How Will Campbell Be Handled?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I have my doubts about this. I AM relieved that Gibbs asked Brunell to add a flexibility program to his workout regimen.

[MTK]

Gibbs is bringing Campbell along slowly, and having a capable veteran in front of him affords him that luxury. I don't think it speaks to Campbell's inability at all.

As I've said many times already, this team is loading up for a championship run. We have a veteran QB who just led us to the playoffs, obviously it makes perfect sense to stick with the veteran, take a shot at winning it all, and in the meantime you give your young QB another year to soak things up on the sideline and be better prepared to take over in 2007.

Two years on the bench is not the end of the world for a QB. More teams would probably do it too if it wasn't for the tremendous investment that is made in first round QBs. In today's win now or else NFL, teams are almost forced to play young QBs before they are truly ready. We should feel lucky that we can allow Campbell to sit and learn.

All that being said, this entire debate can boil down to this for me. Gibbs knows QBs. He knows how to handle them, he's won with multiple guys, and if we can't trust him, who can we?

[724Skinsfan]

Precisely. I doubt Gibbs is somewhere in a cold, dank basement corner self-hugging himself in a fetal position wondering what should he do regarding the QB situation. He knows people and he knows who the best available man for the job is.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Very true. I'm fine as long as Brunell plays like he did at the beginning of the season. And with all the weapons he'll have now, I have no reason to believe he won't. My ONLY thing is that if he gets hurt and knows it's affecting his game, I just wish he would bring that up with Gibbs.

I know Portis can carry the team on his back, but I don't think my heart can take any more of those type of close games.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I know Portis can carry the team on his back, but I don't think my heart can take any more of those type of close games.

I should've bought stock in Tums for the amount I chew on watching 'Skins games dating back to 1992. Winning by 8 points or more is/was considered a blowout for me.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Haha! I know the feeling. I think I got an ulcer from the first Dallas game alone.

[Huddle]

TheMalcolmConnection

My ONLY thing is that if he gets hurt and knows it's affecting his game, I just wish he would bring that up with Gibbs.

Mark Brunell said that the hamstring injury in 2004 wasn't that much of a factor in his lackluster performance that year. My sense is that his strong supporters make the injury theory more of a factor than it really is when assessing Mark's performance. I regard it as a minor factor.

The major factor is his age and the accumulated wear and tear on his body.

In his prime, Brunell's game might be compared to Michael Vick's, a threat to run or pass especially when rolling left. He's not that much of a threat anymore even when he's 100%.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Mark Brunell said that the hamstring injury in 2004 wasn't that much of a factor in his lackluster performance that year. My sense is that his strong supporters make the injury theory more of a factor than it really is when assessing Mark's performance. I regard it as a minor factor.

The major factor is his age and the accumulated wear and tear on his body.

In his prime, Brunell's game might be compared to Michael Vick's, a threat to run or pass especially when rolling left. He's not that much of a threat anymore even when he's 100%.

Brunell talked down his hamstring injury in 2004, but I don't think anyone can deny something was drastically hurting his play that year. The Mark Brunell from 2004 was not the Brunell of 2005, or compared to any other year in his career.

After the second Giants game in 2005 he was once again very clearly hampered by his injury. His play dropped off drastically and we saw shades of the 2004 Brunell.

This quote from Gibbs is an indicator that Brunell's leg injuries are a concern:

"Mark's in good shape for his age, [but] his legs are a concern. [We want to] add some things to the offseason program for him from a flexibility standpoint."

Brunell isn't the same QB when his legs are bothering him. He's never had a rocket arm, so much like a finese pitcher in baseball, take away his legs and you have a QB that loses his accuracy and velocity.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

The major factor is his age and the accumulated wear and tear on his body.

Then how do you account for the drastic difference in his performance early in the season compared to late in the season? If it was just age related, I'd expect his performance to be pretty consistent throughout the season. But it wasn't, he was much better early on than he was in the last few games and in the playoffs.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Exactly. After the Giants game, his play very obviously dropped off. It wasn't like his body said, "OK, it's this far in the season, time for me to give out."

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Wear and tear you notice over the course of the season, you can't turn it on and off like a switch.

[Huddle]

Mattyk72

Brunell talked down his hamstring injury in 2004, but I don't think anyone can deny something was drastically hurting his play that year. The Mark Brunell from 2004 was not the Brunell of 2005, or compared to any other year in his career.

The 2004 Gibbs offensive scheme was the major problem. By the time Ramsey took over, it was improved, particularly with the running game. Ramsey was lucky he didn't win the starting job at the beginning of the year.

After the second Giants game in 2005 he was once again very clearly hampered by his injury. His play dropped off drastically and we saw shades of the 2004 Brunell.

After the SF game, defenses adjusted. They doubled Santana and limited Brunell's effectiveness on his rollouts. These, I think, were the primary factors in the drop off (Didn't you say earlier the dropoff didn't happen?).

This quote from Gibbs is an indicator that Brunell's leg injuries are a concern: Brunell isn't the same QB when his legs are bothering him. He's never had a rocket arm, so much like a finese pitcher in baseball, take away his legs and you have a QB that loses his accuracy and velocity.

As I said, Brunell's strong supporters make it more of a factor than Mark does. Maybe Mark just doesn't want to make excuses but I doubt it. Besides, if the injuries were that restrictive, why was he playing?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I really don't think Mark wants to make excuses. And I feel that he was playing simply because he could manage the game better than Ramsey or Campbell. He knew that he could make simple throws and let Portis win the game simply by managing the game well.

But you SERIOUSLY think that the length of the season just hit him like a ton of bricks after the second Giants game? I find that a little hard to believe that he just stopped throwing well because the season was long. Matty is correct in saying that when you have a leg injury, your throwing is obviously hampered.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

After the SF game, defenses adjusted. They doubled Santana and limited Brunell's effectiveness on his rollouts. These, I think, were the primary factors in the drop off (Didn't you say earlier the dropoff didn't happen?).

Wait a second dude. You just got done telling me that Brunell's performance was mainly driven by age and wear and tear on the body. Now you're saying that his effectiveness was limited because they doubled Moss.

First off, doubling Moss has nothing to do with Brunell's skill. Defenses doubled Moss because they knew we had no threatening WR opposite him once Patten went down. If Brunell's effectiveness was limited by that defensive adjustment, it's not an indictment of his skill. By providing enough WR threats to Brunell, we make it tough for defenses to double Moss without getting burned by Lloyd or Randle-El, or a healthy David Patten for that matter. And if defenses can't make that same adjustment that they did last year, Brunell's effectiveness shouldn't be limited.

You're having trouble separating the cause of Brunell's decline in performance from the effects.

[Huddle]

TheMalcolmConnection

But you SERIOUSLY think that the length of the season just hit him like a ton of bricks after the second Giants game?

Nope. I never said that.

From the Seattle game through the SF blowout, Brunell & Co. put up some really gaudy stats. The offense looked like it couldn't be stopped.

The problem was that most of the production could be accounted for by the Brunell to Santana connection and Brunell's rolling left and throwing into the short zone. Beginning with the first Giants game, defenses adjusted and reduced the effectiveness of both options.

Brunell's age and the injuries were minor factors in the slump in my opinion.