I JUST DON'T GET IT

[THE RAM]

If Brunell doesn't play then just put Campbell in, how long will it take Gibbs to put JC in, maybe until his 4th year he will start a game, take a look at both Mannings, both Mannings won their division on their second year in the NFL, Carlson Palmer was the starter for the Bengals in his second year, last year (his third) he led the Bengals to a diviison tittle, Letwich was the starter on his second season and he is a really good QB right now, if Gibbs takes that long to put JC in it will take almost two seasons for Campbell to adjust to the NFL and for us fans it will be frsustrating see a QB named the starter until his third or fouth season, JC cost the Redskins a first rounder last season so let's get going with this guy, if Brunell does't play and Collins does I bet we don't score more than 10 points on offense. what I saw in Collins in the preseason was terrible.

[JPFair]

And finally, we've reached thread # 2, 995 on the Brunell/Collins/Campbell great debate of 2006!!!

Based on your logic of Collins being so bad in the pre-season that we won't score more than ten points, what does that say for how many points Campbell will allow us to score? Campbell didn't exactly tear it up in pre-season himself.

The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation. Gibbs has already answered this question, so it's really a moot issue. *sigh* O.K. Here we go.... ONE, TWO....ONE, TWO, THREE...... So, if Brunell isn't able to play, Collins will come on to finish the game. If Brunell is declared "out", and Campbell has a full week to practice, then Campbell will start. As Gibbs stated, though, this is subject to change based on how the season progresses, and under different circumstances.

We don't really have to "get it", as long as we have faith in our Coaches.

Patience my boy, PATIENCE!!!

[HailSkins94]

Brunell is playing so this is over.

[air_hog]

If Brunell doesn't play then just put Campbell in, how long will it take Gibbs to put JC in, maybe until his 4th year he will start a game, take a look at both Mannings, both Mannings won their division on their second year in the NFL, Carlson Palmer was the starter for the Bengals in his second year, last year (his third) he led the Bengals to a diviison tittle, Letwich was the starter on his second season and he is a really good QB right now, if Gibbs takes that long to put JC in it will take almost two seasons for Campbell to adjust to the NFL and for us fans it will be frsustrating see a QB named the starter until his third or fouth season, JC cost the Redskins a first rounder last season so let's get going with this guy, if Brunell does't play and Collins does I bet we don't score more than 10 points on offense. what I saw in Collins in the preseason was terrible.

Maybe because JC is trying to learn the most complex offense in the NFL, along with the rest of the offense.

And jeez, just listen/read what Gibbs has said before. If Brunell goes down mid game, then Collins the vet will finish the game. And if Brunell is out for say 5 weeks, then JC will start the next 5 games.

It's actually pretty a simple concept.

[THE RAM]

''Based on your logic of Collins being so bad in the pre-season that we won't score more than ten points, what does that say for how many points Campbell will allow us to score? Campbell didn't exactly tear it up in pre-season himself. ''

OF course it's about logic if you know something about this game, let me ask you something, how many complete games has Collins played in his proffessional NFL life???? Answer: NOT TOO MANY
So this says that if you draft a QB last year in the first round he should play instead of a veteran QB who hasn't seen any action in this game.
My dear friend JPFair, I hope you would understand this a lot better


''The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation. Gibbs has already answered this question, so it's really a moot issue. *sigh* O.K.''

Yes they have enough experience, if Collins plays we'll talk Monday, it's about numbers, numbers don't lie, plain and simple, take a look at Collins numbers and you MAY have a little idea about how good he is










''The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation''

HAHAHAHA so that's why Brunell

[Fios]

OF course it's about logic if you know something about this game, let me ask you something, how many complete games has Collins played in his proffessional NFL life???? Answer: NOT TOO MANY

Not certain why complete games matter, but he's played in 40 games and he was the starter in 17 of those

So this says that if you draft a QB last year in the first round he should play instead of a veteran QB who hasn't seen any action in this game.

Um ... why?

Yes they have enough experience, if Collins plays we'll talk Monday, it's about numbers, numbers don't lie, plain and simple, take a look at Collins numbers and you MAY have a little idea about how good he is

Um ... what?

HAHAHAHA so that's why Brunell

Um ... what?

