Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:52 pm
The world may never know.
The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era
Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Which QB Gives The Skins The Best Chance To Win
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:49 pm
Maybe Sonny could step out of the booth for a few weeks!!!!
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:48 pm
Mods, sorry if this is right but I have posted this in a couple of other places and again it is pertinent here......
Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.
Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:59 pm
FiveWidez wrote:Mods, sorry if this is right but I have posted this in a couple of other places and again it is pertinent here......
Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.
Okay, okay! Alright, already. We got it!
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:40 pm
FiveWidez wrote:Mods, sorry if this is right but I have posted this in a couple of other places and again it is pertinent here......
Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.
Your plan seems to allow for a QB change every year until you are happy, wouldn't you be better off just being unhappy with the same QB for a few years. I'm not talking about Brunell/Campbell. I your post you say get a young guy and let him play, if he doesn't work out dump him in the off-season and start over, and you want to follow that path until you get the one you want. Say they throw Campbell in there now and he gets all beat up due to no protection, lack of knowledge of the scheme and of course he still will have to catch up on coverages and game speed. Next year you'll want him gone. Bring in Archie's illegitimate son (Ralph Manning) and he flops by 2010 you'll have a lot of hating going on. Enjoy hating on Brunell while you can, someone else will come along and pick up the torch for him next year. You'll love hem until their first lost.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:52 am
This week, it's Mark Brunell.
In a few weeks, this question might not matter at all.
In a few weeks, this question might not matter at all.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:31 am
I'll vote for Campbell. (My sig should be a good hint.)
Campbell my struggle initially with reading defenses, but his mobility and capabilities to avoid a sack will offset much of that, IMO.
In today's NFL, QB's can't just expect to sit in the pocket all day to make throws. It bothers me when they always blame the o-line. QB's need to be able to move and make plays outside the pocket. It is more than evident Mark is limited in this capacity. Campbell is tall, agile, can move, and has great vision.
I'd love to hear what's going on inside those meetings at Redskins park right now. Gibbs may be loyal to Mark, but he has to realize by now why the entire football viewing community is so baffled.
Campbell my struggle initially with reading defenses, but his mobility and capabilities to avoid a sack will offset much of that, IMO.
In today's NFL, QB's can't just expect to sit in the pocket all day to make throws. It bothers me when they always blame the o-line. QB's need to be able to move and make plays outside the pocket. It is more than evident Mark is limited in this capacity. Campbell is tall, agile, can move, and has great vision.
I'd love to hear what's going on inside those meetings at Redskins park right now. Gibbs may be loyal to Mark, but he has to realize by now why the entire football viewing community is so baffled.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:33 am
BTW - I'll venture to say that even ARE could be more productive at making things happen when protection breaks down, than Mark right now.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:39 am
SkinsFreak wrote:BTW - I'll venture to say that even ARE could be more productive at making things happen when protection breaks down, than Mark right now.
Getting time to throw isn't really a problem for Mark Brunell. . .
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:24 am
Irn-Bru wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:BTW - I'll venture to say that even ARE could be more productive at making things happen when protection breaks down, than Mark right now.
Getting time to throw isn't really a problem for Mark Brunell. . .
No kidding....and yet, he still can't get it done. Get him out from under center...NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:24 am
QB Change: Smoke or Fire?
Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 10.29.06--There's something of a buzz developing in the national media about the possibility of Jason Campbell starting against Dallas. Is it just talk or is there something to it?
You can reach Rich Tandler by email at WarpathInsiders@comcast.net
Looking forward to next Sunday’s game against Dallas, there is a little bit of smoke hanging out there, some haze that is keeping the view of that game from becoming clear. That smoke is being created by some talk, coming almost exclusively in the national media, that Jason Campbell will start that game at quarterback for the Redskins rather than Mark Brunell.
Here is a report typical of what we’ve been hearing. This is from Adam Schefter on the NFL Network on Thursday (at least I think it was Thursday’s edition of NFL Total Access; they repeat it so many times that they all tend to run together):
It certainly looks that way. Jason Campbell took all the snaps this week with the first team offense. Now, granted, Mark Brunell does have a rib injury and the Redskins are on a bye week, so it was a good time to get the young Campbell some work with the first team. Now, there’s a climate in which young quarterbacks are starting all around the league--Tony Romo in Dallas, Seneca Wallace in Seattle, Matt Leinart in Arizona, Vince Young in Tennessee--and it looks like the Redskins could be thinking the same thing. It could be, a week from this Sunday, Romo vs. Campbell.
Now, the first part of the report has been verified. Campbell did take all of the first-team work in the Redskins’ two practices before they took their extended, four-day weekend due to the bye. According to the team, Brunell suffered a rib injury against the Colts and that is why Campbell got the work.
