Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor

Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.

With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

Our offense, on the other hand, was relatively injury free up until now. Moreover, the offense has more weapons than the defense. Can you imagine how bad our offense would be if 7 of its starters were injured? It would be atrocious.

So, given the injuries to the defense and lack of injuries on offense, you're comparing apples and oranges.

As has been said, Brunell is part of the problem but not the ony problem. And it's hard to say Campbell would be better when he hasn't played yet. I would guess that Gibbs and Saunders would maybe even want to be more conservative with an inexperienced QB in there.

I just want to see JC play so we can shift the theme on the majority of our threads about his performance on the field

With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

No team in the NFL has enough depth to overcome all those injuries.

With the exceptions of Taylor, Archuleta, Carter, and Holdman, our entire defense has been injured. Springs, Rogers, Marshall, Washington, Daniels, Griffin, and Salave'a have all suffered from injuries and the defense simply lacks the depth to account for such losess.

Our offense, on the other hand, was relatively injury free up until now. Moreover, the offense has more weapons than the defense. Can you imagine how bad our offense would be if 7 of its starters were injured? It would be atrocious.

So, given the injuries to the defense and lack of injuries on offense, you're comparing apples and oranges.

It's not apples and oranges at all. We're talking about football and why this team loses - I'm simply saying I place a substantial amount of the blame on the defense, far more so than on Brunell.

Injuries happen. It's football and you've got to prepare for that. Sure, maybe the offense "has more weapons" and has performed less to expectations. They're stacked with depth at WR and RB. The coaching staff and FO screwed this team by having virtually no depth on the defense, particularly in the secondary.

The offense is largely healthy and underperforming, though I wouldn't say they're atrocious. The defense is banged up, and screwed because they've got no depth, and they are getting absolutely hosed for the most part.

Maybe it would be more accurate to blame the coaching staff/FO for the problems on defense by not providing depth to allow a cushion for injuries, rather than blame the players for underperforming. Either way the result is we've got something like the 26th ranked defense in the league regardless of who you want to blame.

I've said before that you are a very valuable poster and have defended your arguments well, but are you trying to act as a counterweight to the rabid Brunell haters by refusing to concede that he is less than good?

Brunell's greatest virtue is his greatest vice. Brunell is smart enough not to throw careless picks, but he's also so risk-averse that he NEVER takes any chances. Brunell is the anti-Ramsey; whereas Ramsey took too many risks, Brunell takes none. Brunell rarely throws over the middle or deep, he goes for those leftovers (e.g. back in the flat). You simply cannot expect to survive on a dink-and-dunk passing offense; teams, even great ones, cannot CONSISTENTLY sustain 16 play drives.I'm trying to defend my understanding of our struggles against other arguements that directly contradict what I understand. If I don't defend myself, it would be assumed that I have given up my stance, which I have had no reason to do.

Now that you mention it, Brunell is like the anti-Ramsey. I think it's possible, like you point out, that what Brunell does to keep his INT totals low will kill some drives because of throws he doesnt make. People think this arguement holds against mine because I have a perception of perfection with Mark Brunell. That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think he has played as well as his stats indicate. That would be an MVP sort of season. Obviously his numbers are skewed by the offense he plays in and the situations hes been in. But to say that what he's done for this team isn't good at all is to look all logic and reasoning right in the face and saying go f yourself.

But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.

The only reason to play Jason Campbell at this point is to prepare for the future. Chad Pennington and Philp Rivers have proven that good QBs do not need to struggle through rookie slumps on the field. Both have been playing at a high level since their first start which happened for each in their 3rd season. So you aren't retarding Campbell's development by not playing him now. And yeah, theres a chance that Campbell could be better than Brunell right now. But given his "slow learner" label, not a very good one. To rectify this season means you leave the offense alone, and get the D ready to dominate.

But no, he absoultely should not be replaced if the goal is to win ballgames. And I do believe that people are entitled to their opinion. And going with Campbell at this point is a very valid option. He's young and he's the future. But I am gradually getting tired of the "he will be a spark for us", and "brunell doesnt care if we win or lose", and "his stats look really good, but hes still one of the 5 worst Qbs in the NFL" and other subjective/assinine statement. It's just obvious to me that many people who rose to the "Anyone but Brunell" level of thought only arrived there because they wanted to. Objective thinking says Brunell isn't a problem. Subjective thinkings can say whatever you want it to say, and you'll be right 100% of the time.

