Campbell Breadown On ESPN Insider

[roybus14]

That was a great article but the guy failed to mention that JC does have some issues with putting the ball in the right place on short passes in the flats. We had a third down on Sunday where Moss was wide open under Al Harris and JC just completely led him too much to a point where Moss had to dive and miss the catch. But other than that, dude is right on and JC is the right guy for this team and system. They just need to cut him loose a little more and get that running game going to create more opportunities for him to use that arm on play action to Lloyd (chuckle) deep...

Going there with Ramsey. SS ruined him, period. But I think that Gibbs should have stuck with the kid and kept him here. The QB rotation should be JC, Brunell, and Ramsey or JC, Ramsey and Brunell. Yes Brunell was horrible but you would still have a veteran guy that knows the offense and Ramsey could rejuvenate himself, learn this offense and then become a solid backup to JC. Then we could move forward with either a younger veteran or a young guy as #3 and let Brunell retire.

[PulpExposure]

JC def has a much higher ceiling. Ramsey didn't have any pocket awareness, but I think he could have learned it if he could have sat and watched a real vet QB play for a season.

Seriously, it had to have helped Campbell to watch Brunell during the 05 and 06 seasons. Ok, more the 2005 season. While Brunell's arm was/is awful, he was very good at sliding around in the pocket.

Brunell had no pocket presence whatsoever in 04,05, or 06. At the first sign of pressure he would just chuck the ball out of bounds. He very rarely ever stepped up in the pocket and was afraid to take any type of hit. Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

I hate this kind of revisionism.

Listen, Brunell sucked in 04 and 06. But in 05, he threw for 23 TDs against only 10 picks, and 3050 yards. Considering the QB play we've had in the past oh 15 years, that's stellar.

In 2005, he had a very good year. But many people remember him only from the end of the year, when he was banged up.

[Chris Luva Luva]

In 2005, he had a very good year. But many people remember him only from the end of the year, when he was banged up.

I guess cus he sucked "you know what" when it mattered.

[Irn-Bru]

I hate this kind of revisionism.

I'm with you on that one.

Listen, Brunell sucked in 04 and 06. But in 05, he threw for 23 TDs against only 10 picks, and 3050 yards. Considering the QB play we've had in the past oh 15 years, that's stellar.

In 2005, he had a very good year. But many people remember him only from the end of the year, when he was banged up.

Not to mention zero supporting cast by the end of the year.

I've just decided to stop talking about it on the board. No matter what stats, examples, or reasons you use the perceptions of many aren't going to change. Maybe something needs to be said in defense of Brunell in these situations, but I don't have the energy to be "that guy."

[BnGhog]

I hate this kind of revisionism.

I'm with you on that one.

Listen, Brunell sucked in 04 and 06. But in 05, he threw for 23 TDs against only 10 picks, and 3050 yards. Considering the QB play we've had in the past oh 15 years, that's stellar.

In 2005, he had a very good year. But many people remember him only from the end of the year, when he was banged up.

Not to mention zero supporting cast by the end of the year.

I've just decided to stop talking about it on the board. No matter what stats, examples, or reasons you use the perceptions of many aren't going to change. Maybe something needs to be said in defense of Brunell in these situations, but I don't have the energy to be "that guy."

I haven't seen any one denying him of those stats. He did have stellar stats that year. The point is you can't leave a guy in their who does not perform. How long would leave a guy in that's playing like crap? 1,2 maybe 3 years before giving your young stud draft pick a chance? By then Joe Gibbs would be gone. And JC would have rotted on the bench.

No on is saying Brunell don't deserve credit.(a least from what Ive seen). They just said "finally" when JC got his chance thats all. He's not superman and his skills was on the fall when he arrived. Thats Fact. Not anything personall against him, it was just his age. And I don't matter how good you are, age will always start creeping up on you at some point.

JC gave us the better chance at winning is all. I for one am glad Brunell came here(I know some don't) but consider the way Ramsey was playing and then consider IF buy some chance he didn't get better... then JC had to learn under Ramsey... What would Ramsey teach him???? I'm glad Brunell has him under his wing instead of Ramsey.