It is after that, however, that Schefter strays from verified fact into what appears to be conjecture. He does not cite a source, named or unnamed, that says that Campbell will start on Sunday. It appears that he is reading tea leaves composed of Campbell’s practice snaps and the league-wide trend towards putting younger QB’s behind center.
But Schefter isn’t given to sheer speculation. Certainly, he’s not always accurate but the guy is well connected. The same can be said of Chris Mortensen, who, in a broadcast report, said that Campbell might take the snaps with the first team this week as well. It seems unlikely that they would go with such reports based solely on Campbell filling in for an injured starter at practice and the fact that Romo, Young, and other inexperienced quarterbacks are starters.
This makes me wonder if they have been tipped off by someone on a deep background basis, meaning that the source gave one or both of them the information on the condition that they not report it directly. A source might do this in a situation where a fairly small circle of people is in possession of the information and the chances of him getting fingered as the leaker are high.
I also wonder why Brunell would sit out both of those practices. One of those, the one on Tuesday I believe, was all about how to fix what’s been wrong with the passing game. If your starting quarterback, the player who certainly bears some of the blame for the passing game’s woes, if not the lion’s share of it, is at all capable of participating in that practice you would think that he would. Certainly a rib injury can be very painful, but not as painful as watching the Redskins’ ineffective air attack all year long. If he’s still your starter you get him out there for that one day, let the kid Campbell hand the ball off on the other day and then take the four days off.
The emphasis, of course is on if Brunell is still the starter.
There are other possibilities in play here. Perhaps Tuesday and Wednesday were essentially a two-day audition for Campbell. Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders put him through the paces, captured his every move on film and are spending a good chunk of this weekend evaluating how he handled things. They may determine that he could well be ready for prime time and give him his shot next Sunday or they could decide that the team would be best served by him being kept on the shelf for a while longer.
Another possibility—and, in reality, it’s the probability—is that there is nothing to this. The situation was what Gibbs said it was. None of the Redskins beat writers, the guys who spend countless hours every week at Redskins Park, has given any credibility to the notion that Campbell will start against the Cowboys. One such writer, John Keim, our Redskins insider, looked in to these reports his conclusion was that they were “baseless”.
He did add, however, that if Brunell can’t practice on Monday, “then let the speculation begin.”
Well, John, we decided not to wait until Monday to speculate. The bottom line is, however, that there’s a lot more smoke than fire in the reports by Schefter and Mort. It would be very surprising—but not totally shocking—if the Jason Campbell era were to start on November 5 at FedEx Field against the Dallas Cowboys.
http://redskins.scout.com/2/584361.html
I thought this was interesting.
Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 10.29.06--There's something of a buzz developing in the national media about the possibility of Jason Campbell starting against Dallas. Is it just talk or is there something to it?
You can reach Rich Tandler by email at WarpathInsiders@comcast.net
Looking forward to next Sunday’s game against Dallas, there is a little bit of smoke hanging out there, some haze that is keeping the view of that game from becoming clear. That smoke is being created by some talk, coming almost exclusively in the national media, that Jason Campbell will start that game at quarterback for the Redskins rather than Mark Brunell.
Here is a report typical of what we’ve been hearing. This is from Adam Schefter on the NFL Network on Thursday (at least I think it was Thursday’s edition of NFL Total Access; they repeat it so many times that they all tend to run together):
It certainly looks that way. Jason Campbell took all the snaps this week with the first team offense. Now, granted, Mark Brunell does have a rib injury and the Redskins are on a bye week, so it was a good time to get the young Campbell some work with the first team. Now, there’s a climate in which young quarterbacks are starting all around the league--Tony Romo in Dallas, Seneca Wallace in Seattle, Matt Leinart in Arizona, Vince Young in Tennessee--and it looks like the Redskins could be thinking the same thing. It could be, a week from this Sunday, Romo vs. Campbell.
Now, the first part of the report has been verified. Campbell did take all of the first-team work in the Redskins’ two practices before they took their extended, four-day weekend due to the bye. According to the team, Brunell suffered a rib injury against the Colts and that is why Campbell got the work.
It is after that, however, that Schefter strays from verified fact into what appears to be conjecture. He does not cite a source, named or unnamed, that says that Campbell will start on Sunday. It appears that he is reading tea leaves composed of Campbell’s practice snaps and the league-wide trend towards putting younger QB’s behind center.
But Schefter isn’t given to sheer speculation. Certainly, he’s not always accurate but the guy is well connected. The same can be said of Chris Mortensen, who, in a broadcast report, said that Campbell might take the snaps with the first team this week as well. It seems unlikely that they would go with such reports based solely on Campbell filling in for an injured starter at practice and the fact that Romo, Young, and other inexperienced quarterbacks are starters.
