Is Gibbs kicking himself yet??

[Chief skin]

Campbell is the future we have 6 games left in this nightmare season if Campbell uses the rest of the season to get comfortable reading and beating NFL defenses we will have a made a significant positive impact on the team for next year

[Oxtalls]

I realize that Jason Campbell has only played one game, which they did not win....

the only thing taken from sunday was that Joe Gibbs was right all along and the fat fans sitting on their lazy boys, of course, were all wrong.

the problems with these are so beyond the QB.

[whlinder]

He has to be kicking himself.

Not for coming back to coach, but for coming back to coach with Dan Snyder as the owner. Only Snyder could eff up Joe Gibbs teams this much.

[nneece]

Let's not forget that Campbell looked better without Moss or Portis, the 2 biggest playmakers. Gibbs should be kicking himself, because if we had 2 more Wins we would be right in the middle of the wildcard hunt. The Eagles are officially done as of yesterday and will be sinking to the bottom of the division. The Giants are very banged up. The Cowboys are the only team at the moment that looks solid in the NFC East.

[Chachie]

This post isn't going to be very popular, but here goes:

I hope Joe Gibbs kicks himself for the next 8 months. Why? For not BEING himself.

Last season, he put a stop to offseason spending and changing the squad. It became a Joe Gibbs team, not a Dan Snyder team. This season, he went completely batty and built a Dan Snyder team after making the playoffs.

I have no idea whatsoever why Joe Gibbs felt the need to change so much when he had JUST proven that his old methods still work in the NFL. It's absolutely puzzling. Complete reversal of everything he believes in.

I am NOT calling for his job in any way. He's the best we ever had or will have. I am simply stating that he totally went against everything he is about and lost everything he had built in 2005. He has only himself to blame for this season and it's a crying shame.

[nneece]

He did throw more passes down the field...but none of them were complete.

Wow, I don't won't to insult you because I don't insult cripples but you are BLIND, right. The first pass Campbell threw and did not complete (although came very close) was better then any pass Brunell has made all year. We saw everything we need to know in that 1 pass.

[spidernat]

Rare for me to agree with AJ_Skins, but I do. Really, Campbell's performance wasn't that much different from Brunell. Campbell made some plays and missed some others. We weren't consistantly moving the ball, and if it wasn't for the late drive, his stat line would have looked very similar to most of Brunell's games.

I mean, Campbell had 50 yards in the first half.

There is no doubt that Campbell shows potential, and that he has better natural abilities. But, that didn't make much of a difference in the game, which tells me that other things are a problem, like the lack of a consistant running game, and a defense that can't get off the field.

Jason

This is a joke correct? So much for the belief that Redskins' fans are knowledgable. Some of you were arguing that Brunell was having a good season statistically, so does that mean JC had a good 1st half statistically since you say his line looked similar to Brunell's?

[Taylor 36]

I think what Gibbs took out of that game was the fact that he was right...it wasn't the QB holding the team back. Campbell did not make a difference.

Exactly. And how were we better or even more productive on offense during this game??? The truth is we weren't any better. Campbell played a good game, but had Brunell played the exact same way, people would be calling for his head.

[GamaGoliath]

I can't wait to read the post when JC looks less the 1/2 as good against a Carolina D that has something to play for and Julius Peppers.

I'm as stoked about JC's performance as anyone, but I think it was a mirage. He will not play good this sunday. And it will be due to lack of experience and supporting cast, not skills.

So no, joe is not kicking himself because Joe knows the kid will be in a world of trouble this Sunday...sucks, but true.

I don't think that Gibbs is kicking himself either, but I would give Campbell more of a chance than I would Brunell. Campbell gives you some elusiveness, and the ability and desire to throw the ball up field. Brunell doesn't and regardless to how Campbell plays against the Panthers, it still will be better than Brunell could have done. I think the kid might surprise you too.

[GamaGoliath]

Exactly. And how were we better or even more productive on offense during this game??? The truth is we weren't any better. Campbell played a good game, but had Brunell played the exact same way, people would be calling for his head.

Do you really beleive that? If Brunell played like that, there would have been far fewer people calling for his head. If you look at the numbers, you could manipulate them in such a way that it looks similar, but the fact is that the kid went down the field and threw some nice passes for first downs. Not to mention that he did a much better job of spreading the ball around.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

campbell looked great. if you disagree youre an idiot.