[die cowboys die]

they are not saying that brunell didn't do anything good in '05, they are just pointing out the fact that he has always had poor pocket presence. the worst thing that he would do (including in '05) would be to stand in a nice pocket, then suddenly panic because he "felt" like he'd been there too long, and then side step directly into the pass-rush, at which point he would make a quick dodge and heave the ball out of bounds.

let's also not forget that his miserable habit of letting the ball hang out unprotected while he scrambled (even once he committed himself to run!), thus coughing up 11 fumbles in the '05 regular season alone. and how many of those did he commit after a nice long drive into field goal range, only to come away with nothing?

[SkinsJock]

Good read...... true fans already recognize a sparkling Diamond in JC.

Boy, imagine had we played the kid earlier rather than sticking with Brunell - oh well, if his receivers can catch the daggone ball we will be fine.

Exactly. Some people called for JC to be the starter out of training camp last year, and they caught a ton of grief for it, but by the end of the year, the Brunell bandwagon was pretty empty.

I am very glad that Gibbs was patient enough with Campbell - imagine if he had started him earlier as many here wanted him to - Gibbs found him and even though he would have loved us to see the potential Gibbs recognized, he waited until he (Gibbs) felt he was ready - there are many here who would be crucifying him if it didn't work out as it obviously has - so many fans are so much brighter than most who are coaching right now, it's truly a shame that the game cannot prosper from their input, oh well

[BeeGee]

Good read...... true fans already recognize a sparkling Diamond in JC.

Boy, imagine had we played the kid earlier rather than sticking with Brunell - oh well, if his receivers can catch the daggone ball we will be fine.

Who knows what would have happened. If you throw someone in too fast, QBs often sink. Think of Heath Shuler and Patrick Ramsey...ruined because they didn't have enough time to learn before they started.

Ramsey was ruined because Spurrier thought that having and O Line was an option.

What? Block the middle blitz? Why do that?

One of those things for which I can not forgive ESPN was about midway through year 1 of the Spurrier disaster, they ran a piece on QBs who were "tough" which, in this instance, was defined by their ability to bounce back from hits. Didn't even MENTION Patrick. Frankly, I am not in the school of thought that says a better coach would have made Ramsey a star (though I don't believe the argument lacks credence) but he was absolutely a tough guy.

My mother is a diehard Skins fan and I remember watching games with her and she'd utter repeatedly, "can't say this young boy can't take a hit - he's tough!" I think a combination of elements coexisted that made it almost impossible for Ramsey to thrive in DC... most of them concerning Spurrier. The guy never seemed relaxed and his style has to be the worst possible "fit" for a young QB to launch a career under. Throw in the fact that he was running for his life on seemingly every play and the result is a sad one.

[PulpExposure]

they are not saying that brunell didn't do anything good in '05, they are just pointing out the fact that he has always had poor pocket presence. the worst thing that he would do (including in '05) would be to stand in a nice pocket, then suddenly panic because he "felt" like he'd been there too long, and then side step directly into the pass-rush, at which point he would make a quick dodge and heave the ball out of bounds.

Really?

From this post:

Brunell had no pocket presence whatsoever in 04,05, or 06. At the first sign of pressure he would just chuck the ball out of bounds. He very rarely ever stepped up in the pocket and was afraid to take any type of hit. Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

It appears poor pocket presence is only part of what he was saying. He also said, to reiterate, that:

Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

Which is interesting, because somehow, amidst never getting open because of Brunell, Santana Moss still managed to get 1400 yards, and Brunell still threw for 23 TDs.

[CanesSkins26]

they are not saying that brunell didn't do anything good in '05, they are just pointing out the fact that he has always had poor pocket presence. the worst thing that he would do (including in '05) would be to stand in a nice pocket, then suddenly panic because he "felt" like he'd been there too long, and then side step directly into the pass-rush, at which point he would make a quick dodge and heave the ball out of bounds.

Really?

From this post:

Brunell had no pocket presence whatsoever in 04,05, or 06. At the first sign of pressure he would just chuck the ball out of bounds. He very rarely ever stepped up in the pocket and was afraid to take any type of hit. Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

It appears poor pocket presence is only part of what he was saying. He also said, to reiterate, that:

Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

Which is interesting, because somehow, amidst never getting open because of Brunell, Santana Moss still managed to get 1400 yards, and Brunell still threw for 23 TDs.

