wilbur58z Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10610 A: Who will be the Skins starting qb next year? Gibbs' eyes have been lighting up every time he talks about Campbell. Chris Mortensen: (11:09 AM ET ) I think Al Saunders will want to assess everything before he makes a move with Gibbs. Al certainly is not afraid of an "older" quarterback like Brunell. He did great things with a 35-year-old Trent Green. Plus, the Skins are really setting their sights on the Super Bowl next year and I have a difficult time believing they'll promote Campbell to a starting position becaise of those lofty goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonBurgundy&Gold Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 That's exactly my thoughts. Everyone is talking about Campbell starting but don't you think that is taking a step backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hailskins26 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 if they want to make a run in 2 yrs as well, then burnell is NOT the guy so why not get campbell in there now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This is the question. They might be able to squeeze a Super Bowl run in the weak NFC with Brunell at the helm. Maybe. There is probably 0 percent chance of going to the Super Bowl with Campbell starting. But...if Campbell takes his lumps next year....the team will probably be better off in 2007. Otherwise, 2007 becomes the lumps-taking year. It's a heck of a question: Do we have enough to go to the Super Bowl next year? If the answer is yes, you pretty much have to go with Mark. Otherwise, it's a quasi-rebuilding year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 That's exactly my thoughts.Everyone is talking about Campbell starting but don't you think that is taking a step backwards? Exactly. Brunell is our guy, no matter how old he maybe. He will be great next year like he was in 2005. I want us to concentrate on protecting him a little better. I want a second WR option for Brunell. I want to see Campbell get some time on the field in 2006. I know it's gonna happen. One things for sure, we'll definitely see him playing a quarter or two in the Preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Campbell will get some lumps in 2006, believe that. Gibbs knows how to develop a QB. Just be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't know, I guess that is a fair assesments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demicidal Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, I say put Campbell in...there, we aren't suppose to be a pass first off. anyways...It's run, run, and then throw. So tell me why a young QB (Who has been studying the off. for one year) can’t throw the ball for this off.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This is the question.They might be able to squeeze a Super Bowl run in the weak NFC with Brunell at the helm. Maybe. There is probably 0 percent chance of going to the Super Bowl with Campbell starting. But...if Campbell takes his lumps next year....the team will probably be better off in 2007. Otherwise' date=' 2007 becomes the lumps-taking year. It's a heck of a question: Do we have enough to go to the Super Bowl next year? If the answer is yes, you pretty much have to go with Mark. Otherwise, it's a quasi-rebuilding year.[/quote'] Exactly. I'm all for taking my lumps next year... and rolling the dice to see what happens. A successful campaign isn't completely out of the question... a Super Bowl most likely is. And unless you're absolutely certain Mark Brunell can win you a Super Bowl next year.... why delay the inevitable? Put JC in next year. 2007 is our year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If we "wait for Campbell" to develop, we may wait our whole life. Let them see how each QB performs in training camp and preseason in this "new" offense... Too early to tell. Brunell could perfrom better with Saunders, and Campbell could perfrom worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, I say put Campbell in...there, we aren't suppose to be a pass first off. anyways...It's run, run, and then throw. So tell me why a young QB (Who has been studying the off. for one year) can’t throw the ball for this off.? Predominately... I see it as a seniority thing with Brunell. Plus he had a great year and got us to the Playoffs for the first time in 6 years. I see the "loyalty" card coming in to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newera Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I say start Campbell off with Saunders immediately. That is our future. Why delay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 When will Brunell's contract end with the Redskins? Base your decision around that year concerning Campbell... and also keep in mind that Brunell's final year of his contract could end up making him a backup QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCnDaHouse Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I think we let Campbell "learn" another year on the bench. I would like to see him come in for a series in a few games especially if it's ones where we have a comfortable lead. I'd like us to keep the momentum we had going in the playoffs this past season with Brunell. Why not build on that instead of trying to start over with a young QB? MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I think we let Campbell "learn" another year on the bench. I would like to see him come in for a series in a few games especially if it's ones where we have a comfortable lead. I'd like us to keep the momentum we had going in the playoffs this past season. Why not build on that instead of trying to start over with a young QB?MC :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
