Minnesota Vikings were good for what ails you! ln 2000 and 2001 under Dungy, we thought "OK, its Tony's old team"... But Jon Gruden got in the act too, and speaking of acts, the Bucs got over their "We have a defense but no offense" reputation in this game. Brad Johnson started his path to the SuperBowl, going 24/31 313 yards and 5 touchdowns in this game. One curious bit of irony, the Bucs usually dont give up 100 yard rushing games, but they did to Vikings rookie, the one and only, Michael Bennet, who was with the Bucs in 2007 & most of 2008. Problem was in '08, Bennet should have said what his Vikings pretty much did, ON THIS DAY, after the first quarter....

" Check Please"

It is obvious - line play determines game results

Tkopa — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:14:14 -0000

We have watched NFL football for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, maybe more and some concepts have stood the test of time as being absolute true. Quarterbacks do not win many games or have long careers when they are getting hit often. When a quarterback sustains the punishment level David Garrard has sustained in the last two seasons, he won't perform well or be on the field much longer.

Conversely, most quarterbacks can throw the ball very well and hit moving targets with ease when no one is bothering them. Give a guy like David time and he looks every bit as good as any other top quarterback.

I remember a long time ago the Buffalo Bills had a quarterback duel between Rob Johnson and Doug Flutie. Rob Johnson had the size and arm and polish that made him look like a clear winner. Doug Flutie was small with less deep ball ability. Doug Flutie had one skill Rob Johnson didn't, Doug could run for his life. Buffalo didn't have an offensive line and I remember thinking, better pick Flutie cause Rob Johnson will get killed. Rob was picked as the starter and got killed. It was ugly to watch.

Joe Namath had bad knees and couldn't move. He spent his last year in LA where they couldn't protect him. It was a sad end to a great career.

Over and over the same thing plays out. The quarterback battle between Byron Leftwich and Luke McCown was silly during the Tampa Bay pre-season. Bryon looks great until there is a rush. Tampa Bay has problems on the offensive line and no change of quarterback is going to fix that. Byron was the worst choice behind a weak line.

Vince Young didn't look great, Vince Young had time to think and react. He wasn't bothered. Kurt Warner looked like a superstar when he had time to think. David does too.

Did David have receivers open? Yes. Did David miss plays? Yes. Did Dirk Koetter help him out by calling pass plays under a huge blitz? No. We can diagnose all the nuances of the game if we want, but David doesn't avoid a rush very well or think very clearly when he is getting hit. Only Big Ben does that well from what I have seen. Hit Vince Young like David was hit and he will refuse to go in the game. We don't have the line to play the game Dirk Koetter wants to play and David is paying the price. Unfortunately, we can't win with 9 men in the box and daring us to try and run. That was last year.

The Jaguars Defensive and Offensive lines deteriorated because we didn't draft into those spots for years. Tom did, Shack and Jack didn't. Rookies selected in the first round have a 50% chance of even being a starter three years later. The later rounds are even lower. You simply have to keep bringing people into the lines in hopes of finding good ones.

The Jaguars addressed the line play in the last two drafts. Defensive line then Offensive line. We are late in rebuilding these critical areas and having mixed success. This will be a focus of the team going forward.

As much as I hate to write this, we have to follow Jack Del Rio's advice about Derrick Harvey and apply it to this team, lower your expectations. The lines are not there to support any kind of playoff run. They won't be this year and maybe not next.

My only concern is that David doesn't have the time or the body to survive the pounding. I am afraid the line rebuilding may cause more rebuilding. In short, Jack Del Rio, Bill Cower, Marty, or anyone else isn't going to make this team improve quickly. Changing out the coaching staff isn't going to fix the line play, not today. Only Gene Smith can do what is needed and he can't do it right now.

- Terry O'Brien

ON THIS DAY VIDEO- 10/3/2004 Denver Broncos; Clayton Blows his top, Lynch doesn't!

