Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Mark Brunell was sacked 12 times in 2006. Jason Campbell has been sacked 37 times in 2008, with one game left to go. Only 3 QB have been sacked more than Jason Campbell this season. And Brunell was sacked FIFTY times in 1996, in his fourth season in the league with Jacksonville and he threw for over 4,000 yards, had a winning record and went to the AFC Title game. Surely 50 times is worse than 37 and certainly Cassel's success this year has more to do with him making plays in the passing game rather than blaming the offensive line for how many times he's been sacked? Also Mark didn't get sacked in 2006 because he threw to checkdowns and was at least healthy enough to throw short a bit more effectively than 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 I supported Ramsey, but Gibbs felt differently You were right, Gibbs was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaj23 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 And Brunell was sacked FIFTY times in 1996, in his fourth season in the league with Jacksonville and he threw for over 4,000 yards, had a winning record and went to the AFC Title game.Surely 50 times is worse than 37 and certainly Cassel's success this year has more to do with him making plays in the passing game rather than blaming the offensive line for how many times he's been sacked? Also Mark didn't get sacked in 2006 because he threw to checkdowns and was at least healthy enough to throw short a bit more effectively than 2004. First time posting.... Its a good point that you bring up that he was sacked 50 times, but as you said that was Brunells 4th year in the system as well, some of his "sucess" has to be attributed to that. And he had 20 Td's and 19 picks, not exactly great numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Seriously, I'm tired of bringing up that bust Ramsey, would we have made the Play-Offs in '05 with Patrick Happy-Feet Ramsey? The Fact that Ramsey can't beat out career back-ups shows how big of a bust Uh, how do we know what Patrick would have been able to do in 2005, he was pulled in the first half after leading a drive pretty far down the field and actually utilizing David Patten (in preseason, esp.) As for 2005, shouldn't we have inserted Ramsey for Brunell after Brunell's knee got hurt or do you think 40 yards passing in a playoff game for an all-time record low is a good performance? Or what about Mark's beach balls in the Seattle game? Also, Pick sixes?? What are you talking about? I'm not saying he's never thrown one but turnovers per game, he was the same as Brunell. He just had fewer fumbles lost and more INTs. He also had a pretty good end of the season in 2004. FINISHING a season strong? Boy, wouldn't it be nice to have a QB who could do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 ...Cassel's success this year has more to do with him making plays in the passing game rather than blaming the offensive line for how many times he's been sacked? Isn't it likely that the lesson to be learned from the Patriots this season is that a QB's success has more to do with the coaching, the scheme and the supporting cast than most fans realize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 First time posting....Its a good point that you bring up that he was sacked 50 times, but as you said that was Brunells 4th year in the system as well, some of his "sucess" has to be attributed to that. And he had 20 Td's and 19 picks, not exactly great numbers... Well, I don't know if it was his fourth year in the system. Remember he was drafted by Green Bay. And now, wait--we're going to have to wait for Campbell's FOURTH season IN THIS SYSTEM to have success? As for Mark's 20 TDs/19 INTs, that's not great but it just goes to prove that having some INTs is not the final determinant of success or failure. I think they had Natrone Means near the goal line, anyway. Risk-taking is not going to kill you, so long as you're good enough to overcome the mistakes. But if you struggle to throw any TDs OR yards OR get points, then you aren't worth much as a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuryYourDuke Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Don't come in here with logic. Jason Campbell will probably still need a better offensive line, more receivers, and more time to learn the offense when he is 30. I wonder why some people have such devotion to him when they were so against Brunell? I wonder if we had Leftwich as the back up and not Collins...would things be different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Isn't it likely that the lesson to be learned from the Patriots this season is that a QB's success has more to do with the coaching, the scheme and the supporting cast than most fans realize? Those factors are not unimportant but there's a difference between reaching really elite levels of success and showing you have something to offer as a QB are two different things. Would you agree that Tampa's line is decent (Earnest Graham all of a sudden is something) and that they have a pretty good coach and system? But not every Qb is equal to that team. If you're not going to have a Bill B as coach and Randy Moss to toss the ball up to, that means the QB becomes more important. So, barring an all-Hall of Fame team, should we maybe try to invest more energy in finding the right fit? Chad Pennington was still a decent QB in NYG but just not great enough to guarantee a SB trip. Now look at