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

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:00 pm**

Just heard Joe Gibbs press conference and here is the situation, Brunell is the starter, Collins is the game day backup, if Brunell gets injured then of coarse Collins finishes the game, if Brunell is out more than a week then Cambell gets the start the next week with Collins being the backup again. I mysell do not mind this situation and I am sure some others might not like this, so let the discussion begin

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:06 pm**

Makes a lot of sense to me, you want the rookie to have every advantage he can get... if Mark is out for a little while then let Campbell have a whole week to prepare.

Joe Gibbs says Collins played well, that's enough for me.

Also, people are worried about Brunell, but Joe Gibbs won with Rypien and Doug Williams... I think he can win with Mark Brunell.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:07 pm**

This is what I assumed would be the situation.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:12 pm**

That seems to have been the consensus THN opinion for the last month.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:30 pm**

thats what I sort of expected.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:56 pm**

I agree with Gibbs' decision, as always, but what happens in a scenario like this:

Brunell goes down on the first series of downs against, say, Dallas, with the game tied at 0-0 and Collins comes in and does a stand up job, leading the Redskins to a 34-10 victory with a QB rating of 104.5? I wonder will Campbell get the nod the next week if Brunell is out?

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:29 pm**

JPFair wrote:I agree with Gibbs' decision, as always, but what happens in a scenario like this:

Brunell goes down on the first series of downs against, say, Dallas, with the game tied at 0-0 and Collins comes in and does a stand up job, leading the Redskins to a 34-10 victory with a QB rating of 104.5? I wonder will Campbell get the nod the next week if Brunell is out?

JC gets the start the following week. Joe is going to get the future rolling.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:57 pm**

I'd still prefer Campbell as #2 so he can get some snaps in blowouts.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:56 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
JPFair wrote:I agree with Gibbs' decision, as always, but what happens in a scenario like this:

Brunell goes down on the first series of downs against, say, Dallas, with the game tied at 0-0 and Collins comes in and does a stand up job, leading the Redskins to a 34-10 victory with a QB rating of 104.5? I wonder will Campbell get the nod the next week if Brunell is out?

JC gets the start the following week. Joe is going to get the future rolling.

You people are thinking too much. Other than Collins will come in in a short term pinch, no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:50 pm**

You people are thinking too much. Other than Collins will come in in a short term pinch, no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time

I guess the two reporters that asked Gibbs the same question, and by the amount of time Gibbs spent explaining it, I guess they've thought too much about it too.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:25 am**

Makes no sense at all to me. JC is the younger player so he needs more work in practice and the #2 gets more reps than the #3. If you want to bring along a young it makes sense to get him as many reps as possible and as the #3 he isn't going to be getting that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:42 am**

After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:47 am**

Gibbs about Jason...

We've invested highly in a player we've had for 1year and a 1/2
He's done everything we've asked
He's highly talented He's big, he can run, he's strong
Can throw the ball in places other people can't
He's done "it all" in high school and "it all" in college
We think he's the future of the Redskins

Gibbs about Todd...

Very bright, knows the offense
Gutsy guy who hasn't had a chance to play alot
Looked good in pre-season clean up duty w/young guys
Very talented big, strong, makes quick decisions

Who am I to dispute Gibbs, thanx to Hogs.net I am just the cat
because I must say this strategy stinks, Jason Campbell needs to be on the field sooner rather than later, and I don't think he needs a week of work any more than a backup center or db would need a week, you prepare to play every Sunday and the dude is our future why waste any developement snaps for JCam? I understand the logic, and that Joe loves veterans but hey after this season JCAM IS A VETERAN. And he'll be expected to perform as such. Todd Collins strikes fear into no one.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:12 am**

Gibbs4Life wrote:Gibbs about Jason...

We've invested highly in a player we've had for 1year and a 1/2
He's done everything we've asked
He's highly talented He's big, he can run, he's strong
Can throw the ball in places other people can't
He's done "it all" in high school and "it all" in college
We think he's the future of the Redskins

Gibbs about Todd...

Very bright, knows the offense
Gutsy guy who hasn't had a chance to play alot
Looked good in pre-season clean up duty w/young guys
Very talented big, strong, makes quick decisions

Who am I to dispute Gibbs, thanx to Hogs.net I am just the cat
because I must say this strategy stinks, Jason Campbell needs to be on the field sooner rather than later, and I don't think he needs a week of work any more than a backup center or db would need a week, you prepare to play every Sunday and the dude is our future why waste any developement snaps for JCam? I understand the logic, and that Joe loves veterans but hey after this season JCAM IS A VETERAN. And he'll be expected to perform as such. Todd Collins strikes fear into no one.

You can't believe what Joe Gibbs says to the press, look what he says about Ramsey and Coles, I am willing to bet money he doesn't think it ethier. He doesn't say anything bad to the press about any player even when its obvious what he thinks.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:31 am**

crazyhorse1 wrote:After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Still holding on to that Ramsey man crush huh? :roll:

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:47 am**

crazyhorse1 wrote:I fully expect a farce on offense.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB.

Good thing none of that is FACT.

Lets not forget those whose opinions stated that...

1. It was dumb to get rid of Coles
2. Santana Clause was a bust
3. Cool

ey would be a no-show now that teams can gameplan for him
4. 2005 Brunell was too old
5. CP would struggle
6. We'd finish at the bottom of the east
7. We'd get swept by the Pukes

Need I continue? :lol:

!

sch1977 wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Still holding on to that Ramsey man crush huh?