[JPFair]

''Based on your logic of Collins being so bad in the pre-season that we won't score more than ten points, what does that say for how many points Campbell will allow us to score? Campbell didn't exactly tear it up in pre-season himself. ''

OF course it's about logic if you know something about this game, let me ask you something, how many complete games has Collins played in his proffessional NFL life???? Answer: NOT TOO MANY
So this says that if you draft a QB last year in the first round he should play instead of a veteran QB who hasn't seen any action in this game.
My dear friend JPFair, I hope you would understand this a lot better


''The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation. Gibbs has already answered this question, so it's really a moot issue. *sigh* O.K.''

Yes they have enough experience, if Collins plays we'll talk Monday, it's about numbers, numbers don't lie, plain and simple, take a look at Collins numbers and you MAY have a little idea about how good he is










''The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation''

HAHAHAHA so that's why Brunell

What?

[1niksder]

Um ... what?

What?

I guess it wasn't just me

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Um ... what?

What?

I guess it wasn't just me

Huh?*


That makes 4 of us.

[Fios]

Um ... what?

What?

I guess it wasn't just me

Huh?*


That makes 4 of us.

Of course this just makes the title of this thread extremely apt

[aswas71788]

Isn't this an old, really beat-up, worn out debate?

[roybus14]

I just wish that this team would be honest about this dude if he can't cut it and just tell it.

I was listening to James Brown on 980 with Coach Thompson and he made an interesting point. Basically saying that all QBs pretty much struggle with new offenses but they are still played. He used Big Ben in Pittsburgh as an example. Big Ben had the benefit of a very good O-line that allowed them to run which made it easier for him to learn and grow on the job and a very good defense that also generated points and turnovers as well. Now that Pittsburgh has that bulls-eye on their back's and everyone is getting "extra" for them and they are starting to expose Big Ben's youth. Pittsburgh is still a good team but they may struggle this season if Ben can't get it together.

See the problem here, IMO, you have a system that has selected the wrong guy or is waiting for the "perfect time", which there is none in the NFL, to put this guy in. Why don't they just come out and say it either way? Either this guy just can't cut it or needs alot more time or they have to sure up everything around him....

[JPFair]

I just wish that this team would be honest about this dude if he can't cut it and just tell it.

With all due respect, but are you suggesting that the Team President, a Hall of Fame Head Coach who is widely regarded around the NFL and other circles as a man of integrity and honor, as well as being a pretty darn good judge of talent, is being dishonest? Maybe you are, or maybe you aren't, but are you calling him and his staff liars? If so, that's a pretty strong allegation to make against our Team President, Head Coach, and his staff.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So in reviewing the thread, my choices are:

A) Gibbs is a shallow and basically dishonest person unwilling to admit a mistake so he is hanging on to a player who "can't cut it" apparently waiting for a face saving way out.

B) It turns out that Cambell is not Big Ben or a Manning and will need more than 1 year and 3 games to move ahead of the other experienced quarterbacks on the roster.

This is not the most difficult choice I've come across. I'm not specifying my answer because it's so obvious.

OK, JPFair said the same, I agree with him.

[die cowboys die]

here are my thoughts on this thread, in chronological order:

1) "it's threads like this that make me question whether i am an idiot for wanting brunell benched. i hope my anti-brunell ravings don't come across as nonseical diatribe"

2) ah, thank goodness, someone (roybus) made a valid point on my side of the issue- there is never going to be a "perfect time" or situation to insert a young QB. a learning year does seem to do some good, but after that you just have to let them struggle and learn on the field.

3) the "gibbs is a hall of fame coach" argument holds absolutely no water when it comes to the QB position. he deservedly lost any and all credibility on this one issue during the completely absurd debacle of 2004. everyone in america (except maybe Redeemedskin ) could see that brunell was by FAR the worst QB in the entire NFL, yet he stuck by him until the season was completely out of hand.

so no, i don't have the slightest incentive to have faith that gibbs is making the right choice at the QB position. we need to be realistic and realize that this year, the QB choice needs to be influenced by the state of the defense. brunell might've been barely good enough to win with the defense we had last year, but he won't be if the secondary keeps getting trashed.

if springs come back and we STILL lose, and are 2-5 at the bye week, it seems extremely obvious that brunell should be yanked and the Jason Campbell experiment should begin. in fact, there should be an absolute riot, i'm talking pitchforks and lanterns, if that doesn't happen. we are not going to go 8-1 or better through the rest of the season.

