Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. Very true but at some point you have to consider making a switch. Yes, anyone can get hurt at any given time, to me that is all the more reason why Campbell should be playing. Let's say Brunell gets injured early in the season like Ramsey did this year, someone would have to come in and try to the team's savior. Then all of you people will be ranting and raving about how good Campbell can be, "in Gibbs we trust," and much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't wanna see Campbell sit out for another year. Regardless of practice and study time etc, I think that is too long for somebody to not see the field. If he his our future than he needs to play in 2006 instead of making him stand around on the sidelines for another year. By the time 2007 rolls around hes gonna forget how to play if he sits again this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I think it should be an open competition just like it was for Brunell and Ramsey. Whoever is moving the offense better should get to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. There is also no evidence that he could have done a better job either. Course, this is not a Ramsey vs Brunell thread. 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. So did Brunell earlier in the game. What's your point? 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. Or, maybe we should go with who the best QB is, no matter if it is the young guy or the old guy. The goal every year is to go to the Superbowl. Why go with the young guy, for the sake of going with the young guy? That's not saying that Campbell can't outplay Brunell and win the job, but he has a strike against him (lack of experience) and Brunell is coming off a pretty good season. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Perhaps we'll see another version of 1997 when Schroeder took most of the regular season snaps only to be replaced by the older more experienced Williams at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilbur58z Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Saunders runs a complicated offense w/ lots of shifting. He does the same thing as Gibbs only he does more. Brunell needs to be out there to direct that. Campbell is not ready for that...he sat a year under Gibbs, now he's got to sit a year under Saunders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It surprise me when people talk about Campbell starting next year. We are on our way to SB 41, why rock the boat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It seems unreasonable to think that a secind year QB CAN'T take a team to the super bowl. Brunell is the early favorite to start. But, it all depends on Campbells talent level. If he's good enough, there is history that shows young QB's can lead a team to a super bowl- Brady & Roethlisberger, even Delhomme in 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonkey Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It seems unreasonable to think that a secind year QB CAN'T take a team to the super bowl. Brunell is the early favorite to start. But, it all depends on Campbells talent level.If he's good enough, there is history that shows young QB's can lead a team to a super bowl- Brady & Roethlisberger, even Delhomme in 2002. In all fairness Brady, and Roethlisberger are rare gems while Delhomme had been in the league since 99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil 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 . Santana Moss, Wayne (potentially), Portis is a lot of talent to work with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Santana Moss, Wayne (potentially), Portis is a lot of talent to work with Campbell would also have the advantage of the presence of one of the league's top defensive units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Wasn't there some talk that Campbell was the best looking qb in camp last year? I say why not, if he shows he is capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 What I'm about to say is extremely painful, so please bare with me. I've come to the conclusion that PR is gone. I think it's stupid to keep Brunell over him but he's just not in Gibbs' plans. :cry: There I said, he's gone. Now, that being said, bring on JC. Young legs, strong arm and anything is better than Brunell throwing the ball away everytime you turn around. Let's just hope JC's ready. :fingersx: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 In all fairness Brady, and Roethlisberger are rare gems while Delhomme had been in the league since 99 You got that right. Roethlisberger & Brady are the exceptions not the rule (I don't get why people don't get that). Roethlisberger had the best 3 WRs in the NFL, a HOF RB, and the most stable organization the last decade. And Brady injured into his job was not the season starter (so Belichick wouldn't do it either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 There is also no evidence that he could have done a better job either. Course, this is not a Ramsey vs Brunell thread.So did Brunell earlier in the game. What's your point? Or, maybe we should go with who the best QB is, no matter if it is the young guy or the old guy. The goal every year is to go to the Superbowl. Why go with the young guy, for the sake of going with the young guy? That's not saying that Campbell can't outplay Brunell and win the job, but he has a strike against him (lack of experience) and Brunell is coming off a pretty good season. Jason Jason, You are so quick to be critical that you are not understanding. Get this, I am not necessarily saying that Ramsey could have done a better job I am merely saying that there is no evidence to suggest that he would have done a worst job than Brunell. Second, the touch down reference was just to show that he made the same types of plays as Brunell with the exact same talent around him. Additionally, I am not at all suggesting that Campbell should start because he is younger. I am suggesting he gets an opportunity to start because Brunell is old enough to remember the Beatles and therefore we should not put all of our apples into the same basket. (An old one at that with bad knees) Frankly, he is a vetern guy but he cannot take us to the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ33 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. I also agree but heres another thought...Whos to say that Campbell couldnt come in and have the type of year that Big Ben had in his first year with Pitt? While we have heard good things about Campbell, we obviously dont know the real outcome, but I just think that if we are willing to think about next year as being the set-up year for a 2007 SB, then why not think and believe that next season could really be something special. I think we are due a sprinkle of the pixie dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtpop Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I think Saunders will go with the veteran, Campbell will be ready to play if called on but Brunell proved this year he still has some pretty good football left in him. I expect with Musgrave gone that Gibbs may spend more time with QB's if he doesn't bring in another QB coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 ...Whos to say that Campbell couldnt come in and have the type of year that