The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Mursilis wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Another way the comparison breaks down is that we are paying Brunell the Palmer money and Campbell the Kitna wages.

But that doesn't really matter. You don't play the guy who makes the most - you play the guy who plays the best.

I only compared Kitna/Palmer to Brunell/Campbell because Cinncy took the gamble of playing the hot young rookie over the tried-and-true, good-but-not-great veteran, and it paid off. They may've done it because of the money, but for whatever reason, they did it and found out the Palmer could play in this league.

JPM36 wrote:Also I dont see how this comparison works at all. Palmer was the #1 overall pick in the draft and signed a contract worth WAY more than #25 pick Campbell.

Mursilis wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Another way the comparison breaks down is that we are paying Brunell the Palmer money and Campbell the Kitna wages.

But that doesn't really matter. You don't play the guy who makes the most - you play the guy who plays the best.

I only compared Kitna/Palmer to Brunell/Campbell because Cinncy took the gamble of playing the hot young rookie over the tried-and-true, good-but-not-great veteran, and it paid off. They may've done it because of the money, but for whatever reason, they did it and found out the Palmer could play in this league.

yupchagee wrote:Last yr we started Ramsey because Gibbs (or anybody else for that matter) didn't think we were legitimate contenders.

JSPB22 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Last yr we started Ramsey because Gibbs (or anybody else for that matter) didn't think we were legitimate contenders.

I don't agree with that comment at all.

Mursilis wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Last yr we started Ramsey because Gibbs (or anybody else for that matter) didn't think we were legitimate contenders.

I don't agree with that comment at all.

Not sure I do either. Why wasn't Ramsey started in '04 then? Did Gibbs think he could take a 5-11 team (with not a single player selected by him) and turn it around in one season?

yupchagee wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Last yr we started Ramsey because Gibbs (or anybody else for that matter) didn't think we were legitimate contenders.

I don't agree with that comment at all.

Not sure I do either. Why wasn't Ramsey started in '04 then? Did Gibbs think he could take a 5-11 team (with not a single player selected by him) and turn it around in one season?

Good point. Now I'm really confused

PatrickRamsey wrote:I hate to be negative... but lets get back to reality....

1. Injures

This is true for every team, so if the Skins were to lost some key players they could be in trouble, but on a positive note they have some depth in key positions, especially with the Duckett trade, if Portis were to get hurt even worse, Saunders may still be able to handle it. Nevertheless, injuries is the first thing.

[b]2.The Quarterback Position

Sure, its great that the WR's are so great now, but, uh one problem? Who is going to throw them the ball? The Skins aren't great at the most position on the field (stop, dont debate, it is). Brunell hasnt looked good (even if it is [I]only[I] preseason), and he has never been lights out as a Skin, Campbell is still too young, and Todd Collins, well he might as well be a coach.


[b]3.Special Teams[b]

I got a name for you-Derrick Frost. Derrick Frost. Derrick Frost. IF this team were to make it to the superbowl, watch out for this guy to screw up BIG. The same goes for John Hall, he HAS been great in the past, but coming off injuries, how will he do? 3 of the last 5 superbowls (2 of them in the last 3 years) have been decided by 3 points.

Other then that, this team is superbowl material

yupchagee wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Last yr we started Ramsey because Gibbs (or anybody else for that matter) didn't think we were legitimate contenders.

I don't agree with that comment at all.

Not sure I do either. Why wasn't Ramsey started in '04 then? Did Gibbs think he could take a 5-11 team (with not a single player selected by him) and turn it around in one season?

Good point. Now I'm really confused

JPM36 wrote:Let's just say that we all hope Campbell does grow into a Pro Bowl QB someday but Brunell's experience and solid performance last season gives him the right to be the starter until further notice.

Countertrey wrote:Here's what I think... (I'm sure that instills great confidence in a few of you):
Gibbs arrived on the scene, and, in reviewing game film realized that he had a problem. A talented young QB who was shell shocked from the brutal beatings he had taken at the hands of Spurrier's blocking (or lack of blocking) schemes, and had developed happy feet. As a result, he went looking for a winning vet, who could help tide things over until he could repair the damage done to young Ramsey.

