Campbell To Compete For No. 2 Spot In Training Camp

[Mursilis]

Regardless of how anyone here feels about him, he's still our starter and I find immense pleasure in the fact that it pisses a lot of you off.

Whatever. We all want the same thing - for this team to win, and its players to excel. I'm sure you're right that MB will start, so if he's doing great, I'm certainly not going to complain, and if he's awful, I'm certainly not going to be happy about it because it proves me 'right' on some internet message board. Whoever Gibbs puts out there, I'm going to support 100%.

[Mursilis]

Brunell is the best QB on this team, and on the team the previous two seasons, as well.

What?!?! Did you miss the entire '04 season? Even CLL said MB was awful then. He was much, much better in '05, but '04 was just a nightmare. It later came out that MB had a serious hamstring injury that year, and it clearly affected his play. Ramsey was a huge upgrade when MB was finally benched that year.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Brunell is the best QB on this team, and on the team the previous two easons, as well.

Don't play games with statistics. They are illusions. Count the wins. Watch the game.

Um, in 2004 Brunell went 3-6 as the starter and Ramsey went 3-4. I'm pretty sure that 63.9 quarterback rating wasn't an illusion. And if he plays that poorly again in 2006 (which I doubt he will), it better not take nine weeks to make the switch.

[PulpExposure]

Brunell is the best QB on this team, and on the team the previous two seasons, as well.

What?!?! Did you miss the entire '04 season? Even CLL said MB was awful then. He was much, much better in '05, but '04 was just a nightmare. It later came out that MB had a serious hamstring injury that year, and it clearly affected his play. Ramsey was a huge upgrade when MB was finally benched that year.

I'd say he was the best QB we had last year, without a doubt. But uh...the season before? That's crazy talk. The QB "play" out of Brunell in the 2004 season was possibly the worse I'd ever seen in my quarter century of being a Skins fan.

I was actually comparing his play to Tony Banks, Cary Conklin's, John Freisz' and even old Heath Shulers...and I think Brunell was worse than all of them in 2004.

[Californiaskin]

Jason Campbell should be #2.........Todd Collins sucks........Brunell played great last year/ should have gotten the pro bowl nod over vick. I cant believe we are talking Collins #2 after last weeks "Todd Collins Sucks" thread led so many of you to say he will never see the field........Collins #2? Yikes #2 QB will probably play alot and we have NO chance if Collins plays.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Jason Campbell should be #2.........Todd Collins sucks........Brunell played great last year/ should have gotten the pro bowl nod over vick. I cant believe we are talking Collins #2 after last weeks "Todd Collins Sucks" thread led so many of you to say he will never see the field........Collins #2? Yikes #2 QB will probably play alot and we have NO chance if Collins plays.

1st of all I believe Collins was brought in for a few reasons and the most important being to simplify/explain the schemes to Mark and Jason.

The next reason he was brought in is that IF Brunell goes down and JC hasn't grasped the offense we'll have someone here that may not be the physical specimen we want but can still run the offense. The guy Ive heard isn't any good but he knows the offense and thats not a bad thing. As long as he goes in with the mindset of playing safe and not doing too much we'll be fine.

JC will have to learn this new offense from scratch just like Mark. Mark has an advantage of being a veteran and will be able to pick it up a lot quicker.

Jason is the QB in this roster with the hardest job this offseason. He's still pretty much a rookie, he has limited experience, a new offense to learn and not too much timing with the WR's in contrast to Brunell. IF Jason can still excel and beat Collins soundly for the #2 spot then Ill be more than extremely pleased. They said he's had a multitude of new schemes thrown his way over his collegiate career so hopefully the complexity of Saunders scheme or the lack thereof will not be too much of a challenge.

[The Hogster]

Either way...his numbers were only marginally lower than Delhomme's and he outclassed Delhomme against the Seattle Seahawks defense in the playoffs.

that is not correct. brunell was Absolutely Terrible against the seahawks in the playoffs. he hit a few big plays toward the end that padded his stats, but the game was already out of hand. the stats don't tell the story. i have the game on tape and brunell was cover-your-eyes awful.

Brunell was so bad in the playoffs, that I think the USPTO has granted him a registered trade mark on the phrase Absolutely Terrible.

Still, he was great early in the season last year, and hopefully Jason will be ready if he falters again (or gets hurt).