him. Do you think we would be a better team this year if we had Chad Pennington all year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaj23 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Well, I don't know if it was his fourth year in the system. Remember he was drafted by Green Bay.And now, wait--we're going to have to wait for Campbell's FOURTH season IN THIS SYSTEM to have success? As for Mark's 20 TDs/19 INTs, that's not great but it just goes to prove that having some INTs is not the final determinant of success or failure. I think they had Natrone Means near the goal line, anyway. I didnt say anything at all about waiting for Campbell to have 4 yrs in a system. Campbell has only been one year into Zorn's system and you want to toss him now. And youre right about Brunell it was his second year starting BUT his first actually season starting all 16 games. As a side note, that Jags club went 9-7 as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 I didnt say anything at all about waiting for Campbell to have 4 yrs in a system. My point was that you should prolly have some decent sucess. Whereas Campbell has only been one year into Zorn's system and you want to toss him now. And youre right about Brunell it was his second year starting BUT his first actually season starting all 16 games.As a side note, that Jags club went 9-7 as well.... Yeah, and they were a second year team. They had just been introduced to the NFL as an organization in 1995. So, essentially in his second year with a team that had no previous history, organizational structure, etc---he went to the AFC Title game. And back then, the AFC was the superior conference and 9-7 there is just a touch more impressive than finishing possibly last in the NFC East, even though it's a pretty good division. Also, maybe their D wasn't as good as ours is now. You have to look at the sum total of what a team has and just ask that the QB do his job. Neil Lomax was a better QB than Brunell or Campbell. Because he didn't always have teams with the best records doesn't matter. Besides, without him the Cardinals were awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Here's something we're missing here. Our team finished, what, 6-10 in 2006? Now, the way I view it is if we lose today that's two games difference. But our defense was AWFUL that year and our defense this year is a top-5 type defensive squad. Also, no Clinton Portis for much of the year. And since Jason's numbers are quite similar to Mark's in 2006, I think it might be fair to expect that WITH a Clinton Portis, with a top 5 type defense--that we'd be better than 9-7 or last in the division. Wouldn't you? The problem is that even with fairly similar numbers and 'better QB play' Jason has led the team to a mediocre record that is kind of an improvement over a team that had a brand new system in the run and pass game and an awful defense and was missing it's best offensive player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaj23 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Yeah, and they were a second year team. They had just been introduced to the NFL as an organization in 1995.So, essentially in his second year with a team that had no previous history, organizational structure, etc---he went to the AFC Title game. And back then, the AFC was the superior conference and 9-7 there is just a touch more impressive than finishing possibly last in the NFC East, even though it's a pretty good division. Also, maybe their D wasn't as good as ours is now. You have to look at the sum total of what a team has and just ask that the QB do his job. Neil Lomax was a better QB than Brunell or Campbell. Because he didn't always have teams with the best records doesn't matter. Besides, without him the Cardinals were awful. To be honest, I was 11 back in 96 and didnt really follow football....but to respond to your point. The fact that they had sucess in their second year shows that other factors were present as well. Such as a good coach, and I think they had two pretty good receivers as well. You have to look at the sum total of what a team has and just ask that the QB do his job.....This is a great point, look at our team, we are not built to throw we are built to run so thats what Campbell is asked to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emor09 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 i rooted for Brunell, but did not support him i do support Campbell now these are different circumstances...apples/oranges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 The difference is that Brunell had a chance to be in the same system for more then a year before people started ****ing and moaning. Yeah I know it was Saunders playbook, but it was still the same philosophy. Campbell is in a west coast offense and is doing ALMOST (another topic for another day) everything he can to win games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 The difference is that Brunell had a chance to be in the same system for more then a year before people started ****ing and moaning. Yeah I know it was Saunders playbook, but it was still the same philosophy. Campbell is in a west coast offense and is doing ALMOST (another topic for another day) everything he can to win games. When is 10 points a game and 3 points outside of a turnover deep in Philly territory acceptable production from the offense, LET ALONE 'everything he can do to win games?