Brunell had about 5 or 6 good games in 2005. Half of his td's came in a 5 week span early in the season, and outside of the Dallas game later in the year, he was terrible. He was also ineffective in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that turned the ball over 18 times that season. He wasn't as bad as we was in 04 and 06 but he wasn't all that good either. Just take a look at some of his stats from 05. Qb ratings of 32.4, 58.7, 34.2, 52.3 (in the game that we needed to win to clinch the playoff berth), and 25.7 (in the playoffs) were part of Brunell's body of work that season.

[Mursilis]

Good read...... true fans already recognize a sparkling Diamond in JC.

Boy, imagine had we played the kid earlier rather than sticking with Brunell - oh well, if his receivers can catch the daggone ball we will be fine.

Exactly. Some people called for JC to be the starter out of training camp last year, and they caught a ton of grief for it, but by the end of the year, the Brunell bandwagon was pretty empty.

I am very glad that Gibbs was patient enough with Campbell - imagine if he had started him earlier as many here wanted him to - Gibbs found him and even though he would have loved us to see the potential Gibbs recognized, he waited until he (Gibbs) felt he was ready - there are many here who would be crucifying him if it didn't work out as it obviously has - so many fans are so much brighter than most who are coaching right now, it's truly a shame that the game cannot prosper from their input, oh well

Just like Gibbs saw so much potential in Arch and Lloyd. Clearly, Gibbs is never wrong.

[Mursilis]

To be clear, I am saying that Gibbs plus Ramsey still doesn't equal great QB, I think he would have been slotted to the role of decent starter one way or another. And that's not to disparage that type of QB, it's just I don't think Ramsey was a "wow" QB, irrespective of his coach. In a Gibbs offense he's probably fine given what would be asked of him but I think he'd be lost in Saunders offense.

We'll never know now though. The damage has been done and Ramsey probably won't get more than a handful of starts the rest of his career.

[PulpExposure]

they are not saying that brunell didn't do anything good in '05, they are just pointing out the fact that he has always had poor pocket presence. the worst thing that he would do (including in '05) would be to stand in a nice pocket, then suddenly panic because he "felt" like he'd been there too long, and then side step directly into the pass-rush, at which point he would make a quick dodge and heave the ball out of bounds.

Really?

From this post:

Brunell had no pocket presence whatsoever in 04,05, or 06. At the first sign of pressure he would just chuck the ball out of bounds. He very rarely ever stepped up in the pocket and was afraid to take any type of hit. Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

It appears poor pocket presence is only part of what he was saying. He also said, to reiterate, that:

Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

Which is interesting, because somehow, amidst never getting open because of Brunell, Santana Moss still managed to get 1400 yards, and Brunell still threw for 23 TDs.

Brunell had about 5 or 6 good games in 2005. Half of his td's came in a 5 week span early in the season, and outside of the Dallas game later in the year, he was terrible. He was also ineffective in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that turned the ball over 18 times that season. He wasn't as bad as we was in 04 and 06 but he wasn't all that good either. Just take a look at some of his stats from 05. Qb ratings of 32.4, 58.7, 34.2, 52.3 (in the game that we needed to win to clinch the playoff berth), and 25.7 (in the playoffs) were part of Brunell's body of work that season.

Yet somehow, he managed a QB rating of 85.9 that year.

He was a big part of our success that year.

Do you honestly think Campbell or Ramsey would have done as well? And if so, do you have any proof of past success, or is it just your unfounded opinion? Because last time I checked, rookie QBs unilaterally are terrible NFL starters, and Pat Ramsey's best year as a starter was a 75.8 passer rating (14 TDs, 9 INTs, 53.1% completion, and 5 lost fumbles...).

But maybe I'm just uneducated. Teach me. With facts.

[please_remain_calm]

I like the fact he does not get flustered, thats a big plus. There are times when he holds on for too long however thats a learning curve.

He has all the tools to be effective as our QB for a long time, lets hope he develops the way we are willing him to!

[CanesSkins26]

they are not saying that brunell didn't do anything good in '05, they are just pointing out the fact that he has always had poor pocket presence. the worst thing that he would do (including in '05) would be to stand in a nice pocket, then suddenly panic because he "felt" like he'd been there too long, and then side step directly into the pass-rush, at which point he would make a quick dodge and heave the ball out of bounds.

Really?