Brunell played fine against Seattle. Just look at what Jake Delhomme and Rothlisberger did against that Seattle Defense. Rothlisberger had 123 yds and a 22.6 Passer rating in the Superbowl. Delhomme was even worse. STOP CRYING..Brunell can manage a good team. Face the facts, we had a depleted O-Line, No second receiver, our running game wasn't clicking and they were double and tripling Santana. Oh, and by the way, Seattle's defense was damn good and they shut down Delhomme and Ben as well. Stop Crying

[1niksder]

Jason Campbell should be #2.........Todd Collins sucks........Brunell played great last year/ should have gotten the pro bowl nod over vick. I cant believe we are talking Collins #2 after last weeks "Todd Collins Sucks" thread led so many of you to say he will never see the field........Collins #2? Yikes #2 QB will probably play alot and we have NO chance if Collins plays.

1st of all I believe Collins was brought in for a few reasons and the most important being to simplify/explain the schemes to Mark and Jason.

The next reason he was brought in is that IF Brunell goes down and JC hasn't grasped the offense we'll have someone here that may not be the physical specimen we want but can still run the offense. The guy Ive heard isn't any good but he knows the offense and that's not a bad thing. As long as he goes in with the mindset of playing safe and not doing too much we'll be fine.

JC will have to learn this new offense from scratch just like Mark. Mark has an advantage of being a veteran and will be able to pick it up a lot quicker.

Jason is the QB in this roster with the hardest job this off season. He's still pretty much a rookie, he has limited experience, a new offense to learn and not too much timing with the WR's in contrast to Brunell. IF Jason can still excel and beat Collins soundly for the #2 spot then Ill be more than extremely pleased. They said he's had a multitude of new schemes thrown his way over his collegiate career so hopefully the complexity of Saunders scheme or the lack thereof will not be too much of a challenge.

At this point how can you name anyone the #2. Before I go any further let me ask who could you name #1 other than MB?.

I've read here, that Mark should have to earn the #1 spot. OK. Didn't he?.. didn't he lead his team into the playoffs (beyond the WC game)? I can think of 20 QBs that didn't do that last year. But back on topic....

Mark will be #1 because it's his job to lose(that's all being a starter means).
Unlike Brunell both Campbell and Collins will have to get use to the receivers (Gibbs doesn't give his backups much time in practice, so JC needs as much work as he can get). Brunell has worked with most of the player on offense and the new guys will have to adjust to him. (Campbell and Collins don't get this luxury).
Campbell is the Washington Redskins 2006 #1 draft pick no matter how you look at it. (In hindsight it was brilliant, I'll get to that in another thread)...

Campbell has had a year in the training room and has sat in more classrooms in the last year than the whole time he spent at AU. Collins has been in Saunders scheme for longer then he can probably remember. He'll NEVER be a starter but to have been in the league as a #3 this long means he is capable of coming in and running the offense at a level where he won't HURT the team but will only be able to do enough to keep the team afloat (3rd stringers have about a 1 month lifespan). If a team turns to thier no.3 then times are really hard (some teams don't even dress a #3 some weeks)

Considering who coaches the Redskins and how he handles QBs, I'd think back in the day it would be Brunell, Collins then Campbell. Wouldn't be any competion for #2 the guy with the experience had the job to lose.

For Gibbs to say that Jason will compete for the #2 spot means, with his lack of time in the league, unfamiluarity with the players and scheme, Gibbs thinks he can compete to be the guy we go to if the starter goes down - even though he has a guy that has been in the league (on the field in this offense), and who know the scheme like the back of his hand.

This could mean that Jason is progressing very well

[HEROHAMO]

Either way...his numbers were only marginally lower than Delhomme's and he outclassed Delhomme against the Seattle Seahawks defense in the playoffs.

that is not correct. brunell was Absolutely Terrible against the seahawks in the playoffs. he hit a few big plays toward the end that padded his stats, but the game was already out of hand. the stats don't tell the story. i have the game on tape and brunell was cover-your-eyes awful.

Brunell was so bad in the playoffs, that I think the USPTO has granted him a registered trade mark on the phrase Absolutely Terrible.

Still, he was great early in the season last year, and hopefully Jason will be ready if he falters again (or gets hurt).