3-4 at the bye makes things completely different though... amazing the impact of one game difference.

we will beat the titans, and it would take a miracle to beat the colts, so that means we just have to find a way to beat either jacksonville or NYG in the next 2 weeks. springs may be out for both games.

if we lose both of those, we should without question start campbell at home against tennessee the next week- give him an inferior opponent at home for his first game. i will count on all of you to grab your pitchforks and storm redskins park with me if not!



hopefully we'll beat jacksonville and look good doing it this week and i can forget about all this.

[Dangerfield]

I think you might get 'pole-axed' by a lot of the board, but I enjoyed reading your post dcd. I sure hope we win this weekend as well. I hate the fact that we have to play g-men after their bye IN NY! That's a load of crap. Anyway, this weekend sure feels like a must win even though it's only week 4. As you point out, lose to Jax and 2-5 at the bye looks very likely. 10-1 from there VERY UNLIKELY.

[1niksder]

here are my thoughts on this thread, in chronological order:

1) "it's threads like this that make me question whether i am an idiot for wanting brunell benched. i hope my anti-brunell ravings don't come across as nonseical diatribe"

You aren't alone in wanting Mark benched but the number of fans in that boat with you changes from week to week. At least you stay on the same side of the fence

2) ah, thank goodness, someone (roybus) made a valid point on my side of the issue- there is never going to be a "perfect time" or situation to insert a young QB. a learning year does seem to do some good, but after that you just have to let them struggle and learn on the field.

If you don't have to force them into the game, why rush him? Look at Alex Smith, how is his team doing? The same struggles he is having Campbell is learning to overcome without hurting the team.

3) the "gibbs is a hall of fame coach" argument holds absolutely no water when it comes to the QB position. he deservedly lost any and all credibility on this one issue during the completely absurd debacle of 2004. everyone in america (except maybe Redeemedskin ) could see that brunell was by FAR the worst QB in the entire NFL, yet he stuck by him until the season was completely out of hand.

so no, i don't have the slightest incentive to have faith that gibbs is making the right choice at the QB position. we need to be realistic and realize that this year, the QB choice needs to be influenced by the state of the defense. brunell might've been barely good enough to win with the defense we had last year, but he won't be if the secondary keeps getting trashed.

OK I won't bring up all the standard rebuttals to this statement, I'll just address what you use as proof (the 2004 season).

Mark struggled in 2004 for whatever reason it didn't carry over into 2005. In 2004 Gibbs had Ramsey as a back up. Patrick Ramsey the #2/3 in NY now, if he had been read when Mark was struggling maybe he'd be starting on a team where "the coach isn't holding him back" or even could have stuck around here for a year (he was replaced by Collins- that says a lot). Campbell was a rookie and it just wasn't going to happen on a Joe Gibbs team. So he played what he had, in other words he played Mark

if springs come back and we STILL lose, and are 2-5 at the bye week, it seems extremely obvious that brunell should be yanked and the Jason Campbell experiment should begin. in fact, there should be an absolute riot, i'm talking pitchforks and lanterns, if that doesn't happen. we are not going to go 8-1 or better through the rest of the season.

Springs may not be back until the bye week so I lack a response to this. That almost never happens

3-4 at the bye makes things completely different though... amazing the impact of one game difference.

we will beat the titans, and it would take a miracle to beat the colts, so that means we just have to find a way to beat either jacksonville or NYG in the next 2 weeks. springs may be out for both games.

if we lose both of those, we should without question start campbell at home against tennessee the next week- give him an inferior opponent at home for his first game. i will count on all of you to grab your pitchforks and storm redskins park with me if not!

hopefully we'll beat jacksonville and look good doing it this week and i can forget about all this.

If we lose to the Jags I may have to move, so I'm with you on that

[crazyhorse1]

And finally, we've reached thread # 2, 995 on the Brunell/Collins/Campbell great debate of 2006!!!

Based on your logic of Collins being so bad in the pre-season that we won't score more than ten points, what does that say for how many points Campbell will allow us to score? Campbell didn't exactly tear it up in pre-season himself.

