Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238421]i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.[/quote]This is true, there is no foregone conclusion until you get another guy in there, but this is always true in every situation.

I fall in the stick with whats working, change what isn't department.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238421]i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

the offense is hurting the defense gtripp, even parcells has said that. I know you love brunell, but you keep throwing up stats that were mainly made in garbage time after the game was already lost as though they mattered.

I mean, i know you love stats, but do you actually see all those 5 yard dump offs when we need 10 yards? do you see him refusing to ever throw over the middle? do you see him NEVER going deep? there's a reason he's not throwing interceptions, and it's cause he seemed to be more concerned with finding a backup job for next year than trying to win.



what f'ing planet are you living on?[/quote]OK, statless arguement for a second, because I know you actually understand FO and what they do, and trust thier work.

Do I see all those 5 yard dumpoffs? Yes. Do they irritate me, because I know what Brunell and this offense could be capable of? Yes. Do I dwell on them or blame conservative playcalling as the basis for our losing even though that same playcalling is what is making this offense improve? No I do not. I do not expect perfection, and I take the bad with the good.

For those who don't follow:

Good-Offense is significantly better than previous years

Bad-In rare situations, playcalling/3rd down check down philosophy is more questionable than in previous years

I don't even begin to see how someone could say the offense is hurting the defense under the conditions. I mean, I'll watch the O get the ball in horrible field position after a rare defensive stops. I'll watch them put some stuff together, move the ball 30-40 yards. Near midfield, I see the drive stall. Holding or maybe a sack, or even sometimes the dreaded check down. We punt, Frost pins them inside the 20. And then I watch the opposing offense convert 3rd down, after 3rd down, after 3rd down. And all of a sudden, they are in field goal range. Don't believe me? Don't like statistics? That's cool, just go back and read any game thread from one of our losses. People comment on 3rd down conversions by the opponent all the time. It's frusterating as hell. The offense, quite frequently puts the D in ideal field position, virtually never turning the ball over, and very rarely does the D ever capitalize. Thats not the offense hurting the defense. I've can remember one pass broken up in 7 games by this D (Springs against Indy).

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238420]Ask yourself this, are you actually pissed because our offense, which is a vast improvement over the last two seasons, has a tendency to get conservative on third down? Or are you pissed because the team is 2-5, like I am?[/QUOTE]

Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

You say "slutty cheerleader" like its a bad thing.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;238412]Eli manning's QB rating is lower than David Carr's, does that make carr better than manning. Carr got benched for Rosenfels. Brunell has had a pretty weak season. I think a good stat would be to check his first downs per completion.[/quote]QB Rating is a crappy stat, but what it does is shows you very generally how good a QB has performed this season. It will tell you that Brunell is better than Bledsoe...and so will every other stat.

The reason that first downs per completion doesn't exist as a stat is because it has no correllation to successful offense or wins or whatnot. I think you mean first downs per attempt, but even then, you have to account for the fact that not every pass is designed to get the first down every time its run.

What they should do is keep a stat on 3rd/4th downs that is first downs per attempt. Of course, this is already a big section of FO's DVOA ratings, in which we rank quite highly.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=mheisig;238442]Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.[/quote]Me too.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238439]I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

I've said before that you are a very valuable poster and have defended your arguments well, but are you trying to act as a counterweight to the rabid Brunell haters by refusing to concede that he is less than good?

Brunell's greatest virtue is his greatest vice. Brunell is smart enough not to throw careless picks, but he's also so risk-averse that he NEVER takes any chances. Brunell is the anti-Ramsey; whereas Ramsey took too many risks, Brunell takes none. Brunell rarely throws over the middle or deep, he goes for those leftovers (e.g. back in the flat). You simply cannot expect to survive on a dink-and-dunk passing offense; teams, even great ones, cannot CONSISTENTLY sustain 16 play drives.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=Southpaw;238405]Trust me, I agree completely, but GTripp will throw numbers at you all day to show you how flawless Brunell's play has been this season.[/quote]Sorry?

When you respond with opinion, who's gonna win? :argue:

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238439]OK, statless arguement for a second, because I know you actually understand FO and what they do, and trust thier work.

