How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your post is a good example of how selected stats can be used to support any position.

You neglected to mention that the total yardage figures show a sharp drop after the SF game when compared to those prior.

You switched to using the 4 TDs, rather than completion and yardage against Dallas while failing to mention that those TDs were chip shots with the defense and special teams providing short fields.

We lost the San diego game despite picking Brees three times...mostly because the offense was three and out all day.

The dazzling performance stats against the Raiders were omitted.

Against the Rams and Cards, the decision was made to rely heavily on the run because the passing game sucked. Yet, your statistics are offered as a fine performance.

112 yards against the Giants in three quarters...is that good? I guess compared to the first Giants game it was outstanding.

Keep in mind we got to a point where our receivers opposite Moss were Jacobs and Farris

You seem to be punishing Brunell for the defense playing well in the Dallas game? Yeah he was given a short field often, but he did what was asked of him-get the Skins in the end zone. There should be no knock on anyone for that second Dallas game.

The decision to go with the running game against the Rams had more to do with the fact that they just couldn't stop the run than anything else. Plus, as Tony McGee (read his post-game thoughts exclusively on TheWarpath.net) mentioned as you get to the latter part of the season Gibbs' philosophy is to focus on the physical and run, run, run to beat your opponent.

Brunell only took three snaps in the 3rd quarter of the Giants game, so really he only played a half.

The Chargers and Raiders games (especially Raiders) were poor performances all around. Can't justify those.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Here's a stat for you. Huddle has started 12 threads since joining us. And 4 have been locked. With quite possibly a 5th on the way.

That has to be some sort of record.

Another deceptive stat.

I challenge you to dig further in your research and target the agressors, those who take perfectly good threads and turn them into harsh personal exchanges.

Right now, you're like the ref who flags the player who retaliates rather than the one who threw the first punch.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

In 2004 it was the hammy. In 2005, it was the knee and calf. Are we hoping that 36 is a lucky number and Mark goes through the season and playoffs healhy?

I agree with you here. An injured Brunell is no good. If he's banged up, we're better off letting him rest all week, letting the backup (whether that be Collins or Campbell) take all the practice reps for the week and start. But if Brunell is healthy he's quite effective.

Originally Posted by Huddle

Yes. It was obvious that only Moss and Cooley had good production numbers. The reasons might be debated.

In my opinion the reasons are clear. Thrash and Jacobs suck, plain and simple. Neither have great straight line top-speed, and neither are particularly agile coming in and out of cuts. Thrash was fast once upon a time but his speed has faded. Without either speed or sudden quickness, it makes it nearly impossible to get open.

Originally Posted by Huddle

Despite the disadvantages you mention, which I'll grant, we have to weigh benefits. Campbell will be better prepared if he is brought along gradually.

My whole point is there will be very limited benefit. The receivers will be used to Brunell, and when Campbell comes into the game the receivers can't just flip a switch and adjust to Campbell. Campbell will only get frustrated by the poor timing and he won't have a chance to develop any cohesion with the receivers. The only benefit Campbell could gain from this is learning the Saunders offense by doing; and if you want Campbell to really learn the Saunders offense he's going to need to take lots of practice snaps.

And since we're weighing costs and benefits, what is the cost of giving practice snaps to Campbell? It costs Brunell valuable practice reps with an offensive coordinator he's never worked with before.

The end result would be one young QB who isn't fully prepared to handle the new offense, and another old QB who isn't fully prepared to handle the new offense. The ultimate cost of that is a lot of losses. It's just a horrible idea all around, and no NFL coach would consider it.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I agree with everything about Thrash sucking. No one really ever gives him his due except on special teams. As a receiver he really did catch whatever came his way and normally was good for a first down when the ball actually was thrown to him.

[Huddle]

TAFKAS

Keep in mind we got to a point where our receivers opposite Moss were Jacobs and Farris

I said earlier (and even underlined my words so they wouldn't be missed) that there were several reasons for the collapse.

You seem to be punishing Brunell for the defense playing well in the Dallas game?

No. I was merely making the case against matty's deceptive stat.

The decision to go with the running game against the Rams had more to do with the fact that they just couldn't stop the run than anything else. Plus, as Tony McGee (read his post-game thoughts exclusively on TheWarpath.net) mentioned as you get to the latter part of the season Gibbs' philosophy is to focus on the physical and run, run, run to beat your opponent.

No. I don't think you and Tony have been listening to Joe Gibbs. He believes in balance; he said it more than once during the year...but after the Cards game, he reluctantly reasoned that we were going to rely heavily on the run. He really didn't have a choice.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Another deceptive stat.

I challenge you to dig further in your research and target the agressors, those who take perfectly good threads and turn them into harsh personal exchanges.

Right now, you're like the ref who flags the player who retaliates rather than the one who threw the first punch.

I was only joking with you, however...

I didn't follow the "rooting for Goliath" thread so no comment there

In my opinion, the "DVOA Statistics" thread was your attempt to continue a pointless debate that had already been locked in the "Brunell vs. Bledsoe" thread. The mods locked it for a reason. To start another thread on realtively the same issue wasn't the brightest move.

Plus in this post seemed like you were stating that there are a lot of "know-it-alls" here. I think you tend to confuse "know-it-all" with "don't agree with Huddle"

You didn't start the "Brunell vs. Bledsoe" thread but you can't deny you had an instrumental role in its demise.

Again, I was just messing with you. But I can't be the only one who sees that threads you're involved in tend to take odd turns.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Huddle

No. I don't think you and Tony have been listening to Joe Gibbs. He believes in balance; he said it more than once during the year...but after the Cards game, he reluctantly reasoned that we were going to rely heavily on the run. He really didn't have a choice.

