Lil Kenzo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I just think we should leave it to Gibbs'. He knows what he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalDefense Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 We have a terrific defense that will have us in every game we play no matter what the offense does We have a very good offensive coordinator now to go along with some great offensive talent We have a QB who threw for 23 TD's with basically 1 WR and an H-back as targets Now lets just throw a 2nd year QB who has never taken an NFL snap in as our starter Talk about 1 step forward and 2 steps back Brunell is the starting QB for this team, like it or lump it. As far as #2 goes, I could care less, because if we see the #2 during the regular season in 06/07 then our Super Bowl hopes will fast forward to 07/08 real fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck812 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Gibbs will play the best player. As long as the best player is Brunnell....Otherwise, he will play Brunnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I can't speak for the person who originally wrote those comments but I do not see the bigotry in his statements. From a football standpoint Brunell is "definitely smarter" and more competent than Campbell. This is true of ANY 14 year veteran being compared to a sophmore. I would say the same things about Steve McNair were the Titans to draft Leinart, it's really a simple matter of experience. I think you might've read a little too far into that statement. I don't think there's any question that, AS A FOOTBALL PLAYER, Brunell is smarter and more competent RIGHT NOW. That will change in due time. There wasn't a hint of bigotry in the statement. The only racist thought is by those who IMMEDIATELY presumed the content was white and black. It's very revealing of a person's mindset to immediately equate the suggestion a long-time starting professional player who was SAID IN THE THREAD to know the plays more simply based on his long experience reading playbooks and the like that the comparision was because he's white and the other guy is black. With friends like these, civil rights and equality don't need enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Oh, we're supposed to believe Joe Gibbs now. What has he ever done? What's that? Hall of Fame? 3 Super Bowls? Yeah, but what has he done lately? No doubt. I mean, let's face it doods and doodettes: The game has passed him by! We'll NEVER make the playoffs, much less the Super Duper Bowl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Jason Campbell 2006-07 = Ben Rothlisberger 2004-05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 My only problem is why is Campbell only competing for #2? Or even Collins? What if one of them prove to be more deserving to start than Brunnell? I say make it an open competition and let the best player start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoyaSkins28 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 maybe he will get number 1. it still depends on how well he plays in training camp. he can still get number one. he just wont be initally going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 My only problem is why is Campbell only competing for #2? Or even Collins? What if one of them prove to be more deserving to start than Brunnell? I say make it an open competition and let the best player start. This argument held water last offseason. Ramsey had done nothing to earn the job. Brunell was horrible, but, he should have been allowed to compete all along. Gibbs handed the job to a person who was not deserving of it in an effort to see if being unchallenged would help him do what Gibbs was seeking done. This offseason we're coming off a playoff appearance. Brunell was very strong much of the season, really tailing off dramatically upon being injured in the Giants game. He earned the starting position as the team's leader there. You don't throw every position open. Marcus Washington should start because he's the heart and soul of the defense and has played at such a high level it should just be his job. Same for Brunell. Only in areas you lack an established player should you really open it up to competition for the starting role. Nickel back and weakside backer may be such positions now. QB isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck812 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 My only problem is why is Campbell only competing for #2? Or even Collins? What if one of them prove to be more deserving to start than Brunnell? I say make it an open competition and let the best player start. JG has a very strong love afair with Mark Brunnell and he isnt going to let anyone challenge him for his position now. Like it or not, Brunnell will be our starter till a Theisman like injury occurs or Brunnell himself decides to retire. He will never be pulled due to play on the field again. It just wont happen... We saw what it took in 04 for JG to pull Brunnell out of a game and now that we have had a little team success we will sink or swim with him for possiblely the next 2 or 3 years. That said, this team should be good enough that Brunnell cant cost us too many games. I just dont think he, nor any of the other QBs can play that bad. If we can now pressure the QB and stay injury free on defense, we can live with <100 yard passing games from our QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 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. Excellent post with many fine points, especially: Staying with Brunell as starter sends a message that, if you bring success to the organization, you will be rewarded. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehhunter Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 You know, Steve Young was groomed under Joe Montana, a seasoned veteran, by a super bowl coach... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorfro Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Who knows what to believe when it comes to Gibbs and the QB sitch. He made a mess of it last year. Just hope his boy Brunell can stay healthy. If he's healthy he seems to perform ok. Otherwise he hurts us. If he's hurting us hopefully we'll have a competent back up. Who that may be??