Niko Houllis — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:26:28 -0000

It was a sad day, John Lynch returning home to Tampa in a Bronco's uniform. Politics of that move aside, it's ironic the CBS crew were talking about him and showing his profile when he made his little error, and was too nice to Bucs rookie receiver Michael Clayton, who leapt Cat-like in the air to snag an overthrown pass by Brad Johnson, but had the presence enough to get up and continue into the end zone, Sans Helmet! Definitly worth checking out if you've never seen it, and even if you have.

Continue to check out the Video....

The entire play is included, as the fact they talk about Lynch before the play is kind of ironic.

History: Packers Crushed in Minnesota Last Season 27 to 28

Brandon — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:00:31 -0000

Although the Green Bay Packers narrowly lost the game last season in Minnesota on a late missed FG by K Mason Crosby, it wasn't really that close. 3 INTs by QB Gus Frerotte, one returned for a TD by FS Nick Collins, and a punt return for a TD by CB Will Blackmon, kept the score close. Since they can't count on two TDs like that again, can they fix the mistakes of 2008 in time for the game on Monday night?

Year	Yards Gained	Yards Allowed	Turnover Margin	Final
2008	184	361	+3	L 27-28
2007	384	382	0	W 23-16
2006	394	312	+2	W 23-17

Both Brad Childress and Mike McCarthy were hired before the 2006 season, so anything before that probably has little bearing on the current matchup. A few things stand out from these games:

When QB Brett Favre takes the field, he'll be the 4th different QB to start their home game against the Packers in the past four seasons. (2006-Brad Johnson; 2007-Kelly Holcomb; 2008-Gus Frerotte). QB Daunte Culpepper started every home game against the Packers from 2000-2005.
The Packers only turnovers were two fumbles in 2007.
In 2007, Brad Childress gave the Packers a giant gift by limiting RB Adrian Peterson to 12 carries.
In 2008, the offensive line crumbled as the offense was limited to 184 yards.

After all the sacks and hits QB Aaron Rodgers has taken this season, reading about the pass rush he faced last season is deja vu all over again. Although the pass defense kept them in the game with 3 INTs, the run defense collapsed as Peterson ran for almost 200 yards. Childress didn't make the same mistake he made in 2007.

The 2008 game, with only 184 yards on offense, stands out like a fluke. But the problems they had last season (poor pass protection, struggling run defense) still remain. Especially if LT Chad Clifton is unable to play. The run defense has already allowed two 100 yard rushers in the first three games. Can we really count on the pass protection and run defense to keep them in the game? Or will the problems from 2008 return on Monday night?

The most popular guy in town.

Buc Wild — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:13:33 -0000

More photos » by Reinhold Matay - AP

He is...........the most unpopular man in town.

Browse more photos »

There's an old football saying that's been around for a few years. "The backup quarterback is the most popular guy in town." It's never specific to any one player but instead points to the psyche of the modern day average football fan. The perception of the unknown. It's easy as a fan to always want the back up, he surely can't be worse than the guy who's in there right now, right?

This is a fundamental flaw in how we look at our teams. We've gotten to the point as fans where one ill-advised pass, one errant throw has the boo birds out in force. This isn't an issue just with the Bucs, but with just about every pro team in every sport. We all try to armchair quarterback our way through this. The starter throws a 5 yard pass on 3rd and 8? Pull him, he sucks, the backup could do better. He throws an incomplete pass on 2nd and goal? Worst quarterback I've ever seen, get him out of there.

And when we bring the back up in, and he performs nicely for a few plays, we feel like we should be on the coaching staff. After all, it was our idea in the first place. But 9 times out of 10 something happens; the back up starts to regress and starts to make mistakes. At first we turn a blind eye, "He just needs to get into a rhythm" or "He's been on the bench for a few weeks, give him time." It won't be long until the proverbial honeymoon period is over and we start clamoring for the starter, who coincidentally has become the back up, thus making him the most popular guy in town and completing this bastardized circle of life.

