Was Gibbs right to sit Campbell?

[70th Week]

may be a little off topic,but,why didnt after williams defense get shredded a few times last year on the right side(giants game) and now all of this year cause everyone has now seen it done,don't do something about it?does he love holdman that much?can he not see it?do we miss lavar more than we know?

[redskin48]

I say yes, because he came out of the incubator looking solid. I think it was the right move to give him time to develop. You could argue that he probably would have been just fine earlier on, but Campbell himself doesn't agree. He said that sitting for the first half of the season has helped him a lot.

Plus, you have to start a quarterback who takes you to the playoffs the year before. It's a rule.

Clint

The switch should have been made about week 5 or 6. We waited to long for the old guy to come around.

[Hooper]

He should have been the starter since week three. Mark just doesn't have the physical ability to get it done anymore on a consistent basis. Hell, that was clear the second half of last year. Joe is so in love with Brunell that he ran out and hired a new OC. Thing is, Joe's offense wasn't the problem -- it was the guy under center.

To me, this season would have been a bigger disaster had we hung around longer and kept MB in. Gibbs had no choice but to bench Mark for Jason after the Philly game -- and that could prove to be a major blessing in disguise for next season.

[Hauss]

Campbell himself said that he was glad he sat for a year and a half.

[robotfire]

But back to the question, what would have been wrong with letting him set on the shelf another 3 years? Im sure he would be more prepared then than he is now. The point is we have needed help on the field at the QB position for a long time and I would have liked to have seen where this team would have went last year if we had better QBing instead of someone we had to drag on to the field and stand up to play.

So you think Gibbs put him in later than necessary. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean you're wrong.

My argument is, a lot of potential quarterbacks are ruined by being put into the game too early. I think it's safe to say that Campbell's bench time has paid dividends, but the question is (and always will be) was it necessary?

[planter]

absolutely....

Gibbs chose the perfect time (despartion0 to insert Campbell.

So far he looks good.

[bbuzz1962]

Look guys, the reality of the NFL today is, win at all costs. Gibbs felt that Brunell gave this team the best chance to have more wins than losses at the midpoint of the season. I honestly feel that he thought he could fix the problems that were causing us to lose games. To fans, it seems like an eternity, but to coaches, it is week to week. There is no doubt, playing Monday morning quarterback, if JC had started from week 1, I think this team would be at least 5-4, or at worst 4-5. Campbell didn't have the key players against Tampa, to help him win the game. However, to lose the game by only 3 points wihtout Portis, and Moss, was a great first game showing of his talent.

On Sunday, for the first time all season, our quarterback looked like a first string starter, who could do what quarterbacks need to do in the NFL. He was alert, fast on his feet, and looked in contol. With Brunell as the starter, this team looked like it was struggling on each play. I think it was smart to hold him out, and let him learn. I think with the remaining games on the schedule, he will get valuable experience against pretty good teams. Next season, with the experience he is getting, this team will be playoff bound. Give Campbell the weapons he didn't have Sunday, and the experience of the last part of the season, and he will be something special to watch.

[PeterMP]

Look guys, the reality of the NFL today is, win at all costs. Gibbs felt that Brunell gave this team the best chance to have more wins than losses at the midpoint of the season.

Well, he was clearly wrong. Campbell might not help this team, but he surely does not hurt it.

[pjfootballer]

We would have more wins if Campbell would have played all season.

If Brunell sucks in game imagine practice. Brunell makes our D look like the Ravens D in practice.

Maybe that was the problem. Brunell looked good in practice and the D looked good in practice because of Brunell and vice versa. Maybe we couldn't get a true guage on either one.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think Jason was right to be sat for a year.....and maybe 2-4 games this season. But, Mark SHOULD have been benched awhile ago.

Jason looks like he wears his pads and jersey, Mark looks like the pads and jersey wear him. I think he'll make a good coach somebody if he chooses.

[robotfire]

I understand Gibbs' reasoning for not wanting to sit Brunell because in his mind, when you sit a verteran down it's usually a sign that his career is over. That was most frustrating for us because in the end, you have to realize that this is a business, and I feel that Gibbs' delayed his decision because he didn't want to hurt Brunell.

