How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[That Guy]

I'd just like to state the right now Jason Campbell is an unknown. You can't treat him like a superstar or a bust or anything in between. I think it'd be best to watch him play in preseason and see if he's actually any good before proclaiming the great Campbell transition period. This is all squabbling over hypotheticals based off rampant (and varying) assumptions of a complete unknown.

He could be a bust or the best QB in the league, until you're sure of what you've got though, you should go with what you know (Brunell). If Campbell knocks him off with a great preseason performance, I'm all for immediate change. If not, its just a matter of seeing where he's at and how comfortable the coaches would be in inserting him when brunell is either injured or playing poorly.


now to the pointless rebutals:

Originally Posted by huddle

The question we're discussing is whether Gibbs relied heavily on the running game at the end of last year because he wanted to as a matter of philosophy or whether he was forced to by circumstance.

He has always run the football more when he has a lead. There's no change there

can't it be both? we won 5 straight games towards the end, so obviously we had the lead and started running more. brunell wore out at the end, but its not like we averaged 2.0ypc and decided to run anyways. It was working, so we continued to rely on it. I don't see why you'd abandon what's working without a good reason.

Originally Posted by Huddle

Yo, Matty

Here's a stat for you.

From Game One through SF, we averaged 267.5 yards per game. After SF, through the Tampa Bay playoff game, we averaged 143.5 yards per game. That's a 46% drop-off.

Coincidently, that drop off is also attributeable to the loss of patten. If you can blame it all on brunell, I'll go ahead and blame it all on losing patten. once he left moss losst 30yards/game, patten was contributing 24yards/game, and RBs lost 12yards/game receiving (TEs and other WRs made up the rest of the nearly 86 yards/game net loss). once patten went down, non moss WRs went from 3.5 catches a game to less than 1 catch a game.

Its convenient to blame brunell, but the loss of patten and the improvements in the running game also played a big part. (we run with the lead, and we won 5 straight games, so we had to be leading and thus running more for at least parts of those games).

I don't see how this year with better WR depth, better WR talent, and better scheme that we'll somehow be worse off.

Originally Posted by somebody

And I think if it actually wasn't going to inhibit learning as you suggest, then you'd actually see NFL coaches bring QBs along this way. But I never see that happen. It's just not a smart way of doing things.

the very fact that you think people should take your word (without ANY proof) over that of a collective group of experts is either hubris or stupidity. Either way, statements like this are why your credibility is dead.

Originally Posted by Huddle

No denial; but to be candid, the emotional reaction I got surprised me when I simply remarked that IMO conventional football stats are almost useless. I was made to feel like I'd just informed a kindergarten class that there was no Santa.

and yet in that same thread you were proven wrong on every point, and two days later you post an article about how great (DVOA) stats are (which, by the way, are still stats). So its nice that you think you're smarter than everyone else, except it's not true. And you ended up disagreeing with the very post that you thought was so well reasoned :P

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Um yes, I do. Because [NFL coaches] know a lot more about football than I do.

Or, as you seem to be insinuating, do you think you know more than they do?

do i even need to comment? with no experience as an NFL coach, the fact that you'd think you know more than them about any point of their job (as a collective whole) is insane.

and more irony from the unwitting master :P.



here's something that might be relevent:
Unskilled and Unaware of It

[Huddle]

Schneed10

But the point isn't that you ruin a young QB by throwing him to the wolves, the point is that there isn't a choice. In the NFL, you're better off committing to one QB or another. Waffling back and forth, or platooning QBs, is the worst thing you can do. I've said it over and over, QBs need to have rhythm and be in synch with the offense. No QB is ever going to win a Super Bowl if he doesn't get a starter's share of the practice reps in camp and during game weeks.

It's very rare that the young QBs who are thrown into the arena unprepared are with teams that have any real chance to win a super bowl. No, I really can't see that it's arrogant of me to say that the NFL coaches who do it are making a mistake.

Platooning Campbell and Brunell might bring Campbell along slowly and have him learn the offense as he goes. But in the here and now, you'd have 2 QBs platooning, neither of whom know the offense well enough to execute at a championship level. Your idea might be appropriate (and I stress might) if you were a team like the 49ers, coming off a dismal season and looking to rebuild gradually. Then you could afford to be patient with Alex Smith, bringing him along slowly. But the Redskins are coming off a 10-6 season, and are ready to make a run at going deeper into the playoffs. The last thing they'd want to do is compromise the learning curve of ALL of their QBs.