I always look at it like a 6th man in basketball. The back up QB is the guy coming off the bench, much like the 6th man, who brings some new energy to the game. He brings a different look, a different skill set, which throws off the defense. He (they) get the team running around, performing well, closing the gap. But then a funny thing happens. There's a wall there for him to hit. He (they) can't keep it up forever. Inevitably, the starter finds their way back into the game and life goes on. The backup QB, the 6th man are just a "spark" off the bench. After all, there's generally a reason why they are the backup in the first place.

There are plenty of examples of this in the NFL. We've seen backups come in for a few plays or few games and keep things moving in the right direction. Jeff Garcia, Byron Leftwich, Charlie Batch, Kerry Collins, etc. Garcia with the Eagles would come in and start moving the ball with his dink and dunk passing game and his erratic scrambling. Philly fans loved it. He moved the chains, he was exciting, he was the most popular guy in town. The magic will wear off at some point andyou're usually left with a player with a sub-par skill set as compared to the starter. One bad play turns into ten and pretty soon, the starter is back out there.

Which brings me to the Bucs. Every year, with every quarterback, there are boos heard. We wanted Brad Johnsonout, he couldn't go deep and couldn't run. We wanted Shaun King out, too inexperienced. We wanted Griese out, we wanted Griese in. We wanted Chris Simmsto play, we wanted him out of town. We loved Garcia, then we wanted someone else to go downfield. Now here we are with Leftwich. Game 1, we were all pretty dang pleased with how he did. Game 2, not as good, but 3 TD's, 2 INT's and a boatload of yards. Please sir, I'd like some more.

Then came game 3. I'm not making any excuses for Leftwich, he was awful. But here's a newsflash, so was the rest of the team. The plays that I saw where he dumped it off, no one was open. I can't confirm that on all plays, but on the majority, he made the right read. The interception he threw? That was a terrible decision, no bones about it. The short of it is this, Leftwich struggles. We've said all along, if the OL gives him time, he will be good. If they collapse, he is toast. Well guess what, the line collapsed, he was toast. This isn't a surprise. This was a fail from top to bottom.

Then Josh Johnsoncame in and he started moving the chains. Everyone wants to talk about how good he looked and he's much better for our team. No doubt the kid is talented, but before we start patting ourselves on the back, where's the outrage? After all, we've lambasted Leftwich for throwing only rockets, and JJ did the same thing in the red zone. What about escaping the pocket? We used to hang our heads when Garcia did that? It's the honeymoon phase. The backup QB can do no wrong.

Now before you jump all over me and say I'm biased against Josh Johnson, I'm not. I thought the guy deserved a chance in pre-season. If he's the guy, I'll gladly back him and root for him. But we have to see him for what he is. He played a pretty mediocre drive towards the endof a blowout with some backups in the game. He did move the ball, but it was limited success in a short sample. Hardly anything we can derive conclusions from. The grass is always greener, am I right?

So the Buc stand here witha problem. We have a starting quarterback who has a certain skill set. The playbook supposedly falls in line with those skills. When our line blocks, this quarterback can deliver the ball andmake plays. When that doesn't happen, it's a bloodbath. We have a backup who has a different skill set. He may or may not be well suited for this offense andthis team. When he comes in, we wildly cheer his success. Any mistakes he makes are met with averted eyes. But if we're gonna call out Leftwich, Garcia, Simms, Griese, Brad Johnson, then why don't we do the same to the back up?

And thus we see the true problem. As fans we are only able to see a limited piece of the puzzle. We see the hear and now andonly the last play. A true "What have you done for me lately" We've seen in every sport fans play coach with their perfect 20/20 vision in hindsight. Should've run instead of passed, should've bunted instead of swinging away, should've shot the three, not driven to the hoop. We boo the first signs of mistakes and don't let up. The calls for the backup commence and when he's brought in, life is good. But when he makes a mistake, we don't boo him. We give him the long leash that we denied the starter, but why?

Oh yea, he's the most popular guy in town, and we're just hoping he'll remember that it was us who wanted him to play.

Why Jon Gruden Didn't Work Out in Tampa Bay

Niko Houllis — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:45:09 -0000

via s2nblog.files.wordpress.com

View full size photo »

I've Been around for all the "Dump McKay in the Bay" Signs.

