How Will Campbell Be Handled?

The Browns weren't a playoff caliber team with aspirations of a Super Bowl appearance. If I were the Browns, I probably would have done the same thing. What did they have to lose? They didn't have a supporting cast that would have taken either of their QBs to the playoffs. We have a QB that has taken us to the playoffs. We've given that same QB better WRs and a better offensive coordinator. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, for so many reasons, the Skins are not the Browns.

You are correct that the Browns decision to platoon was more obvious than ours.

In the foregoing quote, you conclude that "We have a QB that has taken us to the playoffs."

Many of us didn't see that. With the exception of the Tampa Bay game, I saw a passing game that tanked after the San Francisco blowout, one that couldn't move the chains even against defenses like the Rams and Cards.

Of the several reasons to account for the dropoff in production, one was that defenses caught up with Mark Brunell's game which is very limited at this point in his career. As an earlier poster noted, there is doubt whether Brunell will be helped by additional receivers.

I thought a surging defense creating turnovers, heavy reliance on an improved running game, and a very good special teams performance down the stretch got us to the playoffs.

Irrelevant debates seem to be a theme when Huddle is involved.

You have entered this thread only to take a shot at me?

The young QB's playing time might start with a series or two, with plays he handles well, planned and practised. Then, his playing time is increased gradually until the point where he might start and play an entire game.

This would have to be during garbage time, in my opinion. What is the advantage of bringing in Campbell during a close game to play a series or two? Especially when, as has been pointed out here, we're knocking on the Super Bowl door.

I think this will all be a lot clearer come mid-August once we've seen both play.

Many of us didn't see that. With the exception of the Tampa Bay game, I saw a passing game that tanked after the San Francisco blowout, one that couldn't move the chains even against defenses like the Rams and Cards.we won both of those games. and i seem to remember a very nice team passing day against the giants and cowboys late in dec. the qb doesnt have to throw for 300 yards every game to be a playoff caliber team.would you rather him force alot of throws that were not there, only to turn the ball over . brunell is playing the qb position right, make the throws that are there and DONT make stupid mistakes. that DID win us a playoff game, and will win you games more often then it will lose them.

Huddle,

I recognized in post #45 that I agree, in part, with those who said we got to the playoffs in spite of Brunell, not because of him. I also believe that the vastly better WR corp, O-coordinator, and (God willing) a healthy O-line would set Brunell up for a successful year.

I agree with you that defense, running game and special teams were the primary reasons we got into the playoffs last year. I think our only difference, at this point, is our view of whether Brunell can get the job done given this year's personnel or whether he can't....and, of course, whether platooning is a good idea for this year's Skins.

You are correct that the Browns decision to platoon was more obvious than ours.

In the foregoing quote, you conclude that "We have a QB that has taken us to the playoffs."

Many of us didn't see that. With the exception of the Tampa Bay game, I saw a passing game that tanked after the San Francisco blowout, one that couldn't move the chains even against defenses like the Rams and Cards.

Of the several reasons to account for the dropoff in production, one was that defenses caught up with Mark Brunell's game which is very limited at this point in his career. As an earlier poster noted, there is doubt whether Brunell will be helped by additional receivers.

I thought a surging defense creating turnovers, heavy reliance on an improved running game, and a very good special teams performance down the stretch got us to the playoffs.

A passing game that tanked after the SF game?

Really?

Let's look at the facts.

A week later he had a horrible game against the Giants, but then again nobody played well that day.

Two weeks later against the Eagles he threw for 224 yards and was 21 of 29.

A week later he threw for 226 yards and 2 TDs against the Bucs in that wild shootout.

Against SD he was 17 of 27 for 194 yards and 1 TD.

Against the Rams he was a very efficient 14 of 21 for 156 yards and 1 TD, a game in which the Skins switched to a commitment to pounding the football.

Against the Cardinals he did struggle.

But he bounced back against Dallas with 4 TDs.

Against the Giants, (the game in which he got hurt which effectively changed the course of his season), he was 7 of 11 for 112 yards and a TD before going down.

If you ask me, there is clear correlation between his injury and the way he played the remainder of the season. Plus you add in the fact Portis was banged up and rendered ineffective in the playoffs and that only added to the passing game struggles.

So in conclusion, the passing game certainly didn't tank after the SF game, it tanked after he got injured.

Huddle,

I recognized in post #45 that I agree, in part, with those who said we got to the playoffs in spite of Brunell, not because of him. I also believe that the vastly better WR corp, O-coordinator, and (God willing) a healthy O-line would set Brunell up for a successful year.

I agree with you that defense, running game and special teams were the primary reasons we got into the playoffs last year. I think our only difference, at this point, is our view of whether Brunell can get the job done given this year's personnel or whether he can't....and, of course, whether platooning is a good idea for this year's Skins.

I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point. How about you?

A passing game that tanked after the SF game?

Really?

Let's look at the facts.

A week later he had a horrible game against the Giants, but then again nobody played well that day.

Two weeks later against the Eagles he threw for 224 yards and was 21 of 29.

A week later he threw for 226 yards and 2 TDs against the Bucs in that wild shootout.

Against SD he was 17 of 27 for 194 yards and 1 TD.

Against the Rams he was a very efficient 14 of 21 for 156 yards and 1 TD, a game in which the Skins switched to a commitment to pounding the football.

Against the Cardinals he did struggle.

But he bounced back against Dallas with 4 TDs.

Against the Giants, (the game in which he got hurt which effectively changed the course of his season), he was 7 of 11 for 112 yards and a TD before going down.

If you ask me, there is clear correlation between his injury and the way he played the remainder of the season. Plus you add in the fact Portis was banged up and rendered ineffective in the playoffs and that only added to the passing game struggles.

So in conclusion, the passing game certainly didn't tank after the SF game, it tanked after he got injured.

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.

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

Selected?

I gave you his stats for every game after the SF game.

Your take that the passing game "tanked" after the SF game just doesn't hold water, no matter what way you look at the stats.

My post is a good example of using stats to back up your stance, rather than just throwing an opinion out there that isn't justified by the numbers.

Look at his games after the SF one leading up to the Giants game in which he got injured, and tell me how the passing game was tanking.

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

:rolleyes: Here we go again