Espn, Nfl Live: Gibbs Faithful To A Fault

[Neophyte]

Sorry...double post.

[DieselPwr44]

NO! Man you can't do that! Don't you think all the arm chair coaches around here know more about football than Gibbs? :laugh:

Translation= Gibbs is never wrong. Especially when it comes to the QB position.

:secret: except for 1985..Joe Theismann..deja vu

[XxSpearheadxX]

didn't he say he'd walk naked to DC, if the Skins made the playoffs last year??

:thumbsup:

Yeah and Gibbs used to win superbowls. That hasn't helped us on a single sunday this year.

1% snide comment to 99% some of the best analysis of the league (along with John Clayton) doesn't define a man.

[SkinsFTW]

Maybe Gibbs thinks that Campbell will get killed if we started him now?

Who knows. Brunell throws way too many short passes but the OL miss the rush and the running game isnt working either since they don't run between the tackles against pathetic defenses. Overall, the playcalling sucks, the OL sucks, Brunell sucks. Hell, the defense sucks.

[APBT]

Thought this was interesting. On NFL live Salisbury just said that the Redskins are dead in the water if they continue with Brunell. He said that he understands Gibbs' loyalty but he's loyal to a fault. Also said Brunell stalls the offense. Thoughts?

You know, thats what I have been saying since week 2.

[REDALERT]

Look, I know we may need more long balls thrown. But, we just can't start tossing up long passes and expect every thing to be caught. Yea! maybe by the opposing team like in Spurrier's time here. You have to set up the defense for play-action plays and long balls altogether. If not, the defense can take certain procautions, especially good DC's.

Remember, during some of the first games we played early this year, DC'c were playing the long ball all the way (monday nite & Vikings). Then, once they figured the players are still adjusting really, they backed off. Especially when Portis started getting descent yards. Now! they're doing the opposite, daring portis and daring the new offense to click on all cylinders. And it's not all Brunell's fault either.That's why Salisbury's in the booth and not coaching on some team, since he's mr. X's and O's. The only time he jumps on board is when things are going right or going wrong.

Mighty funny last year people were all buged eyed when Brunell was throwing long bombs and beating Dallas on 2 of them in the final minutes. Now! when things are going wrong, it's right back to the judgement of Brunell before he started throwing those bombs to Moss last year. And what about the record Brunell set this year,before then it was poor Brunell. Then, he sets the record, the team detroys Houston and everythings fine on Commentator Land regarding Brunell. Now, it's back to the basics when things aren't right.

Please, give me a break.

[Aghar]

Not that I disagree boys and girls but I can't help but point out the day you all jumped right on top on Salsibury's nuts. This is the same guy that said he would "Walk" if we made the playoffs last year. :2cents:

[CapitalDefense]

Thought this was interesting. On NFL live Salisbury just said that the Redskins are dead in the water if they continue with Brunell. He said that he understands Gibbs' loyalty but he's loyal to a fault. Also said Brunell stalls the offense. Thoughts?

Thoughts?

He is dead on, playing Brunell would only make sense if we could somehow finish the last 9, 8-1 with a shot at a playoff berth. Winning 5 in a row last year was a small miracle, asking a 2-5 team to finish 10-6 is a God type miracle, its not gonna happen. Jason needs to get some experience under his belt, we can not go into 2007 with Mark Brunell as our projected starter unless we are gonna try for the first overall pick in 2008. Do we still have that pick?:doh:

Nor can we afford to go into 2007 with Jason Campbell without any playing time, thats asking for another losing year. Unless they have a FA target in mind in March 2007, and they think Jason Campbell is a bust.

Jason needs the reps!!!

[brandies]

NO! Man you can't do that! Don't you think all the arm chair coaches around here know more about football than Gibbs? :laugh:

But afterall, we are having a better year than Gibbs.

[Lowghost]

It is not the playcalling. Most, if not all, the pass plays with more than one receiver out in the pattern have at least one intermediate to deep option. Brunell is either not looking for this option or not seeing it when he does look for it. Saunders offense does not have a designated primary option for most plays. That is left up to the QB to determine predicated on the defense and coverage he sees. Brunell is choosing the dump offs, the underneath stuff and the stuff outside the numbers while largely ignoring the intermediate stuff in the middle and the deep ball.

In short, Brunell is lacking courage to take a risk because he is more afraid of losing his job due to mistakes than a lack of execution. To date, you have to say he is reading things right as Gibbs is much more willing to forgive poor execution than he is INTs. I can't say I really blame Mark for being afraid for his job either because once he sits down the next time, I am pretty sure it is all over.

