The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

cvillehog wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Being up 21 when you are 0-2 isn't exactly a blowout.

How is our record relevant?

Messing up and going 0-3 with a loss to the Texans would have been the worse possible scenario.

A lead isn't any bigger or smaller depending on your record. We had the same probability of blowing the 21-point lead whether we were 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Being up 21 when you are 0-2 isn't exactly a blowout.

How is our record relevant?

Messing up and going 0-3 with a loss to the Texans would have been the worse possible scenario.

A lead isn't any bigger or smaller depending on your record. We had the same probability of blowing the 21-point lead whether we were 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2.

Then pay attention to the other part of my statement: 21 points is not a blowout. Especially the way the season had been going up to that point. This isn't rocket surgery, I don't know why you need everything spelled out.

Well I am changing my tune about Brunell once and for all...... he's one of the great QBs in Redskins history. He's had his ups and downs like anyone else and I will support our QB..... whomever is playing. But he has truly shown team leadership and how well he is capable of playing in the past 2 games. But more importantly is how the other players feel about him, they all highly respect him, the way they all talk about his professionalism and poise under stressful conditions...... he's a true leader and a true REDSKIN!!!

I have to say, I like the way Saunders is calling plays to take advantage of what Brunell can, and can't, do.

cvillehog wrote:This isn't rocket surgery

That is true, it's not rocket surgery.

I consider a 21-point lead (and later a 24-point lead) in the fourth a big enough margin to get Campbell some snaps. You don't - fine. But the fact we were 0-2 is irrelevant, unless you thought our psyche was too fragile to risk Campbell entering the game. I didn't see that at all.

Brunell only threw four passes in the fourth quarter, and none down the field. Letting Campbell gets those reps isn't going to put the game in serious peril.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

cvillehog wrote:This isn't rocket surgery

That is true, it's not rocket surgery.

I consider a 21-point lead (and later a 24-point lead) in the fourth a big enough margin to get Campbell some snaps. You don't - fine. But the fact we were 0-2 is irrelevant, unless you thought our psyche was too fragile to risk Campbell entering the game. I didn't see that at all.

Brunell only threw four passes in the fourth quarter, and none down the field. Letting Campbell gets those reps isn't going to put the game in serious peril.

How big a benefit would those (hypothetical) four passes have been to Campbell? How do you weigh that against just getting the win in as convincing a manner as possible?

Steve Spurrier III wrote:That is true, it's not rocket surgery.

Methinks that was a play on words, C'ville is a pretty smart cat

I consider a 21-point lead (and later a 24-point lead) in the fourth a big enough margin to get Campbell some snaps. You don't - fine. But the fact we were 0-2 is irrelevant, unless you thought our psyche was too fragile to risk Campbell entering the game. I didn't see that at all.

As effectively as teams have moved the ball through the air against the Redskins (Houston included) why tempt fate and let a rookie mistake put them in position to get a quick strike? Short passes don't make that scenario unlikely, just less likely. What does it do to Campbell's confidence if he's allowed to play only to be yanked seconds later? What if a thousand scenarios? Nothing in the NFL is certain, an NFC East team aiming for it's first win in it's third game has NO business putting in the second string QB

cvillehog wrote:How big a benefit would those (hypothetical) four passes have been to Campbell? How do you weigh that against just getting the win in as convincing a manner as possible?

Well that's the question. You and Gibbs apparently believe that slamming the door on the Texans is more important. I'm inclined to think that the added reps for Campbell and the extra rest for Brunell outweighs the chance that we give up momentum late in the game.

In the end, it's probably not a huge deal. But I believe Campbell getting the chance to play a quarter of NFL football outweighs the slight chance that the Texans could actually mount a comeback.

Fios wrote:As effectively as teams have moved the ball through the air against the Redskins (Houston included) why tempt fate and let a rookie mistake put them in position to get a quick strike? Short passes don't make that scenario unlikely, just less likely. What does it do to Campbell's confidence if he's allowed to play only to be yanked seconds later? What if a thousand scenarios? Nothing in the NFL is certain, an NFC East team aiming for it's first win in it's third game has NO business putting in the second string QB

I certainly understand the agruments against it, but at some point, Campbell is going to have to take some high-leverage snaps, so it would be nice if he could get some low-leverage snaps before that.

