Fred Jones Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Thought this belonged in the Stadium as well as the breaking news section. Wilbon points out what many people here have said that many things appear to be wrong with both the offense and defense. 700-Page Playbook, 1,001 Things to Fix By Michael Wilbon http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601346.html GLENDALE, Ariz. There are too many coaches. The offensive playbook is too big. The whole quarterback situation is a mess. The offensive line isn't what it's purported to be. They don't run the ball enough. The defense has been terrible. They made too many changes in the offseason -- again. They continue to make terrible personnel decisions, like trading a third-round pick, which should become a starter in the NFL, for T.J. Duckett, a perfectly healthy and capable back they don't play a lick. You can say anything you want about the Washington Redskins today, make almost any criticism, and chances are the case in point is at least a little bit true. What's wrong with the Redskins? Everything, or at least a little bit of everything. Probably, the Redskins are the most disappointing team in the NFL after the first third of the season. They reported to camp and announced, quite reasonably based on last year's results and the personnel on hand, that anything less than reaching the Super Bowl would be a disappointment. And even if that was setting the bar a little bit too high, certainly there was every reason to expect that the Redskins would be in the mix to win the NFC East and challenge for a spot in the NFC championship game. But following the stunning loss to the previously winless Tennessee Titans at home -- and for my money it's the most shocking loss of the NFL season to date -- the Redskins trail the following teams in the conference: Bears, Saints, Seahawks, Panthers, Eagles, Rams, Cowboys, Vikings, Falcons and Giants. That's 10. The Redskins have lost two home games already, two division games and all three conference games. They've put together one truly good game, and that was against the lowly Houston Texans. The other game they won went to overtime and came against a Jacksonville Jaguars team that was coming off a three-game stretch against Dallas, Pittsburgh and at Indy. The Redskins probably should be 1-5. After the Bears, who are the talk of the league for all the right reasons, the talk of the league is, "What's Wrong With the Redskins?" Even here at the Monday night game between the Cardinals and Bears, players from both teams and personnel people from various NFL teams would see somebody from Washington and invariably ask, "What was that yesterday against Tennessee?" For every question posed Monday night, there was a theory, one as good as another. They've got to bench Mark Brunell and get Jason Campbell in. They've got four studly running backs (Clinton Portis, Ladell Betts, 275-pound Mike Sellers and Duckett) and don't know how to use them. The offensive coaches, particularly Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders, are walking on eggshells because there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Hey, it's not like the Redskins can come out and refute these theories, because when you're 2-4 and just lost to a winless team with a rookie quarterback at home, you can't refute anything. Of course, the quarterback issue dominates the conversation, mostly because Brunell has been, well, not good except for that out-of-body, record-setting performance down in Houston. I've been very, very slow to jump on the rip-Brunell bandwagon because he appeared to become comfortable with the Saunders offense in Houston and against Jacksonville. I'm not a proponent of rushing a kid quarterback into play. Yes, there are exceptions, like Ben Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh. But even some of the all-time greats, like John Elway and Troy Aikman, struggled desperately early. One school of thought is that if the Redskins go to Campbell now, the season is done. Just look at the schedule. You want to throw the kid in at Indy after the Colts' bye week? Dallas is after that. The Eagles after that. Where? When? Is putting Campbell in the lineup right now a concession that this season has turned into a rebuilding year? And how do you justify doing that when the team has gone out and spent so much money to win now? The other school of thought is that Brunell is so far past done that the club is wasting time both in terms of trying to win now and getting Campbell ready. It's difficult to see Gibbs, as much as he believes in veteran players, taking that viewpoint. Perhaps, however, with Campbell in the game the coaches will ask him to do less and rely more on those runners who might as well be in mothballs half the time. (How silly is it, from the standpoint of building a team, to give up a third-round pick for Duckett and not use him? A third-round pick isn't a throwaway; it should yield a starter in the NFL. Lance Briggs, the Bears' starting linebacker, was selected in the third round. Olin Kreutz, perhaps the best center in the NFL, was selected in the third round. Perhaps you've heard of a certain Terrell Owens, wide receiver, Cowboys? Third-round pick. Trading a third-round pick for Duckett, even if it was to keep him away from the Eagles, hurts the team in the future very clearly. It hurts the team now because you have a man in the prime of his career who has to be down emotionally because the coaches won't put him in the game. It's nothing less than absurd.) Personally, I'd start Brunell but tell both quarterbacks that Campbell will play. I'd get him in the game next week against the Colts, but try to shield him from the pressure that goes with being named a starter. If Campbell looks like he's up to the moment, then increase his playing time. Rest of article at above link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Mas Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Great article. I especialy like his idea as far as starting Brunell and slipping Campbell in slowly. But overall, very good, open minded article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinsunshine Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 But how often does an opportunity really present itself to put in a different QB for a couple of series? If the Colts are slightly ahead of us in points, we're still trying to win. If we're ahead, it's not like we can count on the D these days to preserve a lead for us. If we're getting shellacked, just let Brunell and Collins finish out the game. Then spend the next two weeks getting Campbell ready for his first start. I think fans understand that a young QB may struggle. And that's why it's important to give Campbell some starting experience this season, to get ready for next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Hard to argue against any of those points. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrentonboy Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 We're struggling with Brunnell now...Why not struggle with Campbell??