How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[Huddle]

This thread has turned into more of a controversy about Brunell than I had intended when I wrote Post One. Apparently, a significant number of you don't feel that the Skins need to get Campbell ready for the starting role this next season. I hope the coaches aren't thinking that way.

Brunell's legs are as important in his game as his arm. In his two years with the Redskins, most of his games were played with nagging injuries: hamstring pull, calf injury, knee strain. The odds against his playing the 2006 season unhampered by injury are high. This problem, super-imposed over the natural decline of his 36 year-old body ought to tell us that he can't be counted on to perform at a peak level next season.

It seems to me that the Skins can kill two birds with one stone. By working Campbell into action gradually, Brunell can be kept fresh and ready to play with rest in between starts against the toughest defenses on our schedule.

The alternatives are to wait for Brunell to go down and start Campbell raw or start Collins.

Unless the glowing reports about Campbell coming from Redskin Park are bull, there's no good reason not to get him ready this year.

He needs to play to get ready. Two years of holding a clipboard makes no sense if he's truly our franchise QB.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

This thread has turned into more of a controversy about Brunell than I had intended when I wrote Post One. Apparently, a significant number of you don't feel that the Skins need to get Campbell ready for the starting role this season. I hope the coaches aren't thinking that way.

Brunell's legs are as important in his game as his arm. In his two years with the Redskins, most of his games were played with nagging injuries: hamstring pull, calf injury, knee strain. The odds against his playing the 2006 season unhampered by injury are high. This problem, super-imposed over the natural decline of his 36 year-old body ought to tell us that he can't be counted on to perform at a peak level next season.

It seems to me that the Skins can kill two birds with one stone. By working Campbell into action gradually, Brunell can be kept fresh and ready to play with rest in between starts against the toughest defenses on our schedule.

The alternatives are to wait for Brunell to go down and start Campbell raw or start Collins.

Unless the glowing reports about Campbell coming from Redskin Park are bull, there's no good reason not to get him ready this year.

He needs to play to get ready. Two years of holding a clipboard makes no sense if he's truly our franchise QB.

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

I agree on all counts. A QB rotation isn't going to work in the NFL (just ask Spurrier......how'd we do when almost every week we had a different starter?).

I also don't see what the big rush is. Are the reports out of Redskin Park great for Campbell? Of course they are. What are they going to do? Say "wow, this guy sucks. I can't believe we wasted a first round pick on him. What a moron."? Of course not. But all of the scouting reports on him before we drafted him called into question his ability to learn and master an NFL offense. There were serious concerns about his ability to retain the amount of information that is encompassed within an NFL offense (since his college coach had to run a more simplified version of their offense for him at Auburn).

For someone who may be having a tough time taking it all in and mastering the offense, two years of clipboard service is exactly what would do him the most good. He's got the physical tools, we all agree with that. But if you put him in there before he's mentally prepared with 235 lb linebackers and 300 lb linemen trying to kill him, you're putting him in a hole he's not likely to be able to climb out of.

Brunell got us into the playoffs last year. I agree with some comments that we got there and beat the Bucs in spite of Brunell, not because of Brunell. But I also agree that he didn't have the tools to continue to shine the way he did early in the season. With our current WR corp, and praying for a healthy O-line, I see no reason why Brunell can't be our guy this year. Could he get injured? Sure. So could Randy Thomas. So could Santana Moss. So could Shawn Springs. They all have before, but does that mean we try pushing their backups in ahead of them simply because the backup is younger and may have to take over for them if they got injured? I'd say no. You play your starters and you worry about injuries when they happen, and you hope that you've done an adequate job of adding depth to your roster to cover such circumstances.

[Huddle]

Mattyk72

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter.

If Brunell was 28 with fresh legs, I'd agree.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

The implied assumptions in your comment are: 1) the capable vet will play at his peak level for an entire season, 2) the young QB will play at a significantly lower level even though his health and athletic ability exceeds the veteran's.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

IMO working your franchise QB into the lineup gradually in year two isn't "rushing" him.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

I agree with the others who said that if JoeGibbs has the final say on this, it will be Brunell. However, I have a hard time believing that an OC with Al Saunders resume' would take a job where he didn't have the final say on who he plays.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.

Yah, when we had the Matthews, Weurffel (sp?), Ramsey rotation, we were unstoppable.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Yah, when we had the Matthews, Weurffel (sp?), Ramsey rotation, we were unstoppable.

Irrelevant.

We are here discussing a completely different, and less-than-ideal, situation.

Did you mis-read my remarks as a claim that platooning Brunell and Campbell would make us unstoppable...or is this a strawman argument you've created?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Irrelevant.

We are here discussing a completely different, and less-than-ideal, situation.

Did you mis-read my remarks as a claim that platooning Brunell and Campbell would make us unstoppable...or is this a strawman argument you've created?

First of all, it's not irrelevant just because you say so. You're suggesting a QB platoon/rotation. In support thereof, you've offered the 2005 Browns as "support" for the proposition that a QB platoon can work in the NFL (which is kind of funny, the 2005 Browns? Did you really think that was going to convince anyone that we should do the same thing?). I countered with a perfect example of how QB platoons do not work.......in fact, us Skins fans are particularly familiar with the QB platoon/rotation approach and I doubt too many of us want to go back to those days.

