ZoEd 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!!! And there we have it. Why even have a forum like this if we can't discuss the team? Leave it in Gods, I means Gibbs' hands. Turn off the computer, the TV and the radio. Gibbs is in the house, no need to worry. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. Brunell is the best answer given our circumstances. Ramsey made it clear that he's not getting any younger and wants to be a starting QB. Gibbs has made it clear that Ramsey is not what he wants. Unless we sign a new QB in the offseason, we have only 2 QB solutions. Campbell is too young and green to be our starter. Therefore.... Brunell is the answer given our circumstances. We all know that Campbell will one day be our starting QB. The question is "when?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. You're right, there is a time and a place to throw the ball away. I'll give you that 100%. You have to admit though, he threw the ball away a lot. Sometimes MB seems to be more worried about making mistakes than he does about winning ballgames. I'm just not sold on "safe" football being the answer. Favre was far from safe and won two Super Bowls. Just my :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You're right, there is a time and a place to throw the ball away. I'll give you that 100%. You have to admit though, he threw the ball away a lot. Sometimes MB seems to be more worried about making mistakes than he does about winning ballgames. I'm just not sold on "safe" football being the answer. Favre was far from safe and won two Super Bowls. Just my :2cents: ANd I'll agree with you that these are all good points too. Safe football is not the most exciting, I'll admit that. Risks and gambles can win the game. For example.... 2 point conversion by Tampa Bay vs Washington in week 10 to win the game instead of tieing for overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonkey Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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! I agree, but keep in mind Brunell ran what he was told look at his stats this year, he's in the top 10 in passing yds and td's, the offense just needs to be expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You're right, there is a time and a place to throw the ball away. I'll give you that 100%. You have to admit though, he threw the ball away a lot. Sometimes MB seems to be more worried about making mistakes than he does about winning ballgames. I'm just not sold on "safe" football being the answer. Favre was far from safe and won two Super Bowls. Just my :2cents: Well, safe football is Redskin football (at least under Gibbs). That's the way it is. Do you really think Jason Campbell would come in and play with different instructions than Brunell?? He'll have less liberty than Mark did I'm sure. Theismann, Williams, and Rypien all won Super Bowls for Gibbs because they were smart and relatively safe. Favre only won one Super Bowl, but your point is still a good one. There are two ways to go about it...Gibbs just prefers the safer way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, safe football is Redskin football (at least under Gibbs). That's the way it is. Do you really think Jason Campbell would come in and play with different instructions than Brunell?? He'll have less liberty than Mark did I'm sure. Theismann, Williams, and Rypien all won Super Bowls for Gibbs because they were smart and relatively safe. Favre only won one Super Bowl, but your point is still a good one. There are two ways to go about it...Gibbs just prefers the safer way. Yup. and the safe way is a much more garaunteed way. Not exciting. But it does come with a few garauntees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. Well, you picked out one aspect, but not really including that Brunell is more mobile and is better throwing on the run is doing Brunell a disservice. There are plays that Brunell made that Ramsey probably can't make. Course, I'm still wondering how Ramsey came into this conversation, since we are talking Brunell vs Campbell. 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. Well, I agree that Campbell will compete in camp with Brunell and whoever is with us when camp starts, but Gibbs isn't going to simply hand him the job, particularly since that didn't work with Ramsey. Campbell is going to have to win the job, and I don't think Brunell is simply going to give it to him. To win the Super Bowl we need a game winner not a game manager. Tell that to Trent Dilfer... BTW, those terms are not mutually exclusive. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Favre only won one Super Bowl, but your point is still a good one. There are two ways to go about it...Gibbs just prefers the safer way You're right he went to two, won one. