Can Brunell lead this team to a super bowl?

If Campbell starts next season then throw out 2006. He would get abused in the East next year. The only way they could consider it is if they add a pro-bowl quality possesion guy who would bail him out. T.O. comes to mind but the negatives are too high (plus Moss would get pissed).

I don't disagree with this point, but it - along with this thread generally - does raise an interesting question: if you can't win a Super Bowl with Brunell then how long can you keep Jason Campbell on the bench. This post will go against some of the things I wrote earlier, but I have been thinking about this topic and my conclusions - at least I look at things in January - are kind of troubling...maybe some of you can shoot a hole in my logic and I welcome any such thoughts.

I think if Jason Campbell starts next season the Redskins will not make the playoffs, they might, but would probably be more likely to finish 7-9 or 8-8. If you go with Brunell then you might be more likely to win a few more games and even to make the playoffs - though that certainly is not guarenteed - but you also retard the maturation process of Campbell by another full year. His development would be stifled even further if Pat Ramsey is still on the team next season (whatever you think of Ramsey it is hard to argue that he SHOULD be with the team next year, it does not serve the interests of either party...that is unless the Skins think they have a legitimate chance at the Super Bowl and that Brunell can lead them there).

In essence who starts at quarterback is a big statement about the direction of the organization and the future of Joe Gibbs. Starting Campbell would say that the team is willing to suffer through the growing pains of a young NFL QB but do so with an eye towards making a legitimate run at the Super Bowl in 2-3 years. It might also indicate that Gibbs is committed to the team beyond 2006. If Brunell starts it says that the team is looking to win now and Gibbs is eyeing a return to retirement in the very near future. Both strategies have draw backs. The former is predicated on the notion that the Skins can keep the nucleus of this team - particularly the defense - intact long enough for Campbell to develop into a legitimate starting quarterback. The latter takes into account the fact that the future in the modern NFL is uncertain and you should try to win while you can, but it also sets back the development of a young quarterback and might prevent him from ever being successful with the franchise.

Ironically the Redskins success this season actually complicates the situation. Had they missed out on the playoffs the transition to the Jason Campbell era would have been much smoother and Brunell could have settled in as a back-up and mentor. As it stands it is unlikely that anyone other than Brunell heads into 2006 as the starter and might even mean that Ramsey hangs around to play caddy for another season while Campbell languishes on the sidelines.

All that is not to say that I wish the Skins did not make the playoffs, there are few things I would trade for the excitement of watching/listening to them this season and the satisfaction I took in their success. The quarterback situation is tricky, however, and I am concerned that the Redskins might sacrifice long term success in an attempt to make one final run for Coach Gibbs. What do you guys think? Is it worth struggling through Campbell's growing pains in order to develop a quarterback who could hopefully turn into a successful NFL leader? Would we, as fans both on the internet and in the stands, be patient enough to allow him to develop without destroying his psyche by getting down on him when he struggled, especially given the teams' success this season? If Brunell is not the one to lead the team to the Super Bowl is there any point in spinning their wheels by starting him again next year, even if it means a greater chance for short term success as measured by a few wins and maybe a playoff appearence (and I ask that even though I have come to respect Mark a great deal this season)?

I just don't think there are too many easy answers and that gives me pause. Maybe it is the natural pessimist in me to start worry about the future only a day after the Skins got eliminated from the playoffs...I don't know...

SC you make some really valid points... you take the Bengals as an example of what you just said... a few seasons ago, Kitna took them to .500 (the first time in very long time for cincy). Management didn't draft carson first for nothing, so they dictated that he start his second season. The Bengals lost four out of their first five, but ended up .500 with Palmer. And look how he did this season, after a full year of playing.

Then again, we are a legitimate Super Bowl threat next season if we're able to keep our corp in tact and with a few more FAs, it could put us over the top. And like you stated, you're not sure when the next time comes around to win it all. I think the Bengals couldn't justify sitting Palmer more than a year, while the Skins can afford to ease Jason in slowly.

Of course Brunnel can do it. Gibbs does not rely on the QB being a superstar to win suprbowls. He relies on his offensive line.

Am I the only one who feels like losing Randy Thomas was a huge reason for our offensive fall off? It just seemed like he was the only guy who could really pull with power and stay out in front of Portis. Losing him slowed the running game which, in turn, hurt the passing game.

I think that we need to go after a "super-backup" o-lineman in free agency and find another receiver to go with Moss and Patten. That and continuity may be all we need to get to the next level.

from the look of the last 2 games I don't think so there is a huge difference between season games and playoffs and he just could deliver you might have to win the division and get a first round bye for him to do it hey now ,brunell and the skins SWEPT Dallas so i think he deserves a shot . he's quarterbacked the most exciting skins team we've seen in the past 10 years except maybe the 99' team. 10--2 n.f.c. record yeeaaaaa. he deserves a shot ....swept dallas

I certainly think Brunell can! It depends on what talent he has around him. Two homerun receivers and a third possession type receiver, and of course a great running game, there is no reason why Brunell couldn't lead this team to a Super Bowl.

the question was can brunell lead us to the superbowl, in which case, the answer in definately not. He can be a part of a superbowl team possibly, but he's not a star or exceptional QB, he's just another piece of the offense. He does what he's told, plays super conservative no risks until the end of the fourth quarter when trailing by 14 and he doesn't even have the authority or want to call ANY audibles at all. If a running play is called and 11 men are in the box, he's going to go ahead and hand it off anyways (which is why we had such a terrible time beating arizona). He's not leading, he's following orders in the strictest sense.

he doesn't even have the authority or want to call ANY audibles at all. If a running play is called and 11 men are in the box, he's going to go ahead and hand it off anyways (which is why we had such a terrible time beating arizona). He's not leading, he's following orders in the strictest sense.
I think that is where our offense has the most trouble, not so much Gibbs schem but the fact that when we are at the line and it is obvious that the D is going to blitz or if you see a corner playing off of Moss by like 7 or 8 yards we do not audible to take advantage of it. Or maybe, like some posted, Brunell is not alowed to...