Warpath  

Home | Forums | Shop | Donate




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2006, 05:00 PM   #46
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 15,994
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.
Me too.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 11-03-2006, 05:04 PM   #47
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,317
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:05 PM   #48
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 15,994
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw View Post
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.
Sorry?

When you respond with opinion, who's gonna win?
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:05 PM   #49
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Posts: 2,119
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:07 PM   #50
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Posts: 2,119
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbsisgod View Post
You say "slutty cheerleader" like its a bad thing.
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.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:07 PM   #51
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,317
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:10 PM   #52
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
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
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:19 PM   #53
Playmaker
 
gibbsisgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 129 W 81st street
Posts: 3,503
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha View Post
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.
No team in the NFL has enough depth to overcome all those injuries.
gibbsisgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:21 PM   #54
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Posts: 2,119
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:26 PM   #55
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 15,994
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha View Post
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.
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 05:43 PM   #56
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Posts: 2,119
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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 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.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 06:39 PM   #57
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
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.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 07:54 PM   #58
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Posts: 17,210
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.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 08:13 PM   #59
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Posts: 2,119
Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2006, 08:27 PM   #60
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Posts: 17,210
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.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.20940 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25