Campbell or Brunell in 2006?

skns03 · 01-20-2006, 02:38 PM

i say campbell because he is the future of this franchise i don't care if we have one bad season look at what the giants did with manning next year they won our division I mean lets make a move

backrow · 01-20-2006, 02:43 PM

I got lost looking for the P. Ramsey radio button!

So, who is leading?

SmootSmack · 01-20-2006, 03:39 PM

I'm a Brunell supporter. Brunell came back this year after an abysmal 2004 and proved he can still play in this league and play well, regardless of what some might say.But I know I, like so many others here, are sick of having to continually defend him and listen to how Ramsey is Jesus in a football uniform.

The Brunell bashing can get so mind-numbingly idiotic at times that it's not even worth it anymore really. Start Campbell and let's just move on.

MTK · 01-20-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I'm a Brunell supporter. Brunell came back this year after an abysmal 2004 and proved he can still play in this league and play well, regardless of what some might say.But I know I, like so many others here, are sick of having to continually defend him and listen to how Ramsey is Jesus in a football uniform.

The Brunell bashing can get so mind-numbingly idiotic at times that it's not even worth it anymore really. Start Campbell and let's just move on.

So then the Campbell bashing can begin, yeah I can't wait.

Some fans will just never be satisfied regardless of who's our QB.

SmootSmack · 01-20-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So then the Campbell bashing can begin, yeah I can't wait.

Some fans will just never be satisfied regardless of who's our QB.

Oh no doubt, that's true. But at least we can start with a clean slate of bashing. I am anxious to see what he can do though.

crlesh · 01-20-2006, 03:39 PM

It's a bit of a loaded question because 'assuming Campbell is ready to go' can mean several things. If it means he can play at the pro level with a good understanding of the offense without making 'rookie' mistakes, then I say start with Campbell and keep Brunell to teach and back him up (this all assumes Ramsey is gone as well).

With his documented preference for proven veterans, I'm not certain Gibbs will do that however. A lot still remains to be seen in the offseason as well. Ask the question again in August, after we know what's happened with Ramsey and what changes have taken place with the team (offensively) and within our division. Of all the times to break in a new QB, the time to do it is when you have a good defense to compensate for potential mistakes, though...

Longtimefan · 01-20-2006, 04:13 PM

The one good thing about starting JC if that becomes the team decision is that our core group of players are still young enough to mature and develop along with him. Cooley, Portis, Moss are still young enough to reap the benefits of Jason's maturity.

onlydarksets · 01-20-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

The one good thing about starting JC if that becomes the team decision is that our core group of players are still young enough to mature and develop along with him. Cooley, Portis, Moss are still young enough to reap the benefits of Jason's maturity.

Hmm...we might need to be careful with Campbell's initials so as not to confuse...

Kevin: [On who inspired him to be a wood worker] I'd have to say Jesus. He was a carpenter and I figured if you're going to follow in somebody's footsteps, why not the steps of our lord and savior?
Jack Byrnes: [Before Greg has a chance to respond] Greg's Jewish.
Kevin: Really? Well so was J.C...

LBrown43 · 01-20-2006, 04:49 PM

I think we should start Brunell and then bring in Campbell slowly. By all means start him in the preseason to see what he has. If he is overwhelmingly impressive, then start him opening day. Otherwise, go with Brunell one more year.

chuckmcco · 01-20-2006, 05:07 PM

mark brunell was not the reason we made the playoffs this season. anyone else notice that his TD's a lot of the time were receivers making the plays after they caught the ball. he didnt play better this year than he did last year, other players made plays last year they werent makign the year before, and santana came in and was an animal. please. give me jason campbell please.

Schneed10 · 01-20-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckmcco

mark brunell was not the reason we made the playoffs this season. anyone else notice that his TD's a lot of the time were receivers making the plays after they caught the ball. he didnt play better this year than he did last year, other players made plays last year they werent makign the year before, and santana came in and was an animal. please. give me jason campbell please.

The fact that there were only 10 INTs was a bigger reason for victory than the 23 TDs were.

TURNOVERS ARE KEY IN THE NFL.

So many people love to ignore that fact. When evaluating a QB from now on, everyone remember the first stats to look at are INTs and FUMBLES.

chuckmcco · 01-20-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The fact that there were only 10 INTs was a bigger reason for victory than the 23 TDs were.