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomahawks Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Why did we waste a first round draft pick last year for Campbell if he's not given the opportunity to start? Now, I do like Mark Brunell, but give the kid a chance. I've grown tired of the whole situation already. Gibbs is a HOFer, won three SBs and all that, but the TIME IS NOW for Campbell. Is Jason going to be that much better being a side line jock in ANOTHER year? Throw him in and at least let him "get his feet wet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTotalPackage Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 There wasn't a hint of bigotry in the statement. The only racist thought is by those who IMMEDIATELY presumed the content was white and black. It's very revealing of a person's mindset to immediately equate the suggestion a long-time starting professional player who was SAID IN THE THREAD to know the plays more simply based on his long experience reading playbooks and the like that the comparision was because he's white and the other guy is black.With friends like these, civil rights and equality don't need enemies. art, for the record, i read his statement three times before coming to that conclusion instead of immediately. i read it one time, read on....then came back and reread because i realized something in it had bothered me. i did say that he could've better said more experienced vs "clearly smarter and more competent". i discussed this with my friends today and they're all in agreement with me and say he probably didn't mean any harm, but could've used "experienced" instead. i'm african american and they are too. so you saying we've got messed up mindsets because we express that the way something is said could be offensive to some? whether you like it or not, if a coach or an announcer had made those statements on the air or on television, he'd be having to call a press conference the next day to clarify himself. if something that's said is even questionable, then it should be said differently or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 TotalPackage is on to something. The statement should not have been made however inadvertantly. IMO, the writer should apologize for being insensitive. There is no need for ruffled feathers of this nature on this otherwise generally excellent Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 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. Bla, bla, bla. That story is SO old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 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. Eli Manning is going to crash and burn THIS year. His meltdown and lack of experience really started to show in the middle of last year. His confidence is shattered after that playoff blowout. If you take Tiki Barber off of that team last year they are 6-10 or 7-9 at best. They won the division despite having Eli Manning as their quarterback. In addition, every team in the NFC East has drastically improved their defenses over the last two seasons. He will struggle this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 art, for the record, i read his statement three times before coming to that conclusion instead of immediately. i read it one time, read on....then came back and reread because i realized something in it had bothered me.i did say that he could've better said more experienced vs "clearly smarter and more competent". i discussed this with my friends today and they're all in agreement with me and say he probably didn't mean any harm, but could've used "experienced" instead. i'm african american and they are too. so you saying we've got messed up mindsets because we express that the way something is said could be offensive to some? whether you like it or not, if a coach or an announcer had made those statements on the air or on television, he'd be having to call a press conference the next day to clarify himself. if something that's said is even questionable, then it should be said differently or not at all. Don't know what to tell you TP. You and your friends are racists. The ONLY conclusion one can make from a group of people with brains that function on a white/black level of thinking have racist tendencies. You're fighting against them, and that's probably good, but, when a normal person who accepts the normalcy of white QBs and black QBs reads the statement, the ONLY content that occurs to him is, "that guy's talking about experience versus youth." That's the ONLY thing that can come to mind UNLESS you view things along racial lines. YOUR own mindset puts you in a place where conversations on intelligence involving white and black people relate to lesser intelligence on the part of blacks. You know this is wrong, so you rise up to say so, but, you processed the thought. The author did not and should not be presumed to have because YOU did. I don't hold it against you and hope you don't take this reply as inflammatory toward you as the intent is not that. The intent is to get you to understand YOU put race into this. Not the author. You did, and that you did is a reflection of how you view the world and race in general. You saw the stereotype. That stereotype came to you upon reading a totally innocuous statement. That means something. The color of the players didn't occur to me or to most people who would read that. It only occurs to those who refuse to accept most of society no longer views the world along a racial divide. The very people who should, themselves, start to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 TotalPackage is on to something. The statement should not have been made however inadvertantly. IMO, the writer should apologize for being insensitive. There is no need for ruffled feathers of this nature on this otherwise generally excellent Board. No Greg. There's no need for someone to apologize to others who have created something that doesn't exist. You and TP should apologize for introducing a racial stereotype not consistent with this thread into this thread. You and he should apologize for thinking the worst of the person making the comment AND for allowing yourselves to view such comments along racial lines. You and TP ruffled feathers -- mine, the original