Do I see all those 5 yard dumpoffs? Yes. Do they irritate me, because I know what Brunell and this offense could be capable of? Yes. Do I dwell on them or blame conservative playcalling as the basis for our losing even though that same playcalling is what is making this offense improve? No I do not. I do not expect perfection, and I take the bad with the good.

For those who don't follow:

Good-Offense is significantly better than previous years

Bad-In rare situations, playcalling/3rd down check down philosophy is more questionable than in previous years

I don't even begin to see how someone could say the offense is hurting the defense under the conditions. I mean, I'll watch the O get the ball in horrible field position after a rare defensive stops. I'll watch them put some stuff together, move the ball 30-40 yards. Near midfield, I see the drive stall. Holding or maybe a sack, or even sometimes the dreaded check down. We punt, Frost pins them inside the 20. And then I watch the opposing offense convert 3rd down, after 3rd down, after 3rd down. And all of a sudden, they are in field goal range. Don't believe me? Don't like statistics? That's cool, just go back and read any game thread from one of our losses. People comment on 3rd down conversions by the opponent all the time. It's frusterating as hell. The offense, quite frequently puts the D in ideal field position, virtually never turning the ball over, and very rarely does the D ever capitalize. Thats not the offense hurting the defense. I've can remember one pass broken up in 7 games by this D (Springs against Indy).

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

I'm with GTripp on the Brunell situation. I don't think anyone here is arguing Brunell is the second coming of Joe Montana, but he isn't the team's primary problem right now.

What I really question isn't that Brunell is throwing to the checkdown receivers, but that those guys are running 3 yard deep patterns when it's 3rd and 10. I don't know the stats, but that's got to be a pretty low percentage play when you throw for 3 or 4 yards and expect the receiver to make up the rest on 3rd down. Something seems fundamentally flawed in the play calling or game plan when you're consistently short time and again.

I think fans get frusterated and pin the blame on the QB when the play isn't flashy enough. "He's not throwing downfield enough" blah blah blah. To be honest Brunell could be hurting us a LOT more if he were forcing the ball downfield and racking up INTs. Conservative play is probably the best way to go for a lot of QBs, but the fans hate it because it's not real fun to watch. Being careful with the ball is a GOOD thing.

It just blows my mind that people can bitch about Brunell to no end and I guess completely miss some of the glaring problems with the D, coaching and playcalling.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=gibbsisgod;238443]You say "slutty cheerleader" like its a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Oh not at all - just a little less appealing when the analogy places a team of 11 sweating, filthy defensive players in the place of the slutty cheerleader.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;238442]Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.[/QUOTE]

With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

Our offense, on the other hand, was relatively injury free up until now. Moreover, the offense has more weapons than the defense. Can you imagine how bad our offense would be if 7 of its starters were injured? It would be atrocious.

So, given the injuries to the defense and lack of injuries on offense, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

As has been said, Brunell is part of the problem but not the ony problem. And it's hard to say Campbell would be better when he hasn't played yet. I would guess that Gibbs and Saunders would maybe even want to be more conservative with an inexperienced QB in there.

I just want to see JC play so we can shift the theme on the majority of our threads about his performance on the field

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;238452]With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

[/quote] No team in the NFL has enough depth to overcome all those injuries.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;238452]With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

Our offense, on the other hand, was relatively injury free up until now. Moreover, the offense has more weapons than the defense. Can you imagine how bad our offense would be if 7 of its starters were injured? It would be atrocious.

So, given the injuries to the defense and lack of injuries on offense, you're comparing apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]

It's not apples and oranges at all. We're talking about football and why this team loses - I'm simply saying I place a substantial amount of the blame on the defense, far more so than on Brunell.

Injuries happen. It's football and you've got to prepare for that. Sure, maybe the offense "has more weapons" and has performed less to expectations. They're stacked with depth at WR and RB. The coaching staff and FO screwed this team by having virtually no depth on the defense, particularly in the secondary.

The offense is largely healthy and underperforming, though I wouldn't say they're atrocious. The defense is banged up, and screwed because they've got no depth, and they are getting absolutely hosed for the most part.

