Veretax Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Okay, when CP went down last year in the PreSeason I was feeling antsy from the get go. I knew that without him our team was seriously hurting. Now fastforward a year. Everyone seems to agree that JC should get the majority of the snaps with the first offense, and preseason time, but I'm a bit concerned. What if the unthinkable happens? What if Either through a Preseason game or through no fault of his own, JC gets injured in an accident and is out for four to eight weeks? What then is the prognosis of this team. assuming we still have brunell maybe we can make the play offs, maybe, but if brunell is gone, I don't like those odds. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 We do our best, save our draft picks, and get high draft picks. Like what normal teams do when injuries strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Is your head made out of wood? If not, please use a two by four to knock yourself in the head with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm being serious here. Look what happened to the Steelers Ben R goes down from a bike accident, and not just through that but that seemed to cause the team to fall apart after a Super bowl run. Now while noone would say we are SB material last year, Should we be looking for a backup to fill that void instead of keeping the two backups we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Who cares about a backup at this point? If JC gets hurt, we are going to stink. We play our best and hope for next year. Like the steelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 randle el to qb:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Mark Brunell played better than Jason Campbell last season, better stats and more wins, so . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Stats and wins are only part of the equation for a 5-11 football team. The bottomline is that when Campbell was on the field, the opposing defense had to at least respect the ability of the youngster to throw the ball deep. The same can not be said regarding Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 If JC goes down it would not make a difference. The reason I say that is because he is as mediocore as any average qb in the league. He did ok during the season but he wasnt nothing to write home about. I think anyone who steps it there can produce similar numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 The bottomline is that when Campbell was on the field, the opposing defense had to at least respect the ability of the youngster to throw the ball deep. The same can not be said regarding Brunell. Betts running the ball very well is what forced defenses to move the safties up. Which allowed for JC to throw downfield. When Brunell was back there we didnt have a running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Who cares about a backup at this point? If JC gets hurt, we are going to stink. We play our best and hope for next year. Like the steelers. Yeah, like the Eagles...oh, wait. :doh: That's right, they had a veteran QB who lead them to the playoffs through a division title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Betts running the ball very well is what forced defenses to move the safties up. Which allowed for JC to throw downfield. When Brunell was back there we didnt have a running game. I disagree. With Brunell in the lineup, Clinton Portis and Betts were around and they were faced with alot of 8 men in the box situations as a result of Brunell's inability to go deep consistently. I don't think it was a coincidence that the running game started to emerge when Brunell left the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Mark Brunell played better than Jason Campbell last season, better stats and more wins, so . . . Oh please. Brunell was done even before he had to have MAJOR SURGERY on his throwing shoulder. He simply did not trust his downfield accuracy so he never went downfield. And you cannot win on a regular basis throwing horizontally -- especially when your defense is suspect. Outside of a nice game against JAX, his decent stats were the product of fourth-quarter garbage plays more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I disagree. With Brunell in the lineup, Clinton Portis and Betts were around and they were faced with alot of 8 men in the box situations as a result of Brunell's inability to go deep consistently. I don't think it was a coincidence that the running game started to emerge when Brunell left the lineup. First of all CP was hurting. He didnt play the first two games of the season. When he returned he wasnt 100%. Mark Brunell faced the cover 2 defenses alot. The only way to beat the cover 2 is by running the ball and completing short passes mainly over the middle. CP and Betts combined wasnt producing the yardage that Betts put up the second half of the season. Look at the numbers. JC had an establihed running game to help him out and his numbers still wasnt much better then Brunells. The kid has a big wind up passing motion that will hurt us in the long run. His weakness is exposed to the entire NFL now. He will nothing more then average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I am no Nostradamus: I am not making the argument or suggesting that Campbell is going to be a great or terrible player in this league. What I am arguining is that Campbell, despite his lack of experience in this league, is a better option at qb than Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 First of all CP was hurting. He didnt play the first two games of the season. When he returned he wasnt 100%. Mark Brunell faced the cover 2 defenses alot. The only way to beat the cover 2 is by running the ball and completing short passes mainly over the middle. CP and Betts combined wasnt producing the yardage that Betts put up the second half of the season. Look at the numbers. JC had an establihed running game to help him out and his numbers still wasnt much better then Brunells. The kid has a big wind up passing motion that will hurt us in the long run. His weakness is exposed to the entire NFL now. He will nothing more then average.Is that you AJ?? Yea buddy the last game of the season he looked pretty average didnt he :doh: . How about you give him one full season and with the second year of the same offense and a healthy CP in the backfield and tell me how average he is next year. Not sure I understand the logic around here sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I am no Nostradamus: I am not making the argument or suggesting that Campbell is going to be a great or terrible player in this league. What I am arguining is that Campbell, despite his lack of experience in this league, is a better option at qb than Brunell. I understand where you are coming from. I just want people to see that he looked better because we were running the ball very well. That changed how defenses played us. Which opened up the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Is your head made out of wood? If not, please use a two by four to knock yourself in the head with. Why? Proposing an emergency plan is not stupid. Its far more stupider to ignore the possibility of disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the krabber Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 JC had an establihed running game to help him out and his numbers still wasnt much better then Brunells. The kid has a big wind up passing motion that will hurt us in the long run. His weakness is exposed to the entire NFL now. He will nothing more then average. OR: as a rookie QB, Campbell had some trouble getting used to the game. And he was on his third offensive system in three years. And he never had the chemistry with his WRs that most QBs do because he had never really thrown with either of them. And now he has an offseason to work on his mechanics and learn that playbook better and get the chemistry with the WRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Is that you AJ?? Yea buddy the last game of the season he looked pretty average didnt he :doh: . How about you give him one full season and with the second year of the same offense and a healthy CP in the backfield and tell me how average he is next year. Not sure I understand the logic around here sometimes. I'm looking at facts. You are wishfully thinking. Its a difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Please explains Brunell's horrid second half performance in 2005 then. The league figured him out -- take away the short passing lanes and he's useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 OR:as a rookie QB, Campbell had some trouble getting used to the game. And he was on his third offensive system in three years. And he never had the chemistry with his WRs that most QBs do because he had never really thrown with either of them. And now he has an offseason to work on his mechanics and learn that playbook better and get the chemistry with the WRs. I hope he does have better chemistry with his wr's. As far as the mechanics he is too far in his careerr and two old to change them. Thats like asking Tiger Woods to change his golf swing. Even if he does work on his machanics. How long will it take? I guess we can wait three or four years until he develops the proper mechanics. By then FA and injuries would have set in. All of that leads to more years of misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishisthegreatstuff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 or maybe we were running the ball better because of him....I don't understand how people don't think hes going to be a good qb. Sickies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm looking at facts. You are wishfully thinking. Its a difference between the two.Yea that must be it... The thing is he doesnt have to change his motion he just needs to speed it up thats all, and the off-season should help that a ton. With time he will learn the speed of the game and start to do everything quicker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Please explains Brunell's horrid second half performance in 2005 then. The league figured him out -- take away the short passing lanes and he's useless. Thats easy. Double team Moss. Take away Moss and with no other decent receiver shutting down the passing game wasnt that hard. That's football 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.