Brunell Back in 2007?

[12thMan]

Yes, another Brunell thread - so there!

I was wildly speculating on where Mark Brunell might end up in 2007 as either a viable number two or maybe, maybe challenge for a starting role somewhere.

1. San Francisco 49ers ( since the team is coming around, a vet with Brunell's resume might not be a bad idea while Smith continues to find his way)

2. Cleveland Browns (need I say more?)

3. New York Jets ( just kidding!)

4. Miami Dolphins (will they need both Harrington and Culpepper next year? One of the two may be gone)

The other teams that are serious long shots would be Oakland, Carolina, and finally the Eagles.

I know Brunell is one of Gibbs favorites, but I don't think he's a lock to return next year as the team may need to trim some fat.

[Big C]

i dont think anyone will take him as starter, and i dont know why he would leave just to be another backup unless he is cut here, which i also dont see happening

[Redskins_P]

I think he's retiring. Theres no way anyone in the league would sign him....even to be 3rd stringer.

[hesscl34]

I hope he remains our number 2. He's a vet and we could use him if JC gets hurt. He knows our team and our plays and Gibbs loves him. Can't beat that in a number 2.

[SmootSmack]

I could easily see him in Atlanta. He'd be close to home (Jacksonville), and he could help Musgrave work with Vick.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I could easily see him in Atlanta. He'd be close to home (Jacksonville), and he could help Musgrave work with Vick.

They have some work ahead of them. Vick is an incredible talent. Unfortunately, nobody can seem to tap into it consistently

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Hog1

They have some work ahead of them. Vick is an incredible talent. Unfortunately, nobody can seem to tap into it consistently

Not to turn this into a Vick thread, but they and others have tried to turn him into a convential quarterback, he'll never be that. Arthur Blank has said, in no uncertain terms, look get this thing together now or heads will start to roll.

[12thMan]

I could definitely see him playing elsewhere with no problem. Look around the league right now - heck the NFC. It's hard to find a hand full of QBs having solid seasons.

My point is, Brunell is more than serviceable and, honestly, I think he could could challenge for a starting role somewhere.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I could definitely see him playing elsewhere with no problem. Look around the league right now - heck the NFC. It's hard to find a hand full of QBs having solid seasons.

My point is, Brunell is more than serviceable and, honestly, I think he could could challenge for a starting role somewhere.

Are you frickin kidding me?????????? In 04 he was awful. 05 he had 1/2 a good season. This year? Nothing more needs to be said. So basically in his three years here he had 1/2 a good season. Anyone can throw screens and checkdown passes. Where a QB makes his money in the NFL is converting on 3rd down, and throwing the ball downfield. No team is going to have a 37 year unproductive QB starting that can't push the ball down the field. 2nd or 3rd string maybe.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Are you frickin kidding me?????????? In 04 he was awful. 05 he had 1/2 a good season. This year? Nothing more needs to be said. So basically in his three years here he had 1/2 a good season. Anyone can throw screens and checkdown passes. Where a QB makes his money in the NFL is converting on 3rd down, and throwing the ball downfield. No team is going to have a 37 year unproductive QB starting that can't push the ball down the field. 2nd or 3rd string maybe.

Question for you. All future considerations aside, has our offense this year been better overall under Brunell, or under Campbell thus far?

(Hint: there is a correct answer to this question)

I'm not sure what the criteria for having a good season is, but depending on how you grade QBs, there are good arguements for both '05 and '06 in terms of which season Brunell played better in.

I have no problem with the conclusion you have arrived at, but when you say stuff like "nothing more needs to be said" as your evidence, then you are begging to be double checked. Your methods of reason seem suspect.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Question for you. All future considerations aside, has our offense this year been better overall under Brunell, or under Campbell thus far?

(Hint: there is a correct answer to this question)

I'm not sure what the criteria for having a good season is, but depending on how you grade QBs, there are good arguements for both '05 and '06 in terms of which season Brunell played better in.