I listened to the "Give Leeman Bennett One more year" talk.

"Ray Perkins Must go, he is killing our boys".

Been There, Done that.

In each case, a coach with some measure of success has come through our doors at One Buccaneer Place, coming in with credentials, leaving with scribble marks on their resumes, usually never to be heard from again.

Each time, we were able to take a look back after a cool down period and see things for what they were;

Leeman Bennett never had a chance, the Bucs were devoid of talent after spending so many #1''s trying to replace Doug Williams, they never replaced aging defensive players.
Ray Perkins had success in New York with his defensive coordinator Bill Parcells, and excellent drafting by now legendary GM George Young.
Sam Wyche had excellent talent around him in Cincinnati and just the right system for the right players he had. When that talent dropped off, 1991 happened in Ohio. 3-13. When he got here, he found a team without talent, and an owner who cryed poor while stuffing his coffers full of team money, trading or cutting talented players before their second lucrative contracts could take place, always posting a young team on the field. Young, Inexperience, and with limited talent.

Free Agency changed that. The salary cap not only stopped you from speding too much, it forced Hugh Culverhouse to spend at LEAST the minimum. Suddenly talent ensued. Hardy Nickerson. Jackie Harris. Alvin Harper (Ok, they tried).

Enough time has passed so we can now take a look at what happened with Jon Gruden. WonderBoy. Boy Genius. Genius. All names he did not create for himself. He was called these because thats what he was. He was a study of the game, of the offenses of Bill Walsh. He learned from the creator of the West Coast Offense, and he kept it in its purest form longer than any other disciples (Thus why no shotgun for so long. Bill Walsh did not use such a thing).

Holmgren Identified this brilliant student, and took him to Green Bay to be a quality control assistant, which turned into Wide Receivers coach. This caught the eye of Ray Rhodes, new head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, who made Jon Gruden the Offensive Coordinator. Wasn't long before Gruden's offense ranked 4th and 6th, and was eyed as a head coach.

The Raidahs.

Al Davis.

..and now super young offensive genius Jon Gruden, took over a team that went 4-12, and instantly turned them into a .500 team. He didnt have the QB to work with there, getting Jeff George and Wade Wilson. So the next year, in 1999, he signed Rich Gannon, who worked out perfectly in his system.

In only his second year, he found his QB, in a QB driven system. It was the key to his success there. Oakland had a powerful offense, with numerous weapons. The Team Ran as well as it passed. In fact, better; The 2000 Raiders had the No.1 Rushing team, with the 15th passing attack! In 3 years Gruden took a 4-12 team to 12-4 and the AFC Championship game where he lost to the Superbowl champions, and probably one of the best defenses in history, the Baltimore Ravens. In 2001, there is no telling how far Gruden and his team would have gone if not for the tuck rule game, which eliminated them.

Then came the trade. A kings ransom, and reason number..