I don't buy the "Campbell's confidence might suffer" argument. If he's really that fragile, Gibbs could just tell him he's only getting one series. If he screw up, Brunell goes back in, if he does fine, he gets one more.

Finally, you are never going to eliminate risk. You have to take advantage of the opportunties as they come.

It's irrelevant because Jason Campbell was inactive for that game and for the game against the Jaguars. He CANNOT play. This is by design. He's the back up when there is a week to plan, otherwise you are not going to see him.

NikiH wrote:It's irrelevant because Jason Campbell was inactive for that game and for the game against the Jaguars. He CANNOT play. This is by design. He's the back up when there is a week to plan, otherwise you are not going to see him.

That's true. I guess it wasn't rocket surgery after all.

Was Campbell in street clothes for the game? The 3rd QB, after all, is an exemption to the 45-man active roster, and can come in during the 4th quarter without penalty.

It doesn't matter, that exception can only be made if something happens to the 2nd on the roster. So we'd have to get through Collins to get to Campbell and that would have most definitely not been worth it.

Ok I just found proof that I am actually wrong. In 1995 the rule was changed. It now states: "The emergency (third) quarterback may now enter the game in just the fourth quarter, regardless if the other two quarterbacks are able to play. This means that if the third string quarterback enters the game, the first and/or second quarterback may re-enter, unlike the past two seasons where the emergency quarterback would only play off the first two were unable to resume play. "

But I want it clear that I think putting Campbell in at any point during this season thus far is wrong.

NikiH wrote:But I want it clear that I think putting Campbell in at any point during this season thus far is wrong.

Even with 10 minutes left in the game and we're up by 30 points?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

NikiH wrote:But I want it clear that I think putting Campbell in at any point during this season thus far is wrong.

Even with 10 minutes left in the game and we're up by 30 points?

I think the key phrase there is "thus far" ... she's not making an explicit "not at all" statement

Ahhh, now that I've reread it, I see what you mean. Yes, there has been no place for JC to be inserted into any game thus far. I agree.

Based on this week, I think that, barring utter catastrophe, we're not going to see Campbell at all this year. I know the official line this week was that Collins would get the reps because they expected Brunell to play, but that doesn't make any sense if the coaching staff has any short-term confidence in Campbell. This seems like exactly the scenario provided for in the "two #2" arrangement--Campbell would be given the chance if he had the week to go through practice with the starters. And then he wasn't.

I don't know what this means, but I'm sure not thrilled with the implications. Whether or not Campbell should be put in in garbage time (and I think the Houston game was too important, and the defense was playing too poorly to apply), I think he should definitely be getting every single snap in practice that Brunell doesn't. It's just a contingency plan, but it needs to be as strong as possible.

Paralis wrote:Based on this week, I think that, barring utter catastrophe, we're not going to see Campbell at all this year. I know the official line this week was that Collins would get the reps because they expected Brunell to play, but that doesn't make any sense if the coaching staff has any short-term confidence in Campbell. This seems like exactly the scenario provided for in the "two #2" arrangement--Campbell would be given the chance if he had the week to go through practice with the starters. And then he wasn't.

I don't know what this means, but I'm sure not thrilled with the implications. Whether or not Campbell should be put in in garbage time (and I think the Houston game was too important, and the defense was playing too poorly to apply), I think he should definitely be getting every single snap in practice that Brunell doesn't. It's just a contingency plan, but it needs to be as strong as possible.

So the "official line" turned about to be 100% accurate and you're still casting aspersions on it? There are no hidden implications here

Fios wrote:So the "official line" turned about to be 100% accurate and you're still casting aspersions on it? There are no hidden implications here

Agreed. Todd Collins getting the snaps in practice didn't reveal a lack of confidence in Campbell, but instead showed the team's confidence that Brunell was going to play. If I'm seeing this correctly, the thinking was that, if Brunell couldn't finish the game on Sunday, the backup that comes in should at least be a bit warmed up from some extra practice during the week.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Fios wrote:So the "official line" turned about to be 100% accurate and you're still casting aspersions on it? There are no hidden implications here

Agreed. Todd Collins getting the snaps in practice didn't reveal a lack of confidence in Campbell, but instead showed the team's confidence that Brunell was going to play. If I'm seeing this correctly, the thinking was that, if Brunell couldn't finish the game on Sunday, the backup that comes in should at least be a bit warmed up from some extra practice during the week.

