Skin Patrol Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Re: Campbell should stay out until we are mathematically eliminated. Only one of three possible outcomes will occur when Campbell finally gets playing time. He will either a) win more games than Mark Brunell. win fewer games than Mark Brunell. or c) win as many game as Mark Brunell. I don't necessarily think is even the worst outcome. If is the case, given 8 someodd games, we can make an evaluative claim about Jason Campbell. Either he's playing well and we are losing (and thus he's the future) or he's the reason we're losing. In which case we can draft a new QB and move this team in the right direction. c) would be the worst of all scenarios as it was exactly what happened in 2004. We replaced Brunell with Ramsey, both finished with 3 wins, and apparently we saw just enough of Patrick to effectively eliminate his future in Washington by drafting JC. a) would be outstanding, though there'd be healthy amounts of crow to be portioned out to the pro-Brunell crowd. At 2-5 I find it unlikely that Jason Campbell would win fewer games. This is why many of us don't appreciate the "wait until we're out" logic -- because we feel Jason Campbell gives us the best chance to win now and waiting too long to start him is equivalent to giving up. In any event, none of the above are good situations if we wait too long. Without adequate time to evaluate Jason Campbell we'll be right where we were in 2004 except Brunell will be 37 years old. Not only does getting him in sooner improve our chances of winning now (in my opinion), it also allows us to have an informed draft where we can intelligently assess where this team is at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tthorsen5 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Much has been said. Much has been written. Those who have formed the opinion that Brunell "sucks" and we should switch to Campbell are well documented. I wonder sometimes if the "bench Brunell" crowd is trying to convince themselves they are right more than they are trying to convince others. Countless threads have been started and yet they all seem to point back to one thing.... "We are right." I will say that Romo sits to pee looked good last night and maybe a switch may be what the team needs but please don't give me the argument that because it worked for Dallas then it will work for us. This is a complex and ever changing league. Something that works for one team may not work for another. When Gibbs is ready he will make the switch. That's all one really needs to know. I appreciate opinions and I have my own too but constantly beating this with yet another reason why switching QB's will help us be who we want to be really changes nothing. I am sure there are just as many reasons that Campbell has not played yet as there are reasons for why he should play. Their are two sides to this and I don't think many have the ability to see that. My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins! P.S. One of these is enough. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177822 I agree with you on this subject. The sad thing is for one JC doesn't play defense and if they could, like Dallas did, keep teams out of the end zone we would be better off. If the defense could hold teams to 14 points a game we would be 5-2 instead of the other way around. Let us get our team ready for each and every game and kick some butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Come on people. Lets just watch our team lose a couple more with Ol 3 yard pass on 3rd and 8. You cannot deny that the guy is Super Smart and plays his guts out every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Come on people.Lets just watch our team lose a couple more with Ol 3 yard pass on 3rd and 8. You cannot deny that the guy is Super Smart and plays his guts out every week. ; This is the only thing that the Mark Brunell lovers are defending; sad but true. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akorn22 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yet they gave up 24 to the Giants in the second half with Romo sits to pee IN there? But that was Romo sits to pee's first timr playing in the NFL. Of course he is going to mess up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstufano Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 not working so well?? did you see Sundays game. Madden was comparing him to Joe Montana, the kid looked awesome, especially in the second half. If Joe Gibbs had Parcells stones, he would make the same move before its to late. What if past coaches didn't promote such backups as Tom Brady, Mark Bulger, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Jake Delhomme and now Tony Romo sits to pee, and stuck with their veteran! Those teams wouldn't have experienced the success they all have enjoyed and still enjoy! Make the move not for just for the future but for here and now. hoping for some vision long time Skins fan from little Rhody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nneece Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 not working so well?? did you see Sundays game. Madden was comparing him to Joe Montana, the kid looked awesome, especially in the second half. If Joe Gibbs had Parcells stones, he would make the same move before its to late. What if past coaches didn't promote such backups as Tom Brady, Mark Bulger, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Jake Delhomme and now Tony Romo sits to pee, and stuck with their veteran! Those teams wouldn't have experienced the success they all have enjoyed and still enjoy! Make the move not for just for the future but for here and now. hoping for some