Why Jon Gruden did not work out? It was a deal MADE to work NOW, at the cost of later. 4 highly skilled players were missing from Jon Grudens Buccaneers from around 2004 to 2008, players that could have helped if not for anything but letting free agency money that was badly needed be used for better purposes.
Rich McKay resigned Martin Gramatica, Simeon Rice, Keshawn Johnson, Brad Johnson, and Booger McFarlane to lucrative long term contracts. No, he didnt do it to sabatoge the team! It was the way McKay had worked for years. Lock in your core group of players, and it was a succesful system: Prior to free agency. But as life would spin, these players were NOT part of the core. Gramatica fizzled in 04, as did Brad Johnsons usefulness. Why McKay would extend Keyshawn knowning full well he clashed with Gruden so much is beyond reasoning. Only Rice would be around till '06.
Talent. McKay could spot the talent, but was not a good Free Agency GM. Allen was a wizz at Free Agency, but it would appear not as good at spotting the talent. The Bucs did not hit home on lower round draft picks, and in a lot of occasions did not do well in higher ones either. Taking a bigger chunk from much needed and scarce free agency money.
QB failure- One of the biggest myths (probably no. 2) is that Jon Gruden couldnt make up his mind with QBs. Gruden tried in vain to find his Rich Gannon, and probably did with Jeff Garcia, but a few years too late, both in Bucs timeframe, and Garcia's body's. But Gruden only benched a QB 3 times in 7 years at the helm. Brad Johnson was the man, and won the Superbowl with him. Brad Johnson in 7 years was the only QB to play all 16 games in one year, that was 2003, which by no coincidence was the best ranked offense for the Bucs; #10. Brad was benched first in 2004. Chris Simms was given the job, but lost it to injury. Griese took over, and started in 05. Griese went down to Knee Injury and Simms became QB again. The Bucs started the 2006 season with Simms, but due to his spleen ruptured, had to go with a backup, and chose Gradkowski who was benched for Rattay. To start the 07 Season, Jeff Garcia played until injury. Garcia was benched after game one of 2008, the 3rd benching done by Gruden. That is it. Gruden's system is Quarterback driven, and yet was never able to develop, or settle with, one QB for reasons his fault and some not of his doing.
The Message got old. He wasnt around in Oakland that long, and there was a system of continued success there. Here, there was instant success, with mostly (key word, MOSTLY) players that were not his own. Then there were declining seasons which took their toll on his message, and his word. Players were told one thing, but when there are losses, things don't always go as planned. "Love Ya Bro" as he was fond of saying, works great when you go 8-8, 8-8, 12-4, 10-6 like he did in Oakland. But when you go to the Superbowl, then do a 7-9, 5-11, it just doesnt go over as well.

I think Jon Gruden's tenure here can be summed up simply; He took over a team of underachieving pro bowl calibur players, who after going to the NFC Championship game in 1999, never were able to recapture that fire in the two seasons afterwards. He provided the defense of that team with the fire to get back to 1999 form, and then some, and with the help of about 7 well placed free agents on offense, was able to get that side of the ball to play with the same level of intensity that was expected of the defense. The offense did not respond overnight, but they improved every week, culminating in a unit that played its best when it needed to, the playoff stretch, and in the playoffs themselves.

The improvements on offense are undeniable. Looking at the 2001 players and then the 2002, you can see "Gruden won with Tony's Team" is utter nonsense.

From Keshawn, Jacquez Green and Karl Williams, To Keyshawn, Keenan McCardell, and Joe Jurevicius.

From Dave Moore and Todd Yoder, to Ken Dilger and Ricky Dudley.

Not to mention the additions of Romen Oben, Kerry Jenkins on the left side of the line, who really took over towards the end of the year and provided excellent protection.

The Myth that Gruden won the SuperBowl with Dungy's players is indeed the biggest myth of all.

If he did, then he beat HIS superbowl team in black, the Raiders. Anyway you look at it, Gruden took a team to the Superbowl in 2002, no matter how your point of view goes!

People tend to forget the defense in 2000 and 2001 was starting to crumble. They were having problems getting off the field on 3rd downs. They were allowing large point totals. They were NOT the units of 1999 anymore. The Fire that Jon Gruden brought helped rekindle Tony's defense, so credit needs to be given there too.

In the end though..too many factors just added up to spell doom for Jon Gruden and Bruce Allen.

The constant injuries, the handling of players, were a sore eye for Gruden whenever talked about by local Radio programs and newspapers. After all was said and done, the Glazers were ready for the same new blood Gruden provided 7 years earlier, and it was the right decision. To say Jon Gruden is not a good coach, or doesn't know offenses, is just selling the man short completely. You don't forget how to do your job, and we will see that in a few years when he is back on his feet again. I for one hope he stays out of the NFC South.

The Quarterback of the Future, Today

John Morgan — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:43:40 -0000

More photos » by Pablo Martinez Monsivais - AP

He isn't shiny and the new-car smell is gone, but Jason Campbell has low miles and you save a fortune buying him used.

