TC Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 You know, when Gibbs first felt the heat to pull Brunell he realized he had to mention the possibility of Campbell getting in a game. So, he tells the press that IF Brunell was to go down, Collins would then step to finish the game and Campbell would then start the next week. I have to hand it to Gibbs; this announcement temporarily pacified most of the fans who were already calling for Brunell's head. At least he's thinking about playing Campbell, we thought. Fast forward a few weeks, and what does Gibbs do? Well, instead of at least moving Campbell up to 2nd string he once again makes him inactive (for all intents and purposes, 3rd string is inactive) and sticks with his original hairbrained idea. Even after weeks of subpar play he continues to maintain the same plan. For some reason, it took me up until this week to realize how incredibly stupid Gibbs' rationale is. Why not put Campbell in to finish a game if you say he will start the next week anyways? It seems totally pointless for Collins to take the snaps if he's not going to start the next week. This situation is quickly becoming absurd. Whether Gibbs throws the rest of our season away with Brunell or not, all he is doing is hurting Campbell by continuing to classify him as the third QB. How long must this charade go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkowi Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Especially after this bye where Campbell took a lot of snaps with the starters and Gibbs himself said Campbell is ready to run the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I think when he first made the announcement he thought they'd be in the midst of a battle for the division championship, so it was a safer play...now we are nowhere near a division championship race... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllAboutSkins08 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 i think the plan was that if brunell was to go down during a game and could not return right away, collins would go in. this doesn't mean that if brunell goes down during a game that he wouldn't be able to come back the next game, or in the next couple of plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I don't think it's retarded. Maybe special needs or learning-disabled, but not retarded unless it's a high-functioning retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Doesn't matter. Brunell will never take himself out of a game. If he breaks his legs, he'll go out it a wheel chair. If his hands get ripped off, he'll use hooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 You know, when Gibbs first felt the heat to pull Brunell he realized he had to mention the possibility of Campbell getting in a game. So, he tells the press that IF Brunell was to go down, Collins would then step to finish the game and Campbell would then start the next week. I have to hand it to Gibbs; this announcement temporarily pacified most of the fans who were already calling for Brunell's head. At least he's thinking about playing Campbell, we thought.Fast forward a few weeks, and what does Gibbs do? Well, instead of at least moving Campbell up to 2nd string he once again makes him inactive (for all intents and purposes, 3rd string is inactive) and sticks with his original hairbrained idea. Even after weeks of subpar play he continues to maintain the same plan. For some reason, it took me up until this week to realize how incredibly stupid Gibbs' rationale is. Why not put Campbell in to finish a game if you say he will start the next week anyways? It seems totally pointless for Collins to take the snaps if he's not going to start the next week. This situation is quickly becoming absurd. Whether Gibbs throws the rest of our season away with Brunell or not, all he is doing is hurting Campbell by continuing to classify him as the third QB. How long must this charade go on? My fear is that Gibbs actually IS NOT hair-brained. By this I mean that it's completely possible that Campbell simply is not living up to expectations in practice. Gibbs may know something that we don't.... Maybe Campbell is just not impressing the coaching staff, which would be the worst scenario of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 there is nothing "retarded" about it, very rarely do you get an opportunity to send in a young QB to replace the starter where the game is not on the line still, or you can call normal plays to ease him in with a big lead the last place you want to send a young QB is in a blowout loss where the defense is able to blitz and attack the QB without fear of the big play, you want a veteran whose at least been through it before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I don't think it's retarded. Maybe special needs or learning-disabled, but not retarded unless it's a high-functioning retard. :laugh: This cracked me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 A team is not required to designate a "third quarterback." If it doesn't, then none of that team's quarterbacks are subject to the rules that govern the specific definition of the term, "inactive third quarterback." The term applies only to a quarterback a team wishes to designate as such for the purpose of having him not count against the team's 45-man active roster that day. It's an advantage the rules are offering, but if you choose to use it, you must also abide by the rules that go with