Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;564890][B]Gibbs is 100% correct. Put the team on your back and drive the offense down the field and win the game. [/B]Gibbs tried to get John Elway. It's just part of the business. You have to have some thick ass skin to play QB in the NFL.[/quote]

That's not exactly the way Gibbs did things in his second stint. Nine time out of ten, he left it up to the defense to win it.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=Mattyk72;564905]That would be a big jump in INTs for him.

For his career he has thrown 23 INTs over 36 games. Or .6388 INT for every 1 start. Your prediction has him at .9375 for every 1 start.[/quote]
That's if you look at it in a linear fashion. Bigger plays = more risks

or receivers that find themselves wide the hell open

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=tryfuhl;564955]That's if you look at it in a linear fashion. Bigger plays = more risks

or receivers that find themselves wide the hell open[/quote]You'd be correct that it's not linear, but it's also not subject to [I]additional[/I] risk unless we become the chuck and duck offense.

As usual, normal variance suggests that 8 INTs is probably more of a floor than anything, but Campbell only had near picks on a handful of throws last year, maybe 5-6. There's always going to be those dropped picks.

David Garrard had a poor year on a 6-10 team. He threw 7 fewer picks than Jay Cutler did on an 8-8 team. So, there's variance based on risk, sure, but Campbell's not going to be picked 15 times this year.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=tryfuhl;564955]That's if you look at it in a linear fashion. Bigger plays = more risks

or receivers that find themselves wide the hell open[/quote]


Big plays with the lame ass WR corp we have(not including Santana, ARE is ok)? Shoot I have a better chance of a threesome with the playmates from the Girls Next Door than us becoming a big play offense. Especially running the WCO.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;564962]Big plays with the lame ass WR corp we have(not including Santana, ARE is ok)? Shoot I have a better chance of a threesome with the playmates from the Girls Next Door than us becoming a big play offense. Especially running the WCO.[/quote]

I'm hoping that Devin Thomas proves you wrong this year. I can't speak for any Girls Next Door.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=Lotus;564966]I'm hoping that Devin Thomas proves you wrong this year. I can't speak for any Girls Next Door.[/quote]

Both u and I have the high hopes for Devin Lotus...I'm looking for him to become a serious big play threat. Sooooo much athleticism there, i mean i really think he's on similar athletic level as Tana but Devin needs to become a skilled WR for the potential to make any difference.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=The Goat;564971]Both u and I have the high hopes for Devin Lotus...I'm looking for him to become a serious big play threat. Sooooo much athleticism there, i mean i really think he's on similar athletic level as Tana but Devin needs to become a skilled WR for the potential to make any difference.[/quote]

I actually think that Devin is at a higher athletic level than Tana. At this point DT might have better speed and he definitely is taller, making him a jump-ball-fade threat that Tana has never been.

But, yes, you are correct, DT's athleticism makes no difference unless he cultivates his skills.

His first year at Michigan State he did nothing but then he tore up the Big Ten his second year. I'm hoping that a similar breakout happens here this year.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=Lotus;564966]I'm hoping that Devin Thomas proves you wrong this year. I can't speak for any Girls Next Door.[/quote]


I hope so too, because I am not too sure about my chances with the Girls Next Door myself!!!!! Only thing is that MSU jocks usually don't make an impact in the NFL or if they do it is not for too long.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=Beemnseven;564942]That's not exactly the way Gibbs did things in his second stint. Nine time out of ten, he left it up to the defense to win it.[/quote]

You're 100% correct.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=44Deezel;564895]Ditto. Stop blaming the WRs. Lots of teams have sucky receivers, but they still manage to score points - Miami, San Diego, Tennessee, Atlanta (well, when Vick was there they sucked). I've seen Miami march 80 yards down the field without throwing a single pass to a WR. [B]New Orleans had so many WR injuries last year, they started putting random guys from the crowd into the game. Brees kept on hitting them for long gains.[/B] It's all about Campbell. No more excuses.[/quote]

Brees came within a few yards of breaking the all time yardage record with David Patton, Devry Henderson, Lance Moore, Robert Meachum and half a season with Colston. Amazing.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=44Deezel;564895]Ditto. Stop blaming the WRs. Lots of teams have sucky receivers, but they still manage to score points - Miami, San Diego, Tennessee, Atlanta (well, when Vick was there they sucked). I've seen Miami march 80 yards down the field without throwing a single pass to a WR. New Orleans had so many WR injuries last year, they started putting random guys from the crowd into the game. Brees kept on hitting them for long gains. It's all about Campbell. No more excuses.[/quote]

Wait, ur comparing Campbell to Brees? I agree that ppl shouldn't completely blame the WRs, although they do tend to drop a lot of balls. But JC is nowhere near where Brees is at this point in his career.

Also, did you notice that all the teams that you mentioned (Miami, San Diego, Tenn, and New Orleans) were in the top 10 of least sacks allowed in 2009?

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;564960]You'd be correct that it's not linear, but it's also not subject to [I]additional[/I] risk unless we become the chuck and duck offense.

As usual, normal variance suggests that 8 INTs is probably more of a floor than anything, but Campbell only had near picks on a handful of throws last year, maybe 5-6. There's always going to be those dropped picks.

David Garrard had a poor year on a 6-10 team. He threw 7 fewer picks than Jay Cutler did on an 8-8 team. So, there's variance based on risk, sure, but Campbell's not going to be picked 15 times this year.[/quote]

That's likely true. It was pretty crazy how long he went without picks last year even though our WR corp wasn't that good and suffered a bit from cases of the tipsies and dropsies.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=44Deezel;564895]Ditto. Stop blaming the WRs. Lots of teams have sucky receivers, but they still manage to score points - Miami, San Diego, Tennessee, Atlanta (well, when Vick was there they sucked). I've seen Miami march 80 yards down the field without throwing a single pass to a WR. New Orleans had so many WR injuries last year, they started putting random guys from the crowd into the game. Brees kept on hitting them for long gains. It's all about Campbell. No more excuses.[/quote]What you're saying is true in the loosest sense of the term, all those teams had iffy production from the receivers and strong passing offenses, but in a more structured sense, not one of those teams were as bad on the outside as we were.

The Browns and Seahawks were probably worse at WR than we were last year, and you can probably throw the Raiders, Rams, Bears, and Vikings in there as well. But you know what, none of those teams had any semblence of a passing game last year. So, it's not proven that an offense can function at a higher level than ours last year without a better job on the outside. We'll see. The OL should improve, but the WRs must develop because the veterans aren't likely to be more healthy than they were last year.

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=GTripp0012;565098]What you're saying is true in the loosest sense of the term, all those teams had iffy production from the receivers and strong passing offenses, but in a more structured sense, not one of those teams were as bad on the outside as we were.

The Browns and Seahawks were probably worse at WR than we were last year, and you can probably throw the Raiders, Rams, Bears, and Vikings in there as well. But you know what,[B] none of those teams had any semblence of a passing game last year.[/B] So, it's not proven that an offense can function at a higher level than ours last year without a better job on the outside. We'll see. The OL should improve, but the WRs must develop because the veterans aren't likely to be more healthy than they were last year.[/quote]

And do you think we did?

Re: Gibbs' take on Campbell's situation
 

[quote=skinsfan69;565121]And do you think we did?[/quote]Do you want me to qualify this, or can I just leave it as an implied yes (without being taken out of context)?

EDIT
^^Probably reads as more smart alecky than intended. I was trying to ask if the sentence in the context above can stand for itself, or if you really want hard numbers that suggest our passing game was clearly better than Clevelands or Seattles.