Brunell played fine against Seattle. Just look at what Jake Delhomme and Rothlisberger did against that Seattle Defense. Rothlisberger had 123 yds and a 22.6 Passer rating in the Superbowl. Delhomme was even worse. STOP CRYING..Brunell can manage a good team. Face the facts, we had a depleted O-Line, No second receiver, our running game wasn't clicking and they were double and tripling Santana. Oh, and by the way, Seattle's defense was damn good and they shut down Delhomme and Ben as well. Stop Crying

So If we had a second reciever things would have been different. I dont think so. Look to the past and youll see all you need to know. In Jacksonville Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Mccardell also one of the best O-lines at the time which consisted of Tony Boselli and Leon Searcy. They also had a stellar running game at the time with Fred Taylor. So what makes you think an older version of Brunell can make it happen. He had a good team then and also has a good team now. Pro Bowler no way. Portis,Sean Taylor,Marcus Washington,Sean Springs should have gone to the Pro Bowl. There was a string of games where Brunell was no where to be found. Even at the end of the year it was Portis and the defense who carried us into the playoffs and that is a fact you cant denie. Portis gave us I believe 1300-1500 yards couple that with our defense and that is why we got into the playoffs. All brunell had to do was just not make to many mistakes. I for one want a dynamic Qb for once someone like Farve,Montana ,Elway,Unitas,Namath not some medicre dude who always dissapears in the crunch time.

[Chris Luva Luva]

So with Moss double/trippled and ey shutdown who was he supposed to throw it to?

Dont say Farris or Jacobs, seriously.

[1niksder]

So If we had a second reciever things would have been different. I dont think so. Look to the past and youll see all you need to know. In Jacksonville Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Mccardell also one of the best O-lines at the time which consisted of Tony Boselli and Leon Searcy. They also had a stellar running game at the time with Fred Taylor. So what makes you think an older version of Brunell can make it happen. He had a good team then and also has a good team now. Pro Bowler no way. Portis,Sean Taylor,Marcus Washington,Sean Springs should have gone to the Pro Bowl. There was a string of games where Brunell was no where to be found. Even at the end of the year it was Portis and the defense who carried us into the playoffs and that is a fact you cant denie. Portis gave us I believe 1300-1500 yards couple that with our defense and that is why we got into the playoffs. All brunell had to do was just not make to many mistakes. I for one want a dynamic Qb for once someone like Farve,Montana ,Elway,Unitas,Namath not some medicre dude who always dissapears in the crunch time.

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

How are you going to knock the 1st guy to get us to the post season in a decade. A new season hasn't started and some have casted him aside. With J. Campbell the big unknown (to us anyway) and Collins being a carrer 3rd teamer do you really thing Gibbs would go into a offseason without a good idea who will be the starter? Mark has shown the most of all QBs on the roster. As taken us further than any QB has in ten years. Say what you want about him but say thanks every now and then, he's not going to be around that much longer.

[Steve Spurrier III]

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

What you (and others) seem to be missing is that Mark Brunell of the Jaguars AFC championship teams is a far different quarterback than the one that will take the field in 2006.

In some ways he's better and in some ways he's worse, but anyone who has watched him play over the past ten years knows that he is totally different player - it just isn't a useful comparison.

[The Hogster]

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

What you (and others) seem to be missing is that Mark Brunell of the Jaguars AFC championship teams is a far different quarterback than the one that will take the field in 2006.

In some ways he's better and in some ways he's worse, but anyone who has watched him play over the past ten years knows that he is totally different player - it just isn't a useful comparison.

Look Steve Spurrier ( by the way, change your name) anyway...no one is 'missing' that Brunell is older. That is not the point. This is likely his last year as the starter, but anyway...the point is he has played well enough for us to advance in the Superbowl. People are downplaying how close we got last year.

We've improved the team around him and we don't need him to be Peyton Manning out there, we just need him to manage the game...period.

We don't have Favre, Unitas, Elway or some other All Time Great...get realistic.

[The Hogster]

Herohamo wrote:

So if we had a second receiver things would have been different?

Uh, yes it would. What do you expect a QB to do when he only has one legitimate receiver who is triple teamed?
Oh, and the running game isn't clicking? Be realistic.

[/b]

[1niksder]

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

What you (and others) seem to be missing is that Mark Brunell of the Jaguars AFC championship teams is a far different quarterback than the one that will take the field in 2006.

In some ways he's better and in some ways he's worse, but anyone who has watched him play over the past ten years knows that he is totally different player - it just isn't a useful comparison.

Uhmm I didn't miss anything... I saw Mark when Jacksonville was the talk of the AFC, I saw Mark when MaCardell left for more money. I've seen Mark with Kenna Gone, Jimmy suspended and Fred on the shelf. I remember all of that. I remember what Mark did last year Before he was hurt and I looked at what he did after he came back from injury. Then I looked at him after week three 2004 and how he looked after he came back last year. It's not the same situation.

