Jason Campbell: Grading His Performance for Bears on Monday Night Football
One backup quarterback thrived in his first start. The other, who had numerous starts under his belt, was exposed as a third-stringer at best.
Jason Campbell's game should be taken in context. The San Francisco 49ers boast one of the best defenses in the league and have been together for awhile.
However, there's no excuse for how the Chicago Bears offense performed. And it starts with the quarterback.
Campbell's completion percentage wasn't too terrible. He connected on 14 of his 22 passes for a completion percentage of 63.6 percent. Yet one look at his total yards and yards per passing attempt shows why he was so "successful." He totaled a paltry 107 yards, or 4.9 yards per pass.
Part of the blame could be on the coaching staff. Perhaps they told him to focus on short passes and handcuffed him from making any plays. Considering Campbell's long history of playing not to lose, that's most likely not the case.
Campbell shouldn't take all of the blame for the six sacks given up by Chicago. The offensive line is terrible and doesn't leave much room for error from the quarterback.
However, he'll have to place those two interceptions on his own resume.
If we are going to look at Campbell's game on its own, he obviously cannot receive a grade higher than a "F." But that's not nice.
Look at the running game. The Bears averaged three yards per carry and didn't give Campbell too many manageable situations to avoid the rush.
What grade would you give Campbell?
It isn't like he got any help from the much-ballyhooed Chicago defense. When you're playing catch-up from the very beginning, only the most elite of quarterbacks will have a chance.
And Campbell isn't on that level.
Taking everything into account, including the offensive line, the play-calling, and the rushing attack, Campbell at least deserves a D. Come on, it's the holidays.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?