Gibbs is doing it right - Campbell

[Gregpeck99]

I don't think you guys watched Campbell play in the tough SEC before 80,000+ fans every game ... were he had Amashandou and Obamano as his receivers ... in the games I saw he read his receivers very nicely and made great decisions consistently ... the guy is talented .. he will be stilted if he does not play soon and eventually, will demand to be traded ... you know what happens then ... oiy vey.

[DCsportsfan53]

I watched Eli Manning last year. It looked like a young QB that was backsliding as a result of trying to do too much and from learning bad habits from being forced in too early. He was so terrible in the playoff game he might as well not have even showed up.

He was terrible pretty much the entire second half of the season. He really wasn't even that good early on. I don't care who you are, 52% completion is not nearly good enough and that's what his percentage was all season.

[Arsenic]

Let Campbell prepare. Wait to see Brunell play and hold all the ****ing & complaining until then. Why write Brunell out? he's definitely SMARTER and more competant than Campbell. Its is impossible to believe that Campbell knows more about our plays than Brunell. Im sure Brunell knows our playbook in & out.

Even the most athletic QB in the leaque would be horrible if he wasn't AWARE of his offense. Brains before bronze. Accuracy before Speed.

P A T I E N C E people...

[Butz65]

I don't think you guys watched Campbell play in the tough SEC before 80,000+ fans every game ... were he had Amashandou and Obamano as his receivers ... in the games I saw he read his receivers very nicely and made great decisions consistently ... the guy is talented .. he will be stilted if he does not play soon and eventually, will demand to be traded ... you know what happens then ... oiy vey.

This will be Brunell's last season. Gibbs will insert JC during the season if he feels it makes sense to help the team win. If not, he'll groom him to start in 2007. At this point it's only a matter of time. Gibbs didn't move up last season and draft Campbell to allow him to waste away. However, I think he knows enough about how to deal with QB's (perhaps better that any other coach in the NFL based on past results) that he'll make sure Campbell is brought up to allow him to be successful.

[Gregpeck99]

I don't buy this greatest coach stuff ... this is 2006 ... the game has changed dramatically ... I want the Skins to be an exciting team that wins with domination and class ... I don't enjoy ugly wins and cautious football. Sorry. PS. I hate the Giants ... but respect what they have done with Manning ... decisively wheeling and dealing to draft him and then equally decisively PLAYING HIM! Why did we trade up for Campbell? To let him splinter his ass on the pine. That is what I mean about being too conservative and cautious. It is a question of attitude, definitely.

[Butz65]

I don't buy this greatest coach stuff ... this is 2006 ... the game has changed dramatically ... I want the Skins to be an exciting team that wins with domination and class ... I don't enjoy ugly wins and cautious football. Sorry. PS. I hate the Giants ... but respect what they have done with Manning ... decisively wheeling and dealing to draft him and then equally decisively PLAYING HIM! Why did we trade up for Campbell? To let him splinter his ass on the pine. That is what I mean about being too conservative and cautious. It is a question of attitude, definitely.

Check last season's results. We've gotten farther under Gibbs philosophy than the Giants have with Eli - how can you argue with the results?

[Butz65]

I don't buy this greatest coach stuff ... this is 2006 ... the game has changed dramatically ... I want the Skins to be an exciting team that wins with domination and class ... I don't enjoy ugly wins and cautious football. Sorry. PS. I hate the Giants ... but respect what they have done with Manning ... decisively wheeling and dealing to draft him and then equally decisively PLAYING HIM! Why did we trade up for Campbell? To let him splinter his ass on the pine. That is what I mean about being too conservative and cautious. It is a question of attitude, definitely.

Perhaps we should fire Gibbs and bring back Spurrier - he jumped quickly to insert PR - how did that work out?

[The Sisko]

I think Coach Gibbs is envisioning a situation not unlike last season. That is, Brunell gets injured and can still play but isn't quite able to get it done. As long as Brunell was physically able to walk on the field las season, I honestly don't think Coach Gibbs was going to play PRam. He just didn't have any confidence in him.

By the time the above situation with Brunell occurs, Campbell should be up to speed on the offense and should be able to take over the starting role. Probably the best case scenario for this is that Brunell's injury happens early in the season so that he will be available and relatively fresh for the stretch run and the playoffs. The worst case scenario would be for it to happen late in the season and we have to take Campbell into the playoffs with only a couple or three games worth of starting experience.:paranoid:

Either way, I really want to see Campbell get some starting snaps this season so he can get a little experience under his belt....and we can see what he's got (hey, I'm as impatient as the next guy:) )

[SkinsHokieFan]

Taking the Rypien approach with JC

Ryp didn't play till 1988 at the earliest?

