Gregpeck99 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 With Brunell, the comfortable leads are few and far between ... Campbell is the Skins' answer to Big Ben ... I guarantee he will be the QB next year and he has winner written all over him. With our defense and Campbell's accurate cannon arm, strength and quick feet, I would not rule out a SB run. A new Redskins era has dawned ... has anyone seen the new uniform design yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Umm...in Gibbs we trust? I'm sure if Campbell has the ability to come in and be a dynamic part of this offense once he steps on the field he'll play. If the coaching staff feels he'll come on and do a Heath Shuler impersonation, he won't. That simple. Meanwhile this staff believes this team with Brunnell at the helm can play with anyone, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 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. :applause: :applause: Good points. Also, I am amazed at the amount of people who really think that Brunell is good enough to take us to the Superbowl. :doh: Let's be frank, Brunell is pretty much finished. He has enough left to be a back up and possibly mentor Campbell, but that is about it. Just look at our last couple games, Brunell seemingly didn't even make the trip to Tampa nor Seattle for that matter. I love Gibbs and I trust what he thinks, but we have to consider what is best long-term. Meaning, we need to answer a few questions like, "Is getting rid of Ramsey really the best option," "Should we bring in another vet to compete for the job," and "Is Campbell really the answer?" Just to name a few questions. You people can get excited about Saunders all you like, unless he is prepared to shed some light into this situation, then as far as I am concerned, he will be a bust as well. :doh: 8-8 is not going to cut it next year with Brunell in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 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. No time for Campbell to develop??? Apparently there is not time to develop Ramsey either! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Brunell gives us a shot next year. He is a known quantity and another year of improvement around him only increases our chances. JC, as an unknown, isn't likely to take us to the SB as a first year starter. If he busts completely, we squander a real opportunity next year, and then don't have a good chance for a few more years if we can't find a decent QB. This is a tough question. If you knew with certainty JC was the long term answer, you start him next year. Unfortunately, this is never a given. I say we start MB and take our shot. It's the better bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 simple and true I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I like the idea of playing Campbell through the season and leaning on Brunell in the playoffs, if needed, when he is healthy and fresh vs. him wearing down all season and then putting in Campbell. With that said ... everything on Campbell is speculation so far. The coaches are high on him from practicing on the team throughout the year and running the opponents offense. The first test, though, will be to see how comfortable and control he is running our offense in mini-camps and training camp. The second test will be playing him a lot in preseason games. If he truly out performs or looks like he is near the same level, then give him the nod. Gibbs annoited Ramsey the starter last offseason and look what happened opening day. Gibbs was more comfortable with Brunell and decided to keep Ramsey on the sidelines even when he was able to come back in and play. I truly believe that if Jason is ready AND Gibbs is comfortable with him, he will play. As much loyalty as Gibbs has for Brunell, he knows where the future is as well. Same goes with Saunders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 :applause: :applause: Good points. Also, I am amazed at the amount of people who really think that Brunell is good enough to take us to the Superbowl. :doh: Let's be frank, Brunell is pretty much finished. He has enough left to be a back up and possibly mentor Campbell, but that is about it. And I'm amazed that people say that a QB that had 23 TDs, 10 Ints and completed 57% of his passes with just one WR to throw to all year is "finished". Campbell will have a hard time replicating that. Personally, it was amazing that the offense did as well as it did with basically one WR for most of the season. Finally at the end, teams basically had us figured out, and the staff didn't mix things up for some reason. In fact, things only really got going in the Seattle game when they finally opened things up. Brunell certainly didn't look "finished" in that game. My biggest critisizm of the O has just been taken care of: Saunders, at the very least, will be changing things up in the offense so that we won't be so one-dimensional. I expect that we will also do some upgrading of the WR corp as well, so I expect that Brunell will have better options. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natsfan3 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This argument has a simple answer. If the young kid wins the job he will be the starter. We won't know until the preseason. The kid is a winner and has the skills. If he impresses in off season workouts, then he will have a good shot to start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewU Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 There are teams that have young QB's that are doing well, like Tampa and Pittsburgh. Campbell wont have to do everything, he has a running game and a great defense to help him, so as long as he doesnt turn teh ball over, we will still be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 And I'm amazed that people say that a QB that had 23 TDs, 10 Ints and completed 57% of his passes with just one WR to throw to all year is "finished". Campbell will have a hard time replicating that.Personally, it was amazing that the offense did as well as it did with basically one WR for most of the season. Finally at the end, teams basically had us figured out, and the staff didn't mix things up for some reason. In fact, things only really got going in the Seattle game when they finally opened things up. Brunell certainly didn't look "finished" in that game. My biggest critisizm of the O has just been taken care of: Saunders, at the very least, will be changing things up in the offense so that we won't be so one-dimensional. I expect that we will also do some upgrading of the WR corp as well, so I expect that Brunell will have better options. Jason You are kidding right?? Truthfully speaking there is no evidence that suggests that Ramsey couldn't have done the exact same or even a better job then Brunell if your agrument is that he was/is our best option. Let's take the second Giants game for example when Ramsey had to come in. The play calling certainly did not change that much and he completed a 40+ yard TD pass to Moss. My point is, we have to consider that fact what we saw late in the season is all that we have to come with Brunell in the future. Perhaps we should also consider that the future is now and that means at least seeing what we got with Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hailtotheredskins89826 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 campbell is