We'd sure be a superbowl contender with PRAM on board. He's the missing peice to the puzzle. :lol:

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:20 am**

JPFair wrote:
You people are thinking too much. Other than Collins will come in in a short term pinch, no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time

I guess the two reporters that asked Gibbs the same question, and by the amount of time Gibbs spent explaining it, I guess they've thought too much about it too.

You may want to take remedial reading, and pull the stick out.

I said "no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time"

From the Post "Gibbs added that performance would remain the ultimate judge and that specific scenarios would be addressed as they arose, not with a rigid flow chart."

The difference is?

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:29 am**

crazyhorse1 wrote:After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Your concern is dead on. Two years ago, Brunell couldn't throw the ball past the line of scrimage. Last year, he had a good season, until late when he was banged up again. Behind him is a career scrub and a project. We are hanging by a thread.

But here's the thing, where exactly do you get quality backups? Out of 32 teams, there are more teams with starters who don't deserve to start then backups not good enough to back up. The price of the complicated offense is the severe shortage of those qualified to run them.

So while I'm dead on agreement with you're fear, I don't know the solution.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:38 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote: You may want to take remedial reading, and pull the stick out.

And you might want to check the rules and regulations about attacking a post, NEVER a poster... unless it's in smack.

Thanks.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:56 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Last year, he had a good season, until late when he was banged up again.

So the loss to the seahawks had nothing to do with....

1. Thomas being injured
2. Ray Brown being injured
3. A center trying to play right tackle
4. Santana Moss being triple covered (he stated so in an interview)
5. No other WR's contributing
6. Carlos dropping a sure interception that would have went for a TD

Brunell was healthy enough to get the job done, he lost all of his weapons. Sure a healthier Brunell would have been better but we still would have loss.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:33 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Last year, he had a good season, until late when he was banged up again.

So the loss to the seahawks had nothing to do with....

1. Thomas being injured
2. Ray Brown being injured
3. A center trying to play right tackle
4. Santana Moss being triple covered (he stated so in an interview)
5. No other WR's contributing
6. Carlos dropping a sure interception that would have went for a TD

Brunell was healthy enough to get the job done, he lost all of his weapons. Sure a healthier Brunell would have been better but we still would have loss.

I re-read my quote, I do not see blaming the loss to Seattle on Brunell. I said he was "banged up." This says "a healthier Brunell would have been better." I think we agree.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:06 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:I fully expect a farce on offense.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB.

Good thing none of that is FACT.

Lets not forget those whose opinions stated that...

1. It was dumb to get rid of Coles
2. Santana Clause was a bust
3. ey would be a no-show now that teams can gameplan for him
4. 2005 Brunell was too old
5. CP would struggle
6. We'd finish at the bottom of the east
7. We'd get swept by the Pukes

Need I continue? !

sch1977 wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Still holding on to that Ramsey man crush huh?

We'd sure be a superbowl contender with PRAM on board. He's the missing peice to the puzzle.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:19 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:I fully expect a farce on offense.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB.

Good thing none of that is FACT.

Lets not forget those whose opinions stated that...

1. It was dumb to get rid of Coles
2. Santana Clause was a bust
3. ey would be a no-show now that teams can gameplan for him
4. 2005 Brunell was too old
5. CP would struggle
6. We'd finish at the bottom of the east
7. We'd get swept by the Pukes

Need I continue? !

sch1977 wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:After spending so much money in the off-season, management is gambling too heavily at QB. I fully expect a farce on offense. The defense will be ok if Holdman and Arch are not as bad as I think they are and Carter is still a top player, which I doubt. Still, the D will likely be demoralized and worn out by the bad O and bad play at QB. Brunell's too fragile, Campbell unready, and Collins a no talent. That's a fair assessment, in sum, and so far borne out completely.

Still holding on to that Ramsey man crush huh?

We'd sure be a superbowl contender with PRAM on board. He's the missing peice to the puzzle.

I said it was dumb to lose so much money on Coles.
I expected Moss to do fine, but not stellar. I was wrong.
Cool

ey is my favorite Redskin. I said he would be covered constantly because we didn't have a second quality receiver and out QB wouldn't last.
I was right about us not having a 2nd WR and absolutely right about Brunell wearing out and breaking up.
I was also right about Portis getting so beat up he would become ineffective at season's end.
I don't believe I said we'd finish last in the division or get swept by the pukes.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:31 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
JPFair wrote:
You people are thinking too much. Other than Collins will come in in a short term pinch, no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time

I guess the two reporters that asked Gibbs the same question, and by the amount of time Gibbs spent explaining it, I guess they've thought too much about it too.

You may want to take remedial reading, and pull the stick out.

I said "no one, including Gibbs knows what will happen. It will depend and end up a judgement call at the time"

From the Post "Gibbs added that performance would remain the ultimate judge and that specific scenarios would be addressed as they arose, not with a rigid flow chart."

The difference is?

The difference is, that it justifies the question instead of saying people are THINKING TOO much about it. It's a legitimate question, that even Gibbs has addressed, which lends credence to the question, and in turn, does not mean that people are "thinking too much".

BTW: What does telling me to "take remedial reading and pull the stick out" have to do with the topic of this post? Perhaps you should do some remedial reading of the rules of the board. FYI

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:33 pm**

JPFair wrote:BTW: What does telling me to "take remedial reading and pull the stick out" have to do with the topic of this post? Perhaps you should do some remedial reading of the rules of the board. FYI

it has been addressed already.

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

Quarterback Situation

Quarterback Situation