Unfortunately, the damage was more severe than he thought, resulting in the ultimate need to draft another QB for the future. He still wanted Ramsey to have his shot... and did not like what he saw, resulting in reinserting Brunell.

This is no more than the musing of an old JG fan, but I bet it's not far from the truth.

Countertrey wrote:Do great minds think alike, or what?

1niksder wrote:1. They all see what JC can be... so they pretend he is already there
2. They want to say the team got us to the post-season but then says Brunell lost because he's "old", "injured", or "just doesn't have it anymore"

JPM36 wrote:I don't understand the Brunell detractors. I really don't.

I admit that I used to be a HUGE anti-Brunell guy but last season he threw for 3,000 yards and we went 10-6, 5-1 vs. NFC East, and won a road playoff game.

What more does the guy have to do to convince you people that he's good enough to be our QB?

Mursilis wrote:

1niksder wrote:1. They all see what JC can be... so they pretend he is already there
2. They want to say the team got us to the post-season but then says Brunell lost because he's "old", "injured", or "just doesn't have it anymore"

1. JC and Brunell have the exact same QB rating in preseason, and that's with JC throwing to the soon-to-be cut WRs and getting protection from the 2nd and 3rd string line. Prove he's not already at Brunell's level now, and wouldn't be even further along if he practiced with the first team at camp.

2. Find where I've ever blamed the Seattle loss on Brunell. I've already said his numbers in the Seattle game were actually better than the TB game. I've never blamed the Seattle loss on him.

yupchagee wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

1niksder wrote:1. They all see what JC can be... so they pretend he is already there
2. They want to say the team got us to the post-season but then says Brunell lost because he's "old", "injured", or "just doesn't have it anymore"

1. JC and Brunell have the exact same QB rating in preseason, and that's with JC throwing to the soon-to-be cut WRs and getting protection from the 2nd and 3rd string line. Prove he's not already at Brunell's level now, and wouldn't be even further along if he practiced with the first team at camp.

2. Find where I've ever blamed the Seattle loss on Brunell. I've already said his numbers in the Seattle game were actually better than the TB game. I've never blamed the Seattle loss on him.

I don't follow this logic. Are you saying that because Campbell's QB rating is the same as Brunell's in spite of throwing to inferior receivers & behind an inferior line, proove he's not ready?

Mursilis wrote:

JPM36 wrote:I don't understand the Brunell detractors. I really don't.

It's not that Brunell is a bad quarterback at this point in his career - it's just that he's not great either. Everyone raves about his year last year, but how is he much different than, say, Drew Bledsoe? Brunell had almost 600 less yards overall, less yards per attempt, and a lower completion percentage. Both QBs had 23 TDs, but Brunell managed to have 7 less picks, which is why his QB rating was 2 points higher. Still, Bledsoe and Brunell were nearly identical overall, and yet people here say Brunell is great and Bledsoe is awful. That's just homerism talking.

The other frustrating thing about this situation is that we've got Campbell just sitting there. It's like having a new sports car in the garage, and everyone wants to drive the minivan! Brunell's getting on in years and hasn't finished a full season in 4 of the last 5 years. Thus, the odds say he won't finish this one either. What's the better situation - Campbell comes in now and gets in a groove, or he comes in two weeks from the playoffs? Sure, people will say JC's too new, needs time to learn, he'll struggle in his first year, doom our season, etc., but history says otherwise. Heck, Brunell in his first year as a starter in Jax wasn't much worse than Brunell now (85 v. 82 QB rating). Brady was better in his FIRST year as a starter, so was Big Ben, so was Marc Bulger, so was Culpepper, so was Farve, so were a lot of QBs. The simple fact is, where there's a strong supporting cast (as there is here), a young QB can flourish right away, if he's got talent. I believe JC has that talent. He played at Auburn - heck, that's practically a pro program, or as close as you'll find at the college level. Daunte Culpeper became a full time starter his second year, after throwing no passes in regular season games his rookie year (just like JC). That second year, he posted just under 4000 yards and 33 TDs, for a 98 QB rating. That's better than any year Brunell ever had. Same with Big Ben. If given the chance, I predict the same for JC.

