How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[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.

[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]

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?

[MTK]

Of course this could all fly out the window if Campbell plays his ass off in the preseason and flat out beats out Brunell, but I think that's highly unlikely.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Has anyone heard whether Brunell is THE starter or if there will be a competition?

[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.

[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.

[MTK]

Huddle, when was the last successful QB platoon that resulted in a playoff and or Super Bowl appearance??

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Huddle, when was the last successful QB platoon that resulted in a playoff and or Super Bowl appearance??

i can answer that for him,...NEVER

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

i can answer that for him,...NEVER

That's irrelevant

[724Skinsfan]

I don't think I've heard or read that Brunell is the official starter. Gibbs seems to be of the mindset that the QB who took the last snap is the starter until further notice. Brunell should be the starter next season until he can no longer fulfill that role. If this were baseball then we could let him rest every other start to help preserve his longevity for the whole season. With football, every game counts. You have to use your best resource until it runs out. Brunell is definitely more experienced and looks like our best resource at QB. If he goes down and Collins shows that he is capable of taking over then I'm sure that will be the way to go. If Campbell whines (which I doubt) then Gibbs will know that he is concerned more about himself rather than the team. And the process starts all over again...

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That's irrelevant

Do you think it's possible that Huddle is actually Drew Rosenhaus? "NEXT QUESTION..."

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I don't think I've heard or read that Brunell is the official starter. Gibbs seems to be of the mindset that the QB who took the last snap is the starter until further notice.

That's a pretty safe assumption IMO.