The Coaching staff have enough combined experience to determine just who should be the QB when, for how long, and under what situation. Gibbs has already answered this question, so it's really a moot issue. *sigh* O.K. Here we go.... ONE, TWO....ONE, TWO, THREE...... So, if Brunell isn't able to play, Collins will come on to finish the game. If Brunell is declared "out", and Campbell has a full week to practice, then Campbell will start. As Gibbs stated, though, this is subject to change based on how the season progresses, and under different circumstances.

We don't really have to "get it", as long as we have faith in our Coaches.

Patience my boy, PATIENCE!!!

We not not have to have faith in our coaches to be fans. How much faith did you have in Spurrier, Otto Graham?

[JPFair]

We not not have to have faith in our coaches to be fans

uh, did somebody say you did?

[Dangerfield]

uh, did somebody say you did?

Kind of, but not really:

We don't really have to "get it", as long as we have faith in our Coaches.

I say this, because many of us consider the 'questions' in our mind, and then post them here because we think that every other fan out there is as frenetic and paranoid as us. Then we get smacked upside the head with the realization that, just like PEOPLE are different, FANS too, are different.

I think every fan has a right to worry...a lot...because the team means a lot to them. Posing hypothetical theories and doubts is some's way of coping.

Just try to understand. It's not malicious, and we still love the redskins.

[JPFair]

uh, did somebody say you did?

Kind of, but not really:

We don't really have to "get it", as long as we have faith in our Coaches.

I say this, because many of us consider the 'questions' in our mind, and then post them here because we think that every other fan out there is as frenetic and paranoid as us. Then we get smacked upside the head with the realization that, just like PEOPLE are different, FANS too, are different.

I think every fan has a right to worry...a lot...because the team means a lot to them. Posing hypothetical theories and doubts is some's way of coping.

Just try to understand. It's not malicious, and we still love the redskins.

No, not even kind of. If you look at the topic of this thread, the poster says "I JUST DON"T GET IT", and then he goes on to express what is obviously a lot of anger, frustration, and even confusion over the whole Brunell/Collins/Campbell thing. My point was, you don't have to "GET IT" to understand what the Coaches are doing with the QB situation, just accept it and continue on being fans. So, if someone did have faith in our Coaches, they'd be content fans who know that the Coaching staff are experienced in what they do, and they're good at it, and subsequently, those fans would have a certain sense of ease over the whole situation.

Now, on the other hand, if someone chooses to NOT NOT have faith in our coaching staff, well, then they're undoubtedly going to end up angry, frustrated, and even confused, but fans nonetheless. I don't believe I ever said anything to indicate that you HAVE to have faith in our coaches in order to be fans. But, it does beg the question: What kind of fan would you rather be? An angry, frustrated, and confused fan? Or, a Calm, content, at ease fan who is confident in his team and the coaching staff?

I think the answer should be obvious. But, hey, if people enjoy being angry, frustrated, and confused type of fans, then that's their prerogative.

[nfl fan]

Brunell is playing, I have not even heard otherwise. If he was not, I have faith that the coaches would play who ever thought would give them the best chance at winning. After all, they do spend every day in practice with them.

SKins win today

35-21

[Chris Luva Luva]

Brunell is playing, I have not even heard otherwise. If he was not, I have faith that the coaches would play who ever thought would give them the best chance at winning. After all, they do spend every day in practice with them.

SKins win today

35-21

You heard it here first, 35 points for the win!

[crazyhorse1]

I just wish that this team would be honest about this dude if he can't cut it and just tell it.

With all due respect, but are you suggesting that the Team President, a Hall of Fame Head Coach who is widely regarded around the NFL and other circles as a man of integrity and honor, as well as being a pretty darn good judge of talent, is being dishonest? Maybe you are, or maybe you aren't, but are you calling him and his staff liars? If so, that's a pretty strong allegation to make against our Team President, Head Coach, and his staff.

Stop with the big honesty and character bit. Gibbs has been telling the press the typical NFL coach BS for years-- that goes with the territory. As for keeping deals with players, forget it. He also has a reputation all around the league of being totally blind to Brunell's limitations and making suspect personel moves. He migtht yet prove himself yet again, but right now he's not a feared adversary in the NFL-- just another 50% w/l coach.

Leave the myth-making to kids

[Chris Luva Luva]

He migtht yet prove himself yet again, but right now he's not a feared adversary in the NFL-- just another 50% w/l coach.

Your opinion is not fact. "Feared" may not be the word but he's a one of the highest respected coaches in the league. He proved himself last year.