TURNOVERS ARE KEY IN THE NFL.

So many people love to ignore that fact. When evaluating a QB from now on, everyone remember the first stats to look at are INTs and FUMBLES.

you right and how many fumbles did he have?
more than last year, get your facts straight buddy.

Schneed10 · 01-20-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckmcco

you right and how many fumbles did he have?
more than last year, get your facts straight buddy.

No genius, they were the exact same as last year. In 2004 he played half the season and fumbled 5 times, losing 3 of them. In 2005 he played the entire season and fumbled 10 times, losing 6 of them. Those ratios are exactly the same.

That Guy · 01-20-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No genius, they were the exact same as last year. In 2004 he played half the season and fumbled 5 times, losing 3 of them. In 2005 he played the entire season and fumbled 10 times, losing 6 of them. Those ratios are exactly the same.

he fumbled 11 times and either way 10 > 6, i don't think the post you're replying to ever mentioned ratios.

firstdown · 01-20-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The fact that there were only 10 INTs was a bigger reason for victory than the 23 TDs were.

TURNOVERS ARE KEY IN THE NFL.

So many people love to ignore that fact. When evaluating a QB from now on, everyone remember the first stats to look at are INTs and FUMBLES.

To back that up look at our turnover ratio in the last 7 games we played. I think its somen where around plus 15 for us.

View Poll Results: Assuming Campbell is ready to go, who would you like to see starting opening day '06?
Campbell	105	60.34%
Brunell	69	39.66%
Voters: 174. You may not vote on this poll

01-20-2006, 02:38 PM	#1
skns03 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Glen Allen Va Posts: 35	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? i say campbell because he is the future of this franchise i don't care if we have one bad season look at what the giants did with manning next year they won our division I mean lets make a move

01-20-2006, 02:43 PM	#2
backrow The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 36.28 x 76.22 Age: 74 Posts: 1,812	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? I got lost looking for the P. Ramsey radio button! So, who is leading? __________________ '37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship!

01-20-2006, 03:39 PM	#3
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? I'm a Brunell supporter. Brunell came back this year after an abysmal 2004 and proved he can still play in this league and play well, regardless of what some might say.But I know I, like so many others here, are sick of having to continually defend him and listen to how Ramsey is Jesus in a football uniform. The Brunell bashing can get so mind-numbingly idiotic at times that it's not even worth it anymore really. Start Campbell and let's just move on. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

01-20-2006, 03:39 PM	#6
crlesh Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Boston, MA Age: 50 Posts: 142	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? It's a bit of a loaded question because 'assuming Campbell is ready to go' can mean several things. If it means he can play at the pro level with a good understanding of the offense without making 'rookie' mistakes, then I say start with Campbell and keep Brunell to teach and back him up (this all assumes Ramsey is gone as well). With his documented preference for proven veterans, I'm not certain Gibbs will do that however. A lot still remains to be seen in the offseason as well. Ask the question again in August, after we know what's happened with Ramsey and what changes have taken place with the team (offensively) and within our division. Of all the times to break in a new QB, the time to do it is when you have a good defense to compensate for potential mistakes, though...

01-20-2006, 04:13 PM	#7
Longtimefan Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Germantown, Md. Posts: 4,832	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? The one good thing about starting JC if that becomes the team decision is that our core group of players are still young enough to mature and develop along with him. Cooley, Portis, Moss are still young enough to reap the benefits of Jason's maturity.

01-20-2006, 04:49 PM	#9
LBrown43 Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Clinton (as in Portis) New Jersey Age: 64 Posts: 217	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? I think we should start Brunell and then bring in Campbell slowly. By all means start him in the preseason to see what he has. If he is overwhelmingly impressive, then start him opening day. Otherwise, go with Brunell one more year.

01-20-2006, 05:07 PM	#10
chuckmcco Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5	Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006? mark brunell was not the reason we made the playoffs this season. anyone else notice that his TD's a lot of the time were receivers making the plays after they caught the ball. he didnt play better this year than he did last year, other players made plays last year they werent makign the year before, and santana came in and was an animal. please. give me jason campbell please.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Campbell or Brunell in 2006?

Locker Room Main Forum