Maybe it would be more accurate to blame the coaching staff/FO for the problems on defense by not providing depth to allow a cushion for injuries, rather than blame the players for underperforming. Either way the result is we've got something like the 26th ranked defense in the league regardless of who you want to blame.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;238448]I've said before that you are a very valuable poster and have defended your arguments well, but are you trying to act as a counterweight to the rabid Brunell haters by refusing to concede that he is less than good?

Brunell's greatest virtue is his greatest vice. Brunell is smart enough not to throw careless picks, but he's also so risk-averse that he NEVER takes any chances. Brunell is the anti-Ramsey; whereas Ramsey took too many risks, Brunell takes none. Brunell rarely throws over the middle or deep, he goes for those leftovers (e.g. back in the flat). You simply cannot expect to survive on a dink-and-dunk passing offense; teams, even great ones, cannot CONSISTENTLY sustain 16 play drives.[/quote]I'm trying to defend my understanding of our struggles against other arguements that directly contradict what I understand. If I don't defend myself, it would be assumed that I have given up my stance, which I have had no reason to do.

Now that you mention it, Brunell is like the anti-Ramsey. I think it's possible, like you point out, that what Brunell does to keep his INT totals low will kill some drives because of throws he doesnt make. People think this arguement holds against mine because I have a perception of perfection with Mark Brunell. That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think he has played as well as his stats indicate. That would be an MVP sort of season. Obviously his numbers are skewed by the offense he plays in and the situations hes been in. But to say that what he's done for this team isn't good at all is to look all logic and reasoning right in the face and saying go f yourself.

But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.

The only reason to play Jason Campbell at this point is to prepare for the future. Chad Pennington and Philp Rivers have proven that good QBs do not need to struggle through rookie slumps on the field. Both have been playing at a high level since their first start which happened for each in their 3rd season. So you aren't retarding Campbell's development by not playing him now. And yeah, theres a chance that Campbell could be better than Brunell right now. But given his "slow learner" label, not a very good one. To rectify this season means you leave the offense alone, and get the D ready to dominate.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238464]But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]

The underlying assumption in every argument clamoring for Brunell's head is that either Campbell is better, or at least not as bad as Brunell.

The first argument is preposterous given that we haven't seen Campbell actually play anything approaching significant time against a first team defense and with the first team offense. Saying that he'll definitely be better is just a bunch of unfounded hope and optimism.

Anyone arguing that Campbell couldn't possibly be as bad as Brunell hasn't seen a lot of inexperienced QBs play. Alex Smith was absolutely horrible last year when he started. Imagine a game where Campbell tosses 3 or 4 picks, gets sacked a half dozen times and fumbles a few snaps. Trust me folks, it can get a whole hell of a lot worse than Brunell.

Like GTripp said, right now Brunell is the best proven player at QB to win ballgames. I can certainly see the side of the argument to start Campbell and just let him "learn by doing" and find out if he's the real deal. At the same time, from a coaching perspective, you keep trying to win games until you're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, no matter how long of a shot it is. Once you're eliminated, then it's time to start thinking about giving the new guy a shot.

The eternal optimists expect to see Campbell jump in, miraculously take over the team, throw like Peyton Manning and whisk all of D.C. to years and years of Lombardi trophies.

It's far more likely and realistic that if/when Campbell starts this season or the next, it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Remember, it's always darkest right before it goes pitch black.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

Sports junkies have been reading what we have to say here, unfortunately, I don't think it will sway the thought process of Gibbs. When asked, Gibbs says he thinks the world of Jason, and feels he can win games for us now.
Gibbs has an undying loyalty to Brunell that some of us cannot understand because he was out of football during Brunell's lean years in the NFL. How does such a devine attachment come about?
Parcells benched Bledsoe because he saw his team was going nowhere with him, and made the decision to make the change. One could understand the decision Parcells had to make being more difficult than a simular one for Gibbs because of his loyalty to Bledsoe, after all, he had played for Parcells before in NE. However, Parcells realized that winning football games outweighs the desire to be loyal.
Some say Brunell gives us the best chance to win, the question becomes, to win what?
Al Saunders says it takes at least one year to learn his system. Is this Brunell's last year? If it is, then is it really that important that he learns the system? Through it all, Jason sits and wait's because Gibbs is not about to leave the team to the youngster as long as he feels he has a chance. Perhaps he feel it would be sending the wrong message to the rest of the team, or that he quitting, and giving up on the season. However one thing seems to be certain, Campbell is not going to learn a great deal by watching Brunell, and hope when his opportunity does come, he will not duplicate his performances, if he does, we'll all be calling for Brunell to return.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

the playcalling gets more 3-0s = defense is on the field longer GTripp, that's what parcells was saying. because of the playcalling the defense isn't put in great position and gets more time on the field.