I think this will benifit JC, getting used to this system first, because of the constant change he faced in college(4 systems in 4 years)

[DCsportsfan53]

I don't buy this greatest coach stuff ... this is 2006 ... the game has changed dramatically ... I want the Skins to be an exciting team that wins with domination and class ... I don't enjoy ugly wins and cautious football. Sorry. PS. I hate the Giants ... but respect what they have done with Manning ... decisively wheeling and dealing to draft him and then equally decisively PLAYING HIM! Why did we trade up for Campbell? To let him splinter his ass on the pine. That is what I mean about being too conservative and cautious. It is a question of attitude, definitely.

Wow, since winning isn't enough for you and you need to be in control of HOW we win as well, maybe you should just ignore the NFL and coach your own team so you don't have deal with this stupid, spineless loser of a coach we have :doh:. I just can't believe I'm hearing this kind of :pooh: spew out the mouth of someone who's old enough to have fully experienced Joe's greatness in the 80s. I thought that kind of thinking was reserved for the less intelligent and less informed members of my generation :whoknows: ? Who knew?

[Gregpeck99]

Say Butz ... watch what Manning does THIS year ... then you will see what I mean. The Skins have a great team ... all they need is an athletic Stud QB with a cannon arm who runs like a deer and whose first name is Jason. Common ... life is short ... I'd rather watch the kid develop into something special then limp into the playoffs (maybe) with an ugly-playing, aging QB who fumbles too much ... then only to get crushed by a team with less all-around talent.

[Commander Adama]

You can't change a tiger's stripes ... same ole Brunell ... the guy who stunk up the joint in 2004 and looked like a cadaver in the last 3 games of 2005. The same with coack Gibbs ... conservative ... bordering on wimpy ... to a fault. I say throw Campbell in there and let him develop under fire just like Big Ben and McNabb. What is this BS about No.2? Sounds like last year when Gibbs annointed Pat Ramsey in April only to dump him in September ... de ja vu all over again. Make a gutsy decision Gibbs and stick with it! Get rid of Brunell ... play Campbell ... be classy ... so what if you lose a few games in September ... I want Tigers in December.

Yeah, Coach Gibbs has only developed 3 different Quarterbacks to win 3 different Superbowls. That guy Gibbs needs to take some notes from you on Coaching.

[DoggieStyle]

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

You must have loved Steve Spurrier, right?

We're talking pro ball here, not college. What has Jason Campbell done to deserve the right to compete for the starting job? Nothing.

Look, if he wins the #2 job, he's one play away from starting. That's all he deserves right now. Nothing more.

All this "Campbell should start" talk is just ludicrous.

A chance to compete for the #2, what? He should get a chance to compete for #1, put your best players on the field. Why do we hold back. I like Brunell, but if Campbell is ready and better put him in.

[DCsportsfan53]

:laugh:

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about.

You must have loved Steve Spurrier, right?

We're talking pro ball here, not college. What has Jason Campbell done to deserve the right to compete for the starting job? Nothing.

Look, if he wins the #2 job, he's one play away from starting. That's all he deserves right now. Nothing more.

All this "Campbell should start" talk is just ludicrous.

Agreed. Gibbs always prefers veterans and I think it's been shown time and again that you're much more likely to win it all with a vet than a youngster. There have been a few exceptions (brady and big ben) but they are absolutely the exceptions, not the rule. Brunell is capable of taking us all the way and I look forward to seeing what he can do with these new weapons.

BTW, which state is ScrewYou in again? :laugh:

[Gregpeck99]

DC ... I love you ... but this living in the past has got to stop. I want to win now just as much you ... but from what I saw last year (and the year before) ... I don't think Gibbs has it right with respect to Brunell. I know why he likes him ... because he (Brunell) executes Gibb's conservative play calling with a minimum of turnovers. But the cost of that approach is lack of offensive porduction, the loss of too many close games, and electricity. I'd rather roll the dice. Fortunately, Gibbs knows his own shortcomings (we need more offense) and under Saunders perhaps things will be different in 2006. My hunch is that at the end of the day, Saunders, not Gibbs will select the offensive players, and that Campbell will be the QB sooner rather than later. Let's all pray.

[DoggieStyle]

Doo doo.

A quarterback is not the entire team.

Gibbs won super bowls with, let's see, how many different QBs?

Leadership is leadership. He'll win the big one again, maybe three. And when he does, it will be in part because he didn't have to listen to fools tell him Jason Campbell should be the starter now.