Learning the offense will be done in training camp, on the field and in the classroom. They can both participate equally. There's no need for either to be unprepared in learning the offense.

Playing time, when they are firing real bullets, is what Jason needs to prepare for the NFL.

I think if you suggested your idea to Joe Gibbs, a Hall of Fame coach who I'm SURE knows more than you about QB management, he'd laugh you out of the room.

I seriously doubt that Joe would laugh. In fact, as thorough as he and his staff are, I'd be surprised if the idea hasn't at least been discussed.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Huddle

cpayne5

.

In my stat debate with Matty, you threw out one of my highest numbers and Matty's lowest. Is he paying you?

Why would he pay me for throwing out the extreme on both sides?

[That Guy]

as for Brunell wearing out:

Gibbs also said he will try to limit Brunell's practice-field snaps, both during training camp and the season, in an effort to keep the veteran healthy. Gibbs acknowledged that Brunell's leg injuries during his two-year Redskins tenure make for an ongoing concern, and he's spoken to the quarterback about adding a flexibility program to his training regimen.

"He can probably take a little less work during the week, too. . . . Some guys want all the reps, but I think Mark is real comfortable," Gibbs said.

seems campbell is playing most of the preseason and we'll get a good gauge on him. Meanwhile brunell will be kept fresh with less preseason and weekly work.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

It's very rare that the young QBs who are thrown into the arena unprepared are with teams that have any real chance to win a super bowl. No, I really can't see that it's arrogant of me to say that the NFL coaches who do it are making a mistake.

Now you're backtracking. In a previous post you said that you think you know more than these coaches on this point. That's what I'm calling arrogant, not that you think it's a mistake.

Originally Posted by Huddle

Learning the offense will be done in training camp, on the field and in the classroom. They can both participate equally. There's no need for either to be unprepared in learning the offense.

Totally and utterly wrong. You can do all the classroom learning you want, there's nothing like doing it in practice or in games. If you platoon them, they each only get half the time working with the starting receivers as the average NFL starting QB. Being up to speed takes more than understanding the Xs and Os of the offense, it takes familiarity, timing, rhythm, and an ability to react without having to think.

Originally Posted by Huddle

I seriously doubt that Joe would laugh. In fact, as thorough as he and his staff are, I'd be surprised if the idea hasn't at least been discussed.

Maybe he wouldn't laugh, because he's too polite. But I guarantee you that he has absolutely no intention of letting Brunell and Campbell share playing time during the regular season.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

LOVED the link ThatGuy. Favorite part:
"But it seems that much of the time, confidence is the over-inflated result of some degree of ignorance. As is the case with many human flaws, perhaps the best remedy is to never stop learning, to seek out and absorb constructive criticism, and to always be prepared to admit that you may be wrong about something."

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

People who had Edgerrin James on their fantasy teams did.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Maybe he wouldn't laugh, because he's too polite. But I guarantee you that he has absolutely no intention of letting Brunell and Campbell share playing time during the regular season.

May I suggest a compromise? I agree he's too nice of a guy to laugh at Huddle if he pitched the platoon idea, but given that Gibbs has just announced that he intends on letting Campbell compete for the #2 backup position, can we all just agree that he would laugh his balls off after Huddle left the room?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Thank you, thank you amorentz......I'll be here all week.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Now you're backtracking. In a previous post you said that you think you know more than these coaches on this point. That's what I'm calling arrogant, not that you think it's a mistake.



Totally and utterly wrong. You can do all the classroom learning you want, there's nothing like doing it in practice or in games. If you platoon them, they each only get half the time working with the starting receivers as the average NFL starting QB. Being up to speed takes more than understanding the Xs and Os of the offense, it takes familiarity, timing, rhythm, and an ability to react without having to think.



Maybe he wouldn't laugh, because he's too polite. But I guarantee you that he has absolutely no intention of letting Brunell and Campbell share playing time during the regular season.