JPM36 wrote:Mursilis- You can't possibly believe that JC and Brunell having the same QB ratng in 2 preseason games means that they are on the same level? Come on man. Be reasonable.

There is nothing I would love more than for Jason Campbell to develop into a star QB in the NFL over the next 10 years. All I'm saying is that Brunell earned the right to be our UNQUESTIONED starter with his solid play and the team's overall results in 2005.

yupchagee wrote:

PatrickRamsey wrote:

Fios wrote:Not unless Brunell goes out with an injury

YEa really, i mean Gibbs was so anti-Ramsey, theres no way he gives JC the job, Gibbs is like this, "Go with a veteran 90 percent of the time all the time"

Veteran QB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Young QB

thats how he is.

Gibbs anti Ramsey? Who started at QB at the beginning of last season?
Assuming he was "anti Ramsey, what does that have to do with Campbell this year?

yupchagee wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

PatrickRamsey wrote:

Fios wrote:Not unless Brunell goes out with an injury

YEa really, i mean Gibbs was so anti-Ramsey, theres no way he gives JC the job, Gibbs is like this, "Go with a veteran 90 percent of the time all the time"

Veteran QB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Young QB

thats how he is.

Gibbs anti Ramsey? Who started at QB at the beginning of last season?
Assuming he was "anti Ramsey, what does that have to do with Campbell this year?

Check the records. After Ramsey left, Brunell did nothing, not nearly as much in over 2 quarters than Ramsey did in a little over one. Brunel did nothing to win the job--nothing.

Gibbs isn't anti-Ramsey, he's anti-young QB. Ramsey got about 1.5 quarters as the starter in '05 before he was benched, whereas Brunell got, what, 9-10 games before he got the hook in '04? Huge difference.

Ramsey wasn't benched, he was injured. Brunell did so well that Gibbs stayed with him.

...I agree I know Gibbs won 3 rings with three diffrent Qb's but I think those 3 Qb's are better than Brunell is now, and still think we have to get Campell good this year and than next year compete for a superbowl. I am not sold on him, but Gibbs may know something that I don't, he did get three rings.

sch1977 wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Gibbs4Life wrote:Campbell will start for us this year bet on it.

I'd be a whole lot happier if we still had Patrick. Just don't trust Brunell as far as injuries go, and to keep his zip all season. Sorry, Campbell doesn't look ready yet. Maybe he'll improve at a faster rate if Pattten's benched when Campbell's out there. Campbell needs confidence. I would play him a lot in the next two games-- maybe three quarters each game, and get him used to throwing to our better wide receives.

Gibbs won't do that, of course-- because of chance of injury to wr's and Campbell, but mostly because he thinks Brunell's the guy. He's probably not. Sorry, again.

When will you realize that Ramsey can't cut it in this league? He couldn't get it done here, and he has looked horrible in preseason with the Jets! He can't even beat out Noodle arm for the starting job in NY. What makes you think he is better than Brunell?

Mursilis wrote:

JPM36 wrote:Mursilis- You can't possibly believe that JC and Brunell having the same QB ratng in 2 preseason games means that they are on the same level? Come on man. Be reasonable.

There is nothing I would love more than for Jason Campbell to develop into a star QB in the NFL over the next 10 years. All I'm saying is that Brunell earned the right to be our UNQUESTIONED starter with his solid play and the team's overall results in 2005.

No, I don't really think 2 preseason games count for much - I'm not that crazy. Unfortunately, that's all we've got on JC though, at least at the pro level.

As far as Brunell being the UNQUESTIONED starter, he is, at least to Gibbs, and that's the only vote that matters. This internet chatter means nothing.