Campbell is opening some eyes!

Archive of our daily coverage of the Washington Redskins' 2003-2007 Training Camps.
Junior Hog
User avatar
Posts: 11246
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:18 am
Location: Mayo, Maryland

Postby Jake » Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:59 pm

Mursilis wrote:
JPM36 wrote:Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB.


Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?


I.E. Schroeder, Rypien. Gibbs takes a while to ease his qb's into actual games. Be patient. Gibbs knows what he's doing.
RIP Sean Taylor 1983-2007
RIP Kevin Mitchell 1971-2007
RIP Justin Skaggs 1979-2007
RIP Sammy Baugh 1914-2008

RIP JPFair
RIP VetSkinsFan

#60 Chris Samuels: 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time 6-time Pro Bowl left tackle!

---
User avatar
Posts: 18570
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:09 pm

Mursilis wrote:
JPM36 wrote:Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB.


Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?


how is it not wise? he is still going to be the same player next year. does he have an expiration date we aren't aware of? gibbs jumped on him because of his specific traits.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

####
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby JPM36 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:26 pm

Mursilis wrote:
JPM36 wrote:Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB.


Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?



What I'm saying is that I am sick and tired of people acting like there is or should be a QB controversy this season. Mark Brunell threw for 3,000 yards, 23 TD, and only 10 INTs last year, and was under center for a trip to the divisional playoffs. So why in HELL would anyone want to put in an unproven 2nd year player who has never taken a snap in an NFL game? It makes absolutely no sense and the people who are in the "start-Campbell" camp are completely clueless, in my opinion.


We drafted Campbell so that Joe Gibbs could groom him and he could eventually be our starting QB. If we didn't have playoff aspirations and if Brunell hadn't played well last year I'd say start Campbell, but we do and he did.

Campbell will get in there eventually but unless Brunell gets hurt, I think anyone who wants someone else in there at QB is out of their mind and doesn't understand football.
R.I.P. Christopher Wallace (May 21, 1972 - March 9, 1997)

R.I.P. Sean Taylor (April 1, 1983 - November 27, 2007)

Site Admin
Posts: 9282
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:34 am
Location: London, Ontario

Postby BossHog » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:30 pm

Mursilis wrote: Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?


Stick to commenting on the post and not directing comments at the poster... I'm pretty sure his name isn't Captain Obvious.

I also don't see how a post that has NOTHING but 'Brunell is our QB' in it says that it was 'wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play'. I'd call that putting words in someone's mouth.

Are YOU saying that it's wise to stick in a second year QB in who might not be quite ready to play, as opposed to using a proven QB? And all just because you drafted him in the first round and need to 'rationalize' the draft day decision?
Last edited by BossHog on Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sean Taylor was one of a kind, may he rest in peace.

----------
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:48 am

Postby Steve Spurrier III » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:43 pm

Jake wrote:I.E. Schroeder, Rypien. Gibbs takes a while to ease his qb's into actual games. Be patient. Gibbs knows what he's doing.


Schroeder played in nine games his rookie season and all sixteen in his second. I agree that Gibbs knows what he is doing, but to say that Gibbs holds his young quarterbacks out of action as a rule is a bit misleading.
I'm bored, I'm broke, and I'm back.

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:18 am

JPM36 wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
JPM36 wrote:Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB. Brunell is our QB.


Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?



What I'm saying is that I am sick and tired of people acting like there is or should be a QB controversy this season. Mark Brunell threw for 3,000 yards, 23 TD, and only 10 INTs last year, and was under center for a trip to the divisional playoffs.


By that line of reasoning, we should've been making a big offer for Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson - they've been under center for Super Bowl champions!

Campbell will get in there eventually but unless Brunell gets hurt, I think anyone who wants someone else in there at QB is out of their mind and doesn't understand football.


Or maybe someone sat through the '04 season. Remember that Brunell? I wouldn't bring it up, except for Gibbs' alarming tendency to play an injured Brunell over a healthy anybody else. This team is one big hit away from the '04 Brunell all over again, and it won't matter who the No. 2 is; Brunell will still be in there.

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:25 am

BossHog wrote:
Mursilis wrote: Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?


Stick to commenting on the post and not directing comments at the poster... I'm pretty sure his name isn't Captain Obvious.

I also don't see how a post that has NOTHING but 'Brunell is our QB' in it says that it was 'wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play'. I'd call that putting words in someone's mouth.