using it. Those rules stipulate that if the "third quarterback" enters the game before the fourth quarter, the team's other two designated quarterbacks may not enter or re-enter the game. All of the quarterbacks may play if the inactive third quarterback initially enters the game in the fourth quarter or overtime period. I was incorrect on my earlier posting (from yesterday). You DO have to choose a player in-active if you decide NOT to choose a designate "inactive third QB." So, unless the coaches inactivate a player on the 45 man roster, TC comes in no matter what, and JC is left holding the clip board. Unless on gameday they turn things around and select TC as 3rd string. Who knows? Sorry about the earlier confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC Posted November 2, 2006 Author Share Posted November 2, 2006 the last place you want to send a young QB is in a blowout loss where the defense is able to blitz and attack the QB without fear of the big play, you want a veteran whose at least been through it before Are you serious? :laugh: Please tell me you are not. You do realize that once an NFL team buttons up a "blowout loss" they immediately shift into dime mode, right? Dude, the guy is going to get blitzed whether it's a blowout or the first quarter of the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 there is nothing "retarded" about it, very rarely do you get an opportunity to send in a young QB to replace the starter where the game is not on the line still, or you can call normal plays to ease him in with a big leadthe last place you want to send a young QB is in a blowout loss where the defense is able to blitz and attack the QB without fear of the big play, you want a veteran whose at least been through it before Also, if the game is on the line, the last thing you want is a young QB who is making his first snap in an NFL game and have to ask him to perform. You rather get a vet off the bench who knows the offense so that you don't have to change much, if anything. To encorage success of a young QB, the ideal situation is to have him prepare the whole week for starting in a game, not throwing him in the middle of one. Collins is perfectly suited for the #2 role. He's been in this offense for a long time, so he doesn't need the reps in it as much as the other guys. It allows him to step right in and continue to run the offense, when you may have to change things for a young guy who may not have everything down yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I just don't see the drop-off from Brunell to Campbell... Brunell = veteran, limited or no mistakes, no mobility whatsoever, will not force the ball into situations to make plays Campbell = sophomore, an INT or two, but has mobility to make 'additional' plays that Brunell cannot...and will also 'attempt' passes that Brunnel normally would not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I'm more concerned with Campbell not being the number two at all-times. This obviously has a lot to do with Saunders love of Collins, who he's allegedly been lobbying Gibbs to start since week two. In the two years he's been here, Campbell has gotten maybe one week of real practice with the offense. They are not doing this kid any favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Collins is perfectly suited for the #2 role. He's been in this offense for a long time, so he doesn't need the reps in it as much as the other guys. It allows him to step right in and continue to run the offense, when you may have to change things for a young guy who may not have everything down yet. I agree. Although they said that both were eventually sharing the reps this week, I was a little confused why JC was getting more of the snaps earlier. I was wondering if something different was up. But like you said, TC doesn't need the reps as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I just don't see the drop-off from Brunell to Campbell...Brunell = veteran, limited or no mistakes, no mobility whatsoever, will not force the ball into situations to make plays Campbell = sophomore, an INT or two, but has mobility to make 'additional' plays that Brunell cannot...and will also 'attempt' passes that Brunnel normally would not 5 interceptions is fine with me, I just want to see him get his chance. Thats all. He has waited his turn patiently and its time to see what he has. Not much to lose at this point. I just don't understand it, and doesn't seem like many people outside of Joe Gibbs understand it much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I'm more concerned with Campbell not being the number two at all-times. I really don't understand this infatuation with, "Why isnt' Campbell #2 at this point?". The #2 guy in a game is the releaver. If the starter goes down, he's the guy who comes in and continues to run the offense as if nothing has changed. This is not an appropriate role for a young QB who has never started in the league. Philly basically did the same thing last year. Koy Detmer is the guy who was very familiar with the offense and was there to fill in in a pinch for McNabb if he was out for some reason. But, for the long term, McMahon was the guy that they brought in, because he had the better talents to win in the long term. People here keep thinking that being #3 is a slight on his ability as a QB, for some reason. What it is more about is Campbell's lack of experience. Right now, in the middle of a game, you'd probably would rather Collins come into the game rather than Campbell if the game was on the line. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Gibbs with regard to any QB decisions in his second tenure = retarded. It's mind-boggling and incredibly frustrating. Going and getting Brunell was a bad decision in 2004 - overpaying for Brunell made it even worse. Sticking with Brunell despite injury in 2004 was asinine. Then, benching ramsey after 1.5 quarters really showed us how "loyal" he is. Now, we're back to the 2004 injured and uproductive Brunell, and we get the same song and dance. I really don't know what he's doing for the team at this point. He doesn't do anything on offense, defense, or special teams. He doesn't gameplan or draw up and schemes. His leadership has gotten us a divided, uninspired lockerroom, and he's only handicapping the team with his quarterback decision-making. Thats a negative net value in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceviker Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Doesn't matter. Brunell will never take himself out of a game. If he breaks his legs, he'll go out it a wheel chair. If his hands get ripped off, he'll use hooks. <sigh> It's so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 The way I understand it, and there's a thread devoted to this topic, that the #3 QB and be inserted into the game HOWEVER if that happens before the 4th Qtr, then the #1 and #2 QB's can NOT be put back in the game for any reason. So if JC's #3 and they put him in before Q4, then if he goes down we're looking at Randle El at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsrevival Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 My fear is that Gibbs actually IS NOT hair-brained. By this I mean that it's completely possible that Campbell simply is not living up to expectations in practice. Gibbs may know something that we don't.... Maybe Campbell is just not impressing the coaching staff, which would be the worst scenario of all. I agree. Gibbs will always say positive things about his players even if it's not true. He may be hiding the fact that Campbell really isn't ready, but he won't shoot the kids confidence down by saying anything negative either. He may be seeing something he doesn't like in practice. Hopefully this assumption is wrong, but in any case I'd like to see Campbell play and see what he's all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 At this point in time it really doesn't matter anymore. With Brunell as our starting QB, this season is lost. I don't care if he pulls a victory out of the hat this week. He doesn't have it in him to go the full season by playing above his abilities. Last year, he was shut down the second half of the season. It was Portis/running game, along with our defense that got us to the playoffs. Anyone who claims that Brunell got us there is only kidding themselves. Why Joe Gibbs is doing this is mind boggling. Someone stated earlier that maybe JC looks horrible in practice and the coaches have no faith in him and if that's the case, we are in a lot more trouble than we think we are now. Wouldn't we be better off playing Collins than Brunell? Which would you rather suffer through, Collins throwing deep, stretching the field with possible implications of an interception or Brunell throwing maybe once or twice down field, missing on those throws and then over throwing or under throwing his receivers on 2-3 yard pass patterns? And lets not forget his trademark "throw it out of bounds pass" when you have 2-3 receivers wide open down field. I hope by some miracle that the Redskins make a serious effort to make a run for the playoffs, beginning with the defeat of dallASS this Sunday. With Brunell as our starting QB, I just don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conejo Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Calling Gibbs point of view retarted is an insult .... An insult to all the retarted people .... Retarted people have more sense then that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ33 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Brunell plays his guts out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I really don't understand this infatuation with, "Why isnt' Campbell #2 at this point?".The #2 guy in a game is the releaver. If the starter goes down, he's the guy who comes in and continues to run the offense as if nothing has changed. This is not an appropriate role for a young QB who has never started in the league. Philly basically did the same thing last year. Koy Detmer is the guy who was very familiar with the offense and was there to fill in in a pinch for McNabb if he was out for some reason. But, for the long term, McMahon was the guy that they brought in, because he had the better talents to win in the long term. People here keep thinking that being #3 is a slight on his ability as a QB, for some reason. What it is more about is Campbell's lack of experience. Right now, in the middle of a game, you'd probably would rather Collins come into the game rather than Campbell if the game was on the line. Jason What I meant is that it worries me that Campbell isn't getting the reps he should because of the alleged tug of war between Gibbs and Saunders over Brunell and Collins. The article in the post today made it clear just how little real practice time Campbell has got since he's been here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.