How Will Campbell Be Handled?

Wear and tear you notice over the course of the season, you can't turn it on and off like a switch.

Mattyk72

Brunell talked down his hamstring injury in 2004, but I don't think anyone can deny something was drastically hurting his play that year. The Mark Brunell from 2004 was not the Brunell of 2005, or compared to any other year in his career.

The 2004 Gibbs offensive scheme was the major problem. By the time Ramsey took over, it was improved, particularly with the running game. Ramsey was lucky he didn't win the starting job at the beginning of the year.

After the second Giants game in 2005 he was once again very clearly hampered by his injury. His play dropped off drastically and we saw shades of the 2004 Brunell.

After the SF game, defenses adjusted. They doubled Santana and limited Brunell's effectiveness on his rollouts. These, I think, were the primary factors in the drop off (Didn't you say earlier the dropoff didn't happen?).

This quote from Gibbs is an indicator that Brunell's leg injuries are a concern: Brunell isn't the same QB when his legs are bothering him. He's never had a rocket arm, so much like a finese pitcher in baseball, take away his legs and you have a QB that loses his accuracy and velocity.

As I said, Brunell's strong supporters make it more of a factor than Mark does. Maybe Mark just doesn't want to make excuses but I doubt it. Besides, if the injuries were that restrictive, why was he playing?

I really don't think Mark wants to make excuses. And I feel that he was playing simply because he could manage the game better than Ramsey or Campbell. He knew that he could make simple throws and let Portis win the game simply by managing the game well.

But you SERIOUSLY think that the length of the season just hit him like a ton of bricks after the second Giants game? I find that a little hard to believe that he just stopped throwing well because the season was long. Matty is correct in saying that when you have a leg injury, your throwing is obviously hampered.

After the SF game, defenses adjusted. They doubled Santana and limited Brunell's effectiveness on his rollouts. These, I think, were the primary factors in the drop off (Didn't you say earlier the dropoff didn't happen?).

Wait a second dude. You just got done telling me that Brunell's performance was mainly driven by age and wear and tear on the body. Now you're saying that his effectiveness was limited because they doubled Moss.

First off, doubling Moss has nothing to do with Brunell's skill. Defenses doubled Moss because they knew we had no threatening WR opposite him once Patten went down. If Brunell's effectiveness was limited by that defensive adjustment, it's not an indictment of his skill. By providing enough WR threats to Brunell, we make it tough for defenses to double Moss without getting burned by Lloyd or Randle-El, or a healthy David Patten for that matter. And if defenses can't make that same adjustment that they did last year, Brunell's effectiveness shouldn't be limited.

You're having trouble separating the cause of Brunell's decline in performance from the effects.

TheMalcolmConnection

But you SERIOUSLY think that the length of the season just hit him like a ton of bricks after the second Giants game?

Nope. I never said that.

From the Seattle game through the SF blowout, Brunell & Co. put up some really gaudy stats. The offense looked like it couldn't be stopped.

The problem was that most of the production could be accounted for by the Brunell to Santana connection and Brunell's rolling left and throwing into the short zone. Beginning with the first Giants game, defenses adjusted and reduced the effectiveness of both options.

Brunell's age and the injuries were minor factors in the slump in my opinion.

Brunell's age and the injuries were minor factors in the slump in my opinion.

OK so what I'm hearing from you is that you don't think it was the injuries, you don't think it was the age, you just think defenses adjusted to him. So the sense I'm getting from you is that you think Brunell just wasn't skilled enough to threaten the defense with his arms and legs like maybe a Donovan McNabb could, or a Drew Brees could, or a Carson Palmer could.

I'm actually somewhat alright with that opinion. Brunell is definitely not the kind of QB that can make tons of amazing plays with his arm alone. He's not the kind of QB that can be a hero, like Tom Brady can be. But I think you have to appreciate Brunell for what he is: he is GREAT at taking care of the ball. When something's not there, he knows he shouldn't be trying to be a hero, he throws it away and punts it. That's why his interception numbers were so low. That should not go overlooked here.

Maybe Campbell can come in and be the next hero type QB, making plays with his arm when nothing is there, and at the same time avoiding picks. But he's going to have to show me A LOT in training camp for me to believe that.

Given that the Skins have a GREAT defense and a strong running game, I don't think it makes much sense to risk throwing INTs to make a big play. Most of the time the team is best off by punting and putting it on the defense. Especially considering the way the defense was coming up with INTs and fumbles at the end of last season.

Game management is the most important thing for the Redskins at QB.

Does anyone else feel like this?

:banghead:

Does anyone else feel like this?

:banghead:

My sentiments exactly. Just reading this thread I feel like I've run a marathon. I think the thread has run it's course & is now just getting repetitive and personal.

Does anyone else feel like this?

:banghead:

Yeah. I do.

Why don't you lock this puppy?

nah, let's torture ourselves some more shall we?