DC ... I love you ... but this living in the past has got to stop. I want to win now just as much you ... but from what I saw last year (and the year before) ... I don't think Gibbs has it right with respect to Brunell. I know why he likes him ... because he (Brunell) executes Gibb's conservative play calling with a minimum of turnovers. But the cost of that approach is lack of offensive porduction, the loss of too many close games, and electricity. I'd rather roll the dice. Fortunately, Gibbs knows his own shortcomings (we need more offense) and under Saunders perhaps things will be different in 2006. My hunch is that at the end of the day, Saunders, not Gibbs will select the offensive players, and that Campbell will be the QB sooner rather than later. Let's all pray.

[Gregpeck99]

Doggie ... I'd rather be the fool rushing in to play Campbell NOW than the angel fearing not to tread there ... is that O.K. by you? If not ... you know what you can do. PS. While the QB may not be the entire team ... when it comes to the 2006 Skins ... it is the only missing piece ... that is, of course, until the coaching staff comes up with the balls to start Campbell.

[DCsportsfan53]

DC ... I love you ... but this living in the past has got to stop. I want to win now just as much you ... but from what I saw last year (and the year before) ... I don't think Gibbs has it right with respect to Brunell. I know why he likes him ... because he (Brunell) executes Gibb's conservative play calling with a minimum of turnovers. But the cost of that approach is lack of offensive porduction, the loss of too many close games, and electricity. I'd rather roll the dice. Fortunately, Gibbs knows his own shortcomings (we need more offense) and under Saunders perhaps things will be different in 2006. My hunch is that at the end of the day, Saunders, not Gibbs will select the offensive players, and that Campbell will be the QB sooner rather than later. Let's all pray.

Hmmm...I really think you can put a lot of that conservative play calling and lack of offensive production on the lack of skill position players we had. Even with only one legitimate WR, Brunell was tearing the place up before his knee injury. Gibbs was calling plays that fit his personnel. I know it's going back in the past again but didn't Gibbs once have a team with 3 different WRs who had 1000 yards in a season? He wasn't calling a conservative gameplan becasue he's a wimp, he was calling the plays his personnel was most effective at executing.

If you remember, the stretch of the season in which we were throwing a lot and Brunell was lighting people up was also the same strech in which we incured a lot of our losses. When Brunell's attempts and yardage went down later in the season, we started winning because we didn't have the personnel around Brunell to play a wide open passing game. That's all changed this year and we should be able to be a completely balanced offense that doesn't allow defenses to concentrate on one area of our game or on one player. I'm really anxious to see what Brunell can do given those circumstances.

With our defense, I see no reason why Brunell couldn't lead us to a SB this year. We were 2 games away last year and our offensive is better in every single way. Our WRs are better, our TE's are better (Robert Johnson is going to be a beast and Fauria is certainly an upgrade from Royal), our o-line will be better (added continuity from playing together plus more playmakers on the outside to take pressure off of them), the running game is set and all this will only serve to make Brunell's job easier. Considering what he was able to do last year with what little he had, I see no reason why we shouldn't expect even better from him this year. Campbell will get his chance. Afterall, he's only 23, it's not like he's getting old or anything but he's learning more everyday about football and about how to be a winner and a leader from following the example that MB sets.

[TheLongshot]

Say Butz ... watch what Manning does THIS year ... then you will see what I mean.

While you are at it, compare his play to Phillip Rivers while you are at it. He's basically in the same situation as Campbell, sitting for a couple of years behind Brees.

The Skins have a great team ... all they need is an athletic Stud QB with a cannon arm who runs like a deer and whose first name is Jason. Common ... life is short ... I'd rather watch the kid develop into something special then limp into the playoffs (maybe) with an ugly-playing, aging QB who fumbles too much ... then only to get crushed by a team with less all-around talent.

So, you'd rather go with a guy with little NFL experience? Guess what? He's probably going to make mistakes that will cause you to lose your hair. He's probably going to miss wide open guys, throw picks because hasn't yet learned to read NFL defenses, try to force balls to receivers that aren't open.

It is much more of a risk to start a young guy rather than go with the experienced vet, who has seen it all.

Jason

[jeronimobrat]

I don't buy this greatest coach stuff ... this is 2006 ... the game has changed dramatically ... I want the Skins to be an exciting team that wins with domination and class ... I don't enjoy ugly wins and cautious football. Sorry. PS. I hate the Giants ... but respect what they have done with Manning ... decisively wheeling and dealing to draft him and then equally decisively PLAYING HIM! Why did we trade up for Campbell? To let him splinter his ass on the pine. That is what I mean about being too conservative and cautious. It is a question of attitude, definitely.

If this is the sort of excitement of which you are seeking, then maybe you need switch bandwagons. The Giants placed (with a bit of hesitation) Eli Manning in at the quarterback position for the simple part of his last name. You can't tell me that this scenario of being the son of Archie and the brother of Peyton did not play a roll into this equation. Truth be told! Eli will never be as good as Peyton but much more better statistically-wise than his father. Get off of these one-year marvels and start focusing on the reality of situation.