From this post:

Brunell had no pocket presence whatsoever in 04,05, or 06. At the first sign of pressure he would just chuck the ball out of bounds. He very rarely ever stepped up in the pocket and was afraid to take any type of hit. Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

It appears poor pocket presence is only part of what he was saying. He also said, to reiterate, that:

Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

Which is interesting, because somehow, amidst never getting open because of Brunell, Santana Moss still managed to get 1400 yards, and Brunell still threw for 23 TDs.

Brunell had about 5 or 6 good games in 2005. Half of his td's came in a 5 week span early in the season, and outside of the Dallas game later in the year, he was terrible. He was also ineffective in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that turned the ball over 18 times that season. He wasn't as bad as we was in 04 and 06 but he wasn't all that good either. Just take a look at some of his stats from 05. Qb ratings of 32.4, 58.7, 34.2, 52.3 (in the game that we needed to win to clinch the playoff berth), and 25.7 (in the playoffs) were part of Brunell's body of work that season.

Yet somehow, he managed a QB rating of 85.9 that year.

He was a big part of our success that year.

Do you honestly think Campbell or Ramsey would have done as well? And if so, do you have any proof of past success, or is it just your unfounded opinion? Because last time I checked, rookie QBs unilaterally are terrible NFL starters, and Pat Ramsey's best year as a starter was a 75.8 passer rating (14 TDs, 9 INTs, 53.1% completion, and 5 lost fumbles...).

But maybe I'm just uneducated. Teach me. With facts.

Show me where I said that Ramsey or JC would've done better. You made the outlandish statement that JC benefited from watching Brunell's pocket presence in 2005 and I simply pointed out that Brunell lacked any sort of pocket presence during his tenure here. I stand by that statement 100%. While here he was jittery, rarely stepped up in the pocket, and far too often got rid of the ball before he needed to. Go back and watch some of Brunell's games from 2004-2006 and then come back here and talk about his pocket presence. Yes he did better in 05 than in 04 and 06 but he still wasn't all that good that year and when it mattered most, down the stretch and in the playoffs, Brunell struggled. He was also very inconsistent that season, a fact highlighted but some of the remarkably low qb ratings that he had posted during the 2005 season.

[Paralis]

But maybe I'm just uneducated. Teach me. With facts.

Ben Roethlisberger? 2004? I mean, come on. It's not ancient history.

Besides, it's not like the success or failure of teams starting rookie quarterbacks has that much to do with the QBs themselves. It's that teams starting rookie quarterbacks are nearly always bad teams. The 1998 Colts didn't go 3-13 because they started Peyton Manning on day 1; they went 3-13 because they were one of the worst teams in football the year before and their defense didn't improve.

[Irn-Bru]

It appears poor pocket presence is only part of what he was saying. He also said, to reiterate, that:

Receivers never really had a chance to get open with MB04 because he would get rid of the ball way too early most of the time.

Which is interesting, because somehow, amidst never getting open because of Brunell, Santana Moss still managed to get 1400 yards, and Brunell still threw for 23 TDs.

Brunell had about 5 or 6 good games in 2005. Half of his td's came in a 5 week span early in the season, and outside of the Dallas game later in the year, he was terrible.

This is simply untrue. skinsfan33 has made similar accusations before but couldn't stick around for a debate on the statistics. Brunell had his best statistical stretches near the beginning of the year and during our losing streak, so people tend to discount his performance that season. However, out of the last half of the regular season he really only had two appreciably bad performances (at Arizona and at Philadelphia).

I'll get to the playoffs next:

He was also ineffective in the playoffs.

Correction: our OFFENSE was ineffective in the playoffs. This is what most people ignore. Portis had 2 anemic performances behind a banged-up offensive line. Our receivers, or what was left of them, couldn't get open, and the Redskins had only two viable threats at receiver: an injured Santana Moss and ey.

So, when it was 3rd and 7 after two poor runs by Portis / the offensive line, the defense knew to keep an eye on Moss and watch for the roll-out pass to ey. Unfortunately, we had little else to go on. And for that Brunell shoulders the blame.

So, yes, Brunell was ineffective in the playoffs. And then there's the part that is always omitted.

Not to mention the fact that turned the ball over 18 times that season.

, I love random stats that are out of context Here's a question: what was the average number of interceptions thrown by each football team in the league, and how many interceptions and fumbles (put together) did Brunell have? The answer is 16 and 17, respectively.