when you've got a bad defense, you should ball control to keep them on the sidelines. how many games has portis run 14 times total? that's the point, but whenever it's brought up you seem to gloss over that.


as far as campbell, the "not enough experience to go out and get experience" excuse is just wearing thin. i doubt we'll go 8-1 or even 7-2 over the rest of the schedule, in which case seeing what he can do and letting him learn NOW would be a good idea.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=That Guy;238527]the playcalling gets more 3-0s = defense is on the field longer GTripp, that's what parcells was saying. because of the playcalling the defense isn't put in great position and gets more time on the field.

when you've got a bad defense, you should ball control to keep them on the sidelines. how many games has portis run 14 times total? that's the point, but whenever it's brought up you seem to gloss over that.


as far as campbell, the "not enough experience to go out and get experience" excuse is just wearing thin. i doubt we'll go 8-1 or even 7-2 over the rest of the schedule, in which case seeing what he can do and letting him learn NOW would be a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Believe it or not the offense is converting 39.6% of 3rd downs, which puts them squarely in the middle of the pack at #14. Not stellar, but not as bad as a lot of people are saying.

The defense, on the other hand, ranks about #26 in 3rd down stops, or obviously towards the bottom of the pack.

In other words, as bad as we think the offense is on 3rd downs, we're perfectly average as far as the rest of the league is concerned. Our offense isn't putting the defense on the field after 3rd down any more or less than most. However, the defense is worst than most in stopping on 3rd down.

I'm totally with you on Portis not getting enough carries. This entire offensive scheme is very suspect in my opinion.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

fair points, and i agree the D is really bad right now, but i'm not sold that the offense isn't also bad, that's all. and GTripp sorta comes off as saying there's absolutely no problem there (in my opinion), whether that's his intention or not.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238534]fair points, and i agree the D is really bad right now, but i'm not sold that the offense isn't also bad, that's all. and GTripp sorta comes off as saying there's absolutely no problem there (in my opinion), whether that's his intention or not.[/quote]I guess whether or not theres a problem is purely opinional based on what your expectation for the offense is. If you look at the prior two years as the standard/expectation, then I would say there are no problems. We are up in PPG, YPG and pretty much every major metric from last year. Turnovers are down significantly.

On the contrary, if you thought that the additions we made would make us a top three offense, and that was your [B]expectation[/B], then its pretty obvious this group hasn't reached your standards, and thus is underachieving. There are better offenses then us around the league.

And of course if you expected perfection (and there are people on this fourm who do), then there are a lot of problems. Brunell isn't perfect, Moss isn't perfect, Portis isn't perfect...etc. So yeah, then you call for Brunell's head, get Campbell, and as soon as he isnt perfect, call for his head.

I think a lot of us preseason, were thinking this would be a defensive mided football team, with a stronger offense than last year (cause thats what I was thinking). Well, one unit has met expectations, one hasn't, IMO. So rather than blame the unit that did meet expectations, I'm fed up with the one that didn't.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=GTripp0012;238562]I guess whether or not theres a problem is purely opinional based on what your expectation for the offense is. If you look at the prior two years as the standard/expectation, then I would say there are no problems. We are up in PPG, YPG and pretty much every major metric from last year. Turnovers are down significantly.

On the contrary, if you thought that the additions we made would make us a top three offense, and that was your [B]expectation[/B], then its pretty obvious this group hasn't reached your standards, and thus is underachieving. There are better offenses then us around the league.

And of course if you expected perfection (and there are people on this fourm who do), then there are a lot of problems. Brunell isn't perfect, Moss isn't perfect, Portis isn't perfect...etc. So yeah, then you call for Brunell's head, get Campbell, and as soon as he isnt perfect, call for his head.