[stwasm]

Gibbs often said Brunell gave the Redskins the best chance to win. After JC's performance yesterday, it really makes me ask if Gibbs may be losing it as a head coach. I know he's not a personnel evaluator by any stretch of the imagination.

[Larry Gude]

I realize that Jason Campbell has only played one game, which they did not win....

However, no one can deny how much better the offense looked with him in there. JC needs to work on his accuracy a little bit, but his presence and poise were absolutely amazing. It definitely didn't look like his first game.

JC already looks as good if not better than Brunell has all season. I'm happy but I'm also concerned with the decision Gibbs made not to play him earlier in the season. I'm not much of a Gibbs basher but I have to say that if Campbell continues to improve (which I believe he will) then he's going to look pretty dumb for not turning to him sooner.

...at all. Gibbs believes in Mark, to a fault, BUT he, Gibbs, did go after and get Campbell. There is no way Joe would have planned on playing JC his rookie year and, frankly, that year end press conference was just a tease as to JC starting game 1, 2006.

Gibbs envisioned a team that ran the ball, played soild defense and didn't beat itself (read; veteren QB), not a Favre/Elway/Montana type team that needed great QB play. There's just too much wrong right now to stay with that model given Mark's abilities.

Joe did make the change. Let's be happy. He could have played Collins and we'd still be wondering.

I think we got us a young Doug Williams with better touch.

[LiveStrongSkins]

AJ, again you prove your hate for Campbell and refuse to see how much better we are with him. Arent you the same genious that said Gibbs picked Campbell becaus he looks like Doug Williams wearing the number 17? Campbell did something in his first game EVER that Brunell hasnt done all SEASON. Brunell hasnt thrown ONE third quarter touchdown all season. Your lover laid an egg after every halftime. Campbells throws downfield were much better than any throw Brunell can make. If James Thrash actually puts his hands up and Lloyd doesnt get the dropsies, then two of those bombs are caught and he has a damn near 300 yard day with NO picks and NO timeouts waisted. How come Brunell had all offseason in this offense and he constantly burned timeouts yet Campbell didnt even come close? How many of those throws did Campbell make that Brunell would have thrown to the sidelines or ran sideways for 3 miles? Give me a break. Two things were holding this team back. The sorry QB and the sorry defense. Now it is just the sorry defense.

[TC]

...at all. Gibbs believes in Mark, to a fault, BUT he, Gibbs, did go after and get Campbell. There is no way Joe would have planned on playing JC his rookie year and, frankly, that year end press conference was just a tease as to JC starting game 1, 2006.

Gibbs envisioned a team that ran the ball, played soild defense and didn't beat itself (read; veteren QB), not a Favre/Elway/Montana type team that needed great QB play. There's just too much wrong right now to stay with that model given Mark's abilities.

Joe did make the change. Let's be happy. He could have played Collins and we'd still be wondering.

I think we got us a young Doug Williams with better touch.

So just because Gibbs went after Campbell he doesn't have to take any blame for waiting too long to play him? That's seems to be the consensus from this poster and the others that disagree with my opinion.

And as far as those who say: "He wasn't ready until now."

I call complete b.s. on that. Campbell hasn't even been active all season up to this point and had taken the bare minimum of snaps in practice up until 2 weeks ago. He was as ready yesterday as he was the first week of the season.

What team doesn't "need" great QB play? I'll give you a hint; There isn't a single franchise in the NFL that doesn't need a great quarterback. There are some, however, that are forced to play uneffective ones because they don't have anyone else. What is sad is that up to this point the Redskins have been playing an uneffective QB for no reason at all!

And please....stop with the Doug Williams comparisons. JC is black and wears # 17, and that's about the extent of his similarity to Williams. Not to mention, Doug is a great guy and all (thx for the Super Bowl) but he wasn't exactly a HOF type of QB. I was young when he was playing but I don't remember him being all that amazing. He was solid and capable of leading a team to the playoffs. Apparently he was pretty good in TB but we had him at the end of his career. Got the following from Wikipedia:

Williams retired with a 6-8 record as Redskins starter (9-8, counting playoffs) and a 37-42-1 record as a regular season starter (41-43-1, including 7 playoff starts). He had 100 passing touchdowns, and 15 rushing touchdowns, in 88 NFL games.

