Jason Campbell vs. the NFL
Give Jason Campbell credit for this: he seems to be durable. Nearly half the NFL's teams--15 as of this writing--have already started more than one quarterback this season. The NFC East is the only division in which no team has yet switched QBs. Interestingly, 12 of those 17 teams with QB consistency have records of at least .500, and all five NFL teams with at least six games have started the same quarterback each week.
But when you compare Campbell to those other 16 quarterbacks who have started every game, things start to look pretty ugly. Here's the rundown.
Completions: 17th out of 17.
Completion Percentage: 16th out of 17, ahead only of Eli Manning.
Passing yards and yards per game: 17th out of 17.
Passing touchdowns: Tied with Damon Huard for 15th out of 17, ahead only of Matt Schaub.
Interceptions: Tied with four guys for 5th out of 17.
Completions for more than 20 yards: Tied with Schaub for 15th out of 17, ahead only of Schaub.
QB rating: 17th out of 17.
Since Campbell has now played seven games this season, the same number he started last year, it's also fun to compare some of this year's numbers with last year's numbers.
Completion percentage: 59.3 now, 53.1 then.
Passing yards: 1,378 now, 1,297 then.
Rushing yards: 100 now, 107 then.
Touchdowns: 6 now, 10 then.
Interceptions: 6 now, 6 then.
Fumbles: 8 now, 1 then.
QB Rating: 77.2 now, 76.5 then.
UPDATE: I should have included the full list of every-start QB's. They are: Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Matt Schaub, Jay Cutler, Damon Huard, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, Jason Campbell, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Brett Favre, Jeff Garcia Jon Kitna, Drew Brees, Jeff Garcia and Matt Hasselbeck.
By Dan Steinberg |
October 31, 2007; 10:28 AM ET
| Category:
Redskins
Previous: If Gilbert Gets Traded.... |
Next: Redskins Tailgaters vs. Ravens Tailgaters

Get This Widget >>

Posted by: Jake | October 31, 2007 11:06 AM
I should add that I am a little worried about the fumbling problem. Maybe Joe Gibbs will wake up and teach him how to protect the ball.
Posted by: Jake | October 31, 2007 11:07 AM
Thank you for posting this to temper all the fans hyping Campbell as the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Well, maybe he is. Sliced bread isn't that great anyway. Maybe the best thing since internet porn?)
He's looked good in the clutch at times, and even though his receivers often look like they are playing with hands of steel, Jason has overthrown quite a few passes himself.
I don't meant to say he's terrible, or he's not going to get better, just that he's not there yet.
Posted by: SuzyIJustWanttoKissYou | October 31, 2007 11:11 AM
To be fair, he's had inconsistent receiver help throughout the season.
And his girl is smokin' hot, which could distract Beowulf himself.
Posted by: ScottVanPeltStyle.com | October 31, 2007 11:50 AM
I'm not worried about JC's development yet. It would be nice if the Redskins would continue to stay the course here.
Posted by: Lindemann | October 31, 2007 11:58 AM
Give Campbell some more time, he'll work it out. He'll never be an elite qb though.
thehotroute.blogspot.com
Posted by: The Hot Route | October 31, 2007 3:50 PM
So there are two starting QB's in the NFL with the name Jeff Garcia? How random is that?
Say, who is JC's girlfriend? Link please.
Posted by: Ted | October 31, 2007 4:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.

Next question: how much of that is his fault? To be honest, I think it's unfair to judge anyone on the offense until the o-line gets it together. It would have been nice to have guys on the bench who could step up and start performing at a high level, but it clearly hasn't happened (at least not yet). Until they do, it's impossible to get the running game going or to pass protect, so the offense flounders (especially against solid defenses).
After years of playing musical chairs at quarterback, I'm happy to have a guy in Campbell who you can count on to play decently for many years to come. Now if only we had a few more guys on the offensive line we could say the same for.