Are YOU saying that it's wise to stick in a second year QB in who might not be quite ready to play, as opposed to using a proven QB? And all just because you drafted him in the first round and need to 'rationalize' the draft day decision?


It's all about the opportunity cost - we spent a No. 1 on JC, but he's not playing. I can only think of one other No. 1 from '05 who never saw the field last year, and probably won't this year - Aaron Rogers, and that's because he's behind Farve, who's a legend if you're a Packers fan. Our other No. 1 from '05, C. Rogers, got time last year and will likely be the starter this year. No. 1 picks usually play right away, because they're the best of the best. It just seems like a waste to have a No. 1 pick riding the bench, and there's no guarantee he'll play next year, either. I understand QB's need a little time to learn the pro game, but part of that learning process is playing. JC's not even the No. 2 yet!
Last edited by Mursilis on Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:54 am
Location: St Louis via Manassas, Va.

Postby USAFSkinFan » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:53 am

Mursilis wrote:
BossHog wrote:
Mursilis wrote: Thanks, Captain Obvious. So you're saying it was wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play?


Stick to commenting on the post and not directing comments at the poster... I'm pretty sure his name isn't Captain Obvious.

I also don't see how a post that has NOTHING but 'Brunell is our QB' in it says that it was 'wise to spend a No. 1 draft pick on a player who's not actually going to play'. I'd call that putting words in someone's mouth.

Are YOU saying that it's wise to stick in a second year QB in who might not be quite ready to play, as opposed to using a proven QB? And all just because you drafted him in the first round and need to 'rationalize' the draft day decision?


It's all about the opportunity cost - we spent a No. 1 on JC, but he's not playing. I can only thing of one other No. 1 from '05 who never saw the field last year, and probably won't this year - Aaron Rogers, and that's because he's behind Farve, who's a legend if you're a Packers fan. Our other No. 1 from '05, C. Rogers, got time last year and will likely be the starter this year. No. 1 picks usually play right away, because they're the best of the best. It just seems like a waste to have a No. 1 pick riding the bench, and there's no guarantee he'll play next year, either. I understand QB's need a little time to learn the pro game, but part of that learning process is playing. JC's not even the No. 2 yet!


Aaron Rodgers played last year in 3 different games, and actually had 16 pass attempts... he's a seasoned veteran now...

Site Admin
Posts: 9282
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:34 am
Location: London, Ontario

Postby BossHog » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:56 am

I personally don't care who plays as long as it's the best man for the job... and right now, that's UNDOUBTEDLY Mark Brunell.

I personally don't care if Campbell NEVER sees the field if it's because Brunell is doing so well that Gibbs can't justify putting Jason in.

You go right on whining about JC not starting or playing all you want... it's all just dead air to me as long as Brunell is the best man for the job, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Obviously you don't WANT to waste any first round pick, but frankly, I don't see the logic behind sticking a kid in there JUST because you spent a first rounder on him.

... and thankfully neither does Joe Gibbs.

No offense, but I'll take his word on it over yours 365 days a year.
Sean Taylor was one of a kind, may he rest in peace.

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:15 am

BossHog wrote:I personally don't care who plays as long as it's the best man for the job... and right now, that's UNDOUBTEDLY Mark Brunell.

I personally don't care if Campbell NEVER sees the field if it's because Brunell is doing so well that Gibbs can't justify putting Jason in.


Just like he couldn't justify replacing Brunell in '04 because hey, he was riding a hot streak that year!

You go right on whining about JC not starting or playing all you want... it's all just dead air to me as long as Brunell is the best man for the job, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Obviously you don't WANT to waste any first round pick, but frankly, I don't see the logic behind sticking a kid in there JUST because you spent a first rounder on him.

... and thankfully neither does Joe Gibbs.

No offense, but I'll take his word on it over yours 365 days a year.


I've got to think there's some reason Gibbs drafted him, or was it just that JC's clipboard-holding skills were that good?

and Jackson
Posts: 8384
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV

Postby JansenFan » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:39 am

BernieSki wrote:I just left Redskins Park about an hour ago. I was only there for about an hour but I finally got to meet several members of THN, seemed like a nice group of people. ( A lot of Scotts ). I look forward to tailgating with them sometime.