[TheLongshot]

Wow, I don't won't to insult you because I don't insult cripples but you are BLIND, right. The first pass Campbell threw and did not complete (although came very close) was better then any pass Brunell has made all year. We saw everything we need to know in that 1 pass.

But, in the end, that didn't matter all that much, did it?

Campbell didn't complete a pass over 20 yards. The only play that went over 20 yards was due to Cooley's efforts. That was one of the knocks against Brunell.

There were still a lot of screens and swing outs to backs and TEs in there.

Even tho Campbell can get the ball down the field, we didn't see their defense repecting that and they still stacked the box to stop the run.

One of the complaints against Brunell was that he wouldn't throw down the middle of the field, but I wasn't seeing Campbell doing that much either.

So, while certainly Campbell has potential, and did some things that Brunell couldn't, I didn't see a performance that was that much better than Brunell. I know that there is a lot of man love for Campbell, but he doesn't deserve it quite yet. It was a pretty average performance, which is actually pretty impressive for a first start with no running game. But, not really better than what Brunell has done in, say, the 2nd Dallas game.

Jason

[Larry Gude]

So just because Gibbs went after Campbell he doesn't have to take any blame for waiting too long to play him? That's seems to be the consensus from this poster and the others that disagree with my opinion.

...Gibbs gets ALL the blame for not starting him sooner. I'm just saying that the Joe we know wouldn't have started ANYONE as a rookie if he had a vet there, Brunell, he liked. Same for the first half of this season.

Gibbs has not been objective about Brunell from the get go as far as I am concerned and it bothers me far more that he went with Mark last year over Ramsey than waiting so long to play Campbell, especially at the end of the season and playoffs when Mark could barely move.

At least the Campbell situation, sitting until it was beyond obvious, was predictable and understandable strictly from a youth standpoint.

Imagine, pretty much every single day for 18 months Gibbs has gone through practice with a worn, faltering ploughhorse while a stud just sat there.

Again, all I'm saying is that Gibbs would NOT play Campbell. Certainly he could have; Jason didn't just 'get a clue' last week. It sad thinking about his talent and maybe a game or two he could have pulled out earlier this year while Mark was throwing screens.

In any event, we are where we are and we got a damn good looking Qb now.

[phatboy41]

I hate to say it cause it kills me and kind of angers me, but I still think Gibbs wants Brunell to play. I am so happy that JC is playing, and so upset that it feels like Gibbs isn't embracing JC. It almost seems that Gibbs would want JC to do bad so he could throw Brunell in right away.

[TC]

But, in the end, that didn't matter all that much, did it?

Campbell didn't complete a pass over 20 yards. The only play that went over 20 yards was due to Cooley's efforts. That was one of the knocks against Brunell.

There were still a lot of screens and swing outs to backs and TEs in there.

Even tho Campbell can get the ball down the field, we didn't see their defense repecting that and they still stacked the box to stop the run.

One of the complaints against Brunell was that he wouldn't throw down the middle of the field, but I wasn't seeing Campbell doing that much either.

So, while certainly Campbell has potential, and did some things that Brunell couldn't, I didn't see a performance that was that much better than Brunell. I know that there is a lot of man love for Campbell, but he doesn't deserve it quite yet. It was a pretty average performance, which is actually pretty impressive for a first start with no running game. But, not really better than what Brunell has done in, say, the 2nd Dallas game.

Jason

You are clearly delusional.

Here you go:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061105_DAL@WAS

Here's the 2nd Dallas game you speak of. So what was it that impressed you so much from Brunell again? It must have been the 2nd hald of the ballgame in particular. Maybe it was his regular 3rd quarter disappearing act? Maybe that pass interference call that resulted from Randle El's (and not Brunell's) pass downfield? Maybe the pass Cooley caught for a TD that should have been intercepted?

I guess next you will bring up the Texans game.....

As far as 1st game performances go, Campbell played excellent. The best part is that he can only get better. Campbell playing as well in his first start as Brunell does on his "best" day should tell you something.

[TheLongshot]

And as far as those who say: "He wasn't ready until now."

I call complete b.s. on that. Campbell hasn't even been active all season up to this point and had taken the bare minimum of snaps in practice up until 2 weeks ago. He was as ready yesterday as he was the first week of the season.