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emor09 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 When is 10 points a game and 3 points outside of a turnover deep in Philly territory acceptable production from the offense, LET ALONE 'everything he can do to win games?' read all the other threads...IT IS NOT CAMPBELL'S FAULT He has NO time to scan the field His receievers get NO seperation He gets (relatively) NO chances to throw down the field Tom Brady couldnt succeed under these circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilskinzfan47 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Exactly,great post.And No i did not support him.Nor do i support Campbell.Neither QB's could generate an offense.Jason learned from watching Brunell.Thats like cheating off the dumbest kid in class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 If you're not going to have a Bill B as coach and Randy Moss to toss the ball up to, that means the QB becomes more important. If you mean that he has to be that much better to take up the slack, I agree. Here's the core problem. There is no objective way to grade QBs. The stats used are team stats. We can't grade Cassell isolated from the contributions of his teammates and coaches. We don't know whether to give him an A, B or C. Jake Plummer's stats improved by 50% when he left the Cards and went to the Broncos. Garcia's did the same when he went from Detroit to Philly. In judging QBs, I look for mechanics and accuracy (not completion percentages), but when a passing play fails, I usually have no idea why it failed because I didn't design the play and don't have film to study. Pennington is very accurate but, like Todd Collins, he lacks the arm strength to stretch the field. Defenses compress the field on him which limits his effectiveness when pressured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Tom Brady couldnt succeed under these circumstances Really?? Up until the acquistion of Moss and Welker, just who did Brady have to throw to? You also forget that guys like Brady,Brees and Manning can actually READ a defense and pick out the single coverage instead of locking on to Moss and trying to drill a pass into 3 defenders. Keep feeding quarters into the Campbell Excuse Machine. Wouldn't want it to expire........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilskinzfan47 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Really??Up until the acquistion of Moss and Welker, just who did Brady have to throw to? You also forget that guys like Brady,Brees and Manning can actually READ a defense and pick out the single coverage instead of locking on to Moss and trying to drill a pass into 3 defenders. Keep feeding quarters into the Campbell Excuse Machine. Wouldn't want it to expire........... :notworthy:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 When is 10 points a game and 3 points outside of a turnover deep in Philly territory acceptable production from the offense, LET ALONE 'everything he can do to win games?' We want more offensive production. I think that means that Zorn, the O line, the receivers, the RBs and the QB need to improve. I can't reduce the problem to "he" -- meaning the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinned em' Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 I was a huge supporter. Still am. He's super smart, accurate, and could read a defense. Brunell was at the tail end of his career with us and still I'd start him over campbell any day. I remember when there were a bunch of people calling for his head and had those stupid sigs with campbell and the slogan "the future is now". He was often bashed for dinking and dunking, and now I see campbell cant even dink and dunk correctly. Brunell was an effective qb IMO. He wasn't a world beater, but he was a good decision maker, and could LEAD. SUPER SMART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaj23 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Really??Up until the acquistion of Moss and Welker, just who did Brady have to throw to? You also forget that guys like Brady,Brees and Manning can actually READ a defense and pick out the single coverage instead of locking on to Moss and trying to drill a pass into 3 defenders. Keep feeding quarters into the Campbell Excuse Machine. Wouldn't want it to expire........... So your going to compare Campbell to Brady, Brees and Manning. Come on now, we all know Campbell isnt that good. Campbell is in a new system, you have to give him more than a year. How did Brees do when he first started out with the Chargers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Up until the acquistion of Moss and Welker, just who did Brady have to throw to? The receivers are just one aspect of the QB's support system as you know. Still, I think you should compare Tom Brady's stats in 2006, without top notch receivers, to his 2007 stats. There's a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emor09 Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 Really??Up until the acquistion of Moss and Welker, just who did Brady have to throw to? You also forget that guys like Brady,Brees and Manning can actually READ a defense and pick out the single coverage instead of locking on to Moss and trying to drill a pass into 3 defenders. Keep feeding quarters into the Campbell Excuse Machine. Wouldn't want it to expire........... Tom Brady had a great o-line guys like Deon Branch and Troy Brown got some seperation, and could catch the ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.