He wasn't as bad as we was in 04 and 06 but he wasn't all that good either. Just take a look at some of his stats from 05. Qb ratings of 32.4, 58.7, 34.2, 52.3 (in the game that we needed to win to clinch the playoff berth), and 25.7 (in the playoffs) were part of Brunell's body of work that season.

Here's the problem I have with your argument, CanesSkins. It's one thing to make an argument along the lines of "This is what it means to have a bad season, and look how Brunell fulfills these criteria". It's entirely another argument to say "Hey, check out these random stats X, Y, and Z. Doesn't that seem to suggest that Brunell had a bad year?"

It seems to me like you simply research the worst stats that you can find, discount any balancing data for the sake of the argument, and then patch whatever you have left together like those stats will tell a narrative.

For those that argue Brunell was terrible in 2005, I'd rather see some clear argumentation that starts with accepted premises and leads to a well-reasoned conclusion, using stats to weave a consistent picture rather than gabbing whichever highlights suit your side of the argument. But the best these debates ever seem to get is a pissing contest using pro football reference or the NFL.com stat database.

I've tried my best in past debates (like the one I mentioned before) to rise above a contest of 'who can organize a spreadsheet most advantageously', but at that point people usually quit, which is why I stated a few posts ago that I'm not really out to win this debate anymore. But like PulpExposure said, the revisionist viewpoint still annoys me.

[Fios]

We've been down this path before, there is a contingent of fans on this site for whom their own recollection (however shoddy) of a certain player or season will always trump the facts because, for whatever reason, once someone has declared Brunell was consistently awful, even being presented with FACTS isn't enough to get them to retreat from that initial statement. It would be an admirable quality were it not so stupid.

[SkinsJock]

We've been down this path before, there is a contingent of fans on this site for whom their own recollection (however shoddy) of a certain player or season will always trump the facts because, for whatever reason, once someone has declared Brunell was consistently awful, even being presented with FACTS isn't enough to get them to retreat from that initial statement. It would be an admirable quality were it not so stupid.

there you go again - beating the drum - to add to that, I still find it a little amusing that now that we have a decent looking, potentially very good QB, and an article to discuss how he is progressing, then BOOM, the haters come back and attempt to make us all aware again of the situation that we had the last few years at this position get over it people - there are a bunch of guys that must have a certain keyword activated so that when you attempt to move forward they want to climb out of where they live (these people do not live in the light, so to speak) and attempt to move the conversation backwards.

This is 2007 and the success of this player and this team has nothing to do with last year or 2005 - Campbell is still a work in progress but he is doing very well and hopefully he will be as good as most of us here want him to be.

This team is having a lot of adversity right now and we should all be focused on how lucky we are to still be in the hunt -

Campbell is very lucky to have a guy like Bugel do what he does to try and keep this guy in one piece as the protection around him seems to be falling apart.

[Bob 0119]

To be honest, IMO Brunell really wasn't doing too bad in '06. It actually drove me crazy that people were screaming for Campbell so early last year.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Campbell went in, but not for the same reasons as many out there. Campbell went in when there was truly nothing left to lose. His QB rating was less than Brunell's, but that was to be expected.

People complained that Brunell's stats were inflated because all he was doing was throwing short. Well, yeah, that's true, but as long as you are completing passes, gaining yards and getting first downs, then by all means, throw it short! Short completions burn up Time of Possesion as much as a solid running game and generally average a few more yards.

Honestly, the part that most people seem to overlook from last year was that we had the leagues 31st ranked defense.

I'm not saying Brunell walks on water or heals leapers, but I think his been too harshly criticized for his performance when he really wasn't the root of all of our problems.

Here come the hypothecticals: If we had a top 10 ranked defense in '06, we'd have made the playoffs last year. Barring that, Brunell would have needed to be Peyton, or Brady to even get a wildcard berth, and still wouldn't have made it to the Superbowl.

Now apart from all of that, as long as Jason stays healthy, I think we have our franchise QB (finally)!

[Mursilis]

To be honest, IMO Brunell really wasn't doing too bad in '06. It actually drove me crazy that people were screaming for Campbell so early last year.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Campbell went in, but not for the same reasons as many out there. Campbell went in when there was truly nothing left to lose. His QB rating was less than Brunell's, but that was to be expected.