If you want to blame offensive issues on playcalling, look at the running game where Saunders keeps calling stuff run to the edge while Clinton would much rather stay inside the tackles. That is where our playcalling is lacking, not the passing game.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Thank you

This is what I think also, I think that a couple of players that watch game film feel the same way.

[TheLongshot]

It is not the playcalling. Most, if not all, the pass plays with more than one receiver out in the pattern have at least one intermediate to deep option. Brunell is either not looking for this option or not seeing it when he does look for it. Saunders offense does not have a designated primary option for most plays. That is left up to the QB to determine predicated on the defense and coverage he sees. Brunell is choosing the dump offs, the underneath stuff and the stuff outside the numbers while largely ignoring the intermediate stuff in the middle and the deep ball.

Interesting. Where do you get the info that the QB decides who the primary option?

Whether or not he's doing the right thing is up to the coaching staff to decide, Since we don't always seeing what Brunell is seeing. Course, there doesn't seem to be a way to audible out of a run, or audible into one.

Actually, this is more of an argument not to put in Campbell, since a lot is dependent on making the correct read, if that is true. If you bring in Campbell, you are probably going to need to limit his options.

It also tells me why this offense takes a while to gel. It is hard to figure out which is the right receiver until you get some experience. It kinda nails the coaching staff for not doing more of it in the preseason. As much as practice is good, getting some game experience is more important.

I have a feeling they are going to pick the plays where Brunell picks out the right receiver more often than not to run. It also wouldn't surprise me if they have Campbell also watching the game film and quizing him on what the right play was.

Jason

[DCsportsfan53]

It is easy to just jump on the opinion that Brunell needs to be replaced, but with the playcalling we had on Sunday, I can't see Campbell executing it much better.

The problem is the playcalling in the first place. I mean, knowing you are down, and you don't call passes down the field?

And I'm not buying that Brunell can't do it, when we saw him do it in the first half.

Put in Campbell when you can figure out what the hell you are trying to do on offense, and not before. Right now, I'm not very convinced that Saunders knows what he's doing.

Jason

No one is saying (or at least shouldn't be) that Campbell will do any better than Brunell. He'll take more chances, he'll make more plays, good and stupid. The thing is, at this point, what the hell is the point of treading water with an old QB and a mediocre team? Why do that? You KNOW Brunell isn't starting next year why not get Campbell ready? I can understand giving it once last hoorah against Dallas (though I think it's the wrong decision, the bye week would've been the perfect time. Same mistake Parcells JUST made) but there's no point at all in letting Brunell lead a .500 or lower season.

[dinzelwashington]

its joe gibbs ego.. he think he can take any qb and win a superbowl with him.. unfortunely he cant..not in the 20 century.. hes wont take mark out because of his pride in decision making. he doesnt want to look like a fool when he was quick to grab mark brunell in FA. right now hes the bigger fool for sticking to mark brunell. i wonder how much times do the media ask him about mark.. he must be irked.. so much question about our qb situation. gibbs is a very stubborn man. he says, we try to come out and give the fans what they want.. umm we want jason campbell in.. dont u hear that in fedex

[Capt'n Obvious]

Sean may be right, but he always goes with popular opinion. Having said that I think it may be JC time, but will continue to support Brunell while he is in there,

[Neophyte]

Interesting. Where do you get the info that the QB decides who the primary option?

It was in an interview with Saunders either last spring or in the preseason. He was asked about how he excepted to keep all these names motivated to go full on every play since there are only so many balls and he had a lot of receivers to spread it to. His response was that he has never had an issue with that since the receivers all know that there is no "primary" and that on any given play they can see the ball if they beat their man, that it is the QBs job to recognize it and get them the ball. Or words to that effect. I will try to find the interview tomorrow.

Whether or not he's doing the right thing is up to the coaching staff to decide, Since we don't always seeing what Brunell is seeing. Course, there doesn't seem to be a way to audible out of a run, or audible into one.

This is definitely true. Gibbs said as much after the Jacksonville game. He said that someone on the headset freaked out when Brunell threw to Moss in OT, that it was the wrong read because of the double coverage but somehow Moss made it work. No clue on the audible between run and pass. I think that should be basic and included but my guess is that Saunders like to control that because he, like Gibbs, uses play combinations to set certain things up. If the QB can shift from one to the other it messes that up.

