Skins/Falcons goat of the day

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Campbell struggled but that was a direct result of the crappy pass protection. Too often he had guys running at him totally unblocked. Not sure what anyone would expect him to do.

I don't know how anyone can blame JC when the D gave up 200+ on the ground. I guess it goes back to that blame Brunell for everything syndrome.

when the offense cant convert 3rd downs, the defense is on the field too long. his turnover had a direct effect on the defense, and the momentum for the rest of the game

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Big C

when the offense cant convert 3rd downs, the defense is on the field too long. his turnover had a direct effect on the defense, and the momentum for the rest of the game

C'mon don't let the D off the hook so easy. We still won the TOP battle, so don't tell me the D was tired.

I agree the offense didn't do much in the 2nd half but let's get real, 256 yards given up on the ground is inexcusable and will lose you the game almost every time.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

C'mon don't let the D off the hook so easy. We still won the TOP battle, so don't tell me the D was tired.

I agree the offense didn't do much in the 2nd half but let's get real, 256 yards given up on the ground is inexcusable and will lose you the game almost every time.

im not letting the D off the hook. im making sure campbell doesnt get off easy, which it looks like so far he has. the defense was bad, but so was campbell and i havent seen anyone discussing that yet. again, if this was brunell he would have been slaughtered but everyone here is too enamoured with campbell

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Big C

im not letting the D off the hook. im making sure campbell doesnt get off easy, which it looks like so far he has. the defense was bad, but so was campbell and i havent seen anyone discussing that yet. again, if this was brunell he would have been slaughtered but everyone here is too enamoured with campbell

Of course the big difference is Campbell is making his 3rd start while MB was a 500 year vet. I think that's why people are willing to cut him some slack.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Campbell struggled but that was a direct result of the crappy pass protection. Too often he had guys running at him totally unblocked. Not sure what anyone would expect him to do.

I don't know how anyone can blame JC when the D gave up 200+ on the ground. I guess it goes back to that blame Brunell for everything syndrome.

You are right, Matty. A lot of people assumed that even without seeing JC take a snap, that putting him in would be an improvement over Brunell. I hope the more objective of these fans are starting to see how that isn't the case.

Campbell has certainly brought an element with the deep ball that Brunell didn't have. But so far, he has struggled to complete passes underneath and move the chains. He has made up for it with running sometimes, but a lot of our drives are stalling because we either pick up 15 yards at a time, or we throw 3 incompletes in a row. Our offensive efficency has suffered.

To date, Campbell has done a good job taking care of the football, but he looked more like a rookie than a second year player today. THAT is why Brunell gives us the best chance to win.

Now I'll shift gears and reiterate why making the switch was a good decision. After the Philadelphia loss, we didn't have a realistic shot to win the division. We did however have a realistic shot to make the playoffs if we stayed with MB and the defense improved. But only as a wild card. And in my opinion, and I believe that of Joe Gibbs, getting lucky and getting the WC would not have accomplised our goals. So after the division got away, we made the switch, IRed Portis (as opposed to having him sit for 3 weeks, and play the rest of the year with a torn labrum), and moved toward the the future. So it was better to go about .500 with Campbell and miss the playoffs by 2 games than to stay with Brunell and and still have a good chance to miss. I'll buy that decision.

Back to the game, the defense did play the way it was playing all season. But I ask myself this: If they had given up only 17 defensive points (including the Campbell INT, giving them a short field), did the offense play well enough to win? I'm not so sure it did. Betts and the running game did it's part, but we've become predictable in our run pass playcalling based on personel packages, and protection issues aside, Campbell didn't even complete 50%. If he's not getting the football to his teammates (not even his backs), he can't be absolved of blame.

It's not his fault we lost...but I'm not sure he played well enough to win.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Of course the big difference is Campbell is making his 3rd start while MB was a 500 year vet. I think that's why people are willing to cut him some slack.

He deserves some slack, but all Big C and I are saying is that since he replaced Brunell, his performance should be graded on the same standard. We can cut him slack after we identify what he needs to improve on.

No one (well no one reasonable anyway) thinks this is a sign he will bust, it's just a bad game.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You are right, Matty. A lot of people assumed that even without seeing JC take a snap, that putting him in would be an improvement over Brunell. I hope the more objective of these fans are starting to see how that isn't the case.