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrentonboy Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Brunnell will start....and that's a fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Tell that to Trent Dilfer... We don't have a Raven defense. We're good but few defenses have ever been that good, Chicago and Pittsburgh back in the day, that's about it. Without that defense they would have never won the Super Bowl. I don't think we would have been in a 5-6 situation if MB would have taken a few more chances downfield. Not saying he needs to force the ball every down to make a play but sometimes when the games on the line a QB needs to step up and make the play. Mark did this at times but more times than not he didn't. When mentioning the Great QB's in the league name the ones who don't take risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 is that chat over? can someone post it? did anyone ask about the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, you picked out one aspect, but not really including that Brunell is more mobile and is better throwing on the run is doing Brunell a disservice. There are plays that Brunell made that Ramsey probably can't make.Course, I'm still wondering how Ramsey came into this conversation, since we are talking Brunell vs Campbell. Well, I agree that Campbell will compete in camp with Brunell and whoever is with us when camp starts, but Gibbs isn't going to simply hand him the job, particularly since that didn't work with Ramsey. Campbell is going to have to win the job, and I don't think Brunell is simply going to give it to him. Tell that to Trent Dilfer... BTW, those terms are not mutually exclusive. Jason Dude, I am going to agree to disagree with you. Ramsey came up when: Quote: Originally Posted by pjmjr123 They are good enough to get to the superbowl next year. No time for Campbell to develop. It has to be Brunnell or Ramsey. Then I said: No time for Campbell to develop??? Apparently there is not time to develop Ramsey either! Now, I think it is understood that Brunell is not going to just give this job to Campbell without a competition but I mean really, when is it going to be the time to play the kid with the A team? According to you, when Brunell's skills deminish and I am saying to you that time has come. Brunell is to the Redskins what fix-a-flat is to a flat tire -- a temporary fix. Sometime you just have to break down and buy a new tire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 So Mort is speculating like everyone else. [Church lady] Well isn't that special! [/Church lady] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Dude, I am going to agree to disagree with you. Ramsey came up when:Quote: Originally Posted by pjmjr123 They are good enough to get to the superbowl next year. No time for Campbell to develop. It has to be Brunnell or Ramsey. Then I said: No time for Campbell to develop??? Apparently there is not time to develop Ramsey either! Now, I think it is understood that Brunell is not going to just give this job to Campbell without a competition but I mean really, when is it going to be the time to play the kid with the A team? According to you, when Brunell's skills deminish and I am saying to you that time has come. Brunell is to the Redskins what fix-a-flat is to a flat tire -- a temporary fix. Sometime you just have to break down and buy a new tire. Brunell played better than 70% of the 2005 seasons starting QB's. That's not a temp fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Brunell played better than 70% of the 2005 seasons starting QB's.That's not a temp fix. He is a temp fix because he is not, I repeat, is not going to be here after next season. The sooner you realize that, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWarpath Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 He is a temp fix because he is not, I repeat, is not going to be here after next season. The sooner you realize that, the better. You may be right, but I'd like to know who you think will take his roster spot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I like Campbell, but if he is so good, why isnt he 2nd on the depth chart? Why didnt he come in during the Giants game instead of Ramsey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You may be right, but I'd like to know who you think will take his roster spot? I am not sure what it matters who will take his spot :doh: because the point I am trying to make is that we need to start thinking about making a change. Now if you need a definitive answer then I say which ever vetern that will be available to back up Campbell, rather its Trent Green or Steve McNair. Or, we could have a "not so costly back up" like Dilfer or Jeff Garcia or Kerry Collins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWarpath Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I am not sure what it matters who will take his spot :doh: because the point I am trying to make is that we need to start thinking about making a change. Now if you need a definitive answer then I say which ever vetern that will be available to back up Campbell, rather its Trent Green or Steve McNair. Or, we could have a "not so costly back up" like Dilfer or Jeff Garcia or Kerry Collins. Yes, I was looking for a definative answer and here's why. To say that without any doubt Brunell will not be here is absolutely definative. You'd have to have knowledge of his replacement, before you can be absolutely sure that the incumbant is out the door. You might be on the right track, but I have my doubts, that is, until I see a little more evidence in terms of personnel moves. Additionally, Gibbs prefers starters that are veterans of games or at least QBs that have been in his system for a few years--old habits die hard. It seems to me that Ramsey is the odd man out, leaving the team with only Brunell and Campbell as QBs with experience in this system (Sanders' system is pretty much the same as Gibbs', except Sanders pushes the ball downfield a bit faster). Now if Ramsey were to stay, then I can see Brunell leaving. I just don't see Campbell starting with 2 backup QBs that weren't here last year; however, you