Browse more photos »

Jason Campbell is playing in the final year of his rookie contract. The Washington Redskins have done everything short of cutting him. They paid big to trade up for him in 2005, trading a first, third and fourth round pick to Denver to move back into the first round. Washington has expressed their buyer's remorse with benchings and rumors. Daniel Snyder made no bones about his interest in Jay Cutler and Mark Sanchez. He missed out, and now Campbell is the Redskins starter by default.

He won't be next year. If Campbell plays poorly or only average to good, Washington will not re-sign him. If he plays well, the perennially cash-strapped but prodigal Redkins will not be able to sign him. He could just say no. Franchising Campbell would cost $15 million or more. Snyder could advantage the uncapped year and throw money at the situation, as he's wont to do, but even that seems like grasping at straws. Snyder has waged an ongoing campaign to disarm and discredit Campbell, and pitted the two in a way that doesn't speak of a long-term contract.

Do you care? Should you care? For almost two years, since around the time Campbell was benched for Todd Collins - Campbell had been injured and Collins had the hot hand - I have been convinced Tim Ruskell would sign Campbell. He imported half of Auburn's 2004 roster and its two best receivers. He is known for his conservative drafting and aversion to spending high picks on quarterbacks. He was part of Buccaneers organization that signed 33-year old retread Brad Johnson in 2003 and watched Johnson lead Tampa to a Super Bowl victory in 2004. And Tim Ruskell is known for finding undervalued assets.

Campbell is not a great quarterback. His three years starting have been remarkably similar. He had 5.5 A/NYA in 2006, 5.3 in 2007, 5.5 in 2008 and 5.4 for his career. Skin lines have been adequate to bad, as has their skill position players, and as ever, in Washington there are the starters and behind them, the fastest dude at the College Park Home Depot. Or fattest, if we're talking defensive line.

When Washington traded up to draft him in 2005, it was the Darius Heyward-Bay move of that draft. Analysts were split between thinking they overpaid and wondering how long until Campbell was cut. Campbell has won supporters and lost them. He has gained critics and rewarded them. He shares apologist with Alex Smith and that's never good. The Lewin Projection System loved him and Football Outsiders with it. Pro Football Reference ranked him 13^th in future quarterback value and put him in the "You like what you've got" tier. Brian Burke theorized Campbell was hurt by Jim Zorn's overly conservative play calling and that Campbell would benefit from throwing more interceptions. That is, more interceptions in the effort to convert more first downs.

Me? Well I don't know. I haven't studied Campbell enough to guess at his potential. I've always been impressed with him, but however you spin it, his career so far has been very mediocre. Deferring to the power of draft position: Campbell was a late first round pick in a weak quarterback class, and a late first round pick many thought should have been a second round pick or later. His career path for that kind of pick has been ordinary.

The Seahawks could be clearing payroll this offseason. The future of Walter Jones and Matt Hasselbeck is to be decided, but neither is long for Seattle. If the Seahawks go another way, if Tim Ruskell still has the say, then Jason Campbell could be Seattle's quarterback of the future. A future, fans can watch today.

Raiders Cheat Sheet: It's About THESE Guys

Rafael Vela — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:45:41 -0000

More photos » by Eric Gay - AP

Rookie Jason Williams (58) will get plenty of playing time in Oakland. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Browse more photos »

There will be much to glean from Thursday's Raiders game, provided you don't obsess over the first team.

Tony Romo and the first team offense and Demarcus Ware and the first team defense will get two series, if other preseason games are any guide. This means they'll get somewhere between six to fifteen snaps, depending on their effectiveness or ineffectiveness.

This also means that by 9:20 pm CT Thursday night, the starters will have lost their pads and will be sipping gatorade on the sideline. Unless you're planning on bailing on the broadcast, or don't want a letdown, get ready to watch these guys, because the 2nd and 3rd quarters will belong to them:

2nd Offense

QB: Jon Kitna, 3
RBs: Felix Jones, 28/Tashard Choice, 23
FB: Deon Anderson, 34
TEs: Martellus Bennett, 80/John Phillips, 89
LT: Doug Free, 68
LG: Montrae Holland, 64
C: Cory Proctor, 71
RG: Greg Isander, 62
RT: Pat McQuistan, 77
WRs: Sam Hurd, 17/Miles Austin, 19/Isaiah Stanback, 86

We all have plenty to study with this group. Kitna has much better arm strength than the departed Brad Johnson, but how accurate will he be? He looked out of sync with his new receivers much of the time. How well does John Phillips block when leading a running back up the gut? Deon Anderson has been dinged up,so Phillips may get lots of lead blocking chances. If he can neutralze ILBs the Cowboys have themselves a 7th round find.

