Any update on Campbell?

I really don't know, I'm not ready to say he absolutely cannot take the team all the way, and as I said in another thread I don't think it's all on his shoulders either.

Brunell's level of play seems to coincide with how the entire offense as a unit is playing. He's not a guy that can carry a team on his back, but when the offense is playing well he's a great compliment. Placing all the blame on Brunell when the offense struggles is a cop-out in my opinion. The offense as a whole struggled in the playoffs from the offensive line to the backs to the receivers.
I tend to agree but I think the QB position is one that simply can make everything else better. I do think if we put everything in the right place and everything goes perfectly maybe we can get to a SB with him and who knows what happens but I'd rather have a comprehensive solution that gives us a shot consistently to be a SB level team. Not just when everything is perfect. I know we're not going to get a Manning type QB but I think if we had a Delhomme level guy we'd be better off. The biggest problem is that I do think the long term answer is Campbell. At least I have no reason to thinks it is not. The question then is do we stick with Brunell for probably one more year or is there a short term upgrade? We probably stick with Brunell but I thinkithat probably "dooms" us to another year like this one. I guess I'd be ok being "doomed" to another a good year like this but I think we could be good enough to be a SB team next year and I don't want to squander it.

bingo ...

Do people ever learn? I mean, until the crow is down your throat and in your belly, most people, including myself just don't get it.

Brunell had a bad year, we upgraded our O and tweaked it, he has a good to great year, and now the season is over, he had a few bad games that left a bad taste in our mouth and now he is sucks all over again and he can't do it, and we got all we are going to get out of him. We gave MB one good receiver and look what he did this year... we give him one more and who knows how good he can be next year. Do I want Campbell to start and play and be successful, HELL YES. But is it realistic and a big gamble to start him next year.....yes.
Brunell was clearly hurt last year. Even Gibbs has said so. While we definitely upgraded the talent around him this year I think towards then end of the season he looked much more like the QB he was last year than the QB he was earlier in the year. I think it is reasonable to expect that a 35/36 year old QB is going to wear down again like that.

bingo ...

Do people ever learn? I mean, until the crow is down your throat and in your belly, most people, including myself just don't get it.

Brunell had a bad year, we upgraded our O and tweaked it, he has a good to great year, and now the season is over, he had a few bad games that left a bad taste in our mouth and now he is sucks all over again and he can't do it, and we got all we are going to get out of him. We gave MB one good receiver and look what he did this year... we give him one more and who knows how good he can be next year. Do I want Campbell to start and play and be successful, HELL YES. But is it realistic and a big gamble to start him next year.....yes.

But that is exactly the point. In all likelihood we can't have it both ways. You take Campbell and you probably will struggle but it is the best thing for the long term good of the franchise. You take Brunell and you might get a comparable year - though that is far from guarenteed - but you delay Campbell's maturation. I guess the halfway solution - and perhaps the one the Skins are most likely to pursue - is to trade Ramsey, go into the season with Brunell and if he perfoms comparably to this season and you are winning you stick with him, but if he struggles or gets injured you go with Campbell. Though I didn't closely follow the situation in Jacksonville a few years back, I seem to remember that they followed a similar formula (I think Brunell got heard in like week three) in developing Byron Leftwich. Where it gets dicey is if you are winning some games and Brunell is playing average - say you are 5-6 again - then when do you bring in Campbell? The Giants went throw that with Kurt Warner and Eli Manning a few years back. Manning came in and absolutely bombed, but they went with him and he played much better (at least until the end of the year) this season. It wouldn't be Washington without a quarterback controversy, though.

Does anyone have any info on QB's who sat for two seasons? I seem to remember that Chad Pennington might have gone something like two years before starting because Vinny Testeverde was winning games in New York. I think McNair only went one year and like I said earlier I think Leftwich went a year and 3 games...just curious what sort of precedent we are looking at. It does strike me as rare for a first round pick to sit for two seasons in the salary cap era, though.

Also - and I again preface this by saying that I was a big fan of Brunell this season - but in looking at those 23 touchdowns how many were to Cooley or Sellers in the flat from two yards out? Just something to bear in mind, stats don't tell the whole story. That said, Brunell certainly did not make the type of mistakes that cost the team games and thus had them in position to win every game except the first meeting with the Giants. I guess it is not too crazy to believe he could do it again and if he does no one will be happier than me. I am not bashing Brunell, I am just seriously concerned about the long term prospects of the team. Are you sacrificing the future to try to make one more run with Brunell and if so is it rational to believe that Brunell is capable of making that run? WE DON'T KNOW, that is what is scary. Luckily we have Gibbs making those decisions, not us, so in that we can take a good deal of comfort.