I have no problem with the conclusion you have arrived at, but when you say stuff like "nothing more needs to be said" as your evidence, then you are begging to be double checked. Your methods of reason seem suspect.

Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

I still think Brunell is a viable back-up and could start for at least two teams in the NFL and they wouldn't see much if any dropoff.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

2 1st Rnd. picks? Sure about that?
I thought we swapped 1st rnd. picks w/Denver & gave them 2 later rnd. picks (3rd & 4th I believe).

[The Zimmermans]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

Two #1 picks? When's the last time we had two first round picks.............I think it was back when we drafted Samuels and Lavar. If we actually had two first round picks last year we probably would have traded them away anyway, so it makes no difference.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

Hmm. I think the Kitna situation was a bit different, and actually I'd like to take a moment to revisit it. Kitna 2003 and Brunell 2005 were very similar seasons, so lets make them the same player for sake of arguement. We will call him Quarterback A.

(The Bengal 2003-2004 and Redskin 2005-2006 are VERY different situations, and you have to treat them as so)

So you are saying that the Bengals made a good decision moving right to Palmer in 2004, days after the '03 season ended? I'm not sure I agree with that. The Bengals were an 8-8 team in 2003, made the switch to Palmer suffered a ever so slight offensive dropoff (consistent for the sake of arguement), and ended up 8-8 again. Would they have been a playoff team with Kitna? I don't know, but there certainly would have been a better chance.

Since then, Palmer led the Bengals to the division crown in 2005, and coming off last nights win, appear to be in good postion to grab a WC birth this year, maybe the division if the Ravens drop 3 out of their last 4.

But was Palmer's "experience year" the reason for the offensive explosion in 2005? I tend to think it wasn't.

Now, the Redskins were a 10-6 playoff team in 2005. That's different from an 8-8 3rd place team. So right off the bat, expectations are sky high. Moving to Campbell preseason certainly would have knocked expectations down a few pegs (this is argueably a good thing). But a move like that would not have been well received at the time, because the goal was to improve on the 10-6 and win the division/get a first round bye/make a playoff run. Not to delay a year in mediocrity as we make the change to Campbell.

Obviously, the defensive dropoff threw a huge kink into our plans. Had we forseen this, we could have made the change to Campbell earlier. But once we went out in FA and sacrificed our long term well being for 2006 and 2007, we were committed to the playoffs this year and next year.

Which is why I asked you to answer the question about whether our offense was better with Brunell or Campbell thus far. I think you have to evaluate your decisions in the context they were made. Yes, I think if we had made the move to Campbell preseason, and were 4-7 at this point, our playoff prospects this year would look better than they do now. But Gibbs didn't have that knowledge at the time...so it was the RIGHT decision.

Unlike the Bengals, our future is now comprimised. This team doesn't ahve a whole lot of dead weight to cut loose, and our contract restructuring is going to begin to catch up to us. At some point within the next two years, we will either start cutting the vets loose (best possible move), or we simply wont have the cap room to resign young guys like Cooley and Sean Taylor (bad move, but not beyond us).

But looking at 2007, much of this team (offensively at least) will be back. Now, ask yourself this: Would Campbell be a better player with regards to 2007 if he had started this season at QB?

I really don't think so. He's going to get 7 starts this year (barring injury), and then hes going to have the offseason. Thats a lot of playing time. Come August 2007, I don't think anybody in the organization will be like "man, I wish JC started 16 games instead of 7". Over the offseason, Campbell will progress as a player mentally no matter how many starts he got.

So I think Gibbs made the switch when he did to make use JC got SOME playing time, and we really are only going to have one year to make a run at a title (and even that depends on the D finding itself these last 5 weeks). I think Gibbs also realized that although he is going to try to make the playoffs now, a 6 seed isn't going to get us to our season expectation. So at some point, he had to compromise the present for the future. That point was Week 11.

Lots of things went wrong for us this year, just don't blame the QB position for things beyond the control of one player.