How well does Doug Free block unaided on pass plays? Is Montrae Holland more than big? Can he create movement on DTs? Has Pat McQuistan improved at all or is he a placeholder until Robert Brewster returns?

Can Sam Hurd and Miles Austin translate their promising camp performances into a real game? Can Isaiah Stanback continue to make plays, as he was this past weekend, and secure the 5th receiver spot?

2nd Defense

DE -- Stephen Bowen, 72
NT -- Junior Siavii, 78
DE -- Jason Hatcher, 97
OLB -- Victor Butler, 57
ILB -- Bobby Carpenter, 54
ILB -- Jason Williams, 58
OLB -- Brandon Williams, 59
CB -- D'Angelo Smith, 31
SS -- Michael Hamlin, 36
FS -- Alan Ball
CB -- Mike Mickens, 33
Nickel CB -- Ball, 20

The corners on this list may have to wait a bit later than the rest to play. WIth Mike Jenkins and Terence Newman sitting out the game, backups Courtney Brown and Orlando Scandrick will start. The coaches may want to work those two more than two series.

Their groupmates have plenty of questions to address. Can Junior Siavii anchor the line? Can Bobby Carpenter play the run as well as he has played the pass this camp? Can any of the three rookie linebackers step forward? The two ends have run hot and cold. Jason Williams seemed to be getting a feel for the pro game, but he's still an erratic rookie.

Can any of the Brown/Mickens/Smith corner trio show something? When all the corners were healthy, Scandrick and the two starters looked ready for real games. No other CB distinguished himself, though Ball started to make plays late last week once he was given some reps in the slot. (He played FS exclusvely the first ten days or so.)

Ignore the score folks. I don't think Wade Phillips will call a blitz-free game, but the objective is to assess playing ability. If you go blitz crazy, or go too deep into your offensive playbook, you're putting scheme above ability. All you get is confirmation that your schemes can confuse 1st and 2nd year players, but no evidence whether those guys can actually play.

The Broken Record: ESPN has a lot of stupid people working for them

BigBlueShoe — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:53:11 -0000

Oh boy. In another mind-numbingly painful attempt to create another Manning v. Brady debate, the erstwhile "bloggers" at ESPN have named Tom Brady the All-Decade Quarterback. To give their decision weight, they sought the endorsement of recently fired Kansas City Chiefs coach Herm Edwards, who seems to have found his comfort zone as ESPN's resident babbling TV studio buffoon:

"You're talking about a guy that was a sixth-round draft pick," said former Jets and Chiefs coach Herm Edwards, now an ESPN analyst. "He wasn't a first-round pick. I love Manning. I think he's great for the league, an ambassador for the league, but he was the first player picked. Either one would be great, but [Brady] has won Super Bowls and was a sixth-round pick. Nobody really knew who he was."

Seemingly as a consolation prize, ESPN listed Marvin Harrison as the all decade wide receiver, along with Torry Holt. Gee, thanks Bristol. I guess you not listing Terrell Owens (a player who programmed your entire network around the last three years to the point where you had a TO bulletin running at the bottom of your news ticker) is supposed to make you look objective, or something.

Typically, ESPN's AFC South "blogger" Paul Kuharsky agreed with the company line:

I've got no beef at all with Brady as the quarterback on ESPN.com's all-decade offense...

And thus, with one fell swoop, all of Mr. Kuharsky's credibility as a knowledgeable football analyst and "blogger" just burned up in a choking cloud of black smoke.