One more, and we have to change the name to theScotts.net. :oops:
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:44 am

Mursilis wrote:
BossHog wrote:I personally don't care who plays as long as it's the best man for the job... and right now, that's UNDOUBTEDLY Mark Brunell.

I personally don't care if Campbell NEVER sees the field if it's because Brunell is doing so well that Gibbs can't justify putting Jason in.


Just like he couldn't justify replacing Brunell in '04 because hey, he was riding a hot streak that year!


Mursilis: You can beat on the '04 drum all you want, but that was 2 years, a playoff win, and several draft picks ago.

Can we, as a fan base, finally move on from '04? It would definintely help keep us focused on winning the SB in the '06 season, which is what we want anyways, right?

Just to put things in perspective, if you were offered a 5000% raise at your job today, in 2006, would you have to evaluate whether it's the right thing to do based on the fact that you had to take a 2% pay cut in '04???

I mean, let's get with the program, and enjoy our Super Bowl run this year, bro!!! :rock:
Back and better than ever!

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:13 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
BossHog wrote:I personally don't care who plays as long as it's the best man for the job... and right now, that's UNDOUBTEDLY Mark Brunell.

I personally don't care if Campbell NEVER sees the field if it's because Brunell is doing so well that Gibbs can't justify putting Jason in.


Just like he couldn't justify replacing Brunell in '04 because hey, he was riding a hot streak that year!


Mursilis: You can beat on the '04 drum all you want, but that was 2 years, a playoff win, and several draft picks ago.

Can we, as a fan base, finally move on from '04? It would definintely help keep us focused on winning the SB in the '06 season, which is what we want anyways, right?

Just to put things in perspective, if you were offered a 5000% raise at your job today, in 2006, would you have to evaluate whether it's the right thing to do based on the fact that you had to take a 2% pay cut in '04???

I mean, let's get with the program, and enjoy our Super Bowl run this year, bro!!! :rock:


Absolutely. As the old saying goes, winning solves everything, and I expect there will be plenty of that this year!

Don't take any of my posts too seriously, Redeemed. This is just the modern equivalent of barroom sports arguments which have been going on for ages. Lots of passion and fury, but no real point. It's not like Gibbs is going to actually bench Brunell and start Campbell because someone on the internet thinks the kid's ready to go. We can debate Brunell v. Campbell, Brunell v. Ramsey, etc., endlessly, but we're all 'skins fans, and as long as the 'skins are winning and 'boys are losing, it's all good! I'm certainly going to cheer for my team regardless of which particular player lines up behind center (or anywhere else).
HTTR

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:16 am

Mursilis wrote:Don't take any of my posts too seriously, Redeemed. This is just the modern equivalent of barroom sports arguments which have been going on for ages. Lots of passion and fury, but no real point.


Well, in that case.... I think Casey Bramlet can school the rest of those clowns. All he needs is a real shot with the first string. The 3rd and 4th stringers are making him look bad, and that's not right!!! :x

I dare you to try to prove otherwise. :lol:
Back and better than ever!

Site Admin
Posts: 9282
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:34 am
Location: London, Ontario

Postby BossHog » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:55 am

Mursilis wrote: I've got to think there's some reason Gibbs drafted him, or was it just that JC's clipboard-holding skills were that good?


... as long as he's holding the clipboard on the sidelines deep into a playoff run... WHO CARES? (You apparently.)

We drafted him because JG liked the kid and you need to have two quarterbacks that can play as far as Gibbs is concerned... he's ALWAYS said that the BACKUP QB is one of the most important positions on the roster.

Why not stop skipping a season in your recollections... you know, last season... the season where Brunell took us deeper into the playoffs than we've been since '91...

... because trust me on this one... we're DONE if Campbell goes in and isn't more ready to play than he is at THIS moment. That could change by later in the year... Campbell is going to keep getting lots of reps and probably a lot of preseason action too... the kid needs some time to grow into an NFL QB and the Redskins have the luxury of being able to grant him that right now. Hopefully we can even blow out a team or two this season and get Campbell in late in the game.

I'd play Campbell lots before September... he needs the seasoning. It also allows Brunell to rest more and not risk any silly preseason injuries. Try as I might, I can't find a single negative to that.

I think some of you have been so buried with Redskin mediocrity and for such a long time, that you struggle to talk about anything BUT negatives.
Sean Taylor was one of a kind, may he rest in peace.

Return to Redskins Training Camp - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007