Art Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I'm not sure how he runs a post pattern, but it might be good for a laugh...I obviously need more Campbell Kool-Aid. My fault. :koolaid: You don't need more Campbell Kool-Aid at all. While true Campbell is a superior prospect to Ramsey in nearly every aspect save PERHAPS brute arm strength, the fact remains the team intends to bump him to the No. 2 role and evaluate his progress more, leaving the No. 3 role available to us. Much as it was obviously a mistake to award Ramsey the starting role he hadn't earned on the field prior to this season, it's likely a mistake to award Campbell the No. 2 role without competition, but, given that is the case, the No. 3 job is clearly going to someone like Collins, so, you're all good with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Todd Collins...will be 35 years old in November...last started a game in the NFL in 1997...in the past eight seasons has thrown for a grand total of 229 yards and one TD. How do you feel about the BL acquisition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I am going to make you a guarantee right now. Whoever the third QB is that the Redskins carry into the season, besides Brunell and Campbell, will see the field next year, and will start more than one game. Write it down and bring it back when the time comes. You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat: Can you name two teams save the Jets who started their number 3 qb for a significant period of games after their starter went down in the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?! I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Because his track record is unbelievable. Most of what he says comes to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoreSkins Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Shhhh! Don't say his name. Think what you may, but when HE talks I listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Then you're not paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Take my advice from earlier and research his posts and threads prior to today. Should prove illuminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN You haven't been here for that long. You will see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Skinsnut Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 True:silly: And he comes at a pretty cheap price. A third this year and a fourth next year is a nice gamble. My bet is it pays off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN Trust us when we say that he is $$$, but we don't want to ruin a good thing, so I am going to shutup about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoreSkins Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN The problem is that HE posts it here long before any other "news" outlet. His track record is outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 why does it say Andyman is 16 years old, has just a few posts and yet some of you believe it is Joe Gibbs himself?!I haven't read anything on this board that I haven't heard from ESPN You can put about anything you want for your age whether it be 3 or 100 yrs old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyandSam Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I am going to make you a guarantee right now. Whoever the third QB is that the Redskins carry into the season, besides Brunell and Campbell, will see the field next year, and will start more than one game. Write it down and bring it back when the time comes. Good thing you didn't make that guarantee this past year. Campbell saw zero, zilch, nada playing time....just as most third string quarterbacks in the NFL. If your third string QB is playing, either your season is dead because the first and second stringers are hurt; or you are having one hellacious season whereby you are resting both your first string and second string QB. You do understand that the third string quarterback is essentially the scout team QB in practice? Collins knows Saunder's system inside and out so he is a natural pickup to train Mark and Jason. Good god man.....we have far more important things to worry about than the third string QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I am going to make you a guarantee right now. Whoever the third QB is that the Redskins carry into the season, besides Brunell and Campbell, will see the field next year, and will start more than one game. Write it down and bring it back when the time comes. Actually I'll one up you AJ. $100 donation to Extremeskins at the end of the season. If our 3rd QB starts for two or more games I'll donate. This doesn't mean he comes in to replace an injury after the first snap of the game...he must start at least two games, doesn't have to be consecutive. If he doesn't then you will. Deal? Mods I'm assuming this is cool.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlitzFiftySix Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Now that Lloyd is officially a Redskin, does Randle El still come in for a visit? Is it possible that we go after both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I didn't get here in time to say it first AJ, but how could you not see all the advantages to having your #3 be a guy completely familiar with your new offensive coach's system? As for the advantages to #3 being a seasoned vet, one characteristic you'd like to have there is that he be relatively unflappable if he has to take the field. Normally, by the time you're at a #3 QB, your playing it close to the vest and want no mistakes. You turn to the other starters to step up in your play calling, not by expecting your #3 to win it with a #1 or #2 skill level. As for your prediction of playing time, sure someone will bring it up, but why bother? It's not like you* being wrong is some big deal. *Me either, come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 While true Campbell is a superior prospect to Ramsey in nearly every aspect save PERHAPS brute arm strength... :koolaid: Much as it was obviously a mistake to award Ramsey the starting role he hadn't earned on the field prior to this season, it's likely a mistake to award Campbell the No. 2 role without competition, but, given that is the case, the No. 3 job is clearly going to someone like Collins, so, you're all good with that. If Brunell goes down, which is highly likely, you can say goodbye to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsDukes Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 :koolaid:If Brunell goes down, which is highly likely, you can say goodbye to the playoffs. I'm not totally convinced of that, in fact I'm not totally convinced MB will even be the starter here next year. I think its possible Campbell makes his debut a year ahead of schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 :koolaid:If Brunell goes down, which is highly likely, you can say goodbye to the playoffs. AJ, I've noticed you tend to lean toward the negative. Why do you put so much faith in your own predictive powers? Is this some sort of psych game you play with yourself? Make a "positive" prediction once in awhile. If you want to say "Ramsey will be a Hall of Famer" then say it. We'll all come back in 15 years and pat you on the back. For now, just be a fan and have a little faith and just sit back and take it in. The glass can be half-full. Give it a chance. Peace be with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 AJ, I've noticed you tend to lean toward the negative.Why do you put so much faith in your own predictive powers? Is this some sort of psych game you play with yourself? Make a "positive" prediction once in awhile. If you want to say "Ramsey will be a Hall of Famer" then say it. We'll all come back in 15 years and pat you on the back. For now, just be a fan and have