This makes me wonder if they have been tipped off by someone on a deep background basis, meaning that the source gave one or both of them the information on the condition that they not report it directly. A source might do this in a situation where a fairly small circle of people is in possession of the information and the chances of him getting fingered as the leaker are high.
I also wonder why Brunell would sit out both of those practices. One of those, the one on Tuesday I believe, was all about how to fix what’s been wrong with the passing game. If your starting quarterback, the player who certainly bears some of the blame for the passing game’s woes, if not the lion’s share of it, is at all capable of participating in that practice you would think that he would. Certainly a rib injury can be very painful, but not as painful as watching the Redskins’ ineffective air attack all year long. If he’s still your starter you get him out there for that one day, let the kid Campbell hand the ball off on the other day and then take the four days off.
The emphasis, of course is on if Brunell is still the starter.
There are other possibilities in play here. Perhaps Tuesday and Wednesday were essentially a two-day audition for Campbell. Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders put him through the paces, captured his every move on film and are spending a good chunk of this weekend evaluating how he handled things. They may determine that he could well be ready for prime time and give him his shot next Sunday or they could decide that the team would be best served by him being kept on the shelf for a while longer.
Another possibility—and, in reality, it’s the probability—is that there is nothing to this. The situation was what Gibbs said it was. None of the Redskins beat writers, the guys who spend countless hours every week at Redskins Park, has given any credibility to the notion that Campbell will start against the Cowboys. One such writer, John Keim, our Redskins insider, looked in to these reports his conclusion was that they were “baseless”.
He did add, however, that if Brunell can’t practice on Monday, “then let the speculation begin.”
Well, John, we decided not to wait until Monday to speculate. The bottom line is, however, that there’s a lot more smoke than fire in the reports by Schefter and Mort. It would be very surprising—but not totally shocking—if the Jason Campbell era were to start on November 5 at FedEx Field against the Dallas Cowboys.
http://redskins.scout.com/2/584361.html
I thought this was interesting.
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:37 pm
The most interesting information that I got from this article was....
and...
Mortensen is one of the more dependable reporters out there and he usually doesn't speculate without having atleast some support for his position. I doubt that he would say that unless he had gotten some information from somebody in the know. The second point is even more important IMO. One of the reports that came out from the Post or Times (i cant remember which) talked about how the coaches were concerned about Brunell's grasp of the offense. If that is really the case then I can't imagine Brunell sitting out a practice aimed at fixing the passing game unless he was hurt pretty badly or the coahces were giving Campbell a serious look.
The same can be said of Chris Mortensen, who, in a broadcast report, said that Campbell might take the snaps with the first team this week as well. It seems unlikely that they would go with such reports based solely on Campbell filling in for an injured starter at practice and the fact that Romo, Young, and other inexperienced quarterbacks are starters.
and...
I also wonder why Brunell would sit out both of those practices. One of those, the one on Tuesday I believe, was all about how to fix what’s been wrong with the passing game. If your starting quarterback, the player who certainly bears some of the blame for the passing game’s woes, if not the lion’s share of it, is at all capable of participating in that practice you would think that he would.
Mortensen is one of the more dependable reporters out there and he usually doesn't speculate without having atleast some support for his position. I doubt that he would say that unless he had gotten some information from somebody in the know. The second point is even more important IMO. One of the reports that came out from the Post or Times (i cant remember which) talked about how the coaches were concerned about Brunell's grasp of the offense. If that is really the case then I can't imagine Brunell sitting out a practice aimed at fixing the passing game unless he was hurt pretty badly or the coahces were giving Campbell a serious look.
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:22 pm
I hope this means we get a look at Campbell.
I will say that I just saw a horrible performance by a young QB, that definetly cost the Steelers a game - this was an indication, IMO, of why we may not have seen Gibbs favorite QB yet
I will be there next Sunday cheering for whoever is our QB.
I will say that I just saw a horrible performance by a young QB, that definetly cost the Steelers a game - this was an indication, IMO, of why we may not have seen Gibbs favorite QB yet
I will be there next Sunday cheering for whoever is our QB.
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:54 pm
if he is truely our furture he need to play NOW !!!!!
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:49 am
Anyone think Tony Romo's performance last night will be a factor or persuasion in Gibbs' QB desicion?