Portis wasn't the same player last year that he was the year before - he adjusted to the situation that he is in. Mark is doing the same thing. If anything I think he'll be better this year thn he was last. I also have my doubts about him making it 20 games, that's not a knock on him or the O-line it's just a fact of life when your QB is 36

[HEROHAMO]

So If we had a second reciever things would have been different. I dont think so. Look to the past and youll see all you need to know. In Jacksonville Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Mccardell also one of the best O-lines at the time which consisted of Tony Boselli and Leon Searcy. They also had a stellar running game at the time with Fred Taylor. So what makes you think an older version of Brunell can make it happen. He had a good team then and also has a good team now. Pro Bowler no way. Portis,Sean Taylor,Marcus Washington,Sean Springs should have gone to the Pro Bowl. There was a string of games where Brunell was no where to be found. Even at the end of the year it was Portis and the defense who carried us into the playoffs and that is a fact you cant denie. Portis gave us I believe 1300-1500 yards couple that with our defense and that is why we got into the playoffs. All brunell had to do was just not make to many mistakes. I for one want a dynamic Qb for once someone like Farve,Montana ,Elway,Unitas,Namath not some medicre dude who always dissapears in the crunch time.

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

How are you going to knock the 1st guy to get us to the post season in a decade. A new season hasn't started and some have casted him aside. With J. Campbell the big unknown (to us anyway) and Collins being a carrer 3rd teamer do you really thing Gibbs would go into a offseason without a good idea who will be the starter? Mark has shown the most of all QBs on the roster. As taken us further than any QB has in ten years. Say what you want about him but say thanks every now and then, he's not going to be around that much longer.

Ok you did help shed some light upon this subject. You are right and did help me realize I might be knockin him a little too much. I will say this I just dont think he is the next coming of Joe Montana but he did the best he could for us. Thanx to Mark Brunell and the rest of the skins for helping us get our first playoff birth in ten years. One real thing I must thank him for is those two passes to Moss in the Fourth Quarter against the hated pukes. That I can sincerely say I am thankfull for. Here on out I stop knockin Mark Fellas Ok!!

[The Hogster]

So If we had a second reciever things would have been different. I dont think so. Look to the past and youll see all you need to know. In Jacksonville Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Mccardell also one of the best O-lines at the time which consisted of Tony Boselli and Leon Searcy. They also had a stellar running game at the time with Fred Taylor. So what makes you think an older version of Brunell can make it happen. He had a good team then and also has a good team now. Pro Bowler no way. Portis,Sean Taylor,Marcus Washington,Sean Springs should have gone to the Pro Bowl. There was a string of games where Brunell was no where to be found. Even at the end of the year it was Portis and the defense who carried us into the playoffs and that is a fact you cant denie. Portis gave us I believe 1300-1500 yards couple that with our defense and that is why we got into the playoffs. All brunell had to do was just not make to many mistakes. I for one want a dynamic Qb for once someone like Farve,Montana ,Elway,Unitas,Namath not some medicre dude who always dissapears in the crunch time.

In JAcksonville when he had Jimmy, Keenan and Fred he went to the AFC Title game. With Moss, ey, and CP he was 1 game off the pace. What I'm I missing here?

How are you going to knock the 1st guy to get us to the post season in a decade. A new season hasn't started and some have casted him aside. With J. Campbell the big unknown (to us anyway) and Collins being a carrer 3rd teamer do you really thing Gibbs would go into a offseason without a good idea who will be the starter? Mark has shown the most of all QBs on the roster. As taken us further than any QB has in ten years. Say what you want about him but say thanks every now and then, he's not going to be around that much longer.

Ok you did help shed some light upon this subject. You are right and did help me realize I might be knockin him a little too much. I will say this I just dont think he is the next coming of Joe Montana but he did the best he could for us. Thanx to Mark Brunell and the rest of the skins for helping us get our first playoff birth in ten years. One real thing I must thank him for is those two passes to Moss in the Fourth Quarter against the hated pukes. That I can sincerely say I am thankfull for. Here on out I stop knockin Mark Fellas Ok!!

That's all some of us ask. Be reasonable when you criticize the guy. Since we watch every game and don't watch every snap of the other 31 QBs for an entire year, we have a tendency to be unrealistic in our comparisons. Why?

Because we see all of Brunell's bad plays as fans. However, when you get highlights from other teams, you only see a watered down version. We see Hasselbeck throwing to Darell Jackson, but you don't see the interceptions he had two series earlier.

We see the Delhomme to Smith hookups, but don't really see the 3 ints he throws in one game.