putartmonkinthehall Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I really want to see Campbell start and agree with what others are saying about taking the lumps this year to be better prepared for a run in 2007, but Brunell is coming of one of the best seasons of his carrer and deserves to be the starter unless Campbell clearly beats him out in training camp and the preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Exactly. I'm all for taking my lumps next year... and rolling the dice to see what happens. A successful campaign isn't completely out of the question... a Super Bowl most likely is.And unless you're absolutely certain Mark Brunell can win you a Super Bowl next year.... why delay the inevitable? Put JC in next year. 2007 is our year. If we take our "lumps" next year while we wait for Campbell to develop, we have other players that might decline that we need. Will the rest of our team be there in 2-3 years. We tried to "rebuild" with Norv with Heath Shuler. Gibbs evaluated Campbell and really wanted him, but how is his assesment of an NFL QB after being out of the league for so long? Did he compare Campbell to other QBs? I'm sure San Fran. thought this about Alex Smith, but he may turn out to be a bust and San Fran wastes years trying to find out. I think we should just play the best and who is going to run our offense the best. That is what Gibbs has always done. I don't think he ever had a rookie play a lot of QB and everyone had to earn it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I didn't realize that Trent Green is 35. Where does the time go? With that said, he sure seems a LOT younger than Scott Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Can Campbell be considered a rookie still just because he didn't play the 2005 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well I understand what is being said but think about this: with 2007 potentially being an uncapped year, why not start to develop the kid now. Imagine having Campbell with one year starting under his belt with Dan's money. I see more Superbowl runs between 2007-2009 then one in 2006. Think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmjr123 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 They are good enough to get to the superbowl next year. No time for Campbell to develop. It has to be Brunnell or Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 He hasn't even had an opportunity to chat with the QB's yet. Shouldn't we allow Saunders a chance to get to know the QB's in camp before he must choose one? Until such time, talk is what it is, "cheap." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Brunell helped us get to the playoffs this year. One could say that all Brunell needed was a second WR and it would have made things easier on the offense. So, why throw in a new QB just because, if you think you have a chance to win it all? Who knows, maybe Saunders and another offensive weapon will make all the difference in the world. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 That's exactly my thoughts.Everyone is talking about Campbell starting but don't you think that is taking a step backwards? Did you watch Brunnell the last few weeks of the season? In all fairness to Mark, it's not his fault that he's 35 and got injured, but he was flat out aweful those last few weeks. The rest of the season he was slightly above average, but he was still holding the team back to some degree. His apparent unwillingness to throw to more than two targets cost us some opportunities throughout the season. I appreciate the fact that he didn't throw many int's, but he did fumble too much early in the season. Overall, he was a servicable and for the most part reliable QB this year until the injury, but with a few exceptions, he really wasn't exceptional. I think if you bang it into any QB's head enough to protect the ball they will do it. Well, any QB but Jeff George anyway. So if Campbell is making the correct decisions with the ball as they say he is, he should start. He gives you more upside than Brunnell, and he needs to play to get better. Then you also have a tested and reliable option in the case of injury to your starter or just poor play, which can be very important to the team from a psychological standpoint should the starter go down. It's like with the Steelers and Big Ben last year. You call a game plan that insulates the QB with the running game(Gibbs is good at this) and allow him to mature on the field. Now some will remind me that Big Ben really struggled once he got to the playoffs last year and was forced to make more plays himself. You're correct, he did. But think about it this way, which situation would you rather be in? 1. Your veteran reliable QB who is a bit long in the tooth gets worn down by the time you get to and /or is injured in or before the playoffs and you have to go to your totally untested backup. 2. Your young untested QB who has played well all year is suddenly overwhelmed by the preassure of the playoffs and his play starts to fall apart so you are forced to go to your veteran reliable QB who happens to be well rested and healthy. I just think Brunnell is better for the team as a backup at this point in his career. All of this hinges on Campbell playing smart though. If he's truly not ready, then you obviously play Brunnell. Edit: Oh, and for those who would say Brunnell deserves to be the starter. As Clint Eastwood would say. "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". You don't play anyone because they "earned it" last year. You play them because they give you the best chance this year and in the future. The past should have almost nothing to do with this decision. Good reliable play from Cambell with Brunnell backinghim up is our best possibility, the only way to get there is by letting Campbell play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Who knows, maybe Saunders and another offensive weapon will make all the difference in the world. :applause: :applause: Exactly. The issue isn't "WHO" the QB is... but what options that QB has to win games. OK, let's put Campbell in as the starter... what could he do better than Brunell? NOTHING. Brunell has more experience and plays smart and knows when NOT to throw the ball... something a rookie QB won't have until they've played NFL football for at least 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.