visionlong time Skins fan from little Rhody. The thread title used a little known literary technique called irony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugarbear326 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 BSTurnovers on kickoff returns. Running game stuffed. Special teams and defense, as well as bad carolina play won that games for the Romosexuals, not Romo sits to pee. Carolina couldnt hang on to the ball. And dont tell me your trying to compare a QB who has had to learn the same offense for 3 years, with a QB who has only had 3 months with a new offense. Lets not forget too, this is one game. Then let's play Campbell for one game, if it's only one game, it does not matter now anyway, we would have to run the table to win this division and hope the other teams falter completely. Another note: How many months did Vince Young have, oh that's right, the same amount of time JC & MB had and by the way, the Titans beat us for there first win. So, Please don't tell me it depends on how long you have been learning the offense. If that's the case, then Eli or Leinert should not be playing, and please don't use they were drafted high, Gibbs drafted JC in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 regardless who is at QB, we still have to run the ball well and STOP the other team from running the ball down our throats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "I'm simply saying when Campbell does get in, the change in our offense may not be as pronounced as it was with Romo sits to pee in Dallas this week, which was the point of this thread." agree with you there Henry. I can't speak for others...but that would be ok by me. I think the season is tubed. in fact, I think we are in a 2-3 year rebuild cycle. if I'm wrong - I can sing mea culpas later. the team gambled on a fast return to FA signings and lost. so be it. we need to straighten this out even if it means starting from square one. it can be done in 2-3 years. it will mean actually using the draft smartly so that a young core is in tact for 5-6 years while using FA to fill gaps (but not become the roster). the personnnel policies (read identity for this team) need to be ironed out first. get rid of all the people who have gotten us to this point in retspect to personnel - they are old ideas and methods. a rebirth is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nneece Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 regardless who is at QB, we still have to run the ball well and STOP the other team from running the ball down our throats The running game will improve once we have a QB that throws the ball, whoever that QB maybe. The defense won't change with a new QB, but they may benefit from not being on the field as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreitmaster Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Thank you Tony Romo sits to pee for guiding your team to an impressive rout of Carolina in Carolina. Yes, the running game helped him out, but Bledsoe would not have won that game. Perfect evidence that Campbell's time is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The running game will improve once we have a QB that throws the ball, whoever that QB maybe. The defense won't change with a new QB, but they may benefit from not being on the field as much. Exactly. We can't run the ball very well when opposing defenses stack the box so much. Why are they doing that? Because they know Brunell is not a legitimate downfield threat. He either can't or won't throw long or intermediate passes (other than every once in a while, or when the game is already pretty much over). I was watching highlights from the 04-05 SEC championship game and a couple of the things the announcers noted was how well Campbell threw the deep ball and how he stepped up into the pocket well and with a lot of poise. I think both of those are really needed right now on the Skins offense. Of course he can still do the screen passes if need be, but he may at least bring the threat of a long game that will keep opposing defenses honest and allow us to spread things around, opening up for the run and actually getting the ball to some of our great receivers who are getting open but not getting looks. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 First off Romo sits to pee looked good. Wont take that away from him. But the people saying that the defense and turnovers set the scoring up are right on. Sure is easier to score when your defense shows up. Romo sits to pee set the bench for 4 years, and Campbell may not have what Romo sits to pee has. But before all the tears start flowing over my post I do agree we need to see what JC has: When he shows the coaches that hes ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 First off Romo sits to pee looked good. Wont take that away from him. But the people saying that the defense and turnovers set the scoring up are right on. Sure is easier to score when your defense shows up. Romo sits to pee set the bench for 4 years, and Campbell may not have what Romo sits to pee has. But before all the tears start flowing over my post I do agree we need to see what JC has: When he shows the coaches that hes ready. The problem with that, is its the coaches responsibility to coach up the young guys so they ARE ready. Its still Gibbs and co.'s fault if they can't get a QB ready in a couple years, so if Campbell isn't even ready for next season, they didn't do their job either. Its not just the player, afterall if it was, there would be no need for coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Wow, I guess the Tony Romo sits to pee experiment is not working out so well in Dallas. The Brunell supporters are right, let's stick with Brunell. Wait a sec, I fell asleep during the third quarter and Romo sits to pee bought Dallas back and won the game! I guess there is something to be said for starting a new QB. We will certainly find out next week when we play Dallas. This is a league that you sometimes have to take chances in in order to have a chance to win. The ultra conservative thinking does not always work. I couldn't help but think as I watched the game and watched Romo sits to pee completing 20+ yard passes to Owens, etc. (or not completing them, but at least attempting them) how this was almost the exact opposite of watching Brunell and the Skins offense play. Put Campell in!