I think a lot of us preseason, were thinking this would be a defensive mided football team, with a stronger offense than last year (cause thats what I was thinking). Well, one unit has met expectations, one hasn't, IMO. So rather than blame the unit that did meet expectations, I'm fed up with the one that didn't.[/quote]

there's a flaw in your arguement there. the PPG and YPG are up because of the massive amounts of garbage time an how it was used. when we needed three scores, we made no attempt to get more than 10 yards at a time and move slowly down the field. (bombs away is how you get multiple scores, of course, but with the higher chance to actually win (instead of pad stats), there's a higher chance of turnovers, less chance of yardage (more incompletes), and less chance of points (if you're down 14 and take 4 minutes when you start with 4:30 to go, the defense doesn't really care as much about letting you in).

The offense was on fire for the texans and jags, but beside that, in the competitive parts of games, they've been somewhat invisible. last year they were more clutch (putting up 35 when it still mattered vs TB, 19 and like 322yards passing vs DEN, a decent showing vs SD, KC, etc), and then the defense became clutch down the stretch. this year we've had 2 games of killer offense and 5 games of bad offense until garbage time kicked in. that's NOT better overall, even if you expected no change at all.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238569]there's a flaw in your arguement there. the PPG and YPG are up because of the massive amounts of garbage time an how it was used. when we needed three scores, we made no attempt to get more than 10 yards at a time and move slowly down the field.

The offense was on fire for the texans and jags, but beside that, in the competitive parts of games, they've been somewhat invisible. last year they were more clutch (putting up 35 when it still mattered vs TB, 21 and like 400yards passing vs DEN, a decent showing vs SD, etc), and then the defense became clutch down the stretch. this year we've had 2 games of killer offense and 5 games of badd offense until garbage time kicked in. that's NOT better overall, even if you expected no change at all.[/quote]I thought the offense had good first halves vs both TEN and Indy.

They were more clutch last year, obviously. Which explains the descrepency between 3.8 estimated wins and 2 actual wins. This team isn't getting it done at crunch time on either side of the ball.

But if you ask yourself why that is, it eventually boils down to a relative degree of chance. Theres no other real reason for why this team has all their good plays when it doesn't matter. Law of averages says if you stay the course, it will even out. Athletes are always under extreme pressure, and every offense in the league will struggle at times and succeed at others. I believe this poor clutch performance is due almost entirely to chance.

Or maybe there's a higher power up there who is seeking vengence on Mark Brunell, and causing the defense to struggle as long as he's the QB of the Redskins??? Is the only solution to bring in JC to reverse the curse? :Smoker:

I understand your garbage time arguement, but simply it affects all teams, not just the Redskins. All numbers I have access to and give have garbage time included in them, so its a double standard to say that Brunell and David Carr get yards due to garbage time, but every other QB in the league doesn't.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

well, i only want JC cause i think 2007 would be much better if he got experience before september rolled around. starting with 9 games + a full preseason under your belt is better than coming in without any time served. I don't expect him to come in and magically lead us to 12 straight victories or anything, but hopefully we'd see him get better down the stretch.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238571]well, i only want JC cause i think 2007 would be much better if he got experience before september rolled around. starting with 9 games + a full preseason under your belt is better than coming in without any time served. I don't expect him to come in and magically lead us to 12 straight victories or anything, but hopefully we'd see him get better down the stretch.[/quote]Exactly. That's one arguement that can co exist with mine. As soon as the season is over, what do we have to lose? Nothing....because [I]its over[/I].

Right now, however, the focus should still be to win games. If we win the next three (note; HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION).

We are 5-5. Most likely no more than 2 games out of first and in at least a tie for 2nd. We play 4 of our final 6 at home, and the two road games are in domes. A year ago, we were 5-6, so we would have a chance to be in a [I]better[/I] position than last year. We may not even have to win out.

Now lets say (more realistically) we beat Dallas, lose to Phili, beat TB.

We are 4-6. No more than 2 games out of 2nd. Likely no more than 3 games out of first. Then we have our six final games in what I would deem "friendly" conditions. Either home, or in a dome. We would have to win out, but its not completely implausible.