a little faith and just sit back and take it in. The glass can be half-full. Give it a chance. Peace be with you. I'm just not a blind homer. I root for the team, but when it comes to assessing the team, I try to be objective. I don't understand what Gibbs has been doing at the QB position. A lot of people would like an easy way to dismiss what I'm saying, but the truth is, I had no problem when Brunell was brought in. I hadn't really been watching him, so I assumed he must still be the same player, and if he could play as well here as he did in Jacksonville, we'd be in good shape, and he'd be worth the cost. It was the way Gibbs stuck with him in 2004 that set off the alarm bells. He had somewhat of a renaissance last year, but it was spotty, and it was mostly due to Santana Moss making him look good. He completely fell apart at the end of the season, and as a result we had no offense in the playoffs. Bottom line, he doesn't cut it anymore, we overpaid for him, and Gibbs has stuck with him for no discernable reason, which leaves pride as the only explanation. We made the playoffs in spite of Brunell, not because of him. - He had Ramsey in as his starter throughout an entire offseason and training camp, and then he benched him in the first game of the season. I've never seen that happen before in 20+ years of watching NFL football. Not once. - He traded away draft picks to move up and reach to take Campbell, who nobody really wanted that much, talks about him like he's the greatest player ever to enter the NFL before he's taken a snap, and is apparently so confident in his abilities that he's willing to go into next season with no alternate plan should he turn out to be something less than what he hopes. Something is very wrong. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. I still think Gibbs is great at running an organization and creating a culture of success. He's a great leader. When it comes to the more technical aspects of football, though, meaning Xs and Os and judging personnel, I'm not sure he totally knows what he's doing anymore. That's what worries me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 AJ outside of the QB situation do you even like discussing the Redskins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Something is very wrong. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. I still think Gibbs is great at running an organization and creating a culture of success. He's a great leader. When it comes to the more technical aspects of football, though, meaning Xs and Os and judging personnel, I'm not sure he totally knows what he's doing anymore. That's what worries me. I think he knows what he's doing, I personally just don't think he necessarily handled the situation well in 2004. It makes good sense to have both a veteran quarterback and a developing youngster waiting in the wings. We've seen it work quite effectively numerous times (Joe Montana & Steve Young, Jon Kitna & Carson Palmer, the QBs during Gibbs I, etc.). Given that he was just coming back, however, I can see how you might question his ability to evaluate QB talent so soon. For some reason I get the feeling that Jason Campbell reminds him of Doug Williams and that Brunell's leadership and attitude led him to be the starter far more than his production and health (both of which are questionable decisions). I, for one, am still pretty confident Campbell will be good provided we bring him along slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I'm just not a blind homer. I root for the team, but when it comes to assessing the team, I try to be objective. I don't understand what Gibbs has been doing at the QB position. A lot of people would like an easy way to dismiss what I'm saying, but the truth is, I had no problem when Brunell was brought in. I hadn't really been watching him, so I assumed he must still be the same player, and if he could play as well here as he did in Jacksonville, we'd be in good shape, and he'd be worth the cost. It was the way Gibbs stuck with him in 2004 that set off the alarm bells. He had somewhat of a renaissance last year, but it was spotty, and it was mostly due to Santana Moss making him look good. He completely fell apart at the end of the season, and as a result we had no offense in the playoffs. Bottom line, he doesn't cut it anymore, we overpaid for him, and Gibbs has stuck with him for no discernable reason, which leaves pride as the only explanation. We made the playoffs in spite of Brunell, not because of him.- He had Ramsey in as his starter throughout an entire offseason and training camp, and then he benched him in the first game of the season. I've never seen that happen before in 20+ years of watching NFL football. Not once. - He traded away draft picks to move up and reach to take Campbell, who nobody really wanted that much, talks about him like he's the greatest player ever to enter the NFL before he's taken a snap, and is apparently so confident in his abilities that he's willing to go into next season with no alternate plan should he turn out to be something less than what he hopes. Something is very wrong. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. I still think Gibbs is great at running an organization and creating a culture of success. He's a great leader. When it comes to the more technical aspects of football, though, meaning Xs and Os and judging personnel, I'm not sure he totally knows what he's doing anymore. That's what worries me. You sound like you're complaining dude, or worse, you could do a better job with the QB position then Joe Gibbs. Brunell got whacked in the knees later in the season. Add to that having only one reliable WR, we could only get so far against the #1 defense and #1 team in the conference. Brunell could only take us so far, but you know what, he took us there. Prior to '05, we hadn't been in the playoffs since last century. I guess you gotta be like me and have important sh*t taking away before you hold any value in what little sh*t you have. WE SWEPT DALLAS FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!! AND YOU'RE STILL B*TCHING? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Redskins hit ground running, adding Lloyd, courting others http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2006-03-11-lloyd-market_x.htm WASHINGTON (AP) — The Washington Redskins took their usual quick dive into free agency Saturday, trading for receiver Brandon Lloyd and spending $10,000 for seats to court four players at an NBA game. Brandon Lloyd will be expected to take some heat off Santana Moss in Washington. By Paul Sakuma, AP The Redskins sent a third-round pick in this year's draft and a fourth-round selection in 2007 to the San Francisco 49ers for Lloyd, who was a restricted free agent. Washington will now attempt to sign Lloyd to a long-term deal. Owner Dan Snyder also treated receiver Antwaan Randle El, linebacker Andre Carter, safety Adam Archuleta and quarterback Todd Collins to Saturday night's Washington Wizards game against the Detroit Pistons. Snyder spent $10,000 on four "dream seats" next to the Pistons bench, and Archuleta and Randle El sat there with Redskins players Chris Cooley and Jason Campbell in the second half. The other players watched from a luxury suite with Redskins coaches and front office officials. An official within the league told The Associated Press that the team was in varying states of negotiations with the four players, some of whom were accompanied by their agents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were continuing. The 49ers could have demanded a first-round pick for Lloyd, but the Redskins don't have one ... The anonymous source must not have been andyman...or andymaam for that matter since he (or she) would have come here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.