Campbell has certainly brought an element with the deep ball that Brunell didn't have. But so far, he has struggled to complete passes underneath and move the chains. He has made up for it with running sometimes, but a lot of our drives are stalling because we either pick up 15 yards at a time, or we throw 3 incompletes in a row. Our offensive efficency has suffered.

To date, Campbell has done a good job taking care of the football, but he looked more like a rookie than a second year player today. THAT is why Brunell gives us the best chance to win.

Now I'll shift gears and reiterate why making the switch was a good decision. After the Philadelphia loss, we didn't have a realistic shot to win the division. We did however have a realistic shot to make the playoffs if we stayed with MB and the defense improved. But only as a wild card. And in my opinion, and I believe that of Joe Gibbs, getting lucky and getting the WC would not have accomplised our goals. So after the division got away, we made the switch, IRed Portis (as opposed to having him sit for 3 weeks, and play the rest of the year with a torn labrum), and moved toward the the future. So it was better to go about .500 with Campbell and miss the playoffs by 2 games than to stay with Brunell and and still have a good chance to miss. I'll buy that decision.

Back to the game, the defense did play the way it was playing all season. But I ask myself this: If they had given up only 17 defensive points (including the Campbell INT, giving them a short field), did the offense play well enough to win? I'm not so sure it did. Betts and the running game did it's part, but we've become predictable in our run pass playcalling based on personel packages, and protection issues aside, Campbell didn't even complete 50%. If he's not getting the football to his teammates (not even his backs), he can't be absolved of blame.

It's not his fault we lost...but I'm not sure he played well enough to win.

Very well put.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He deserves some slack, but all Big C and I are saying is that since he replaced Brunell, his performance should be graded on the same standard. We can cut him slack after we identify what he needs to improve on.

No one (well no one reasonable anyway) thinks this is a sign he will bust, it's just a bad game.

That makes no sense, how can you judge a QB making his 3rd start vs. a 14 year vet and judge them on the same standard??

If that's the case why shouldn't we bench JC now too?

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That makes no sense, how can you judge a QB making his 3rd start vs. a 14 year vet and judge them on the same standard??

If that's the case why shouldn't we bench JC now too?

a young qb with little experience can still be the main reason we lost the game. just because he is learning doesnt mean he cant be blamed for the loss. forget that he is a young qb, look at how he played. he was a main reason, if not the main reason that we did not win the game, but he wont be benched for it because the rest of this season is just to groom him

[jdockser]

Jon Jansen!

[Hog's Breath]

I voted for Campbell. But, hey, it was only his third start. I'm in no way saying he should be benched. He made newbie mistakes. Big deal. I expect him to make more. As long as he is learning from them and progresses from week to week, which I have full confidence he will, that's all I care about.

As far as blaming the defense, I don't agree with it. You can't expect the D to win every game for us. I think our offense hasn't scored more than 17 points in the last 4 games or something like that. Campbell did make some poor decisions which ultimately cost the game.

[Citizens for 81]

I would expect the defense not give up a mile of rushing yards though.

[Hog's Breath]

Originally Posted by Citizens for 81

I would expect the defense not give up a mile of rushing yards though.

Hahaha...very true.

But the Falcons are one the best rushing teams in the league. I don't care if it is all Vick or not. I think we could cut our D some slack on that one. It still doesn't excuse our lack of offensive production.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That makes no sense, how can you judge a QB making his 3rd start vs. a 14 year vet and judge them on the same standard??

If that's the case why shouldn't we bench JC now too?

Don't take what I said the wrong way.

Grading them on the same standard simply means if 13/27 for 149 and 1 INT is bad for Brunell, its ALSO bad for Campbell. If 16/21 for 149 and 1 TD is good for Campbell, its also good for Brunell. Assuming there wasnt an event or two that completely skewed the stats, QB performance is standard.

After you reach that point, then you factor in that Campbell is your future and there is more important things at this point in the year than playing your best player. Once you replace your vet with the future, you don't go back, it sends a horrible message. So after this loss espically, I think going back would be a terrible decision. It's more acceptable for Campbell to have a bad day, but it's also acceptable for ALL QBs to have bad days.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hog's Breath

Hahaha...very true.

But the Falcons are one the best rushing teams in the league. I don't care if it is all Vick or not. I think we could cut our D some slack on that one. It still doesn't excuse our lack of offensive production.

They also threw for more than their per game average against us, so it was a bad performance all around.