Any update on Campbell?

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Ramsey didn't exactly light things up last year when he came in off the bench. He played better than Brunell did - that ain't sayin' much at all! This year, you can't tell me he played well when he played. He played like crap through preseason and through the Chicago game. He played well in the Giants game and he admitted that he improved because he had the benefit of watching Brunell play the entire year. If he is an improved quarterback, you can thank Brunell, Musgrave, and Joe Gibbs for that.

he didnt play like crap in the chicago game....... and maybe if he would have had the whole season to learn under fire maybe he could have been better but regardless brunell played like shit in alot of games this year..... and of course he can thank gibbs but ask jacksonville they cut brunell and it wasn't a salary cap cut either.....

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

he didnt play like crap in the chicago game....... and maybe if he would have had the whole season to learn under fire maybe he could have been better but regardless brunell played like shit in alot of games this year..... and of course he can thank gibbs but ask jacksonville they cut brunell and it wasn't a salary cap cut either.....

Unfortunately they didn't cut Brunell, we traded a 3rd rd pick for him. I thought it was foolish at the time, but after season season it was worth it. Hopefully we can find someone to give us a #3 for Ramsey. I get your basic point, however, I think you are perhaps a bit too attached to Ramsey though. Brunell played very well this season and I doubt Ramsey could have piloted this team to a similar record. His decision making is questionable and his play is inconsistent. Even in the Giants game he only made one throw and it really was not all that great...in fact is was borderline horrible. He was lucky Moss (and Will Allen) were on the other end of it. Ramsey's future is elsewhere, our future is Jason Campbell.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

he didnt play like crap in the chicago game.......

And you can't say he played great in that game and think that any of us will actually take you seriously ever again!

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

and maybe if he would have had the whole season to learn under fire maybe he could have been better

And maybe if God had blessed pigs to have wings, they'd fly! That is all you Ramsey apologists will ever have is a bunch of maybes.

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

but regardless brunell played like shit in alot of games this year

And you're full of it, because his stats tell us a completely different story!

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

..... and of course he can thank gibbs but ask jacksonville they cut brunell and it wasn't a salary cap cut either.....

Of course I thank Gibbs for giving Brunell an opportunity to prove that he can lead us to the playoffs! Gibbs is th' man! What do I care what Jacksonville thinks about players they release?

[PorterHouse]

ramsey was an interception machine. you gotta remember that.

[jdlea]

Look, at some point we're gonna have to lose some games to find out if a young quarterback can play. It's very rare that a young QB comes in and takes the league by storm. Would you have given up on Peyton after his first year sucked? The impatience that runs through the NFL is driving me crazy.

Maybe the team takes a few on the chin so a kid can learn how to play at this level. This isn't a great team as is. Brunell's not getting any younger. Whether it be next season or the one after that that we find out whether or not Jason Campbell is gonna be ready, we're probably gonna have a losing season that year. The NFL is cyclical like that. But trying to put a band aid on the quarterback position doesn't build a great team. You have to let players develop, especially when it comes to quarterbacks.

Ramsey was a mistake of a lot of people who didn't give him the chance to progress. It was just "win now or get out of the way." If we treat Campbell the same way, he won't end up being different. You can't yank players in and out of the game and expect them to become great players. It just doesn't work. Look at Carr and Harrington, they've been given chance after chance, Ramsey doesn't even have half the starts they do. I bet if he did, he'd be better than each of them. However, that's all beside the point now. We need to give Campbell a shot and whenever it happens, it can't be for a few preseason games and then 1 half of football before he gets the hook.

[skindogger47]

With our defense, we don't necessarily have to lose games to see if this guy is any good. He knows how not to lose a football game. Hand the ball to Portis. It's not like Brunell was out there dazzling us with his performances, especially the second half of the year, and we still won.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by PorterHouse

ramsey was an interception machine. you gotta remember that.

Please define "interception machine". Ramsey has 34 TD's and 29 picks for his career. That's a better ratio than Jake Plummer, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Eli Manning, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, Kyle Orton, and plenty of other quarterbacks that have seem game time this season. And at least five of Ramsey's picks came in games that he wasn't even starting, where Spurrier just had him come in to throw a hail mary.

I also think calling him "Rat Pansy" is a bit out of line. He took shots in Spurriers offense, like he was the opposing defense's personal punching bag, and kept getting up.

[MTK]

I'm sorry but anyone who can objectively look at Brunell's entire 2005 season and tell me he didn't play a significant role in those 10 wins is just flat out a Brunell hater.

3050 yards, 23 TDs, only 10 picks, 36 completions over 20 yards, 9 over 40 yards, 85.9 rating, 8 games with a QB rating of at least 90, 4 games with a QB rating over 100, and you're telling me the team won in spite of his efforts?

Please.

Let's put down the Ramsey weed and get back to reality.

[SmootSmack]

If Rich Gannon could lead his team to the Super Bowl at age 37, I see no reason why Brunell can't do it at 36. Brunell's comeback from 2004 was outstanding, and he had an excellent year. One of the best of a very good, if not great, career. Like Matty and others have said, to not give him any credit for the success of this season is just pure hate.

It's true that Brunell has basically hit his peak, but with the team we have right now I think that's good enough to be a damn good team.

Truthfully, part of me wants to see both Ramsey and Brunell gone. Just because all of this Ramsey vs. Brunell debate is just plain stupid. Ramsey (and Jacobs) have apparently never been given a chance to show what they can do. And Brunell was no more instrumental to the Redskins' success this year than BrudLee (no offense Brud). I'd almost rather just say good-bye to both and start fresh with Jason Campbell.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

If Rich Gannon could lead his team to the Super Bowl at age 37, I see no reason why Brunell can't do it at 36. Brunell's comeback from 2004 was outstanding, and he had an excellent year. One of the best of a very good, if not great, career. Like Matty and others have said, to not give him any credit for the success of this season is just pure hate.