The underlying assumption in every argument clamoring for Brunell's head is that either Campbell is better, or at least not as bad as Brunell.

The first argument is preposterous given that we haven't seen Campbell actually play anything approaching significant time against a first team defense and with the first team offense. Saying that he'll definitely be better is just a bunch of unfounded hope and optimism.

Anyone arguing that Campbell couldn't possibly be as bad as Brunell hasn't seen a lot of inexperienced QBs play. Alex Smith was absolutely horrible last year when he started. Imagine a game where Campbell tosses 3 or 4 picks, gets sacked a half dozen times and fumbles a few snaps. Trust me folks, it can get a whole hell of a lot worse than Brunell.

Like GTripp said, right now Brunell is the best proven player at QB to win ballgames. I can certainly see the side of the argument to start Campbell and just let him "learn by doing" and find out if he's the real deal. At the same time, from a coaching perspective, you keep trying to win games until you're mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, no matter how long of a shot it is. Once you're eliminated, then it's time to start thinking about giving the new guy a shot.

The eternal optimists expect to see Campbell jump in, miraculously take over the team, throw like Peyton Manning and whisk all of D.C. to years and years of Lombardi trophies.

It's far more likely and realistic that if/when Campbell starts this season or the next, it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Remember, it's always darkest right before it goes pitch black.

Sports junkies have been reading what we have to say here, unfortunately, I don't think it will sway the thought process of Gibbs. When asked, Gibbs says he thinks the world of Jason, and feels he can win games for us now.
Gibbs has an undying loyalty to Brunell that some of us cannot understand because he was out of football during Brunell's lean years in the NFL. How does such a devine attachment come about?
Parcells benched Bledsoe because he saw his team was going nowhere with him, and made the decision to make the change. One could understand the decision Parcells had to make being more difficult than a simular one for Gibbs because of his loyalty to Bledsoe, after all, he had played for Parcells before in NE. However, Parcells realized that winning football games outweighs the desire to be loyal.
Some say Brunell gives us the best chance to win, the question becomes, to win what?
Al Saunders says it takes at least one year to learn his system. Is this Brunell's last year? If it is, then is it really that important that he learns the system? Through it all, Jason sits and wait's because Gibbs is not about to leave the team to the youngster as long as he feels he has a chance. Perhaps he feel it would be sending the wrong message to the rest of the team, or that he quitting, and giving up on the season. However one thing seems to be certain, Campbell is not going to learn a great deal by watching Brunell, and hope when his opportunity does come, he will not duplicate his performances, if he does, we'll all be calling for Brunell to return.

the playcalling gets more 3-0s = defense is on the field longer GTripp, that's what parcells was saying. because of the playcalling the defense isn't put in great position and gets more time on the field.

when you've got a bad defense, you should ball control to keep them on the sidelines. how many games has portis run 14 times total? that's the point, but whenever it's brought up you seem to gloss over that.


as far as campbell, the "not enough experience to go out and get experience" excuse is just wearing thin. i doubt we'll go 8-1 or even 7-2 over the rest of the schedule, in which case seeing what he can do and letting him learn NOW would be a good idea.

the playcalling gets more 3-0s = defense is on the field longer GTripp, that's what parcells was saying. because of the playcalling the defense isn't put in great position and gets more time on the field.

when you've got a bad defense, you should ball control to keep them on the sidelines. how many games has portis run 14 times total? that's the point, but whenever it's brought up you seem to gloss over that.


as far as campbell, the "not enough experience to go out and get experience" excuse is just wearing thin. i doubt we'll go 8-1 or even 7-2 over the rest of the schedule, in which case seeing what he can do and letting him learn NOW would be a good idea.

Believe it or not the offense is converting 39.6% of 3rd downs, which puts them squarely in the middle of the pack at #14. Not stellar, but not as bad as a lot of people are saying.

The defense, on the other hand, ranks about #26 in 3rd down stops, or obviously towards the bottom of the pack.

In other words, as bad as we think the offense is on 3rd downs, we're perfectly average as far as the rest of the league is concerned. Our offense isn't putting the defense on the field after 3rd down any more or less than most. However, the defense is worst than most in stopping on 3rd down.

I'm totally with you on Portis not getting enough carries. This entire offensive scheme is very suspect in my opinion.

fair points, and i agree the D is really bad right now, but i'm not sold that the offense isn't also bad, that's all. and GTripp sorta comes off as saying there's absolutely no problem there (in my opinion), whether that's his intention or not.