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPM285181 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 But how often does an opportunity really present itself to put in a different QB for a couple of series? If the Colts are slightly ahead of us in points, we're still trying to win. If we're ahead, it's not like we can count on the D these days to preserve a lead for us. If we're getting shellacked, just let Brunell and Collins finish out the game. Then spend the next two weeks getting Campbell ready for his first start.I think fans understand that a young QB may struggle. And that's why it's important to give Campbell some starting experience this season, to get ready for next year. Fans also understand that the "veteran" QB IS struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Totally agree Wilbon, and I don't think I have ever said that. The harshness has seemed to go away with his writing as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Totally agree Wilbon, and I don't think I have ever said that. The harshness has seemed to go away with his writing as of late. his bears are winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I love Wilbon. Definitely one of the more solid, fair, and real sports reporters we have out there today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinInExile Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 We're struggling with Brunnell now...Why not struggle with Campbell??? This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVPWilliams17 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Excellent article. Asked the questions that are hard, yet very obvious to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c4man5282 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. first off campbell isn't a rookie he's a second year player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Can't say I see anything wrong with anything Wilbon said. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsrevival Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. We have a shot with Campbell too. Reason is because you can run on Indy, which is what we should be doing anyway. Give CP the ball 25-30 times and play short passes. We're going to do that with MB anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. No, playing Brunnell against anyone is suicide. Leinarts a rookie, plays fine. Great last night. Vince Young is playing fine on a terrible team. Why do you think its suicide to play Campbell against Indy. There defense isn't all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 No, playing Brunnell against anyone is suicide. Leinarts a rookie, plays fine. Great last night. Vince Young is playing fine on a terrible team. Why do you think its suicide to play Campbell against Indy. There defense isn't all that. It isn't the defense, but the offense I'm worried about. You don't want things to become a shooting match, and there is nothing worse than a rookie trying to make plays. We saw a good example of that with Grossman last night, throwing passes up for grabs all over the place. I'd rather wait until the Bye to see Campbell, if just that you have time to both coach him up, and gameplan your next game. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. I disagree. Starting Campbell will force Saunders to run the ball which the Redskins should of done against the Titans. And also, the Colts won't be able to really prepare for Campbell. They've had two weeks to look at Brunell (although I'm sure it only took 5 minutes to figure him out). Throw a rinkle at them. Start the young guy. Everyone's doing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 And don't forget the 1st round swap with Denver. Looks like we're going to go from10 or so to 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 And don't forget the 1st round swap with Denver. Looks like we're going to go from10 or so to 32. Not true. The pick is protected if we pick any higher than 21, which it looks like we might be doing... :doh: Also, Denver is looking like a good team, but presuming that they'll get the 32nd, Super Bowl winning pick might be a bit much... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeronimobrat Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This is really incriminating because all of these suggestions are not even seeing daylight in the coaches meeting rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTikiITrust Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I disagree. Starting Campbell will force Saunders to run the ball which the Redskins should of done against the Titans. But if the Colts are up by 2-3 TDs, do you really want to try to run the ball all day? Yeah, you might score, but you just killed a handful of minutes off the game clock you'll never get back. And really, if the Colts are up 14 points with 3 minutes to play, are the Skins gonna run it or pass to try to score? It would depend on how the game has played out (what Portis/Rock/Duckett have done), but I would expect the Skins to throw in a situation like that. Do you put Brunell in there or Campbell, who's never handled a 2 minute offense in the NFL? Also gotta think about crowd noise, what will Campbell do in Indy, arguable one of the toughest places to play in the NFL because of the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nneece Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Great points. Most people agree with Wilbon in this thread. Let's see if the coaches will actually try to make a change, as Wilbon suggests, nothing should escape serious consideration. Not because Wilbon wrote this, but because this line of thinking should be obvious to anyone inside the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyfar Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Good article by Mikey. I agree with almost all the points he made and I really wouldn't mind seeing the approach that he suggested for QB. I believe that was the same treatment vick underwent and what Urban Meyer is utilizing with Tim Tebow down at Florida. Fixing the D will take some time and O line will take a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachhaze Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This season isn't over yet, and as rediculous as it may sound, we have a shot against Indy with Brunell. But throwing a rookie to Indy is suicide. Didn't Pittsburgh do that year before last w/ Big Ben in the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 But if the Colts are up by 2-3 TDs, do you really want to try to run the ball all day? Yeah, you might score, but you just killed a handful of minutes off the game clock you'll never get back. If the Colts are up 2-3 TDs, then the game's over. The only way the Skins have a chance is if they run the ball and keep Manning off the field and control the clock. The Skins defense can't stop anybody for an entire game. They can only hope to man up in the redzone and hold them to FGs. If the Skins are playing from a stand point where Brunell gives them a better chance if they're behind, then why bother? This team needs a spark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.