Big Ben had in his first year with Pitt? Evidently... Joe Gibbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWarpath Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=10610 Campbell should start the '06 season? Or perhaps Brunell? Aren't we rushing to judgement here just a bit? How does anyone know who the starting QB should be at this point? Shouldn't we wait until, at the very least, some kind of QB competition unfolds? Some believe that the Skins should take their lumps next season by playing the inexperienced Campbell. I would imagine that is based on the belief that there is no way that Brunell can lead this team to glory. I'd like to offer a different perspective. In a different year, the old QB might have played with more consistency as the regular season wound down. Sure, Brunell's performance slipped toward the latter part of this season and he isn't getting any younger; however, the offense was lacking in other areas too. As you know, the lack of a 2nd wideout or some other receiver to keep Moss from being triple teamed hurt quite a bit. The loss of Randy Thomas didn't help either, and no offense to Ray Brown, who, I might add, played very well; however, the loss of Thomas, I believe, limited the offense to inside running plays. I didn't see much productivity with pitchouts and sweeps, after Thomas went down with a season-ending injury. Depth, in my humble opinion, could have remedied the lack of production in the running game--not necessarily another QB like Jason Campbell--which could have made an impact in the passing game, particularly when the offense could force defenses to stack the box instead of triple teaming Moss. I'd like to see Campbell start to get experience too. He seems like a very talented player with a huge upside, but let's see who is the better QB during the exhibition season. Campbell will have his day if he earns it and I hope that he will do well when given the opportunity, but it might be too early for the young QB and Gibbs offense demands consistency from the QB position, just as it does from all other positions. The good news is that experienced QBs have fared well in Gibbs' past offenses--most of Gibbs' backup QBs apprenticed for at least 2 to 3 years before they became starters. Time well spent on the sidelines is a good thing. Even in today's game, an adequate game manager can lead the team to the promised land. If there is one thing that I'm certain of, Brunell is at the very least an adequate game manager and his experience would be a shame to waste at this point for the sake of taking lumps to give Campbell some game-time experience. In time, Brunell will pass the baton to Campbell; maybe even next season, but I'd rather take my chances with the QB that won the QB competition--not that there will necessarily be one. The future is important, but so is today. May the best QB lead the Redskins to glory in '06, whether it's the crafty old vet or the young gun with so much potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonkey Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Skill and talent level aside, it would seem that one of the questions that need to be answered is, does JC have the ability to manage the game like Brunell does? we will be hard pressed to duplicate the 5-1 division and 4-1 conference record next season without solid qb play, as an example someone brought up the 2nd Giants game when Ramsey came in we had a problem lining up properly and had to call a time out.....after coming to the line again there was still communication problems and had to call another time out. These type of things were pretty much non-existent this year while Brunell played, and I would be hard pressed to believe that if we started JC that he would manage the game and put up the same or similiar #'s Brunell posted this season. The division will definately be tighter next year and we will definately need the same production from who ever the starter may be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 People, you can say put Campbell in all you want, but there is a reason why Joe Gibbs has three SB rings and you don't even coach a rec. football. Gibbs knows how to develop QBs without making all of the other players pay for it. Stop trying to mess with success. Don't try to fix what isn't broken!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I feel quite confident that Gibbs and Saunders will make the right call based both on the long-term and short-term ramifications. It appears that we have the coaching staff in place to keep this thing moving in the right direction even if Gibbs decides to step down early. For that reason, I don't think we're in a panic-mode to HAVE to play Brunell and hope for a Super Bowl run in 2006. At the same time, I think everyone in the organization is very happy playing Brunell if Campbell isn't ready to take over. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm very sure that (once again) the correct QB choice will be made for the Redskins come opening day. We have too many great coaches aboard for anything else to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Skill and talent level aside, it would seem that one of the questions that need to be answered is, does JC have the ability to manage the game like Brunell does? To win the Super Bowl we need a game winner not a game manager. IMO that's Brunells flaw, he manages too much. Sometimes you have to take risks and make things happen when nothing is available. You can't always leave it up to the defense to win games for you. When the defense hands you the ballgame and you still can't win, there's something wrong. Bring in JC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 People, you can say put Campbell in all you want, but there is a reason why Joe Gibbs has three SB rings and you don't even coach a rec. football. Gibbs knows how to develop QBs without making all of the other players pay for it. Stop trying to mess with success. Don't try to fix what isn't broken!!! Not broken? News flash we had 120 yards in a playoff game. :doh: The fact that is was against the number one defense is irrelevent. Seems to me something is a bit broken. But I will agree to disagree and let a competition take place. I just want you people to wake up about Brunell, he is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 What I'm about to say is extremely painful, so please bare with me. I've come to the conclusion that PR is gone. I think it's stupid to keep Brunell over him but he's just not in Gibbs' plans. :cry: There I said, he's gone. Now, that being said, bring on JC. Young legs, strong arm and anything is better than Brunell throwing the ball away everytime you turn around. Let's just hope JC's ready. :fingersx: Come on man... throwing the ball away is NOT a bad thing. When you have no recievers and run the risk of losing hards, you throw it away. THAT is something Gibbs wanted Campbell to see from the sideline. Young QB's have a tendency to force a completed pass or to hold on to the ball and lose yards to a sack. A forced pass runs the risk of an INT. THAT is the experience Brunell has that we benefit from. Campbell will make those mistakes at a young age, it's something we have to accept. The more he learns from the sideline while watching Brunell, the better we'll be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.