Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

I want the best quarterback on the field. One who gives us the best shot at not only the playoffs, but bringing home the Super Bowl Trophy. If it's Campbell, that would be awesome! If it's Brunell, just as good! I would love to see Campbell come out and lead this team like an all-pro! That would be great because we know we'd have a guy who could play for us for a number of years...obviously Brunell is in his twilight years as an NFL quarterback. However, if Brunell can lead us to glory next year, I'd be just fine with that!

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=celts32]If "ready to go" means campbel is ready to play at a level at least close to Brunell last year than I say Campbel, but if not than Brunell. I want the best QB on the field...this is a playoff team now so i don't want to squander a whole season waiting on Campbell.

The Bills made a similar decision last year by replacing Bledsoe with losman on what was a contending team and it blew up in their faces.[/QUOTE]

Well obviously we would want the best QB on the field. The thread is to debate whether you think Campbell will put in the offseason work and be mentally ready for the starting roll (to which I say yes).

Phenomenal point about the Bills though, I can easily see the same scenario playing out in DC, and that would really suck.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=mooby]I say we go with Brunell until he either:
A. Gets injured, because we all know how he plays when he's injured
B. Just generally sucks ass, or does not perform up to expectations.
The reason is, because Campbell has only learned for a year. Give him a few extra games, or another year on the bench, if Brunell can consistently play at a high level. There is no reason to put such a young quarterback out there. In case you don't know who J.P. Losman is, he was a second year quarterback for the Bills this year. They let Bledsoe go because they thought Losman would be ready to go as well. Instead, they wound up with a horrible record and Losman didn't even start the full season because he sucked so bad. I could see the same thing happening to us if we started Campbell on opening day.[/QUOTE]

But it could be like the Bengals, who benched a solid vet in Kitna to get Palmer playing time in 2004. The teams' and Palmers' performance in 2005 showed that it was probably worth it.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

There is no way Gibbs will turn a playoff contending team over to an unproven QB. MB will be the starter next year and if he gets another WR will do just fine.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

Let's say, though, that the team contends and does the same next year under Brunell? How long do we live and die by him? I'm not even injecting my own opinion, I just want to know when people think we should turn it over to Campbell if we don't do it next year.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=irish]There is no way Gibbs will turn a playoff contending team over to an unproven QB. MB will be the starter next year and if he gets another WR will do just fine.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he didn't do that with Schroeder and Rypien ;)

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Yeah, he didn't do that with Schroeder and Rypien ;)[/QUOTE]

Big difference though, Campbell has 1 year under his belt, Ryp and Schroeder were stashed on the Skins roster for alot longer than that before they saw action.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Yeah, he didn't do that with Schroeder and Rypien ;)[/QUOTE]


Haha....good point! Of course, he didn't have a choice with Schroeder, but Doug Williams - a veteran - won us the Super Bowl! :)

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

Start with Brunell, finish with Campbell. When exactly Campbell comes in will be entirely up to Brunell's performance, but the over/under is 10 games. By then, I feel like Brunell will have enough nagging injuries to make the move to Campbell prudent.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Big difference though, Campbell has 1 year under his belt, Ryp and Schroeder were stashed on the Skins roster for alot longer than that before they saw action.[/QUOTE]

Well I think Schroeder was just a rookie when he was thrust into action, but that was out of necessity when Joey T when down.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Big difference though, Campbell has 1 year under his belt, Ryp and Schroeder were stashed on the Skins roster for alot longer than that before they saw action.[/QUOTE]

Schroeder's first year in the NFL was 1985. He was the starter in 1986.
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SchrJa00.htm[/url]

Rypien's first year in the NFL was 1988. He was the starter for most of 1989.
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RypiMa00.htm[/url]

Now, granted, they were 24 and 26 respectively, and I have no clue what they were doing before then. However, I don't think that makes a difference in proving the point - there is no arguing this shows that Gibbs has demonstrated he isn't afraid to start inexperienced QBs that he believes in.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

Brunell still has some gas left, they'll look to surround him with a few more weapons and with an upgraded scheme with Saunders now aboard I see Brunell starting off the year as the starter again.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]Schroeder's first year in the NFL was 1985. He was the starter in 1986.
[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SchrJa00.htm"]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/SchrJa00.htm[/url]

Rypien's first year in the NFL was 1988. He was the starter for most of 1989.
[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RypiMa00.htm"]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RypiMa00.htm[/url]

Now, granted, they were 24 and 26 respectively, and I have no clue what they were doing before then. However, I don't think that makes a difference in proving the point - there is no arguing this shows that Gibbs has demonstrated he isn't afraid to start inexperienced QBs that he believes in.[/QUOTE]

I believe Rypien was stashed on IR in 1987, technically his first year in the league.

[url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1064"]http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1064[/url]

Same deal with Schroeder, stashed on IR in 1984. He was taken in the 3rd round in '84.

[url="http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/1984"]http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/1984[/url]

Yeah I know we're splitting hairs here, point is they both still had more experience than Campbell would if he were to play next year.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I believe Rypien was stashed on IR in 1987, technically his first year in the league.

[url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1064"]http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1064[/url]

Same deal with Schroeder, stashed on IR in 1984. He was taken in the 3rd round in '94.

[url="http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/1984"]http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/1984[/url]

Yeah I know we're splitting hairs here, point is they both still had more experience than Campbell would if he were to play next year.[/QUOTE]

Do you remember what the rules were on players being eligible to practice while on IR back then? I don't even know what they are now actually.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Do you remember what the rules were on players being eligible to practice while on IR back then? I don't even know what they are now actually.[/QUOTE]

Good question. I'm really not sure.

All I know is that was a frequent trick of Gibbs back then, to stash a player on IR.

Ryp was actually hurt in '87 though, so he might have been on IR for a good reason.