Check out this week's Doc Talk

[rskinsfan10]

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=38348

[redskin_rich]

First off, yeah the Cuban cigars are superior to the Dominican but it comes at a price. Nevertheless, I never pass up on the real Cohibans when I have the chance. :)

I don't get what Doc is thinking at all with his Collins remarks. I think he is just trying to say something different. Campbell is the only QB with a future here and he needs to play now, even if he starts out wretched, which I don't think will happen.
Then he kind of contradicts himself with his closing comments about stretching the field and having played with a handicap. Does he believe that Collins could have done that? I agree that this system was not a good fit for Brunell and that Mark has been playing hurt but I went to camp and saw what Collins has. Put it this way, if Brunell's arm is a wet noodle, then Collins arm is the soup.

Interesting take by Doc, different than what most say but I'm not sure I'm on the same page as him, other than his comments on the defense and his weekly presciption, which were spot on, IMO.

[shally]

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=38348

great stuff... thanks so much.. and i agree about pounding tampa.. especially if rice and wyms are less than 100 %

[silverspring]

I am just really suprised by the whole brunell is injured thing. I was just debating about this in another thread. I just don't get it, since when was brunell that badly injured?
Even the staunchest of brunell supporters will agree that he is completely useless injured. Everyone in the NFL knows this. So if this is true why on earth was he played, why was he not listed more severely on the injury report and why does he let himself be played when he knows he is hurting his team.
I generally agree 100% with the doc comments, but he also threw me for a loop by even suggesting that todd collins should be getting playing time before cambell. Todd collins is just another old lifetime backup that we should not be investing playing time in. And if doc is right, it also is a bit perplexing why collins would or even needs to be receiving all the work if he already is such an expert in the system.
Anyways it doesn't matter now, cause it is Cambell time.

[BurgundyNGold]

Cohibas are nice, but they're usually a bit too tight to enjoy without some serious pulling. I'm partial to the Romeo y Julieta and the Montecristo, personally. The Cuban Partagas are pretty nice as well, as are the H. Upmann.

As for Doc, he's dead on as usual. I love reading what he has to say.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

A few interesting things there..
1) The Collins comment..I really disagree. Collins hasn't played a snap in any kind of significant game in years, he is almost as old as Brunell, has no future on this team (hopefully) excapt for a backup role. And besides, putting him in instead of Campbell would basically have meant throwing our first round pick away without ever seeing him on the field. It woul dhave been unacceptible to have had 3 different QBs play before Campbell did once we drafted him (Brunell, Ramsey, Collins).
2) He is stating it as a fact that Brunell was injured. Obviously I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, somebody has to explain why he was played anyways. We've already seen that Brunell is incapable of producing anything positive on the field while playing injured, and I would hate to have thrown away the season because we forced him out there even though he was nowhere close to 100%.

[wewantdallas]

Doc wanting Collins in is beyond bizarre to me. What in the world would that possibly accomplish?

It's also bizarre to me that so many people claim to "not understand" the QB structure we had when Brunnell was starting. It always made perfect sense to me that Collins would come into a game situation if Brunell went out injured, simply because he understand the offense better than Campbell, and that Campbell would then start if he was able to have a week to prepare. It's like people are just searching for ways to question Gibbs' competence sometimes, because I was never in the least bit confused about that.

As to Brunell being injured, Doc is the ONLY one who has said anything at all about that in all the local and national media I've heard. I want some proof of that. I haven't seen it. Beaten up? Old and battered? Yeah, I'd agree with that, but injured? I haven't seen it. He really hasn't even been hit very much this year at all.

I think Doc's been on some meds of his own this week.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Doc wanting Collins in is beyond bizarre to me. What in the world would that possibly accomplish?

It's also bizarre to me that so many people claim to "not understand" the QB structure we had when Brunnell was starting. It always made perfect sense to me that Collins would come into a game situation if Brunell went out injured, simply because he understand the offense better than Campbell, and that Campbell would then start if he was able to have a week to prepare. It's like people are just searching for ways to question Gibbs' competence sometimes, because I was never in the least bit confused about that.

As to Brunell being injured, Doc is the ONLY one who has said anything at all about that in all the local and national media I've heard. I want some proof of that. I haven't seen it. Beaten up? Old and battered? Yeah, I'd agree with that, but injured? I haven't seen it. He really hasn't even been hit very much this year at all.