People complained that Brunell's stats were inflated because all he was doing was throwing short. Well, yeah, that's true, but as long as you are completing passes, gaining yards and getting first downs, then by all means, throw it short! Short completions burn up Time of Possesion as much as a solid running game and generally average a few more yards.

Honestly, the part that most people seem to overlook from last year was that we had the leagues 31st ranked defense.

I'm not saying Brunell walks on water or heals leapers, but I think his been too harshly criticized for his performance when he really wasn't the root of all of our problems.

Here come the hypothecticals: If we had a top 10 ranked defense in '06, we'd have made the playoffs last year. Barring that, Brunell would have needed to be Peyton, or Brady to even get a wildcard berth, and still wouldn't have made it to the Superbowl.

Now apart from all of that, as long as Jason stays healthy, I think we have our franchise QB (finally)!

Lots of people had issues with Brunell being in that had relatively little to do with his performance. If you can't win the current game, you focus on winning the next one. Last year, that meant getting some reps for Campbell. It was, unfortunately, relatively clear early on last year that we were in for a rough year, so why not get Campbell some game-time reps? He was clearly the QB of the future.

[CanesSkins26]

This is simply untrue. skinsfan33 has made similar accusations before but couldn't stick around for a debate on the statistics. Brunell had his best statistical stretches near the beginning of the year and during our losing streak, so people tend to discount his performance that season. However, out of the last half of the regular season he really only had two appreciably bad performances (at Arizona and at Philadelphia).

I would have to disagree with you that Arizona and Philly were his only bad performances. His performance began to decline starting with the Giants game in Week 8. From that game on, his qb rating for the rest of the season was 72.4, which is mediocre at best. It's also hard to quantify what constitutes an "appreciably bad" performance. You cite the Arizona and Philly games, but I would argue that he also performed poorly in games such as the Tampa Bay game, when Brunell had 2 td's, but also turned the ball over 3 times and had another fumble that we recovered. He was similarly innefective against Oakland, not throwing any touchdowns but losing a fumble.

Correction: our OFFENSE was ineffective in the playoffs. This is what most people ignore. Portis had 2 anemic performances behind a banged-up offensive line. Our receivers, or what was left of them, couldn't get open, and the Redskins had only two viable threats at receiver: an injured Santana Moss and ey.

So, when it was 3rd and 7 after two poor runs by Portis / the offensive line, the defense knew to keep an eye on Moss and watch for the roll-out pass to ey. Unfortunately, we had little else to go on. And for that Brunell shoulders the blame.

So, yes, Brunell was ineffective in the playoffs. And then there's the part that is always omitted.

Yes we did have injuries at that point. However, Portis still managed to gain more yards on the ground against Tampa Bay than Brunell could muster through the air. Even with injuries on the line and only Sanatana Moss and ey to throw to, there is no excuse for posting a 25.7 qb rating in a playoff game. An interception and 41 yards through the air, for an average of 2.7 yards per attempt is embarrassingly bad. Additionally, Moss and ey are not chopped liver and having those two as receiving options is better than what a lot of other teams in the NFL have. The Carolina Panthers made the Super Bowl in 2004 with only one real receiving option in Steve Smith so I don't think that having only ey and Moss is an excuse for Brunell's poor numbers down the stretch.

, I love random stats that are out of context Thumbs Up Here's a question: what was the average number of interceptions thrown by each football team in the league, and how many interceptions and fumbles (put together) did Brunell have? The answer is 16 and 17, respectively.

Brunell actually combined for 18 fumbles and interceptions. From the Giants game onward, Brunell had 13 combined turnovers and 12 td's, not a very effective balance of td's to turnovers, especially for a veteran qb. I'm taking nothing away from Brunell's early season success, but I think that the stats show that he was a vastly different qb from week 8 onward than he was early on in the season when he posted 12 td's and only 5 turnovers.

[SkinsJock]

Campbell is looking very good - the only people that care about Brunells stats are those that have a little bit of an itch because they feel that some (like Fios) have made some very salient points about our past QB and/or they just cannot get off the Brunell Bashing Bandwagon that happens by here every now and then



This thread is about the great progress that Campbell is making at QB and if there are any that want to try and make their old, very tired point about how bad we were because of Brunell, they should just go and start another Brunell thread to satisfy that itch

[1niksder]

Where's TRO

[BnGhog]

Where's TRO

Thats the second time I've seen that statement and I still don't know who or what the heck TRO is.