I think you're right - Gibbs basically was saying that Brunell's career is done when he benched him. It's a very tough decision to make, and he wanted to make absolutely sure that it was the right decision. I can't fault him for being very cautious with such a thing. I think both Gibbs and Brunell understand that it is a business, and the same mentality goes in any business - you want to make absolutely sure that you aren't throwing away a positive member of the team.

We as fans are so funny, because the instant there isn't production, we demand a change. Then, we get lots of changes and act upset because there hasn't been enough continuity.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I definitley think it was a good thing Jason sat last year and part of this year

Last year to learn about the NFL and watch the vets do it, and this year to make sure he fully grapsed this offense

I really wish Mark had worked out but he didn't, and I thought he was the best chance to win until the Colts game to be honest. I thought the switch should have been made after the bye

Jason will get better, how good, who knows, but right now he is just learning to run an NFL offense. He'll still need time to learn NFL defenses and how to read them. I look forward to seeing what he does then

[Buck812]

So you think Gibbs put him in later than necessary. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean you're wrong.

My argument is, a lot of potential quarterbacks are ruined by being put into the game too early. I think it's safe to say that Campbell's bench time has paid dividends, but the question is (and always will be) was it necessary?

To me the question should be, did we need him sooner and could he have helped this team by coming in before last week. I think the answer to that is that he couldn’t have hurt us. Brunnell was/is horrible and I can’t emphasize that enough. He has been the problem for this franchise since his arrival and even last year when we had a chance to be a great team we were just a great defense with an average offense because of a poor QB. It just amazes me that people still make statements such as "he lead us to the playoffs last year" when there isn’t anything that is any farther from the truth.

You know what all comes down to is could we have been any worse than 3 - 7 right now if Campbell had started all year? I think not...And we could have possibly been gaining momentum instead of spiraling out of control.

This Brunnell debacle is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, blunder of the modern Redskin era.

[woodbridge kid]

This Brunnell debacle is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, blunder of the modern Redskin era.

I agree 100%....he should have started sooner and it's now to the point that Gibbs legacy, and the future of the Redskins orginization rests entirely on the shoulders of Jason Campbell...

[Rskins06]

We would have more wins if Campbell would have played all season.

If Brunell sucks in game imagine practice. Brunell makes our D look like the Ravens D in practice.

You are wrong, very wrong. Every week all you heard of is how well the offense played in practice but for whatever reason weren't executing on game day. They weren't executing on game day because they looked great in practice against a defense that has made Vince Young, Tony Romo sits to pee, Gradkowski look like hall of fame QB's. Our defense is horrible, the offense probably dominated the defense and couldn't figure out why they struggled on game day.

It is hard to correct things in practice if you play great against your own defense who by the way, knew what the offense was going to do.

I believe our defense has been bad all year to include preseason, this is why Al Saunders and Joe Gibbs believed their offense was ready. Clearly it wasn't.

[Rskins06]

I agree 100%....he should have started sooner and it's now to the point that Gibbs legacy, and the future of the Redskins orginization rests entirely on the shoulders of Jason Campbell...

[Rskins06]

To me the question should be, did we need him sooner and could he have helped this team by coming in before last week. I think the answer to that is that he couldn’t have hurt us. Brunnell was/is horrible and I can’t emphasize that enough. He has been the problem for this franchise since his arrival and even last year when we had a chance to be a great team we were just a great defense with an average offense because of a poor QB. It just amazes me that people still make statements such as "he lead us to the playoffs last year" when there isn’t anything that is any farther from the truth.

You know what all comes down to is could we have been any worse than 3 - 7 right now if Campbell had started all year? I think not...And we could have possibly been gaining momentum instead of spiraling out of control.

This Brunnell debacle is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, blunder of the modern Redskin era.

Yep, you are right, 10-6 last year and in the playoffs. His winning % was 50% as a starter. Did I mention we got to the playoffs. Tell me 1 quarterback besides MB and Brad Johnson who had a better win % and put us in the playoffs? Matter of fact, name 1 qb besides the 2 above who got us close to being in the playoffs!

It is fine to say benching Brunell was the right thing to do (and it was), but how soon we forget we almost made it to the NFC Championship game last year. MB had a career year (with only 2 people to throw to) and should have been in the Pro Bowl. Give him credit for last year, I don't think I remember anyone saying this BS last year.

