How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[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?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

PSUSkinsFan21



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.



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.



You're making this personal already?

The Browns had the luxury of making their preparation of a young QB a primary goal because the Browns had nothing else to play for. The Skins have a playoff caliber team and a team that is potentially a Super Bowl contender. So the Browns are in a completely different situation than the Skins, so your Browns example is completely irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting we should strive for a sub-par season with zero chances of making the playoffs.

The Ramsey point has already been made by Matty.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

The Browns had the luxury of making their preparation of a young QB a primary goal because the Browns had nothing else to play for. The Skins have a playoff caliber team and a team that is potentially a Super Bowl contender. So the Browns are in a completely different situation than the Skins, so your Browns example is completely irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting we should strive for a sub-par season with zero chances of making the playoffs.

The Ramsey point has already been made by Matty.

Playing a rookie qb may mean a sub-par season, but there's too much evidence of young qbs succeeding to hold Campbell back just because "the stakes may be too high." The longer we hold Campbell back, the longer it will take for him to adjust to playing qb. I could see holding him back if the offensive line couldn't protect him, but our line is a team strength and our qb isn't going to have to carry our offense anyway.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

Playing a rookie qb may mean a sub-par season, but there's too much evidence of young qbs succeeding to hold Campbell back just because "the stakes may be too high." The longer we hold Campbell back, the longer it will take for him to adjust to playing qb. I could see holding him back if the offensive line couldn't protect him, but our line is a team strength and our qb isn't going to have to carry our offense anyway.

Where is all this evidence of young QBs succeeding?

Roethlisberger is the exception to the rule. For every Roethlisberger there are is a Joey Harrington, David Carr, Patrick Ramsey, etc.

QBs don't typically take their teams to the Super Bowl in year 2.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

Playing a rookie qb may mean a sub-par season, but there's too much evidence of young qbs succeeding to hold Campbell back just because "the stakes may be too high." The longer we hold Campbell back, the longer it will take for him to adjust to playing qb. I could see holding him back if the offensive line couldn't protect him, but our line is a team strength and our qb isn't going to have to carry our offense anyway.

good points, but I'm not so sure Campbell is actually ready. I mentioned before that there were concerns with him in college regarding his ability to pick up offenses and the need to simplify the offense for him to grasp it. In that situation, I think he's actually helped by holding the clipboard for another year. Of course I'm speculating........but if he's listed as the #3 QB at the start of the season, I'd have to think that's why. We'll see.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

The longer we hold Campbell back, the longer it will take for him to adjust to playing qb. I could see holding him back if the offensive line couldn't protect him, but our line is a team strength and our qb isn't going to have to carry our offense anyway.

Holding him back by choice is usually a good thing. The longer we hold him back the more time he has to study and analyze what the veteran did in a particular situation. The more time the QB can learn a system the better off he is. Having a great O-line will make it easier on any QB.