From a financial standpoint, doesn't Campbell need to play this year?

[warriorzpath]

Here's my philosophy on who plays and who doesn't. If there are new players vying for a starting position - whoever plays the best in practice and preseason gets the starting nod. If there is an incumbent who started the year before - the player, challenging for that starting spot, needs to outplay (in practice and preseason) the incumbent by a significant difference. The challenger needs to take the position, leaving no doubt.

Unless you are Gibbs, then you just trust your gut and play whoever, on what feels good to you.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Here's my philosophy on who plays and who doesn't. If there are new players vying for a starting position - whoever plays the best in practice and preseason gets the starting nod. If there is an incumbent who started the year before - the player, challenging for that starting spot, needs to outplay (in practice and preseason) the incumbent by a significant difference. The challenger needs to take the position, leaving no doubt.

Unless you are Gibbs, then you just trust your gut and play whoever, on what feels good to you.

Well put.

[offiss]

I don't believe at this point the question should be should Campbell start [or play] he's under contract what's done is done, but perhaps the bigger question is was Campbell worth what we gave up for him if at this point into his second year he can't beat out a 36 year old has been, as Gibbs has him competing with Todd Collins for the #2 backup? Perhaps most draft experts were right when they said he was a mid second rd talent and a project. I really wouldn't have a problem with the pick if we took him in the second rd and didn't give up so much to get him, it's a lot to give up, and a lot of time to invest in a player who could fall flat on his face. Was, or is he worth that kind or risk? Obviously we are going to find out.