If you take a step back it's clear. Mark Brunell is no Joe Montana or Elway...hell he's not even a young Mark Brunell, but relatively speaking, he played better than most QB's in the league last year.

With a great defense, good running game and more weapons, the rest of the team can compliment his play and win more games.

[cvillehog]

Either way...his numbers were only marginally lower than Delhomme's and he outclassed Delhomme against the Seattle Seahawks defense in the playoffs.

that is not correct. brunell was Absolutely Terrible against the seahawks in the playoffs. he hit a few big plays toward the end that padded his stats, but the game was already out of hand. the stats don't tell the story. i have the game on tape and brunell was cover-your-eyes awful.

Brunell was so bad in the playoffs, that I think the USPTO has granted him a registered trade mark on the phrase Absolutely Terrible.

Still, he was great early in the season last year, and hopefully Jason will be ready if he falters again (or gets hurt).

Brunell played fine against Seattle. Just look at what Jake Delhomme and Rothlisberger did against that Seattle Defense. Rothlisberger had 123 yds and a 22.6 Passer rating in the Superbowl. Delhomme was even worse. STOP CRYING..Brunell can manage a good team. Face the facts, we had a depleted O-Line, No second receiver, our running game wasn't clicking and they were double and tripling Santana. Oh, and by the way, Seattle's defense was damn good and they shut down Delhomme and Ben as well. Stop Crying

The only whining and crying I hear is coming from you. Brunell did not play well late in the season or in the playoffs. For WHATEVER reason. If you say you think he played well, then you basically lose all credibility when it comes to evaluating what you see on the field.

[air_hog]

I keep hearning all these guys whining that Mark Brunell is too old and can't make plays. That all he does in go in and not make mistakes, instead of making plays.

And that is freakin hillarious.

That's what Mark is supposed to do, manage the game, you know, like a quaterback.

In Joe Gibbs' offense, the quaterback isn't supposed to throw for 3 TD's a game. Look at Williams or Rypien. Sure Doug lit it up in the Super Bowl, but he wasn't neccessarilly a Daunte Cullpepper or Peyton Manning kind of guy, he was a winner, a Tom Brady, a Mark Brunell.

[welch]

Credibility can go fly a kite.

Brunell played fine throughout the year. He was less effective when Patten went out, and when Thomas got hurt and Portis wore down. And so????

Does anyone remember Cowboys II? The Showdown. The mighty Cowboys, cheated out of a win in Dallas, coming to Washington to show the Redskins who's best. The score?

And lets remember: 5 wins and 6 losses, but what happened? Who won those last five games? Redskins or the other guys? Did they finish out aginst the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles?

Who led the team?

And of those six losses, does anyone want to remember Robert Royal and the consecutive drops, when one catch would have sustained a drive and clinched the game?

Watch the play. Brunell leads the team. he decides. He makes the right throws. He has some snap on his passes, and he can still throw deep, and he knows when to throw the ball away.

I'll say it again for the young ones. Brunell is better than Billy Kilmer, and Billy led the Redskins to the playoffs four times. Most of those years, Kilmer had Jerry Smith, the best pass-catching TE of the 60's and 70's. He had Charley Taylor, who was NFL rookie of the year as a running back -- a running back -- and who converted to become one of the all-time best WR's. Imagine: if Edgerrin James was 6-3 and 217 pounds, and the fastest player on the team, and had the best hands, and was converted to WR. Smith and Taylor made a difference, as did Roy Jefferson, who was another big WR. And Kilmer had Larry Brown, the best runner/receiver in Redskins history.

Brunell had one dangerous receiver by the end of the season, and Portis -- the next Brown -- was battered. Defenses had to cover Moss...and nobody else.

Is Brunell as good as Jurgenson or Baugh when they were 36? No. So what?

And, please have some perspective. Who are these guys Montana and Elway that everyone mentions? Is Elway that guy who got smoked by Charles Mann and Dave Butz and the Redskins in SB 22? Help me remember: who threw four TD's in the second quarter of that game? This Elway, or a guy named Doug Williams, who wore a white jersey, burgundy pants, a burgundy helmet with a Redskin on the side?

If you want to make comparisons, compare Brunell to Sonny and Billy. Better than Billy, who was a tough guy and a winner. Not as good as Sonny, who is among the all-time greats. He's good enough.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Look Steve Spurrier ( by the way, change your name)

Thanks for the suggestion. I wish I could say that I was suprised that some people here need things dumbed down for them...

anyway...no one is 'missing' that Brunell is older. That is not the point.