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The problem with that, is its the coaches responsibility to coach up the young guys so they ARE ready. Its still Gibbs and co.'s fault if they can't get a QB ready in a couple years, so if Campbell isn't even ready for next season, they didn't do their job either. Its not just the player, afterall if it was, there would be no need for coaches. Some players just arent what you thought they were going to be when your drafted them. Happens all the time in this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Some players just arent what you thought they were going to be when your drafted them. Happens all the time in this league. Except practics means very little, and something tells me Gibbs takes WAY too much into what happens at practice. Besides, you can't base what a player is if you don't see them in games that matter. And so far, at least in the last 3 seasons, Gibbs and every other coach (Williams etc.) have shown that they haven't done a good job at judging talent well if they let players go like Pierce, Clark and Smoot. I don't care what they say about practice. If games were played in practice, I'm sure Washington would be a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Except practics means very little, and something tells me Gibbs takes WAY too much into what happens at practice.Besides, you can't base what a player is if you don't see them in games that matter. And so far, at least in the last 3 seasons, Gibbs and every other coach (Williams etc.) have shown that they haven't done a good job at judging talent well if they let players go like Pierce, Clark and Smoot. I don't care what they say about practice. If games were played in practice, I'm sure Washington would be a better team. I think they knew what they had with those players. Smoot hasnt done anything with the Vikes. Every head coach in the league makes his decision on players by how they practice. Living in Dallas I listen to most all of Parcells pressers. Last year when all the girls fans we're crying like so many on here for Romo sits to pee Parcells said over and over and over again that Romo sits to pee wasnt ready. As Romo sits to pee progressed in practice Parcells became more comfortable with him as a starter. AND WHEN HE WAS READY Parcells gave him the nod and he played well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ Skinshead Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Three of their last four drives they began in field goal range, because their D.http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drives/NFL_20061029_DAL@CAR If you're the Redskins' " 3 and out" offense, it doesn't effin matter where field position begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I think they knew what they had with those players. Smoot hasnt done anything with the Vikes. Every head coach in the league makes his decision on players by how they practice. Living in Dallas I listen to most all of Parcells pressers. Last year when all the girls fans we're crying like so many on here for Romo sits to pee Parcells said over and over and over again that Romo sits to pee wasnt ready. As Romo sits to pee progressed in practice Parcells became more comfortable with him as a starter. AND WHEN HE WAS READY Parcells gave him the nod and he played well. And Carson Palmer for the Bengals wasn't ready but Marvin Lewis took a gamble. Eli was said to not be ready. Peyton started as a rookie on a terrible team. Brady was thrown to the wolves because of injury. Vick started when he was a rookie. vince Young was thrown in before he was ready. I can on and on about how many of the successful QB's weren't "ready" when they played, but if they're a good QB, they'll play well eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbar3383 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I love the brunell supporters, ****ing idiots/ or you guys cant stand the sight of Dallas doing something good. Nice, with the name calling. Im not a brunell supporter moron. But I know putting campbell in there right now is not the right thing to do at this time. I could give you the reasons, but it wouldnt matter. In your small little world logic and reason do not matter. Keep thinking I dont want campbell in there just because I like Brunell. Your ego towers over your IQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir L Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 NO BRING IN CHARLIE BATCH , Damon Huard or maybe trent green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EverydayFan80 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm so happy Parcells made the QB switch, Romo sits to pee is Joe Cool in the pocket and gets the ball out quickly to our weapons on offense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanoker Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 We better not take Romo sits to pee lightly. He looked pretty composed to me and got the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.