derskinsfan Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I'm not saying Campbell is the answer at QB. (In fact, I'm feeling less and less that way each week. Yes, he's had to learn yet another new offense. But have you really seen him look great in ANY offense?) But I don't think it's entirely fair or accurate to say the only reason we are sticking with Campbell is because Snyder and Cerrato demand that he plays. They might want to see if he has enough skill and talent to resign him to a new contract or cut bait. That's fair and reasonable. But I don't think they were ever his biggest fans in the organization. I think he was chosen by Coach Gibbs because he had the skills that Coach Joe always liked in a QB. Big down field arm. Stands tall in the pocket. Coach Gibbs saw a guy who could develop into another Doug Williams or Mark Rypien after learning on the bench for a few seasons behind seasoned vet Mark Brunell. Of course, the plan didn't work out that way. Fans basically demanded that Brunell be yanked, and he ultimately had to be when he just couldn't run Saunders' offense. And remember: fans really wanted Campbell to be playing, regardless of what happened. He was the future. Let him learn. Let him shine. So now we have Campbell. And we don't want him. We want him out RIGHT NOW. We want Colt. We want Collins. We want anyone else. Don't get me wrong, Campbell may never be a west coast QB. He may never be special. But I don't think the only reason he's playing is because of the owner's ego. Why would Snyder have any more loyalty to Campbell than he has ever shown to any other player? BTW, for what it's worth we had a guy who made a pretty good career running a west coast offense and we ran him out of town: Mark Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Whatever the reason for him starting is pure speculation, whether it came from Snyder or the ballboy. My guess is that Snyder at least had a say in it. And if anyone says I am incorrect, I won't believe you until you show me your pass to the inner circle at Redskins Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 It doesn't matter now who made the decision. What matters now is making the decision to bench him before the season slips away. He's the problem and he's not going to get any better. He's just not that good of a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMeast Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 The only guy criticized more in Washington DC than the President is the QB for the Washington Redskins when they are losing. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeGibbsRypenGClark91 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I think Gibbs would of started Collins for sure and kept Saunders as OC. It was night and day when Collins came in. The offense picked up. Now they seem to go at a slow pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I'm not saying Campbell is the answer at QB. (In fact, I'm feeling less and less that way each week. Yes, he's had to learn yet another new offense. But have you really seen him look great in ANY offense?)But I don't think it's entirely fair or accurate to say the only reason we are sticking with Campbell is because Snyder and Cerrato demand that he plays. They might want to see if he has enough skill and talent to resign him to a new contract or cut bait. That's fair and reasonable. But I don't think they were ever his biggest fans in the organization. I think he was chosen by Coach Gibbs because he had the skills that Coach Joe always liked in a QB. Big down field arm. Stands tall in the pocket. Coach Gibbs saw a guy who could develop into another Doug Williams or Mark Rypien after learning on the bench for a few seasons behind seasoned vet Mark Brunell. Of course, the plan didn't work out that way. Fans basically demanded that Brunell be yanked, and he ultimately had to be when he just couldn't run Saunders' offense. And remember: fans really wanted Campbell to be playing, regardless of what happened. He was the future. Let him learn. Let him shine. So now we have Campbell. And we don't want him. We want him out RIGHT NOW. We want Colt. We want Collins. We want anyone else. Don't get me wrong, Campbell may never be a west coast QB. He may never be special. But I don't think the only reason he's playing is because of the owner's ego. Why would Snyder have any more loyalty to Campbell than he has ever shown to any other player? BTW, for what it's worth we had a guy who made a pretty good career running a west coast offense and we ran him out of town: Mark Brunell. well put.......:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 It doesn't matter now who made the decision. What matters now is making the decision to bench him before the season slips away. He's the problem and he's not going to get any better. He's just not that good of a QB. I think you have far too much confidence in the talent level of this team if you are proclaiming that we are a Todd Collins or Colt Brennan away from being super competitive in the NFC East. But then again all you do is bash Campbell regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I'm a Jim Zorn fan, but given Dan Snyder's definition of success as told told to Kelly (CSN), I would guess that his job would be in jeopardy at the end of this year if he doesn't come close to the owner's goal. And I don't think he will...it's simply too much to expect. Although it's painful to think about starting over again, does anyone think that Jason would be more successful in Pittsburgh's (think about Roethlisberger) type of system? Cowher is coming. Having said that, I'm prepared to be pounced upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 He's the problem and he's not going to get any better. really? you think campbell peaked at week 1? how about we let him play at least one game with kelly/thomas/davis before we completely right him off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 It doesn't matter now who made the decision. What matters now is making the decision to bench him before the season slips away. He's the problem and he's not going to get any better. He's just not that good of a QB. Here is the reality of things: Campbell is in his 4th year with three different QB coaches and three different offensive systems. He has two years left on his contract. You either find out what he has this year (and that's the whole year, not just the preseason and one regular season game) or you might as well get rid of him. We could go with Collins, but that is a very short term answer that may not pay off. We aren't talking about winning for just one season, which Collins doesn't guarantee anyways, but winning on a regular basis for years. Collins isn't going to solve that problem. As for Colt, he isn't remotely ready to start right now. He's got a lot of stuff to work on before he's even ready to hit an NFL field. Getting by on instinct isn't enough to be successful over the long term. So really, we don't have much choice but to find out what Campbell has, because any other option either is short-lived or will take longer than Campbell's current contract lasts. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 I did never understand why we kept Collins and cut Brunell. It seemed very counterintuitive given our move from AS's offense to the WCO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.