How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[Huddle]

Duplicate post.

I'm getting weary from all this high level debate.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Considering how smart you are, I wonder if you're smart enough to figure out his real age.

Just a rough guess? About the same age as Malcolm.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Just a rough guess? About the same age as Malcolm.

Ahh...but what is Malcolm's real age? That is the ultimate question.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 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!"

I suggested the shotgun to Joe in 2004 and he almost threw me out of the room.

So, assistant C should maybe wait a bit and bring it up again. The blinking is a good sign by the way.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Don't forget to try the veal.

And tip your waitress!

[That Guy]

Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by huddle

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.

Please tell me where i said i didn't want to participate. I said we should be aware of the fact that most of this thread is speculation. Its a valid point.

Once again, I DO NOT NEED YOUR F'ing permission to write posts. Stop acting like i do.

Quote:
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

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.

You didn't answer the question, and if it wasn't working, how come portis went on a tear of 100+ yard games and we came out of that stretch 5-0?

We had 257 rushing yards against the Rams, why would we bother passing?

Quote:
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.

First of all, If you read the entire point instead of the out of context bit you replied to, you'd see that i blamed a lot of things besides just patten.

Second, what tricks? This whole thread is about how you don't think the offseason acquisitions are enough to make BRUNELL successful. not to mention your trick of MISQUOTING PEOPLE OUT OF CONTEXT. If you weren't implying that brunell was the reason for our losses, then why did you make this thread? if brunell was fine, why should ANY of us care about campbell and whether he starts? You're backtracking.

Quote:
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 huddle

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

Its not a strawman, its simply an opinion (unless you totally lack reading comprehension), but apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Why the F**k do you keep acting like i can't post without you're express permission and approval of my opinions. Stop being a twat.

Let's simplify:
I think the upgrades will make us better next year. Whether YOU said anything or not doesn't matter as I didn't make ANY reference to you.

Quote:
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

And now the personal attack?

How is that a personal attack and not a fact? please PLEASE PLEASE explain why you're smarter than the collective whole of NFL coaches regarding personnel decisions with something concrete. You can't and you're not.

This is you deflecting the attention away from rebutting the statement with a childish "i'm being oppressed" routine.

Please rebut the actual statement instead. or are you going to pull "he didn't ask nicely" routine?

Your methods are tired and played out, and its obvious you've never been part of any real debate because you refuse to argue the merits of the case and instead rely on hoping everyone else has the intelligence of a 5 year and can't see that you never actually respond to valid criticism.

Quote:
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 huddle

Horse puckey.

See, again, valid criticism is ignored because you don't have an answer besides stating that YOU WERE WRONG.

That post is fact. You said stats were almost worthless, and days later you said that DVOA was a good stat and posted an article about it and how it might be useful. THOSE ARE FACTS.

You backtracked, you got caught, so now you refuse to even attempt a rebuttal.

Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by huddle

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

And here's the 3rd time in one post where you refused a rebuttal of valid criticism. What makes you smarter than the collective whole of NFL coaches? you have yet to answer that question.


What i don't like is your hypocrisy, you're inability to defend your statements against valid criticim, you're convenient backtracking, you're attempts to sidetrack issues when you can't defend them, you're proclamations about the rules of debate that change whenever they don't favor you, and you're absolute refusal even possibly consider you might be wrong. Other than that, we're fine.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Just a rough guess? About the same age as Malcolm.

you'd be off by quite a bit.

[Cooley 350Z]

Anybody want to have a pissing contest?

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I suggested the shotgun to Joe in 2004 and he almost threw me out of the room.

So, assistant C should maybe wait a bit and bring it up again. The blinking is a good sign by the way.

That's what I like about you, Huddle. You're actually a very good sport. A hopeless antagonist but still a good sport!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

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.

When I'm talking about learning the offense, I'm talking about the bottom line, how their play will affect the games. You don't just learn an offense just to know the plays, what the heck good does that do anybody?? What coach in their right mind just wants to create a QB who can recite the playbook by heart?? The entire point of learning an offense is to execute it seamlessly, and you can't execute what you've studied in class without countless repetition with the starting WRs. I didn't think I needed to iterate that, but given your propensity to mince words when you feel the need to save face, perhaps I did.

[dcweldon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032901059.html

here is an article that states that Coach Gibbs is giving Campbell the chance to win the No. 2 spot this coming training camp and pre-season.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

That's what I like about you, Huddle. You're actually a very good sport. A hopeless antagonist but still a good sport!

Thanks

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by dcweldon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032901059.html

here is an article that states that Coach Gibbs is giving Campbell the chance to win the No. 2 spot this coming training camp and pre-season.

That our first round QB is ready, after a year of no action, to compete for the back-up job hardly fills me with confidence about his potential. At the very least, it tells us that the coaches don't see him as the next Carson Palmer.

The other interesting thing in this article is the mention that Collins already knows Al Saunders offense. I think we can take that as a definite clue that those who have been speculating that Al came here only to tweak Joe Gibbs' offense from last season are wrong.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That our first round QB is ready, after a year of no action, to compete for the back-up job hardly fills me with confidence about his potential. At the very least, it tells us that the coaches don't see him as the next Carson Palmer.

The other interesting thing in this article is the mention that Collins already knows Al Saunders offense. I think we can take that as a definite clue that those who have been speculating that Al came here only to tweak Joe Gibbs' offense from last season are wrong.

except that saunders said in his interview he was going to tweak it to make it more point productive.

The bigger clue of what he's doing comes from the fact that he only brought over 1 assistant coach with him (his son) and not an entire staff like GW has done. 1 assistant and 1 player Maybe wholesale changes will come, but i don't think we'll see a total morph in one year, especially since the main ideas are there and the biggest change is verbage and playcalling.

also, carson palmer was #1 overall in the draft (and not a projected 2nd rounder), sat his first year, and led his team to an 8-8 record his second year. when we're thinking SB, 8-8 isn't going to be good enough.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by That Guy

also, carson palmer was #1 overall in the draft (and not a projected 2nd rounder), sat his first year, and led his team to an 8-8 record his second year. when we're thinking SB, 8-8 isn't going to be good enough.

Not to mention the fact that Carson Palmer didn't exactly replace the most consistent QB. Kitna had an outstanding year before that but despite that he still is not highly regarded as a perennial overachiever. Carson had the tools, no sense prolonging the inevitable. Brunell is one of the better overall career QB's in the league. His injuries in recent years, of course, cast a shadow of doubt but he at least has proven performance. We made it to the second round of the playoffs when he was not 100% effective (maybe not even 50%). Let's think about what will happen if/when he is.