posters and DCs. You and HE should apologize for bringing race into a conversation race had nothing to do with. But, you won't. That's not how you guys think. You guys think if you imagine something in someone else's content that person is responsible for apologizing to you for your imagination. You'll never consider the apology should be from you to the other person for attributing something he never said to him. That's sad. Now, for everyone's protection, let's shut up on this topic and talk about the two players involved, and, I promise if I say that Campbell is a better athlete than Brunell, it's got nothing to do with Campbell's color. There'll be something else it has to do with. And, that's the level this conversation has been on and should stay on. So, get yourself right on it, and continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 And who says we won't with Brunell? If you haven't been with us, Gibbs isn't running the offense anymore, that's Al Saunders job. He, BTW, ran the offense in St. Louis for Vermiel, so he knows how to do "aggressive". Jason, normally I wouldn't be so nitpicky, but this has been something that I have seen in the media reports regarding Saunders as well and needs to be clarified .... Saunders only coached the WR's for Vermeil in St. Louis. He ran the offense for Vermeil in KC. The greatest show on Turf was primarily attributable to Mike Martz. His playbook, organization and coaching. Sure Saunders did a great job with the receivers ... especially a very young an promising WR named Torry Holt, but the ingenuity and expertise of how to use Faulk and get the ball spread around was Martz. With that said ... The KC offense the past 5 years has been more prolific than St. Louis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 nice post. i was worried for a minute that you were going to make saunders out to be less than we expected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If you will excuse my french, Hall of Fame is an NFL marketing shctick ... who cares about a collection of dusty bronze busts in a dinky Ohio suburb ... I want the Skins to be dominant in 2006 with an exciting QB at the helm and an aggressive offensive gameplan. Is that too much to expect. The team is so close ... Brunell being coached by a tepid hall of Fame Coach worried about preserving his legacy is a step backward in my opinion. By the way, Longshot, I lost my hair a long time ago so that is the least of my worries. DC, I really admire your rational, well thought out approach ... I would be happy if it all works out your way. My problem is that I don't think it will ... defensive coaches salivate when they prepare for Brunell/Gibbs. I want to fix this now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOF is not a marketing schtick. It is a sign of respect for years of service and contributions to an industry. Many coaches and players view it as a fraternity of excellence that only a few in respect to the total population can belong. Go ask Art Monk if he believes that the HOF is just for marketing? I understand that your wish list is for the Skins to be dominant, beat the pants off of everyone and go 16-0 during the season with the closest margin of victory being 30 points like college games. Guess what ... it isn't going to happen. Too much skill, talent and top notch competition in the league. Sure we may have a few games like we did last year vs. the 49ers, but that is unrealistic to expect each week. We tried the dynamic offense with Spurrier, Trung Candidate, Laverneous Coles, etc ... We saw what Fun N' Gun NFL style with burning speed would do ... basically get your QB killed. Our Defense was good then, under Marvin Lewis, but the team still lacked discipline and balance. Gibbs knows what he is doing ... nobody disputes the JC will be the next QB for the Redskins .... when he is ready. With all the offseason acquisitions to beef up our offense and defense with big signings of coaches and players alike, we are making our run this year and maybe next ... and we will be competitive to say the least. It is wiser to put in a player who may not be flashy, but can read defenses, blitzes, and stay calm cool and collected and not give up the adverse big play. Newbies in the pocket (since JC is technically not a rookie anymore) are prone to force the ball and throw pics instead of throwing away the ball. He will be more prone to scrambling and trying to improvise when a play breaks down ... which is a great attribute when combined with the experience to know when the play has truly broken down. Young players with a lot of athletic ability sometimes put too much on their shoulders and don't exhibit the same patience as the veteran players. At the end of the day it is all about confidence. The coaches see the players every day in practice and know what they can do. They see how they lead the team, direct the offense and their general leadership. From every indication, JC is progressing well, but he is not where the coaches feel he gives the team the best chance to win. When he is, Gibbs will give him the reigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If you will excuse my french, Hall of Fame is an NFL marketing shctick ... who cares about a collection of dusty bronze busts in a dinky Ohio suburb ... I want the Skins to be dominant in 2006 with an exciting QB at the helm and an aggressive offensive gameplan. Is that too much to expect. The team is so close ... Brunell being coached by a tepid hall of Fame Coach worried about preserving his legacy is a step backward in my opinion. By the way, Longshot, I lost my hair a long time ago so that is the least of my worries. DC, I really admire your rational, well thought out approach ... I would be happy if it all works out your way. My problem is that I don't think it will ... defensive coaches salivate when they prepare for Brunell/Gibbs. I want to fix this now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Greg, you are one of two things, a troll or a lukewarm Redskins fan trying to get a rise out of us. I'll give you a tip. If you would like your fellow board members to embrace you thoughts and theories then I wouldn't slam our very knowledgeable and successful head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.