This is why the situation isn't as dire as some think it is. Now, you have to take it one game at a time and make sure you beat Dallas. Looks like we wont have Moss this week, so you rely on Portis and on a shorter passing game to move the ball. You expect to score about 17, maybe 20 points. And you home beyond hope that the D, at home, makes Tony Romo's day a living hell.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

we're 0-2 in division (last year we went 5-1) and unlike when we won out, our D has been awful and we generally haven't lost close games (again unlike last year). I think the play-calling has been beyond terrible as well.

we'll see, but i've seen NOTHING to make me believe they'll switch the flip in time to save the season. and the coaching staff hasn't made a single noticeable adjustment since jacksonville.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238581]we're 0-2 in division (last year we went 5-1) and unlike when we won out, our D has been awful and we generally haven't lost close games (again unlike last year). I think the play-calling has been beyond terrible as well.

we'll see, but i've seen NOTHING to make me believe they'll switch the flip in time to save the season.[/quote]I'm dissappointed in some situational playcalling, but on the whole, the creativity is really night and day compared to last year. Something we expected.

The offense and special teams (outside of FG kicking) make be believe there is a chance. There isn't unless the D starts playing better, but I've seen this unit rise from the dead before. Hopefully, the problem was injuries. One good game is all it takes to turn the year around.

The entire season to this point has been played in unfavorable conditions (many road games, injuries, bad teams playing well above their potential), and at some point, that's going to turn around.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=skinsfan69;238142]It's not going to happen. Collins was getting 1/2 the snaps too. Why Collins is even getting snaps is beyond me. I guess Gibbs is trying to keep Saunders happy. I'm can't wait until it's 3-9 and Brunell throws a 5 yard checkdown. The crowd is going to really let him have it this week.[/quote]
That will happen all day...And there will be some serious booing sunday.....

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;238340]I don't see Campbell starting, but I can envision him playing if we are losing and Brunell aggravates his ribs. I know Campbell is the #3 QB, but maybe Gibbs will decide to use him after he practiced with the 1st team offense.[/QUOTE]

I was goign to saw that if Brunell istn pefect, campbell comes in. But they you got me thinking, how pissed would you be if Brunell does bad, or gets hurt, and then they put in todd collins....

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=That Guy;238581]we're 0-2 in division (last year we went 5-1) and unlike when we won out, our D has been awful and we generally haven't lost close games (again unlike last year). I think the play-calling has been beyond terrible as well.

we'll see, but i've seen NOTHING to make me believe they'll switch the flip in time to save the season. and the coaching staff hasn't made a single noticeable adjustment since jacksonville.[/QUOTE]



That's why it's so difficult to attempt to predict what they're going to do from one game to the next. We've have played seven games thus far and each one looks like a continuation of the last one, the only thing that changes is the other teams uniforms.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=GTripp0012;238583]I'm dissappointed in some situational playcalling, but on the whole, the creativity is really night and day compared to last year. Something we expected.

The offense and special teams (outside of FG kicking) make be believe there is a chance. There isn't unless the D starts playing better, but I've seen this unit rise from the dead before. Hopefully, the problem was injuries. One good game is all it takes to turn the year around.

The entire season to this point has been played in unfavorable conditions (many road games, injuries, bad teams playing well above their potential), and at some point, that's going to turn around.[/quote]

there's no creativity, and that's part of why we're seeing troubles. outside run right, outside run left, screen right, screen left. crowd the flats and we're done. no need to cover deep, no need to bother guarding the middle. not to mention all that motion stuff stopped being used in week 2 and the shotgun, audibles, and that stupid dump off to cooley we used on EVERY 3rd and short last year (and always worked) are ALL mia (no shotgun = brunell is watching the pass rush and not looking down field).

saunders fixed an offense that wasn't broke and and replaced the good plays with stuff that isn't working (we don't have 2 HoF AND pro-bowlers on the OL like he had in KC). the playcalling flat out sucks cause it's built around players that aren't wearing redskin uniforms with an OC that's looking to jump ship as soon as a head coaching job is offered. I mean, where's the creativity in calling the screen so often that the CBs are meeting it in the backfield 50% of the time?