I think Doc's been on some meds of his own this week.
The one thing I did not like about our QB depth chart was taht with Campbell being #3, and this goes back to last year as well, we gave up many opportunities to bring him in in the 4th quarter of games we were either dominating (San Fran last year for example), or we were being blown out (take your pick of our road NFC games this year and Indianapolis). He could have gotten in almost a couple of games worth of playing time from that..

[redskin_rich]

The one thing I did not like about our QB depth chart was taht with Campbell being #3, and this goes back to last year as well, we gave up many opportunities to bring him in in the 4th quarter of games we were either dominating (San Fran last year for example), or we were being blown out (take your pick of our road NFC games this year and Indianapolis). He could have gotten in almost a couple of games worth of playing time from that..
You've been reading too many of CNY's posts. The #3 QB could have played in the 4th quarter of any game, with no stipulations, if the coaches had chose to play him.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

You've been reading too many of CNY's posts. The #3 QB could have played in the 4th quarter of any game, with no stipulations, if the coaches had chose to play him.
Actually I had mentioned it first, and CN agreed with me. ;) The problem is that once the #3 QB comes in, the first 2 can't go back in, so f something happens you have no QBs..at least I think that's the rule.

[redskin_rich]

Actually I had mentioned it first, and CN agreed with me. ;) The problem is that once the #3 QB comes in, the first 2 can't go back in, so f something happens you have no QBs..at least I think that's the rule.
Nope, in the 4th quarter you can play all 3 QB's, if you so desire.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Nope, in the 4th quarter you can play all 3 QB's, if you so desire.
Oh. I see. Well, then, I don't get why we didn't put Campbell in in some late-game situations..oh well, what's done is done..

[rskinsfan10]

First off, yeah the Cuban cigars are superior to the Dominican but it comes at a price. Nevertheless, I never pass up on the real Cohibans when I have the chance. :)

I don't get what Doc is thinking at all with his Collins remarks. I think he is just trying to say something different. Campbell is the only QB with a future here and he needs to play now, even if he starts out wretched, which I don't think will happen.
Then he kind of contradicts himself with his closing comments about stretching the field and having played with a handicap. Does he believe that Collins could have done that? I agree that this system was not a good fit for Brunell and that Mark has been playing hurt but I went to camp and saw what Collins has. Put it this way, if Brunell's arm is a wet noodle, then Collins arm is the soup.

Interesting take by Doc, different than what most say but I'm not sure I'm on the same page as him, other than his comments on the defense and his weekly presciption, which were spot on, IMO.He has been on the JT Show talking about Collins for weeks, that I can confirm because I am a regular listener. His take is if the guy knows the system, then how much worse can things be in comparison to the current production up to this point. Also, the thing about going downfield, in our conversations that aren't taped he has mentioned several times about simply taking chances downfield because of the disadvantages that DBs face with the current rules, regardless of who the QB is.

[hail2skins]

I don't know why people are questioning the Mark Brunell injury. He was injured in the game before the bye week but he played through it. Then we heard reports of Campbell taking some of the snaps because Mark's ribs (injury). How can you forget that.

I also can confirm that Doc has been talking Collins for weeks and what Kenny said is his justification. He basically said he wanted to see Al Saunders offense run the way Al likes it. Since Collins knew it, he should have gotten some playing time. His comment about he thought the bye week would have been a good time to do it is in conflict with the way the QB depth was implemented. I do question why Mark was playing if he was injured and that falls on the coach himself for playing an injured person.

[rskinsfan10]

As to Brunell being injured, Doc is the ONLY one who has said anything at all about that in all the local and national media I've heard. I want some proof of that. I haven't seen it. Beaten up? Old and battered? Yeah, I'd agree with that, but injured? I haven't seen it. He really hasn't even been hit very much this year at all.You don't recall Campbell getting the majority of the snaps during the bye because Brunell was injured? That was highly reported.

[shally]

You don't recall Campbell getting the majority of the snaps during the bye because Brunell was injured? That was highly reported.

i think that doc made an excellent point about brunell being hurt more than reported... over 3 years it was easy to tell when brunell was beat up because his play degraded seriously..

[BurgundyNGold]

Doc wanting Collins in is beyond bizarre to me. What in the world would that possibly accomplish?

