Gibbs Press Conference:

It was a well documented fact that Williams wanted Arch, and in addition that Williams has a huge say in the defensive personnel. You can't pin that particular one on Gibbs.

The problem with Arch is he's not skilled to sit back in cover 2 and I don't believe that was the original plan for him. The awful corner play has resulted in our switch to the cover 2 much of the time. I still believe Arch can turn it around.


but gibbs has final say on everything :P.

I love how all of a sudden Archuleta isn't Williams' doing. Not sure where this came from but anyway.

Williams has said that he had his eye on Arch for a few years now. Gibbs trusts Williams when it comes to him selecting his own defensive personnel.

I still think that Arch can work out for us once he settles into the system and we get healthier as a secondary.

but gibbs has final say on everything :P.

But unless Gibbs has some enormous reason tho say no, he's going to go with Williams' calls. Plus, how could he say no after dropping a bunch of money on the offense?

I've seen enough of Brunell to notice that the only time he is effective is when the other team has us blown out and resorts to prevent defenses. I think Sunday Sonny even referred to Brunell 'padding his stats'. Otherwise, when we're in the game he's simply not getting the job done. I certainly wouldn't be adverse to seeing Campbell under center, especially since we've got 2 wks to get him ready.

While changing QB's will not improve our defense, a better QB hopefully would translate into more points and greater time of possession. I would think that keeping our defense off the field more could only be a good thing and Williams is more agressive with a big lead compared to when the score is close, or as the case has been most of this season, when we're behind.

But unless Gibbs has some enormous reason tho say no, he's going to go with Williams' calls. Plus, how could he say no after dropping a bunch of money on the offense?

no, i was just being stupid since that's what everyone keeps saying like its important.

There are lots of variations of this argument floating around. I guess the standard for benching a qb is that he has to be the worst component on the team. If you can point out another area that is worse than him, defense, punting, whatever, somehow you jump to the conclusion that he should still play.

Look, if we could bench some of those guys on defense we would, but we don't have any depth there, that's the problem. With the qb situation we at least can try a new course.

How many times has a young qb come in and rallied a talented team that was floundering. When Brady got the call in 02 the Patriots were 0-2, having been blown out their first two games by considerable margins. They ended up winning the superbowl. Big Ben took a 1-1 Steelers team to 15 straight wins. Even if that doesn't happen with Campbell, we can't possibly be any worse...

Brady and Roethlisberger are exceptions to the rule of course. The case for benching Brunell in my opinion is that it could psychologically boost the team. Players are more likely to play inspired for a new QB than they are for a new right DE. I don't think all the blame can be heaped upon Brunell but I'm sure he has known since he put on shoulder pads in pop warner and took the field as quarterback that there has to be someone on the team that falls on the grenade and that's often the QB.

No, it's not all on Brunell, but a share of the blame certainly is. Our defense played pretty damn good in the first half of Indy and we only put up two TDs, one we had to get off a punt return. Our offense isn't cutting it either.

Also, the more our offense 3 and outs, the harder it gets on an already beat up defense. If they can't get off the field for more than 3 plays at a time, it gets awfully hard to keep it up.

What I wished Gibbs has said was something like this: "Mark's numbers looked OK, but under him, the offense scored only one TD while the game was in the balance. I'm sticking with him, but I expect more from him."

Instead, we got the same old blind-faith statements.

What good comes from calling out players in public?

Parcells does it, how much has it help them?

What Gibbs says behind closed doors is all that matters. I could care less what he says to the media. He could do a puppet show for all I care.

I don't understand why some people are so hung up on what he says. He's never said anything, and he never will.

What I wished Gibbs has said was something like this: "Mark's numbers looked OK, but under him, the offense scored only one TD while the game was in the balance. I'm sticking with him, but I expect more from him."

Instead, we got the same old blind-faith statements.

Did you notice how Gibbs ruled out JC as starter after the bye but did not rule out going to Todd Collins. It really looks to me like Todd Collins will see action long before JC will.