Well, I don't know. Seeing as to how Tony has played for Gibbs and sat in his locker room. I figured I would listen to what he had to say.

And then there's this

Gibbs is quick to point out that the ratio of running plays to passing plays is often predicated on game situations, with the score being the chief consideration. The Redskins trailed often in the first 10 games -- "I think you're going to get more runs when you have a lead," Gibbs said.

"Joe Gibbs wants his team to be physical," Williams said, "and you know what, every single meeting that Joe has in front of this team he talks about how we're going to win these physical battles. 'I don't care what else happens in this ballgame, we're going to be physical.' And it's nice to see us playing that way, especially at the end of the season. That's when it's time to be that way. Not to say it's not important all the time, but to be more and more and more and more physical as the year goes on, that's good."

[Huddle]

Schneed

I agree with you here. An injured Brunell is no good.

You agree with me? Now I'll have to go back and check to see where I've gone wrong. [kidding]

In my opinion the reasons are clear. Thrash and Jacobs suck, plain and simple. Neither have great straight line top-speed, and neither are particularly agile coming in and out of cuts.

You mean Thrash, Jacobs, and Patten... none of the three were able to get open for Mark. Well, I saw another possible answer: Mark was hustling out of the pocket to roll left after one or two reads.

And since we're weighing costs and benefits, what is the cost of giving practice snaps to Campbell? It costs Brunell valuable practice reps with an offensive coordinator he's never worked with before.

There's going to be plenty of time for both QBs in training camp. Campbell's practice snaps would increase as his playing time increased. At the end of last season, Brunell wasn't practicing until Thursday or Friday because of injuries.

I understand your objection. I just don't think it would be as much of a problem as you do.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Well, I don't know. Seeing as to how Tony has played for Gibbs and sat in his locker room. I figured I would listen to what he had to say.

No offense to Tony but I listen to Joe on what Joe believes. He has been very clear on the need for balance "up here" (meaning the NFL). He was equally clear at the end of the season when he said he believed in balance but...we were going to run the football.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your post is a good example of how selected stats can be used to support any position.

You neglected to mention that the total yardage figures show a sharp drop after the SF game when compared to those prior.

You switched to using the 4 TDs, rather than completion and yardage against Dallas while failing to mention that those TDs were chip shots with the defense and special teams providing short fields.

We lost the San diego game despite picking Brees three times...mostly because the offense was three and out all day.

The dazzling performance stats against the Raiders were omitted.

Against the Rams and Cards, the decision was made to rely heavily on the run because the passing game sucked. Yet, your statistics are offered as a fine performance.

112 yards against the Giants in three quarters...is that good? I guess compared to the first Giants game it was outstanding.

We can debate stats and what they mean all day, bottom line is the passing game did not tank after the SF game, but I guess it depends on what your meaning of tanking is.

Plus let's take into consideration during the first 6 games of the year the offense was undeniably more centered around the passing game, and there were a few games like against Denver, KC and Dallas where we were trailing and were forced to throw more.

Later in the year when the focus of the offense switched to a ground oriented attack, the passing numbers dropped accordingly as the rushing numbers went way up.

We can also debate all day why the change in offensive philosophy was made.

Was it simply because the passing game was faltering?

We should also consider why the passing game was faltering.

Patten was out by that point and we had no viable #2 or #3 WR to speak of. We also had no real commitment to the running game at that time. Those are a couple of factors that likely were contributing to the passing game breaking down.

But I guess the easy way out is to just heap all the blame on Brunell.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

No. I was merely making the case against matty's deceptive stat.

What's deceptive about saying Brunell tossed 4 TDs against Dallas??

A TD throw is a TD throw, whether it comes from 80 yards or 2 yards.

When Manning broke the TD record two years ago, did people complain that he threw a ton of them from inside the 5?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What's deceptive about saying Brunell tossed 4 TDs against Dallas??

A TD throw is a TD throw, whether it comes from 80 yards or 2 yards.

When Manning broke the TD record two years ago, did people complain that he threw a ton of them from inside the 5?

People who had Edgerrin James on their fantasy teams did.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Well, I don't know. Seeing as to how Tony has played for Gibbs and sat in his locker room. I figured I would listen to what he had to say.

And then there's this

Gibbs is quick to point out that the ratio of running plays to passing plays is often predicated on game situations, with the score being the chief consideration. The Redskins trailed often in the first 10 games -- "I think you're going to get more runs when you have a lead," Gibbs said.

"Joe Gibbs wants his team to be physical," Williams said, "and you know what, every single meeting that Joe has in front of this team he talks about how we're going to win these physical battles. 'I don't care what else happens in this ballgame, we're going to be physical.' And it's nice to see us playing that way, especially at the end of the season. That's when it's time to be that way. Not to say it's not important all the time, but to be more and more and more and more physical as the year goes on, that's good."

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.

There is nothing in the past, in Gibbs 1.0 or in Gibbs 2004, to suggest that he has typically relied on the running game so heavily to close out a season.

His strategy has always been to use the power running game to set up the pass. There's no change there.

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

But he has referred to balance between running and passing as his aim three or four times this year...including late last year when he added a "but" to his statement before explaining his shift to relying more on the running game.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I challenge you to dig further in your research and target the agressors, those who take perfectly good threads and turn them into harsh personal exchanges.

Yah, like those people who call into question the ability of other members to ever make sound logical arguments simply because that member makes the suggestion that the other person may have actually been wrong........hey wait a minute.......

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I have a tendency to

[Master4Caster]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

That Kilmer/Jurgensen platoon worked pretty good!

(This thread needs some levity!)