Actually, this is more of an argument not to put in Campbell, since a lot is dependent on making the correct read, if that is true. If you bring in Campbell, you are probably going to need to limit his options.

It also tells me why this offense takes a while to gel. It is hard to figure out which is the right receiver until you get some experience. It kinda nails the coaching staff for not doing more of it in the preseason. As much as practice is good, getting some game experience is more important.

Actually, I would argue that since this is the reason it takes so long for this offense to gel it is also the reason to play Campbell. If the learning curve is about a year then either one is going to have issues this year. I would rather have issues with the young kid who can learn from those issues now then from the old vetern and then have them all over again from the young kid. I think you have sort of have to play your way into this offense so all the clipboard carrying is only prolonging Campbell's education.

A new WP article says that the coaches want to work with Brunell on making an instant decision, that this is what the offense calls for and he is not doing it. I have a very difficult time being patient with a 14 year guy who has been to 3 Pro Bowls over the decision making process. That is, frankly, what vets are supposed to have on the young guys...brains. If that is a problem for Brunell and we are worried it might be an issue for Campbell then I say let Campbell play and get the OJT. I can take a loss because of an over aggressive 2nd year QB a whole lot better than I can take loss because of a conservative 14 vet who is afraid to make a decision.

[bulldog]

the ironic thing about the Campbell controversy is that Gibbs didn't think Schroeder was ready in 1985 when Theismann got hurt but Jay went 5-0 as a starter the rest of the season and was 12-4 the following year.

again in 1988, Gibbs was prepared to go with Doug Williams until the 34 year old had recurring knee problems and looked awful in a 41-10 loss to the Oilers. Then Mark Rypien got into a few games and by the next season was the quarterback of a 10-6 team.

so, Gibbs may have been reluctant in the past to make a change to a younger quarterback, but he has done it and it has worked out for the team.

Schroeder and Rypien were both starting their 3rd seasons in the NFL when they got the call.

I would make the argument that because Schroeder had been playing baseball competitively for the Toronto organization and Rypien was a former #6 pick, that the first round Campbell - facing tougher competition at SEC Auburn - would be better prepared to step in and make a difference at this level.

How much of the Redskins offense Jay Schroeder actually understood and how much of it Gibbs had to shorten and simplify things for a younger player I don't know.

But these challenges have been overcome before.

[The Sisko]

It is easy to just jump on the opinion that Brunell needs to be replaced, but with the playcalling we had on Sunday, I can't see Campbell executing it much better.

The problem is the playcalling in the first place. I mean, knowing you are down, and you don't call passes down the field?

And I'm not buying that Brunell can't do it, when we saw him do it in the first half.

Put in Campbell when you can figure out what the hell you are trying to do on offense, and not before. Right now, I'm not very convinced that Saunders knows what he's doing.

Jason

Hey Longshot, I guess you didn't see the article referred to in this thread.

Basically it says Brunell aint' cuttin' it. Of course they also point out that our defense has sucked too but I've said we need to make changes there as well.

Face it, Scott is done. He's still got some armstrength left but his legs are through and he can't make it through an entire season without getting nicked up to the point where he's ineffective.

I know it hurts but say "Buh, bye" to the nice man wearing #8 and move on.

[TheLongshot]

It was in an interview with Saunders either last spring or in the preseason. He was asked about how he excepted to keep all these names motivated to go full on every play since there are only so many balls and he had a lot of receivers to spread it to. His response was that he has never had an issue with that since the receivers all know that there is no "primary" and that on any given play they can see the ball if they beat their man, that it is the QBs job to recognize it and get them the ball. Or words to that effect. I will try to find the interview tomorrow.

It doesn't sound like something easy to pick up, especially for one who is used to going through progressions.

This is definitely true. Gibbs said as much after the Jacksonville game. He said that someone on the headset freaked out when Brunell threw to Moss in OT, that it was the wrong read because of the double coverage but somehow Moss made it work. No clue on the audible between run and pass. I think that should be basic and included but my guess is that Saunders like to control that because he, like Gibbs, uses play combinations to set certain things up. If the QB can shift from one to the other it messes that up.

I can understand wanting to go with Moss in that game, tho, since he seemed to have the hot hand. Every time he got his hand on the ball, he did something with it. I can understand the reaction, but special players make special plays.