[woodbridge kid]

Oh God!!! don't even bring up Brad Johnson!! another Check Down Charlie who refuses to throw the ball over 20 yards.....Redskins football is the deep ball and power running....Brunell didn't lead us to the playoffs , Portis-Moss and the Skins D led us to the playoffs...Brunell threw for 42yds against Tampa in the playoffs..only 2 recievers to throw too?...Ramsey and Campbell seemed to always find more than 2 recievers...A pro-Browl year for Mark Brunell last year?...ha!! youre joking right?...

[Buck812]

Yep, you are right, 10-6 last year and in the playoffs. His winning % was 50% as a starter. Did I mention we got to the playoffs. Tell me 1 quarterback besides MB and Brad Johnson who had a better win % and put us in the playoffs? Matter of fact, name 1 qb besides the 2 above who got us close to being in the playoffs!

It is fine to say benching Brunell was the right thing to do (and it was), but how soon we forget we almost made it to the NFC Championship game last year. MB had a career year (with only 2 people to throw to) and should have been in the Pro Bowl. Give him credit for last year, I don't think I remember anyone saying this BS last year.

I said it last year and I think if you will look at my post history you will find that very easily. Whats funny is the fact that we replaced the recievers and he still had no one to throw to. We replaced the QB and he throws it to everyone. Go figure?....And if we would have replaced Brunnell before the playoffs last year we could have given ourself a chance to make it to the NFC Chanpionship game... Brunnell is a joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Thank god its an old joke (No pun intended).

And please dont say he "put us in the playoffs" last year. Thats very disrespectful to the players who put him there. They deserve better!

[TheLongshot]

People say that he should have started earlier, but there is one good reason why it was better to wait.

There is no pressure on him to have to win games.

We all know the season is pretty much lost, so right now, winning games is icing on the cake. So, he can go out there and just run the offense and see where it takes him. And, if we lose, it most likely won't be on his head.

Jason

[redman]

Campbell like most rookie QB's benefitted from watching last year. He ended up seeing a good, hard-nosed NFC East team play some football and go to the playoffs.

This year, it was clear from reading reports that he plain flat did not have Saunders' offense down in August and early September (frankly, Brunell likely didn't either), and he needed the extra time to master it.

I think he's been handled well if not perfectly.

If you look at Gibbs' track record, he's never started a rookie QB. What you'll note, though, is that all of his QB's hit the ground running when they finally become the starter.

[Joey T]

I think he was, i don't agree of his handling of playing time for JC during trash time. I understand he didn't want to undermine (sp?) MB, but JC had a ton of opportunities this year to get in a game and that would have proven to be invaluable in maturation process.

If Gibbs had not let MB play during trash time, MBs stats would look even

worse. Terrible as a matter of fact.

Gibbs is trying to cover his arse with the MB situation.

First his selection of MB being his boy, then the embarassment of the size of his contract. I wouldn't want to have to explain that to my boss.

[Guest Rafterman]

JC should have started after that titans game. No other way to put.

Agreed

After losing too the Titans a blind man could see that Boonell was a handicapp. Starting Jason after that debacle would have been the right move.

[Guest Rafterman]

If Gibbs had not let MB play during trash time, MBs stats would look even

worse. Terrible as a matter of fact.

Gibbs is trying to cover his arse with the MB situation.

First his selection of MB being his boy, then the embarassment of the size of his contract. I wouldn't want to have to explain that to my boss.

Gibb's was pimped by Del Rio for a friggin draft pick when he could have gotten Boonell from the waiver wire.

Then Gibb's gives Boonell that outrageous contract.

Gibb's was a great HC at one time, but he out right sucks as a GM.

Danny needs to hire a strong GM to build this franchise from the draft.

That is the only way that you can win on a consisdent basis in the NFL.

I give you the Pats, Steelers, Broncos and Giants as prime examples.

[banks979]

I say he was right to sit Jason for the first 5 games tops. I have no problem with him sitting last year to learn the ins and outs of an NFL offense. The only way i would have kept sitting him into this year is if Brunell was consistently performing, every down, every quarter, with only 10% TOPS poor execution. I would say B's number this year has been closer to 40-50%. (Dump offs, throws to the sideline, etc)