How Will Campbell Be Handled?

gibbs knows how to handle the qb situation, he knew that ramsey gave us the best chance to win late in '04, and wasnt afraid to admit that brunell gave us the best chance in '05. he will start the best guy no matter what WE think is 'right'

I don't think Dilfer/Frye was a platoon. Dilfer started the first several games with Frye not playing at all. I think maybe the 10th and 11th game Frye got some playing time. Then he started the rest of the season with Dilfer not playing at all.

I wouldn't classify that as a platoon. They weren't alternating games. I would say that's a veteran QB playing until the young'n is ready. Which I suspect is what will happen here. I've seen too little of Campbell to know when that will be.

PSUSkinsFan21

First of all, it's not irrelevant just because you say so.

Of course not. It's irrelevant because the Spurrier rotation had nothing to do with preparing a rookie QB for the NFL which is what the discussion on the table is about.

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.

The Brown's situation is relevant because the platooning was intended to prepare a young QB for the NFL...which is what we're discussing. Charlie Frye performed very well by most accounts.

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.

You're making this personal already?

Didn't we have a rookie QB in 2002 by the name of Patrick Ramsey??

Besides, Campbell is not a rookie so comparing him to Frye is irrelevant as you would say.

Didn't we have a rookie QB in 2002 by the name of Patrick Ramsey??


That's irrelevant because his last name didn't start with an "F".

PSUSkinsFan21



Of course not. It's irrelevant because the Spurrier rotation had nothing to do with preparing a rookie QB for the NFL which is what the discussion on the table is about.



The Brown's situation is relevant because the platooning was intended to prepare a young QB for the NFL...which is what we're discussing. Charlie Frye performed very well by most accounts.



You're making this personal already?

The Browns had the luxury of making their preparation of a young QB a primary goal because the Browns had nothing else to play for. The Skins have a playoff caliber team and a team that is potentially a Super Bowl contender. So the Browns are in a completely different situation than the Skins, so your Browns example is completely irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting we should strive for a sub-par season with zero chances of making the playoffs.

The Ramsey point has already been made by Matty.

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

It wouldn't be a platooning situation for the entire season. Did you not understand that when I spoke of working Campbell in gradually?

Campbell and the Skins represent a unique situation. Not too many young QBs have been in a position to take over control of a good offense ala Rothlesburger.

How do you suggest they do this? By having a QB platoon?

This isn't college, as long as Brunell is playing and playing well, he will be the unquestioned starter. Campbell is going to have to get ready as he can by learning on the bench and soaking up as much as he can with mental reps. I just don't see him playing much this year especially if Brunell is playing well and the team is in the playoff hunt.

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.

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.

Let's also remember that Gibbs is an old school coach who isn't afraid to let his QBs sit and learn.

I agree that the team is gearing up for a Super Bowl run, however doesn't Jason Campbell figure to be the qb who ultimately gets us there?

There are definitely different ways to develop a quarterback, and I agree that Ramsey's confidence was perhaps shattered playing behind the makeshift offensive protection that Spurrier gave him. But I don't know of anything that you can get better at doing just by watching. I don't know if Campbell should be made the unquestioned #1 right now, but he should definitely play more this season. He's going to have to learn on the job at some point, and there is no debating the argument that we could use some improved play at the quarterback position if we are going to challenge for a Super Bowl.

It wouldn't be a platooning situation for the entire season. Did you not understand that when I spoke of working Campbell in gradually?

So how would you bring in Campbell? What do you mean by "gradually"

And before you start playing the "I'm being attacked" card again, I will repost my entire paragraph so as not to be taken out of context by the selective quoting you so love to do:

"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?"

What's frustrating about your posts is your desire to discount others' arguments as "irrelevant" and give them no credence, while you go forward with the misconception that all of your points are "relevent". Relevancy is not a determination of what most convinces you one way or another. So please stop confusing "irrelevant" posts with posts that you simply are not convinced by.