I'd have to agree with scheed, you learn faster on the field, and experience is always better than book learning when its available, and that's in everything (theatre, surgery, electrical work), not just football.

[Huddle]

That Guy

I'd just like to state the right now Jason Campbell is an unknown. This is all squabbling over hypotheticals based off rampant (and varying) assumptions of a complete unknown.

He isn't an unknown to Joe Gibbs. Our discussion has been speculation based on Joe's glowing report on Campbell. If you don't want to participate, that's okay.

can't it be both? we won 5 straight games towards the end, so obviously we had the lead and started running more. brunell wore out at the end, but its not like we averaged 2.0ypc and decided to run anyways. It was working, so we continued to rely on it. I don't see why you'd abandon what's working without a good reason.

We ran early in the game. At times, we continued to run even when it wasn't working. The committment to the run was our staffs' adjustment after the Oakland loss and after even the Rams and Cards defenses held down our passing game.

Coincidently, that drop off is also attributeable to the loss of patten. If you can blame it all on brunell, I'll go ahead and blame it all on losing patten.

You're up to your old tricks: putting words in my mouth. Even after I underlined the words in my post saying that there were several causes for the drop-off, you come up with this strawman.

I don't see how this year with better WR depth, better WR talent, and better scheme that we'll somehow be worse off.

Another strawman? Who said we'd be worse off?

the very fact that you think people should take your word (without ANY proof) over that of a collective group of experts is either hubris or stupidity. Either way, statements like this are why your credibility is dead.

And now the personal attack?

and yet in that same thread you were proven wrong on every point, and two days later you post an article about how great (DVOA) stats are (which, by the way, are still stats). So its nice that you think you're smarter than everyone else, except it's not true. And you ended up disagreeing with the very post that you thought was so well reasoned :P

Horse puckey.

do i even need to comment? with no experience as an NFL coach, the fact that you'd think you know more than them about any point of their job (as a collective whole) is insane.

and more irony from the unwitting master :P.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm getting the distinct feeling that you don't appreciate my posts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Thank you, thank you amorentz......I'll be here all week.

Don't forget to try the veal.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

MMMMmmmmmm........veal.......[imput Homer Simpson drooling sound here]

[Huddle]

[quote=Schneed10]

Now you're backtracking. In a previous post you said that you think you know more than these coaches on this point. That's what I'm calling arrogant, not that you think it's a mistake.

Huh? If I think that coaches who throw young QBs to the wolves are making a mistake, doesn't that also imply that I think I know better than they do on this point? You're making a distinction that escapes me.

Totally and utterly wrong.

Oooo! That's bad! That's worse than being just wrong.

You can do all the classroom learning you want, there's nothing like doing it in practice or in games. If you platoon them, they each only get half the time working with the starting receivers as the average NFL starting QB. Being up to speed takes more than understanding the Xs and Os of the offense, it takes familiarity, timing, rhythm, and an ability to react without having to think.

When you were talking about "learning the offense," I read that to mean ...learning the playbook and the scheme. I didn't think you were talking about execution as well, so we were talking about different things.

[724Skinsfan]

Coach Joe Gibbs: "Okay, Brunell really slowed down at the end of last year. We need a plan to stay competitive. Any ideas?

Assistant A: "We could try some advanced conditioning and flexibility techniques and maximize his recovery time."

Coach Joe Gibbs: "Good idea! Anybody else?"

Assistant B: "What about employing mass protection for him after the second half of the season?"

Coach Gibbs: "Well, that's a thought but we may not be in a position to do that. Who else?"

Assistant C: "Hey, let's do a gradual platoon thing. We could give JC a couple of snap counts in the early season and progressively increase them as the season went on eventually splitting the time equally between MB and JC.

Joe Gibbs: .....[blink].....[blink, blink].....

Assistant C: "Well, what do you think?"

Joe Gibbs: .....[blink].....[blink,blink]....

Assistant C: {fidgeting nervously} "...uhh, it's been done before....loo-look at Cleveland this past year....t-th-they d-did a good job with that."

Joe Gibbs: .....[blink].....[blink,blink]....

Assistant C:"Uh, just kidding?"

Joe Gibbs: "Okay, I think we'll go with plan A and get Mark's conditioning program upgraded. Thanks guys for your input!"