I think we all respect what Brunell has done this year. Could he take us to the SB? Its possible, but in my opinion not probable. I'm not sure that he can make the type of plays w/ his arm and/or legs that a Delhomme, Rothlisberger (?), Hassellbeck, and even Plummer can and did this past weekend. That is the thing. As we saw this weekend, the intensity picks up, and in most cases the qb is the one that has got to make the plays or some plays during the game to win it. Yes, Dilfer and B. Johnson did win the sb, but i think that is the exception not the rule. Brad Johnson's a pretty good qb too.

Gibbs believes in sitting QB's before they play. He doesn't believe that Jason watching is setting back his progress. That's the way he does things...we need to trust that coach Gibbs will put Campbell in when he's ready to play. If Gibbs feels that Campbell is ready to play at a level comparable to Brunell he will play him and if he doesn't he will sit again.

WE DON'T KNOW, that is what is scary. Luckily we have Gibbs making those decisions, not us, so in that we can take a good deal of comfort.

You know its probably the easy way out but I agree 100%. I think Joe has done a great job evaluating talent and making personel decisions, for example,

Getting Gregg Williams
Taylor or Winslow Jr., (funny but Sean has more TD' s than the Soldier)
move up to get Cooley,
Moss for Coles,
Peirce or Marshall
Smoot or Carlos Rogers
giving Brunell another shot
so I will wait to see what he says, I mean so far he has been money. I just think that Brunell with even more weapons and the same defense gives us the best shot, but god, I would love to see JC get in there, especially after us losing a 1st round pick for him ... it will be a tough decision man ...

Brunell's level of play seems to coincide with how the entire offense as a unit is playing. He's not a guy that can carry a team on his back, but when the offense is playing well he's a great compliment. Placing all the blame on Brunell when the offense struggles is a cop-out in my opinion. The offense as a whole struggled in the playoffs from the offensive line to the backs to the receivers.

The problem with Brunell being a "compliment" to the offense is he's the quarterback. The quarterback is supposed to lead the team, and supposed to be guy who can make the plays when they need to be made. Brunell did that in the first Dallas game, and hasn't done it since. The only thing he did exceptional this year statistically, was his TD/INT ratio. His yards and touchdowns were average.

The problem, as I've said before is, Brunell isn't a game loser, but he's not a game winner either. I agree, that the offense and Brunell seem to perform about the same during games, but Brunell is the leader of the offense. That's why it's on his shoulders.

It's hard to blame the skill position guys when Portis broke the Skins single season rushing records, Moss broke the receiving record, and Cooley surpassed the most catches by a tight end, but Brunell came nowhere close to breaking any Washington passing records.

The problem with Brunell being a "compliment" to the offense is he's the quarterback. The quarterback is supposed to lead the team, and supposed to be guy who can make the plays when they need to be made. Brunell did that in the first Dallas game, and hasn't done it since. The only thing he did exceptional this year statistically, was his TD/INT ratio. His yards and touchdowns were average.

The problem, as I've said before is, Brunell isn't a game loser, but he's not a game winner either. I agree, that the offense and Brunell seem to perform about the same during games, but Brunell is the leader of the offense. That's why it's on his shoulders.

It's hard to blame the skill position guys when Portis broke the Skins single season rushing records, Moss broke the receiving record, and Cooley surpassed the most catches by a tight end, but Brunell came nowhere close to breaking any Washington passing records.

That is why MB is the starter and PR is not, MB is not a game loser and PR seems to be. MB does not need to be a game winner, he just needs more than 1 WR that is a legit threat so he does not need to be pressured into trying to be a game winner. Lots of teams have won titles with "`1wont lose the game QBs", if the skins give MB the weapons he can become one also.

Brunell made plenty of big plays during the course of the year, saying he only made big plays during the first Dallas game is really understating things.

Other than the season Rypien had in '91, Gibbs has never had a really big time QB. Even in '91 the offense was still heavily centered around the ground game.

Personally I don't think we need a Favre type of QB to win games, Gibbs' formula calls for a QB to play smart and efficient above all, and that's what MB did this year.

Brunell made plenty of big plays during the course of the year, saying he only made big plays during the first Dallas game is really understating things.

Other than the season Rypien had in '91, Gibbs has never had a really big time QB. Even in '91 the offense was still heavily centered around the ground game.

Personally I don't think we need a Favre type of QB to win games, Gibbs' formula calls for a QB to play smart and efficient above all, and that's what MB did this year.

Exactly. I'd also like to ask, what did Mark Rypien and Doug Williams ever accomplish when they weren't playing for Gibbs? Friggin nothing. Gibbs has shown that he doesn't need a Joe Montana. He does need a Posse though. There were always several good receivers in his offense, a good line, and a good RB. We have the line and the RB. We need the WRs.

If Campbell can come in and be better than Brunell, then that's all the better. But I think Brunell has what it takes right now.

Turnovers are the key to winning games. We can talk QB rating and all these other stats all we want. But he only threw 10 picks all year. That's great.