did mention Trent Green. Have you seen anything to indicate that Mr. Green is not going to be in KC next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Here is my other reason for wanting to see Campbell soon: What if he sucks? QBs in the first round are pretty much a 33/33/33 proposition. Some turn into Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger (stars). Some turn into Joey Harrington and Patrick Ramsey (serviceable journeyman types). Some turn into Akili Smith (busts). If Campbell is in the second or third category, I'd rather know now than in 2008 when we have no other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 We don't have a Raven defense. We're good but few defenses have ever been that good, Chicago and Pittsburgh back in the day, that's about it. Without that defense they would have never won the Super Bowl. Despite the rep, that Ravens team was hardly impotent, having both Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes. Funny thing is, Brunell's numbers are far better than Dilfer's that year. I don't think we would have been in a 5-6 situation if MB would have taken a few more chances downfield. Not saying he needs to force the ball every down to make a play but sometimes when the games on the line a QB needs to step up and make the play. Mark did this at times but more times than not he didn't. I think more often than not, he did make the play, when it was there. Problem is, things started to go south in the passing game when Patton got hurt. While he didn't produce numbers-wise, Patton seems to have had an effect on the field. After Tampa Bay, Brunell didn't have another 200+ yard day. Why? Because we didn't have a credible threat at #2 anymore, and no one stepped up. I think it is understood that Brunell is not going to just give this job to Campbell without a competition but I mean really, when is it going to be the time to play the kid with the A team? According to you, when Brunell's skills deminish and I am saying to you that time has come. Brunell is to the Redskins what fix-a-flat is to a flat tire -- a temporary fix. Sometime you just have to break down and buy a new tire. Campbell's time will come when he proves he is ready, not before. You don't give your kid the keys to the Mercedes until you are pretty sure he isn't going to wreck it. It is one thing if your team is a Yugo and you aren't really going anywhere anyways. In that case, you don't care if your QB wrecks it. It is another thing if your team has the ability to take it all the way. In that case, you put it in the better hands. Whether that's Brunell or Campbell is unknown at this time, and we will find out in camp. It is why I think it is silly to pick one guy over another at this point. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Yes, I was looking for a definative answer and here's why. To say that without any doubt Brunell will not be here is absolutely definative. You'd have to have knowledge of his replacement, before you can be absolutely sure that the incumbant is out the door.You might be on the right track, but I have my doubts, that is, until I see a little more evidence in terms of personnel moves. Additionally, Gibbs prefers starters that are veterans of games or at least QBs that have been in his system for a few years--old habits die hard. It seems to me that Ramsey is the odd man out, leaving the team with only Brunell and Campbell as QBs with experience in this system (Sanders' system is pretty much the same as Gibbs', except Sanders pushes the ball downfield a bit faster). Now if Ramsey were to stay, then I can see Brunell leaving. I just don't see Campbell starting with 2 backup QBs that weren't here last year; however, you did mention Trent Green. Have you seen anything to indicate that Mr. Green is not going to be in KC next season? Okay I get it and I totally agree with you. But you do realize that I said after next year. Meaning he will be here for the start of the 2006-2007 season but gone after that. After this year Brunell is due a lot of money and there is no way he is going to see any parts of that unless he is willing to redo his whole contract and I am not sure that is possible. That is my other reason for saying that he will not be here in the future. You are totally right about Ramsey, I only brought him up because some one mentioned that he may be our starter next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWarpath Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Whether that's Brunell or Campbell is unknown at this time, and we will find out in camp. It is why I think it is silly to pick one guy over another at this point.Jason I completely agree with your points for the reasons that you gave. Everyone knows that Brunell is no spring chicken anymore, but nearly any QB would have been handicapped by the loss of key personnel suffered by the offense this season. In my opinion, it was a miracle that the team even made it to the playoffs. One wide receiver; a wiley but limited veteran at the pulling guard spot--a miracle. I have a feeling that a little more depth and a more aggressive offense will take this team a little farther next season. I can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWarpath Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Okay I get it and I totally agree with you. But you do realize that I said after next year. QUOTE]Ooops! In the voice of Rosanna Rosanna Danna, "never mind." :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.