Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

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

So, who is leading?

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.

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...

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

[url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212338/quotes][B]Kevin[/B]: [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?
[B]Jack Byrnes[/B]: [Before Greg has a chance to respond] Greg's Jewish.
[B]Kevin[/B]: Really? Well so was J.C... [/url]

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.

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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

Campbell will not start or play next season unless we are out of the playoff hunt. Ramsey has a better chance of playing for us next season than Campbell. With Saunders coming in it might be good news for Ramsey by opening up some QB compitition. Brunell is the starter but I think that the coaches will look at alot of game film to determine wether Brunell can carry this team for another year. I would love to see us keep Ramsey for another year and see how he plays in preseason. I am not a hugh Ramsey fan but I do feel he has learned more this season on the sidelines than he had in all his past seasons. We have alot of great coaches and I have faith they will make the best decisions for our team.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

[QUOTE=chuckmcco]you right and how many fumbles did he have?
more than last year, get your facts straight buddy.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Campbell or Brunell in 2006?
 

Also, in 2004 Brunell took 15 sacks in the half season he played. In the other half of that season, Ramsey took 23 sacks. And Ramsey even had the benefit of playing behind an offensive line that was starting to gel at the end of the season.

The fumble rates of Brunell and Ramsey are not much different from each other. But the INT and sack rates are in Brunell's favor big-time. Sacks kill drives, when you lose 7 yards on a play, your chances of making a first down are very slim. You end up punting. INTs don't even give you a chance to gain any field position by punting.

Brunell is our best option going into next year. It's possible Campbell could be really good at taking care of the football, and I'll give him a chance to prove that to me. But usually young guys get intercepted. I say let him be the backup as long as Brunell is still good at managing an offense.