Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Schneed10 · 01-20-2006, 04:21 PM

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.

01-20-2006, 04:21 PM	#60
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	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.