I disagree. He's performing much better than he was in the preseason. You could see the gears running in his head in the preseason. You still see that a little bit, but he's much quicker with his decisions. It still needs to happen faster, since he's not getting the ball there when it needs to be there, but it is getting there.

BTW, Campbell himself has said that he's learned a lot by sitting. So, is he not telling the truth?

What team doesn't "need" great QB play? I'll give you a hint; There isn't a single franchise in the NFL that doesn't need a great quarterback. There are some, however, that are forced to play uneffective ones because they don't have anyone else. What is sad is that up to this point the Redskins have been playing an uneffective QB for no reason at all!

The word is "ineffective", btw.

And I'd say that the offense has been ineffective for more reasons than just Brunell. When you can't run the ball, when good plays get called back because of penalties, when routes aren't run the way they are supposed to be run, changing the QB isn't going to make much of a difference. In the end, that has proven out so far. I don't see Campbell starting earlier making much of a difference.

Here's the 2nd Dallas game you speak of. So what was it that impressed you so much from Brunell again? It must have been the 2nd hald of the ballgame in particular. Maybe it was his regular 3rd quarter disappearing act? Maybe that pass interference call that resulted from Randle El's (and not Brunell's) pass downfield? Maybe the pass Cooley caught for a TD that should have been intercepted?

Brunell's YPC was much higher. Brunell's completion percentage was higher. This with similar personnel.

There were some grand predictions that the deep passing game would suddenly appear, but that hasn't really happened yet. In the end, Campbell didn't really throw it deeper in general. This doesn't surprise me.

Look, Campbell has his good points. He also has his bad points as well, in that he's still a little green, still learning to read NFL defenses and is getting used to his receivers and the speed of the game. In that right now, that make it a push. No doubt that Campbell will get better as time goes on, but to say that the offense would have performed markedly better with Campbell so far hasn't proven out.

Jason

[jbooma]

I realize that Jason Campbell has only played one game, which they did not win....

However, no one can deny how much better the offense looked with him in there. JC needs to work on his accuracy a little bit, but his presence and poise were absolutely amazing. It definitely didn't look like his first game.

JC already looks as good if not better than Brunell has all season. I'm happy but I'm also concerned with the decision Gibbs made not to play him earlier in the season. I'm not much of a Gibbs basher but I have to say that if Campbell continues to improve (which I believe he will) then he's going to look pretty dumb for not turning to him sooner.

Gibbs is kicking himself because many fans are blind and feel the problem with this team is at the QB spot, yesterday showed that is not the case by a mile. The problem and he stressed this is not being able to stop the run or the run the ball ourself. Every game we did that we won, it doesn't take a brain scientest to understand that or see it.

This is why Gibbs was so pissed yesterday.

[spidernat]

Some of the stuff posted on here by the Brunell Zombies is mind boggling. They have finally been exposed for what they are.

[planter]

Heh?

Yes, Campbell did well. BUT......

Did you notice how Campbell and the Redskins offense RARELY touched the ball?

How the Skins only ran 20 times for little gain? How the opposition ran twice as often and averaged more per carry?

Neither Brunell, nor Campbell, will succeed in that environment.

[ncr2h]

Maybe you weren't watching the game. Let me show you what you guys would have been saying, had it been Brunell at QB:

"Deep passing game" = 0 completions down the field? If Brunell had done this, people would have been calling for his head, once again.

He spread the ball around? 1 catch for ARE, 2 for Lloyd. 5 for Betts. If Brunell had done this, you would be calling for his head.

He put up good numbers? He had 120 yards going into the last 5 minutes of the game. On that drive, it was dumpoff after dumpoff to the middle of the field. Cooley "saved him" by getting a ton of YAC and getting out of bounds. You guys would be ready to kill Brunell if he had taken that much time to get down the field, and made all those dumpoffs to Betts at the end.

And where are the complaints about the 3 and outs? Seems like those all disappeared now that Brunell is gone.

Yes, Campbell was missing Santana and Portis. But Brunell has been missing either one of them for most of the year, and has been playing against better defenses, but I don't hear people making those excuses for him.

So, in summary I want to say that Campbell played well, and I'm glad we have him in there now that the playoffs are out of reach. However, I also thought Brunell played well when he was in there.

[ncr2h]

He did throw more passes down the field...but none of them were complete.

They don't hear you though. These are the same fans who claim that ARE's (incomplete) pass downfield against Dallas was the best pass of that game.