I agree, and I'm not sure how/why it came to be perceived any other way.

Here's the way I see it, which seems to me the most logical extension of the QB situation promised in the preseason.

If Campbell's supposed to be good enough and reliable enough to pass Collins on the depth chart if he's given a week to prepare, to take reps with the first team and study the game plan, why is that all of a sudden not so if Brunell's expected to play? They're still holding practice, and still need a QB to make the throws. If Campbell's supposed to be the guy to make the playoff run if Brunell gets staph in his arm or blows a knee, doesn't he stand to gain more from the extra work?

Paralis wrote:Here's the way I see it, which seems to me the most logical extension of the QB situation promised in the preseason.

If Campbell's supposed to be good enough and reliable enough to pass Collins on the depth chart if he's given a week to prepare, to take reps with the first team and study the game plan, why is that all of a sudden not so if Brunell's expected to play? They're still holding practice, and still need a QB to make the throws. If Campbell's supposed to be the guy to make the playoff run if Brunell gets staph in his arm or blows a knee, doesn't he stand to gain more from the extra work?

Because if Brunell went down in the Jags game COLLINS was coming in so HE was the one that needed the reps through the week... not Jason.

This has NOTHING to do with Campbell other than just being about giving him a full week to prepare for a start... so that he has his best opportunity for success...

As long as Mark's healthy... jason isn't playing. Plain and simple. That eans that if MB is expected to play... then the BACKUP FOR THAT GAME IS UNQUESTIONABLY TODD COLLINS.

So you put Collins in for reps because you kow that he's the one going in if Brunell can't go for some reason.

It isn't about getting Jason 'extra reps' neccessarily.. it's about giving him the opportunity to not only take the reps, but approach the whole week like he's the guy... it's to mentally put him in a position to succeed... no surprises... less pressure due to the ability to prepare properly... this is JUST to give Jason every chance for success when he does finally go in there. By setting it up this way... the coaching staff knows that JC will never be thrown into a situation that they haven't at least had a chance to gameplan and talk to him about.

... and the coaching staff feels that if a guy has to come in WITHOUT much preparation... and without gameplanning... then that guy will be the guy with a mountain of experience working their offensive system - Todd Collins.

I honestly think people look at this too much from a game-to-game basis. This has more to do with protecting your future at quarterback by ensuring he's not thrown to the wolves in his first NFL regular season game, than it has to do with the outcome of the game that the backup would come into if MB were hurt.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to shout.

Collins will (hopefully) go into every single game of the 2006 season as the #2 QB, after going through the week as the #2 QB.

Whether Brunell or Campbell or Randle El takes the #1 snaps doesn't affect that. It doesn't change any aspect of how Collins prepares to be the gameday #2 QB.

I don't even particularly take issue with the fact that Collins was the gameday backup against JAX. If that's the coaching staff's decision, well, I'm not a talent scout.

But this was a pretty rare opportunity to go through a week as though Jason Campbell *was* going to be the starter--to go through all the practice and gameplanning, to see how he handles it. Not because they'd need him this week, but because they'll need him someday.

And all of this could be done without changing how they currently prepare the backup QB, and without changing how they were preparing Brunell anyway. And it didn't happen. It may not mean anything two or three years down the road, but at this point it's certainly not a ringing endorsement.

You continue to take issue with a process that has been in place since the season started, Gibbs knew it was likely Brunell would play, should the injury flare up in-game, Collins becomes the starter. Nothing has changed in the slightest, your complaint is that it would be better to have THE back-up go in with less preparation so that the QB who (barring a second injury) wasn't going to play anyway could get some snaps. You might see some value in that logic, I do not.

Brunell is finally playing with some confidence. The return of Portis really seems to bring our team back to life. Its clear Portis is the heart and soul of this skins team. Back to Brunell he seems to be taking chances down the field I mean finally. Ill support Brunell if he takes chances and does his best. But when he is afraid to throw an interception you just cant play like that. Now he seems to just let it fly. If he throws and interception down field trying his best I can accept that as a fan. But when he dosent even take a chance and plays scared thats when us fans get Ticked off. I hope he stays just like how he played these past two games.