Now it's your turn. Explain to me how the Skins's QB platoon of a few years ago is "irrelevant" to the discussion of whether QB platoons can work in the NFL or not. Do you seriously even know what "irrelevant" means? Seriously, do you?

Furthermore, I'd like for you to explain to me why the Browns QB platoon is relevant, but the Redskins QB platoon is not relevant. Is it just because the Browns were your idea, and the Skins were my idea? Is that what makes my point "irrelevant", and yours gospel? Do you see the HYPOCRACY of your statements here?

I mean I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your points are no more valid than anyone else's on this site. We are all offering our OPINIONS. You can't prove the QB platoon will work or that it is a good idea for the Skins in the long run. And I can't prove that it's a bad thing (although I can point out that it's never worked in the NFL to any degree of appreciable success). So, what we are doing here is arguing, and offering support for our arguments. You think the Browns are a worthwhile example to support your stance, I think the Skins are a worthwhile example to support my stance. My example is no less relevant than yours just because it stands in opposition to your opinion. Are you starting to see how this whole thing works here?

As for my "unstoppable" comment: it's called sarcasm. You can look that up too when you look up what irrelevant means.

[Huddle]

PSUSkinsFan21

First of all, it's not irrelevant just because you say so.

Of course not. It's irrelevant because the Spurrier rotation had nothing to do with preparing a rookie QB for the NFL which is what the discussion on the table is about.

Furthermore, I'd like for you to explain to me why the Browns QB platoon is relevant, but the Redskins QB platoon is not relevant.

The Brown's situation is relevant because the platooning was intended to prepare a young QB for the NFL...which is what we're discussing. Charlie Frye performed very well by most accounts.

I mean I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your points are no more valid than anyone else's on this site.

You're making this personal already?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Mattyk72
Why not? The Frye/Dilfer platoon worked out well. When you have to pay the price for inexperience sooner or later, this is a way to minimize the disadvantage.

LOL how many wins did that spectacular Frye/Dilfer platoon work out to?

QB platoons in the pros don't work, look no further than Spurrier's handling of our QB situation in 2003. When was the last time you saw a QB platoon get a team to the Super Bowl?

Playing musical chairs with your QB in the pros usually means a couple of things,

#1 You don't have a true #1 guy
#2 Your team probably stinks
#3 You're battling injuries

We're not the 2005 Browns. We have a team that has serious Super Bowl potential, and you want to take a step back at the QB position now?

When Brunell was brought in it was assumed he would be here for 3 years. Based on the way his contract was structured and considering his age. The 3 year plan for Brunell seems to be working out perfectly as the team has been built up around him to the point now where we seem primed to take a serious shot at winning it all.

Campbell's time will come in 2007 as Brunell will likely be gone after this year. But for right now, you have to take your best shot while the window of opportunity is still open.

[Huddle]

Mattyk72

LOL how many wins did that spectacular Frye/Dilfer platoon work out to?

QB platoons in the pros don't work, look no further than Spurrier's handling of our QB situation in 2003. When was the last time you saw a QB platoon get a team to the Super Bowl?

See my comments to PSU who made the same points.

Playing musical chairs with your QB in the pros usually means a couple of things,

#1 You don't have a true #1 guy
#2 Your team probably stinks
#3 You're battling injuries

True, but none of those factors apply to this specific situation.

We're not the 2005 Browns. We have a team that has serious Super Bowl potential, and you want to take a step back at the QB position now?

It's only a step back if one assumes that Brunell will stay healthy and perform at peak level for the entire season. Based on probability, that isn't a realistic assumption.

When Brunell was brought in it was assumed he would be here for 3 years. Based on the way his contract was structured and considering his age. The 3 year plan for Brunell seems to be working out perfectly as the team has been built up around him to the point now where we seem primed to take a serious shot at winning it all.

If you feel that Brunell's play in the second half of the season was of championship caliber, and that the low production of the passing game was solely due to causes other than Mark's individual performance, I understand your position.

I would disagree but, since it comes down to our perceptions of what happened on the field, it's not something we could debate.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I would disagree but, since it comes down to our perceptions of what happened on the field, it's not something we could debate.

Since when are perceptions undebateable anyway?

We might as well close up shop here at The Warpath if that's the case.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

Two years of holding a clipboard makes sense if you have a capable veteran ahead of him and the team is geared up for a Super Bowl run.

Coming out of college Campbell was considered a bit of a project who could benefit by sitting for a year or two. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to rush him along, like if he's not playing this year he's already a bust.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

I agree that the team is gearing up for a Super Bowl run, however doesn't Jason Campbell figure to be the qb who ultimately gets us there?

There are definitely different ways to develop a quarterback, and I agree that Ramsey's confidence was perhaps shattered playing behind the makeshift offensive protection that Spurrier gave him. But I don't know of anything that you can get better at doing just by watching. I don't know if Campbell should be made the unquestioned #1 right now, but he should definitely play more this season. He's going to have to learn on the job at some point, and there is no debating the argument that we could use some improved play at the quarterback position if we are going to challenge for a Super Bowl.