taking a step backwards...go brunell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Look, Brunell was playing at a pro-bowl pace and caliber through much of the year. He was threading great throws and making great decisions. Then he got hurt. When he was hurt, JG didn't trust anyone else on the roster so he trotted out an incapacitated Brunell. Yes he was terrible when injured, but he really shouldn't have been out there. Next year, look for Brunell to be just as good as he was this year, as long as he stays healthy. The difference is, JC will be ready to step in when Brunell is hurt. This will be great, Brunell can really rest and heal, and JC will get the PT necessary to learn. At the same time, he won't have the pressure of coming in as the starter. Its really an ideal situation - sets us up well for next year and further into the future. But to say that Brunell is "done" is just dumb. He was great as long as he was healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I like the idea of playing Campbell through the season and leaning on Brunell in the playoffs, if needed, when he is healthy and fresh vs. him wearing down all season and then putting in Campbell. How in the world would you suggest benching the QB that gets you to the playoffs??? I guess we could just tell Campbell thanks for winning enough games during the regular season to get us to the playoffs. But now that you are here, we are going to play your backup??? And you can have your starting job back next year. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd 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. He didnt take a regular season snap until he was 27, and that was 1 attempt. His career essentially started when he was 28, and then he missed the following year due to freak injury. He has significantly less wear and tear on his body than Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Remember Brunell was washed up in 2004. This will be the his third season same offense (with a few twists). Same people in the huddle for the most part. The whole team looked tired at Seattle. I go with Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 How in the world would you suggest benching the QB that gets you to the playoffs??? I guess we could just tell Campbell thanks for winning enough games during the regular season to get us to the playoffs. But now that you are here, we are going to play your backup??? And you can have your starting job back next year. :doh: I was paraphrasing what was earlier posted about what-if scenarios if your starter gets injured down the stretch. But in all fairness to history ... Gibbs did bench Shreoder for Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Look, Brunell was playing at a pro-bowl pace and caliber through much of the year. He was threading great throws and making great decisions. Then he got hurt. When he was hurt, JG didn't trust anyone else on the roster so he trotted out an incapacitated Brunell. Yes he was terrible when injured, but he really shouldn't have been out there.Next year, look for Brunell to be just as good as he was this year, as long as he stays healthy. The difference is, JC will be ready to step in when Brunell is hurt. This will be great, Brunell can really rest and heal, and JC will get the PT necessary to learn. At the same time, he won't have the pressure of coming in as the starter. Its really an ideal situation - sets us up well for next year and further into the future. But to say that Brunell is "done" is just dumb. He was great as long as he was healthy. Listen to yourself man. Brunell is not spring chicken, he will have an injury every year. Does the term "Chandelier" mean anything. :doh: But you are right, let's continue to play him instead of developing our first round draft pick so that we can SEE just how far we can go with him and pray that one of his old bones doesn't break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 How in the world would you suggest benching the QB that gets you to the playoffs??? I guess we could just tell Campbell thanks for winning enough games during the regular season to get us to the playoffs. But now that you are here, we are going to play your backup??? And you can have your starting job back next year. :doh: Im not saying I agree with his comment, but Gibbs in the past didn't hesitate to swap QBs in just such a situation. Think Schroeder/Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was paraphrasing what was earlier posted about what-if scenarios if your starter gets injured down the stretch. But in all fairness to history ... Gibbs did bench Shreoder for Williams Okay, I'm sorry. Perhaps I came across a little rough. Please accept my apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Listen to yourself man. Brunell is not spring chicken, he will have an injury every year. Does the term "Chandelier" mean anything. :doh: But you are right, let's continue to play him instead of developing our first round draft pick so that we can SEE just how far we can go with him and pray that one of his old bones doesn't break. It's not as if his body just magically stopped working all of the sudden. He had some guy plow into his knee with his helmet...it doesn't matter if you are a spring chicken or not that's a painful injury. There's a chance he may get hurt next year but it's the same as anyone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well i would just like to point out one thing for the Brunell group. Daunte Culpepper- 1st year rode the bench, 2nd season started 16 games: at cp yrd td it rtg 2000 Minnesota Vikings 16 16 474 297 62.7 3937 8.31 78 33 16 34/181 56 13 98.0 why is it so far out of the realm to think Cambell cant play and play very well in his second year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove 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 :applause: Got to agree with that. Going "new" for the sake of it is not the answer. Personally, I don't believe in 'giving' starter jobs to anyone. Not because your "new", not because your "old". Play who ever wins the starting job in competition. If Campbell can't beat an aging 35 year old, he shouldn't start. And that goes double for folks who think Brunell is not good enough (the worse they claim Brunell is, the less excuses there are for Campbell not beating him out, right?) Jason, I like your comment on Saunders too. I've heard other posters act like he had way more talent to work with in KC. But they're being revisionistic, Saunders took someone else's 2nd string QB, someone elses 2nd string RB, rebuilt the WRs & OL. The only gift he got was Tony Gonzalez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman330 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'] You're dead on about JC taking his lumps and the prep for '07. I think there could be a mix of MB starting w/ JC as a backup. Knowing that MB will not take every snap for 16 plus games, JC will get vaulable playing time. I do believe that if we leave the wiggle room for mistakes, he'll be fine. After JC cuts his teeth, he'll add explosion to the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Culpepper had one of the leagues best offenses around him with Chris Carter and Randy Moss surrounding him ... this is apples and oranges. For that argument ... look how Culpepper performed this past season without his go-to receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.