It's true that Brunell has basically hit his peak, but with the team we have right now I think that's good enough to be a damn good team.

Truthfully, part of me wants to see both Ramsey and Brunell gone. Just because all of this Ramsey vs. Brunell debate is just plain stupid. Ramsey (and Jacobs) have apparently never been given a chance to show what they can do. And Brunell was no more instrumental to the Redskins' success this year than BrudLee (no offense Brud). I'd almost rather just say good-bye to both and start fresh with Jason Campbell.

The only problem is, they didn't win the Super Bowl.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by NM Redskin

The only problem is, they didn't win the Super Bowl.

True, but they got farther than 30 other teams

[offiss]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

If Rich Gannon could lead his team to the Super Bowl at age 37, I see no reason why Brunell can't do it at 36. Brunell's comeback from 2004 was outstanding, and he had an excellent year. One of the best of a very good, if not great, career. Like Matty and others have said, to not give him any credit for the success of this season is just pure hate.

It's true that Brunell has basically hit his peak, but with the team we have right now I think that's good enough to be a damn good team.

Truthfully, part of me wants to see both Ramsey and Brunell gone. Just because all of this Ramsey vs. Brunell debate is just plain stupid. Ramsey (and Jacobs) have apparently never been given a chance to show what they can do. And Brunell was no more instrumental to the Redskins' success this year than BrudLee (no offense Brud). I'd almost rather just say good-bye to both and start fresh with Jason Campbell.

Come on TAF, your not going to compare Brunell to what Gannon was doing in Oakland are you? Wasen't Gannon a league MVP? [not sure] But I do know this, he was a significant cog in the oakland offense, he was a big reason why they won, that can't be said about Brunell.

I don't really feel a QB is incapable of winning the big one at 36, but he better be a very good QB to do so, which Brunell is not, and he is certainly not posting numbers like Gannon.

If the choice is Brunell or Campbell I want Campbell, we are only spinning our tires with Brunell, I really believe the right choice here is Ramsey, perhaps we get Campbell some playing time along the way, then let Ramsey walk after the year is over and promote Campbell to starter.

I have an idea rather than trade Ramsey, why don't we recoupe some pic's by trading Brunell? If Ramsey can bring back A #2 or 3, then it's only right that Brunell command a #2 at the very least, after all he's a big time QB coming off a magnificent year and guided us to the second rd. of the playoff's. We wouldn't get laughed at by the rest of the GM's or anything would we?

It's funny but if you want to compare who is more valued by other teams than just put both of them on the market and see what kind of offers we get for either, I bet the offers come flooding in for Ramsey, and zip for Brunell.

I don't want to hear about age either, if a QB is capable of leading a team to the SB even if he only has 1 year left he would defiently have a lot of value to the right team. As well if Ramsey is incapable of leading a team to the SB, then what value does he really have? Why give up anything or invest in a QB who just doesn't have it, Dolphins, Jets, are 2 definate possiblities for Ramsey.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by offiss

Come on TAF, your not going to compare Brunell to what Gannon was doing in Oakland are you? Wasen't Gannon a league MVP? [not sure] But I do know this, he was a significant cog in the oakland offense, he was a big reason why they won, that can't be said about Brunell.

I don't really feel a QB is incapable of winning the big one at 36, but he better be a very good QB to do so, which Brunell is not, and he is certainly not posting numbers like Gannon.

Just to piggy back on this, I believe gannon had 4,800 passing yards that year. Brunell has NEVER come anywhere close to those kinds of stats. I'm just slightly wary of brunell cause he gets injured a lot, he plays piss-poorly when he is hurt and he seems to lose his game down the stretch of the season. That and he's a scrambling QB that's getting older and even slower.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm sorry but anyone who can objectively look at Brunell's entire 2005 season and tell me he didn't play a significant role in those 10 wins is just flat out a Brunell hater.

Why is stating facts hating? It's ok to hate on Ramsey and LaVar, but god forbid someone make a disparaging remark about Brunell. As I said before, I was happy with Brunells' season overall, but he had a few piss pour performances. For instance:

The Arizona game: 18 of 28, 122yds, 0 TD's/3 INT's, and a 34.2 rating

The 2nd Philly game: 9 of 24, 141yds, 1 TD's/1 INT, and a 52.2 rating

The Wild Card game: 7 of 15, 41yds, 0 TD's/ 1 INT, and a 25.7 rating

There's three games that I would say Washington won, in spite of Mark Brunell. And if anyone remembers the first Seattle game, Brunell threw a pick deep in Redskins territory, that would've cost Washington that game if Josh Brown doesn't hit the upright.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Why is stating facts hating? It's ok to hate on Ramsey and LaVar, but god forbid someone make a disparaging remark about Brunell. As I said before, I was happy with Brunells' season overall, but he had a few piss pour performances. For instance:

The Arizona game: 18 of 28, 122yds, 0 TD's/3 INT's, and a 34.2 rating

The 2nd Philly game: 9 of 24, 141yds, 1 TD's/1 INT, and a 52.2 rating

The Wild Card game: 7 of 15, 41yds, 0 TD's/ 1 INT, and a 25.7 rating

There's three games that I would say Washington won, in spite of Mark Brunell. And if anyone remembers the first Seattle game, Brunell threw a pick deep in Redskins territory, that would've cost Washington that game if Josh Brown doesn't hit the upright.

You pointed out 3 poor games, I'm not denying he had some poor outings, but overall he had more good games than poor ones.

I don't have a problem with someone saying he had some poor outings, he definitely did, but what I do have a problem with is someone who discounts what he did over the course of the entire year and giving him no credit at all.