It's also bizarre to me that so many people claim to "not understand" the QB structure we had when Brunnell was starting. It always made perfect sense to me that Collins would come into a game situation if Brunell went out injured, simply because he understand the offense better than Campbell, and that Campbell would then start if he was able to have a week to prepare. It's like people are just searching for ways to question Gibbs' competence sometimes, because I was never in the least bit confused about that.

As to Brunell being injured, Doc is the ONLY one who has said anything at all about that in all the local and national media I've heard. I want some proof of that. I haven't seen it. Beaten up? Old and battered? Yeah, I'd agree with that, but injured? I haven't seen it. He really hasn't even been hit very much this year at all.

I think Doc's been on some meds of his own this week.
I think Doc is just as exaspirated with the current situation as we are. As for the Collins thing, a legitimate argument could be made -- and I think Doc did advance it -- that if you want to win now, why not start the QB who supposedly knows the system in and out? It was an interresting take, I think, although I still like that we're starting Campbell.

[shally]

I think Doc is just as exaspirated with the current situation as we are. As for the Collins thing, a legitimate argument could be made -- and I think Doc did advance it -- that if you want to win now, why not start the QB who supposedly knows the system in and out? It was an interresting take, I think, although I still like that we're starting Campbell.

because there is no future to starting collins, only possibly short term gain.

plus, he looked as miserable as the others in preseason..

any playing time taken away from JC hurts the skins inthe long run..

[shally]

I think Doc is just as exaspirated with the current situation as we are. As for the Collins thing, a legitimate argument could be made -- and I think Doc did advance it -- that if you want to win now, why not start the QB who supposedly knows the system in and out? It was an interresting take, I think, although I still like that we're starting Campbell.

and further, the time to have made the change to collins realistically was 3 or so games ago when the season was truly salvagable.. despite the lip service otherwise, we are playing for next season now either way.

i do not want to see collins on the field any time before next preseason now.
and whenit comes down to it, either he or brunell should be gone next year. we either need brunell or collins as backup- not both... and the number 3 qb should be a young qb inthe mold of the many #3 qb's that gibbs drafted inhis first tenure (rypien, humphries, flick, kessel, cameron,..).. we always drafted a future guy late in the draft and let him hold a clip board for several years. not all of them went on to become anything but they were low cost and low risk. of course, the draft had more rounds then, but given our overall second day success rate now, so what is there to risk with a 7th rounder ??? that is what we need. maybe we re sign bramlett ? or someone like him...

[BurgundyNGold]

and further, the time to have made the change to collins realistically was 3 or so games ago when the season was truly salvagable.. despite the lip service otherwise, we are playing for next season now either way.

i do not want to see collins on the field any time before next preseason now.
and whenit comes down to it, either he or brunell should be gone next year. we either need brunell or collins as backup- not both... and the number 3 qb should be a young qb inthe mold of the many #3 qb's that gibbs drafted inhis first tenure (rypien, humphries, flick, kessel, cameron,..).. we always drafted a future guy late in the draft and let him hold a clip board for several years. not all of them went on to become anything but they were low cost and low risk. of course, the draft had more rounds then, but given our overall second day success rate now, so what is there to risk with a 7th rounder ??? that is what we need. maybe we re sign bramlett ? or someone like him...
Agreed, and that was another important point. Doc noted that the bye week was the time to make the change. I agreed then and I agree now. Starting Collins then would've made more sense. Starting him now doesn't because we're done.

[shally]

Agreed, and that was another important point. Doc noted that the bye week was the time to make the change. I agreed then and I agree now. Starting Collins then would've made more sense. Starting him now doesn't because we're done.

true.. but i keep coming back to the memory of collins playing in preseason and for someone who was supposed to know every facet of saunders system, all his passes we under 10 yard dinks as well... he was truly unimpressive

[SpicyMcHaggis]

One thing I want to add about Collins..he might know the system extremely well..heck, he might know all the 2,500 pages of our playbook by heart..but if he does not have the physical talent to be a starting QB, the he just doesn't. Guys, it was 1997 when he started his last game of significant organized football. That's 10 years ago. I really do not want to be starting a 35 year old Qb who threw his last meaningful pass 10 years ago.

[wewantdallas]

The one thing I did not like about our QB depth chart was taht with Campbell being #3, and this goes back to last year as well, we gave up many opportunities to bring him in in the 4th quarter of games we were either dominating (San Fran last year for example), or we were being blown out (take your pick of our road NFC games this year and Indianapolis). He could have gotten in almost a couple of games worth of playing time from that..