Really? Then why are all the Jacksonville comparisons coming up? If everyone recognizes that Brunell 2006 is a different player than Brunell 1996, why do we keep seeing names like McCardell, Smith and Taylor?

This is likely his last year as the starter, but anyway...the point is he has played well enough for us to advance in the Superbowl. People are downplaying how close we got last year.

We've improved the team around him and we don't need him to be Peyton Manning out there, we just need him to manage the game...period.

We don't have Favre, Unitas, Elway or some other All Time Great...get realistic.

I hope this was directed at somebody else, because I never said that Brunell wouldn't be capable of winning games next season.

[die cowboys die]

And lets remember: 5 wins and 6 losses, but what happened? Who won those last five games? Redskins or the other guys? Did they finish out aginst the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles?

Who led the team?

the defense.



anyways, i think most of us who are skeptical about brunell are of the mindset that if he could stay healthy all year, that would be swell and we feel confident in his abilities as a QB. i would be thrilled if he play all of 2006 as well as he played the early portion of 2005.

however, we simply believe this to be a statistical improbability. he has not been healthy for an entire season at least three years in a row, and he is only getting older. so i think this sparks the debate. do we go with:

A: risk losing a brunell toward the end of the season/playoffs, when he could only be replaced by either a guy who's never played a game or a #3 QB.
and as a result, we end up going into next year with our probably starter (campbell) still not very ready to play.

or,
B: risk getting too far behind in the beginning of the year as campbell takes his lumps... and even if we make the playoffs, 1st year starters don't usually do too well...

?

it's a legitimate debate, on both sides of the issue. my 2 cents is that you obviously go with whoever looks best in offseason/preseason. if somehow they appear equal, there is no question you go with campbell. that way you are working for the future and the present simultaneously.

[1niksder]

anyway...no one is 'missing' that Brunell is older. That is not the point.

Really? Then why are all the Jacksonville comparisons coming up? If everyone recognizes that Brunell 2006 is a different player than Brunell 1996, why do we keep seeing names like McCardell, Smith and Taylor?

Brunell's ex teammates came up because someone pointed out tha Mark only had 1 WR late last year, then someone said he had all those guys in Jacksonville and didn't when anything.
I'm not debating if Brunell's age has effected his play or not. I'm just saying his play wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be.
And those names had only come up twice in a 18 page thread

[The Hogster]

The inability to watch and learn for some of you is hilarious. I can't convince you right now that Gibbs knows what he's doing.

You will have to wait and see for yourselves. Joe Gibbs wants what is best for our team. If he thought that we needed another veteran QB to get the job done, of course with our owner we would have gone out and gotten that guy.

Mark is older, DURHHH. But he's still playing at a winning level.

The most illogical suggestion that I have heard is that you should speculate that Brunell will be injured, so in anticipation of that you start Campbell??

That makes no sense. If Brunell is the better option for us to win games, then you play him. That is why you have backups...so IF something happens then they play. You don't start your 2nd stringer just because there is a statistical probabiity that he will get hurt.

There is a probability that every QB will go down, that doesn't mean that you start off with your backup as the starter.

You don't have to convince Joe Gibbs that Campbell is a great QB for the future. Ummm...HE is the one that traded so much to draft him. Even to the consternation of pessimistic fans who were convinced that we should have drafted Mike Williams.

Anyway, I don't know what else Brunell had to do last year to prove to you that he can play. He put one receiver in the Pro Bowl, won 10 games, (11 if you consider that Alstott's elbow was down) and put up a respectable showing vs Seattle. I guess you want to go back to the days where everyone loved our QB for his toughness, but we were losing everyweek.

[Irn-Bru]

And lets remember: 5 wins and 6 losses, but what happened? Who won those last five games? Redskins or the other guys? Did they finish out aginst the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles?

Who led the team?

the defense.

Yes, the defense led our team to 24 points, 17 points, 35 points, 35 points, and 31 points in the last 5 games of the season.


Don't get me wrong. Our defense was phenomenal, and without them we would not have been in the playoffs. BUT, this was not the same team as 2 years ago, when all we had was a defense.


I'm sorry, but just because you don't like Brunell, and don't think that he can lead this team in the upcoming season, is not a good enough reason to pretend like he was not one of the teams best leaders in last year's final run.


As welch said, "credibility can go fly a kite." I'll quit following this thread now and wait for the next big catastrophe to take center stage. How will Gibbs screw up next? (Stay tuned. . . .)