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:11 am
SkinsFreak wrote:Anyone think Tony Romo's performance last night will be a factor or persuasion in Gibbs' QB desicion?
he will consider it but i doubt if it will persuade him to make the switch. they are in a different situation though similar. plus he and parcells are different coaches, gibbs being more attached to players rather than parcells who is more apt to make the switch and move on.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:51 pm
the more he plays now the better he will be next year ....... not really worried that much about where we end up at 2-5 things don't look good.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:19 am
I'm really surprised Joe isn't activating Campbell to the #2 spot this week... I thought with the bye and JC getting reps in practice, this was an opportunity to show some confidence in him... At 5-2, if something happens to Brunell or we start getting beat bad, what do we really gain or learn by inserting TC? After last season didn't we hear that JC was going to get playing time and a substantial look this season? Really makes me wonder what their opinion of JC's abilities are...
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:41 am
The real question to ask is how did he do with the first team last week and will he see time with the first team this week???
I haven't seen anything out of Redskins Park that will tell us how he did with the first team last week. The optimism in me says that he did well and that Saunders and Gibbs are at a cross-road because of it. But I guess we will wait and see.
I haven't seen anything out of Redskins Park that will tell us how he did with the first team last week. The optimism in me says that he did well and that Saunders and Gibbs are at a cross-road because of it. But I guess we will wait and see.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:04 am
I'd bet if they were really excited with what they saw, we'd have heard about it...
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:26 pm
The fact is that while we may feel the season is over, it really isn't. Joe is played to play to win until it really is over. You don't tell the owner and the fans after 7 games you're throwing in the towel.
There are many fans on this site who want to play for the future. I'm with them, but I recognize the reality against Dallas, Brunnel is our best shot at winning and Collins is more likely to come in cold and do OK. And the reality is that's Joe's objective until the playoffs are impossible.
There are another group of "fans" who probably are really Eagles and Cowboy fans who think it's funny to say they are Skins fans and bash Joe Gibbs and everything about the team. They don't really care who's QB and if Joe goes for a change they will continue to bash the QB and call Gibbs senile because they hate the skins. They come to bury Caesar, not praise him.
We're not going to see a change to the QB situation until it's dead over.
There are many fans on this site who want to play for the future. I'm with them, but I recognize the reality against Dallas, Brunnel is our best shot at winning and Collins is more likely to come in cold and do OK. And the reality is that's Joe's objective until the playoffs are impossible.
There are another group of "fans" who probably are really Eagles and Cowboy fans who think it's funny to say they are Skins fans and bash Joe Gibbs and everything about the team. They don't really care who's QB and if Joe goes for a change they will continue to bash the QB and call Gibbs senile because they hate the skins. They come to bury Caesar, not praise him.
We're not going to see a change to the QB situation until it's dead over.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:44 pm
KazooSkinsFan wrote:The fact is that while we may feel the season is over, it really isn't. Joe is played to play to win until it really is over. You don't tell the owner and the fans after 7 games you're throwing in the towel.
Why do you insist on suggesting starting JC = throwing in the towel?
I, and others here, strongly believe playing Campbell now is the best way of salvaging THIS season, AS WELL AS playing for the future. True, no one knows what JC can do on the field in a real live game, but we do know what Brunell can do, and it's nothing special. To me, sticking with Brunell IS throwing in the towel.
Edit: Check out the poll results - JC wins by a huge margin.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:02 pm
Brunell gives us the best chance to win. I say that based solely on the fact that I trust the coaching staff. They see the quarterbacks practice everyday and apparently they think Brunell is our best QB.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:29 pm
gregory smith wrote:Brunell gives us the best chance to win. I say that based solely on the fact that I trust the coaching staff. They see the quarterbacks practice everyday and apparently they think Brunell is our best QB.
were you around in 2004?
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:34 pm
gregory smith wrote:Brunell gives us the best chance to win. I say that based solely on the fact that I trust the coaching staff. They see the quarterbacks practice everyday and apparently they think Brunell is our best QB.
Exactly. It's easy to forcast lollipops and sunshine once Campbell gets in, or even to argue that he couldn't do worse, but unless the coaches are wrong this simply isn't true.
I wrote this a few days ago in another thread, but I'd like to use the same argument here:
It seems like if we are to believe that Campbell is the better option for winning next week, we need to believe two things:
(1) The coaches are probably wrong about Campbell.
(2) The odds of Campbell being an inexperienced stud (i.e. another Tom Brady) are pretty good.
If either one of those premises are false, then starting Campbell cannot be the best option for QB against Dallas. (And, I would reject both of those premises, but that's just me).
If one argues instead that we should find out about Campbell one way or another soon--since he's the future anyway--we've now left the realm of talking about how we're going to win next week and next week only. (That is, unless you accept (1) and (2) above.)
Thinking about the future is fine if the season is over, but I haven't given up hope, and I don't think that Gibbs and co. have, either.