ESPN's AFC South "blogger" Paul Kuharsky's credibility

I mean, come on Paul. At least TRY and represent the division you blog for. At least TRY to make an argument for Peyton. At least TRY to make this "all decade" thing seem entertaining or something, because it sure isn't informative or interesting. I mean, if your company is cynical enough to throw Tom Brady up there in some pathetic attempt to get all of us mad so we grumblegrumbelgrumble over your all decade team, it would spice things up a little if one of ESPN's "bloggers" actually (gasp!) disagreed with the garbage ESPN is trying to sell us.

I know. The thought of it actually happening sent chills down my spine too.

But no. Typical Paul. Ho hum. "I've got no beef at all with Brady as the quarterback on ESPN.com's all-decade offense..." The post has all the excitement of watching old people make out on a plastic covered couch.

Seriously, it is very hard to take Kuharsky or the other ESPN's "bloggers" seriously when they make an all decade team and leave Peyton Manning off the roster. Such decisions go beyond polite disagreement. You start to question whether they were smoking something when they tallied the votes. I don't say this as a Colts fan and blogger, though I realize I'll get marginalized because my loyalty is to the Colts. I say this as a football fan. You really have to be batsh*t crazy, or so mind-blowingly high you are having a detailed conversation about you love life with your pet goldfish, to think that Tom Brady is the NFL's best QB this decade.

Forget the stupidity of the selections for a second. Why even have an all decade team? It doesn't make any sense?

Oh yeah, I forgot. These things are created to spark "debate." "Conversation." "Healthy discussion." Heck, ole Paul said it himself:

Let the Tom Brady versus Peyton Manning debate begin anew.

Sorry, I just vomited a little bit in my mouth after reading that, the crass cynicism being too much for me to stomach.

Listen, I don't have to go in all the numbers. Logically, by any objective measurement a person can think of, Peyton Manning is the best QB from 2001-2010 (we haven't played seasons 2009 and 2010 yet, but whatever). He destroys Brady in all key statistics. He's won more games. Even in the "who is more valuable" stat, Manning last year proved he was better. Without a healthy Tom Brady, New England went 11-5. That's a 69% winning percentage. Without a healthy Peyton Manning, the Colts went 3-4.

The argument ESPN makes, trumpeted by Herm "54-74 lifetime coaching record" Edwards, is that Brady has more Super Bowl rings. Forget that those rings were won under the taint of Spygate and repeated efforts by the Patriots to cheat. Forget all that for a sec. Brady has more rings. ESPN just wants you to focus on that. Brady = more rings. Thus, he gets it over Manning. That, and Brady was a 6th round pick. Why that factors in, I don't know?

Well, if rings are the equalizer, then why is Peyton even in the conversation? Peyton has "only" one, and since QBs like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer have "only" one, then Peyton Manning cannot possibly be an all decade QB, right? Shouldn't it be Brady v. Ben Roethlisberger? I mean, Ben has two rings and Brady has three. They should be the all decade finalists, right?

Do you see the stupidity in all this? It is so dense and thudriffic it isn't even worth getting upset over. It's like ordering a lite beer at happy hour and instead getting a watered-down gin and tonic with some wilted piece of gray-green fruit drowning in the drink.

I guess ESPN did this all decade thing because they're bored or something. That's the only rational reason I can think of for having it, and for listing Tom Brady over Peyton Manning. If that's not correct, and people like Paul Kuharsky actually do believe Tom Brady is the better QB this decade than Peyton Manning, then I have no words within my blogging power that accurately describe the reduced mental facilities of ESPN and their "bloggers" on staff. "Moron." "Stupid." "Blind retarded monkey." None of these give ESPN's level of "der" justice.

I'll excuse New England fans from this classification. They root for their guy and it makes total sense for them to not have any objective baring on it what so ever.

Oh, one more thing: Don't we have two more years left in this decade? Doesn't the decade go from 2001-2010? Maybe I should stop asking questions aimed at rationalizing this all decade team thing. Maybe I should just label it a steaming vat of floating Bristol sewage turds, and call it a day.

Yeah, I think I'll do that.