Actually, I would argue that since this is the reason it takes so long for this offense to gel it is also the reason to play Campbell. If the learning curve is about a year then either one is going to have issues this year. I would rather have issues with the young kid who can learn from those issues now then from the old vetern and then have them all over again from the young kid. I think you have sort of have to play your way into this offense so all the clipboard carrying is only prolonging Campbell's education.

Maybe. If you are thinking about winning this year, that isn't the move to make. I guess the thought process was that Brunell would adjust quickly and be able to work with it. If the defense was working the way it was supposed to, maybe it would have worked.

A new WP article says that the coaches want to work with Brunell on making an instant decision, that this is what the offense calls for and he is not doing it. I have a very difficult time being patient with a 14 year guy who has been to 3 Pro Bowls over the decision making process. That is, frankly, what vets are supposed to have on the young guys...brains. If that is a problem for Brunell and we are worried it might be an issue for Campbell then I say let Campbell play and get the OJT. I can take a loss because of an over aggressive 2nd year QB a whole lot better than I can take loss because of a conservative 14 vet who is afraid to make a decision.

I'm sure that with the news that Campbell has been getting some reps with the first team, they are looking at all options.

Congrats, you are one of the first to make a good argument for Campbell starting. Course, I said that after the bye would make a good opportunity for Campbell to start, if we lost in Indy. We'll see if they judge him ready enough.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Face it, Scott is done. He's still got some armstrength left but his legs are through and he can't make it through an entire season without getting nicked up to the point where he's ineffective.

That isn't what the article is saying. Basically, they are asking him to do something he isn't used to doing, and that's why he isn't effective.

That isn't saying that he's "done". He sure didn't look done last year. It is just that he isn't adjusting to the new offense. Course, that probably means he's done here.

Jason

[TD Riggo]

It is easy to just jump on the opinion that Brunell needs to be replaced, but with the playcalling we had on Sunday, I can't see Campbell executing it much better.

The problem is the playcalling in the first place. I mean, knowing you are down, and you don't call passes down the field?

That's the point the article is making. They're saying that because Scott is taking to long to make a decision, that his opportunity to throw the long ball to Santana, ARE, or Lloyd are gone. That is why he is only left with the option of throwing those 3 yard passes to an RB when we're third-and-8.

[mistertim]

its joe gibbs ego.. he think he can take any qb and win a superbowl with him.. unfortunely he cant..not in the 20 century.. hes wont take mark out because of his pride in decision making. he doesnt want to look like a fool when he was quick to grab mark brunell in FA. right now hes the bigger fool for sticking to mark brunell. i wonder how much times do the media ask him about mark.. he must be irked.. so much question about our qb situation. gibbs is a very stubborn man. he says, we try to come out and give the fans what they want.. umm we want jason campbell in.. dont u hear that in fedex

Yes you're right. Given the nature of spacetime and the absolute boundary of the speed of light set by Einstein's special theory of relativity it is not possible for Gibbs to travel back in time with Brunell and win another Superbowl during the 20th century.

:doh:

[Skins&Terps07]

Salisbury is dead on here. Everyone is quick to point out how Brunell is a great game manager, and wont throw the game away with a silly turnover. I completely agree, Brunell usually makes smart decisions and doesent run a high risk of that catastrophic turnover that can kill the game. That security comes at a price however. Brunell does stall the offense and is unwilling to take a chance. With all the offensive playmakers we put on the field, we need someone whos willing to pull the trigger to give them a chance to make plays. If you dont know what Im talking about, just watch the first drive of the Giants-Cowboys monday night game. Eli threw a ball up and let his playmaker Burress make a play. Dont tell me Brandon Lloyd cant make those kind of catches. We need someone to throw those type of balls to him. In years past when we had a smothering defense that would hold teams to 15 points or less, Brunell was perfect for our team. Hed manage the game and chew up clock with short, safe passes. We would win a 16-13 type game. Now that the defense isnt what it once was, we need to open up and take some chances. Its very easy to limit turnovers when the only passes you throw are screens and dumpoffs to the backs. Putting Brunell on the field is analogous to playing not to lose. We need someone under center who is going to PLAY TO WIN.

[Jumbo]

Hey. What do you guys think about Brunell, or Gibbs, or Campbell and the QB thing?

[NoVaSkins21]

Salisbury did what he alwasy does...glom onto a popular opinion. Before the season he was picking the redskins as a playoff team. He happens to be right on brunell, but not through any real analysys.

I'll agree with that.

[Jumbo]

Hey. What do you guys think about Brunell, or Gibbs, or Campbell and the QB thing?

I'm still waiting.