[ncr2h]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is team chemistry...if Gibbs declared an open competition for the QB spot, what message does that send to the team? That even if you put in a pro-bowl caliber performance and lead your team to the playoffs, that there is still no job security? Staying with Brunell as starter sends a message that, if you bring success to the organization, you will be rewarded.

Second, this is a good strategy for building JC's confidence. When you are just starting out in something, you want to take baby steps. So now, after a year of learning the offense and adjusting to the NFL, JC can take a baby step. Yeah, "competing for the backup position" sounds really *****. BUT, he has a relatively high chance to succeed and win the backup position. If he feels like he won the backup job, he will feel like he has had some success and that his work is paying off. Also, you can't say that beating out Collins for the backup job was a joke because Collins is actually a decent backup QB who already is very familiar with the offense.

[hiswadeness]

I wish our coaching staff knew what they were doing. I'll bet if we had a head coach that won 3 super bowls with 3 different QBs he would know what to do with Cambell. Oh we do.

JC will start when he earns it.

[Paavo]

You can't change a tiger's stripes ... same ole Brunell ... the guy who stunk up the joint in 2004 and looked like a cadaver in the last 3 games of 2005. The same with coack Gibbs ... conservative ... bordering on wimpy ... to a fault. I say throw Campbell in there and let him develop under fire just like Big Ben and McNabb. What is this BS about No.2? Sounds like last year when Gibbs annointed Pat Ramsey in April only to dump him in September ... de ja vu all over again. Make a gutsy decision Gibbs and stick with it! Get rid of Brunell ... play Campbell ... be classy ... so what if you lose a few games in September ... I want Tigers in December.

You do realize a Hall of Fame coach is calling these shots, right?

No, I guess you don't.

[DCsportsfan53]

I wish our coaching staff knew what they were doing. I'll bet if we had a head coach that won 3 super bowls with 3 different QBs he would know what to do with Cambell. Oh we do.

JC will start when he earns it.

I read the first sentence and :redpunch: :finger: :censored: :censored: :kungfu: :hammer: :kungfu: :moon: :redpunch: :redpunch:

.....but then I finished reading and realized you aren't one of "them".

[TheTotalPackage]

A few more ... Matt Hasselbeck and Brett Favre were both backups. Jake Delhomme was a backup in NO before coming into Carolina and surprising the coaches. Brady was a backup to Bledsoe, and Mark Bulger was a backup to Warner. Many of the successful QB's in the league were originally backups.

Sure a few like Brady and Rothlisberger have benefited from injuries and were ready ahead of schedule. Sure a few more QB's have been pretty good while starting immediately like Troy Aikman, Donovan McNabb, and Peyton Manning.

But many struggle and don't find any success when thrown in too early ... see David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, etc ...

McNabb didn't even start right away. He did his share of pine time.

Let Campbell prepare. Wait to see Brunell play and hold all the ****ing & complaining until then. Why write Brunell out? he's definitely SMARTER and more competant than Campbell. Its is impossible to believe that Campbell knows more about our plays than Brunell. Im sure Brunell knows our playbook in & out.

Even the most athletic QB in the leaque would be horrible if he wasn't AWARE of his offense. Brains before bronze. Accuracy before Speed.

P A T I E N C E people...

Now, I am not questioning Joe Gibbs' moves or motives. I believe that the coach knows what he's doing, and that Jason Campbell will get his chance in due time. But I just got to call you out on something you wrote and I read.

The above highlighted statements make you sound like a bona fide bigot. Perhaps you didn't intend for it to sound that way, but it did.

What makes you say Brunell is "definitely smarter" therefore "more competent" than Campbell? We don't know enough about their IQ scores to compare their intelligence. We haven't gotten the chance to see Campbell in action enough to judge his competence either. I doubt if the way Campbell played in preseason was as bad as Brunell played in the last 3 games.

How can you be so sure that Brunell knows our playbook in and out, thus more than JC? Maybe you forgot, but we imported a new offensive coordinator and therefore have a whole new playbook. Sure, Brunell has been in this league longer so I could see how you can assume he knows more. But the fact that JC had to learn 3 or 4 new offensive systems through 4 college seasons, yet managed to be successful at all of them speaks volumes about his ability to adapt to a new playbook. This pretty much cancels Brunell's experience out and puts them on even ground with regards to knowing the playbook inside out as far as I'm concerned. Right now, the only advantage I see Brunell having over Campbell is his experience and ability to read NFL defenses.

Maybe you should've worded your statements differently and said at this point, Brunell's more experienced than Campbell. Otherwise it sounds like you said "the White guy is definitely SMARTER and more competent than the Black guy" and are just predisposed to accept this as a given.