Gibbs has never done this with any of his QBs. VERY rarely would he bring in a guy to "mop up" a game. He's said that he never liked to do it and never thought the QB got much out of it, either. Don't know if I agree, but that's what he's said...

[wewantdallas]

You don't recall Campbell getting the majority of the snaps during the bye because Brunell was injured? That was highly reported.

I do, but that was during the Bye week. What about the many games leading up to that week? Was he injured then, too, because his play has pretty much been consistent all year, i.e. there was no sudden drop off in quality when he returned after the bye.

Like I said, I agree he's beat up, but I don't know if I would say "injured" at this point, simply because I really don't believe that the coaching staff would keep him in there if he was truly injured.

Plus, in all honesty, Brunell's stats aren't bad at all. His QB rating is one of the highest of his career, his INTs are low, completion rate high...he's just not getting it done in other ways. I think if he was seriously injured, it would show more in his mechanics, etc., but to me it's just been more bad decision making from him more than anything.

Doc has forgotten more football than I'll ever know, so who knows. But I just think it's a combination of Brunell being frustrated in the offense, playing scared at times and just not feeling confident back there. Hopefully Campbell will change that.

[wewantdallas]

Guys, it was 1997 when he started his last game of significant organized football. That's 10 years ago. I really do not want to be starting a 35 year old Qb who threw his last meaningful pass 10 years ago.

Neither do I. It's senseless. Collins is not our future, Brunell is not our future.

And our season pretty much has no future beyond Week 16 barring an epic miracle.

Campbell, however, MAY be our future (Good Lord, let's hope so). He's the only choice that makes sense at this point.

[skinfan43]

Neither do I. It's senseless. Collins is not our future, Brunell is not our future.

And our season pretty much has no future beyond Week 16 barring an epic miracle.

Campbell, however, MAY be our future (Good Lord, let's hope so). He's the only choice that makes sense at this point.
I haven't even read the Doc article yet, but I agree wholeheartedly, WWD. Starting Campbell is also a move that will keep Skins fans appeased for the rest of the year, simply because they'll have something different than the same liver and brussels sprouts we've been forced to eat all season thusfar.
Snyder must be happy from a marketing standpoint - the switch to Campbell will have the same "excitement" (hence, $$$) effect as signing a big-name free agent. Much needed at this point. Hell, look how much anticipation has now been built, for us to be SALIVATING for 1pm tomorrow to come, to watch our 3-6 team!

[NCskinsfanatic]

I don't know why people are questioning the Mark Brunell injury. He was injured in the game before the bye week but he played through it. Then we heard reports of Campbell taking some of the snaps because Mark's ribs (injury). How can you forget that.



I was just about to post the same thing until I read through the entire thread. I agree, Brunell was injured and I remember Gibbs commenting on it. As for Collins I think because he isnt the future and JC has been patient this is the way to go, it will certainly help at the start of next season if he proves he's everything Joe expected over the next 7 games.

[OCSKINSFAN]

I do, but that was during the Bye week. What about the many games leading up to that week? Was he injured then, too, because his play has pretty much been consistent all year, i.e. there was no sudden drop off in quality when he returned after the bye.

Like I said, I agree he's beat up, but I don't know if I would say "injured" at this point, simply because I really don't believe that the coaching staff would keep him in there if he was truly injured.

Plus, in all honesty, Brunell's stats aren't bad at all. His QB rating is one of the highest of his career, his INTs are low, completion rate high...he's just not getting it done in other ways. I think if he was seriously injured, it would show more in his mechanics, etc., but to me it's just been more bad decision making from him more than anything.

Doc has forgotten more football than I'll ever know, so who knows. But I just think it's a combination of Brunell being frustrated in the offense, playing scared at times and just not feeling confident back there. Hopefully Campbell will change that.

The fact is the coaching staff would keep him in injured. Remember the 2004 season when MB's performance was terrible and he also had horrible stats. It was admitted in 05 that he was injured then. MB was his guy and JG just didn't want to go to Ramsey despite universal cries for a change, which didn't happen until too late.

This year MB's stats are deceiving. Look at the points scored, keeping drives alive, etc. 1 point Doc mentioned, is that the other teams didn't respect the Skins vertical game, which allowed the safeties to play up and stop the Skins running game. That to me is a crucial factor in the failure of our offense to this point.