Campbell to start over Brunell

Discussion in 'Washington Redskins' started by gamecubedave101, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. Bunnyman

    Bunnyman Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    This is certainly about racism. The Skins now start only 3 whites. Listen to talk radio around DC and who gets the blame for the poor season? Archuleta, Brunell and - yes - Gibbs. Anyone detect a pattern there?

    Jansen better watch out ... he might be the next scapegoat.

    God, I hope this racist team loses bad on Sunday.
     
  2. Matt_Bowen_Fan

    Matt_Bowen_Fan Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    I'm curious; how many of you have followed the 'Skins this season? Watched all their pre- and regular season games? Brunell is fading, and fading quickly. He is washed up. He's thrown what? 5 passes over 20 yards so far this season? Defenses aren't scared of him going deep, and the best pass thrown this past Sunday was by Randle El.

    Campbell, from the pre-season, is not a one look and run type QB. He's mobile, but not especially fast. He did a good job making reads, and if nothing was open, he'd pick up three or four yards. He's not as good a scrambler as Brunell was in his younger days, frankly. But the 'Skins need to see what they have, sonce they actually have a first-round pick this next offseason.
     
  3. Bunnyman

    Bunnyman Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    I follow the Skins and if Campbell does well he will be the next savior to the local Skins fans. If that is the case, we may well see the Skins be the first team to embrace the Holy Grail in 2008 -- all-black starters on both offense and defense.

    In fact, we're only a few injuries away from that right now.
     
  4. White Shogun

    White Shogun Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,285
    I'm curious, too. I watch a lot of 'Skins games because I live in Dallas Cowboy country. We always get divisional games on the tube even when Dallas is not playing. My perception of Brunell's play is a little different than some of the others on the board. Let's take a look at Brunell's stats for '06:

    Att 260 Comp 162, for 1,789 yards, 8 TD, 4 INT, and an 86.5 QB rating. His completion percentage is 62.3%. He has 12 sacks and 5 fumbles. He also set the NFL single game consecutive completion record this season.

    Not bad for a 36-year old washed up has-been quarterback who can't throw the ball more than 20 yards.

    By the way, Brunell is 46 of 70 for passes over 20 yards, a 65.7% completion rate, for 575 yards and a quarterback rating of of 88.7.

    In passes over 30 yards, Brunell is 9 of 16, for a 56.3% completion rate, for 121 yards and a 101.3 quarterback rating.

    His stats for the two games he's played in November show some slippage, so maybe there is something to his 'fading' fast. Too bad we won't get to see if it's true or not.

    For comparison purposes:
    Tom Brady
    180 of 304 attempts, 2054 yards, 15 TD 9 INT, 59.2%, 83.7 QB rating.

    Jake Delhomme
    182 of 304 attempts, 1970 yards, 10 TD 6 INT, 59.9%, 81.7 QB rating.

    David Garrard
    37 of 73 attempts, 478 yards, 3 TD 4 INT, 50.7%, 62.5 QB rating.

    Mike Vick
    129 of 246 attempts, 1559 yards, 12 TD 9 INT, 52.4%, 73.2 QB rating.

    From any objective standard, Brunell is still a good quarterback. His performance is on par with some who are considered to be among the league's elite. And he plays better than some quarterbacks who were considered good enough to replace other quarterbacks in their team's starting lineup.

    So if you want to argue that the 'Skins season is over and they need to address the future, then fine: start Campbell. But if you're saying Brunell has been benched because of poor play, then I'd have to argue with you.

    Considering that this is the same team that blamed Archuleta for their piss-poor defense, I'm skeptical of any roster moves the 'Skins make.
     
  5. Bart

    Bart Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,329

    Nice post Shogun. I too, checked Brunell's stats and was surprised to see they are actually much better than I had expected.


    Now, lets's compare this washed up bum's numbers to those of Steve McNair who is getting all kinds of accolades.


    McNair: Att. 270 Comp. 162 for 1692yards, 10 YD,9 INT.and an 76.7 rating. Competion % of 60.0. He has 12 sacks and 6 fumbles.


    McNair has 2 more TD's. BUThe has thrown 5 more picks. Brunell has a much more favorable TD - INT ratio.
     
  6. White Shogun

    White Shogun Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,285
    Bart,
    Good call on the McNair-Brunell comparison. Wish I'd thought of it. [​IMG] Those numbers make the disparate treatment of two similar quarterbacks even much more apparent.

    McNair is the Savior of the Ravens. But Brunell has more yards, a higher completion percentage, a higher QB rating, less INT, and less fumbles than the highly touted McNair. Yet, Brunell is considered a problem on the 'Skins.

    If Washington had Baltimore's D, the 'Skins would probably be 7-2, like the Ravens. Who would you rather have as your premier running back, Portis or Jamal Lewis? What about your receivers? Santa Moss or the assorted Ravens receivers?

    If Washington had Baltimore's D, Brunell would be considered a veteran superstar; instead, he's been relegated to the bench, where he and Archuleta take the blame for the mess Gibbs and crew have made of this team.
     
  7. JD074

    JD074 Master

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Great? Really??
     
  8. JD074

    JD074 Master

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Tisk, tisk, tisk. Shogun and Bart, how dare you use those pesky little things called "facts" during a debate! You're only allowed to use preconceived notions and other people's opinions. Shame on you!

    [​IMG]

    Just kidding.
     
  9. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    24,621
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The racial component is glaringly there in cases like McNair, from the way Volek was treated to the failure to bench McNair when he declined to the lionization process he's received since being traded to the Ravens even though he mostly hasn't played well. In fact it's always there any time there's a black starting quarterback involved. They're regarded much like tribal chieftains -- assumed to be the starter for life thus difficult to bench until it's obvious to all butthe most die-hard supporters.


    But in the case of the Redskins, if I had drafted a QB in the first round and my team was out of the playoff picture it only makes sense to start the young QB to see what he can do. I don't think Brunell is being benched because he's white or that Campbell is being promoted prematurely because he's black. I've been as stern a critic of Joe Gibbs as anyone, but this move is explicable. It may not have happened if Brunell were black and the youngster white, but it should have.


    Drafting Campbell that high may turn out to be a mistake, but the Redskins need to find out whether it was or not. What better time than now, when they're having a lost season?
     
  10. Matt_Bowen_Fan

    Matt_Bowen_Fan Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    Look at the games as you read those off. Lots of screens. Lots of short passes. Lots of third-downs where he's throwing to receivers well short of the chains.

    That's a curious statisitc. If he's 46 of 70 on passes of over 20 yards, how does it only work out to 575 yards? 46x20=920. If those 575 yards come from passes of 20+ yards, that only works out to 28.75. NFL.com shows the 20+ stat as only 25, btw.

    If he's made nine passes of 30+ yards, shouldn't that be at least 270 yards? Or do those stats account for the laterals which go for big yardage? How are those stats being figured? NFL.com has no 30+ stat, but their 40+ stat has 5 for Brunell.

    Just as his stats went down as the season progressed in both prior seasons.

    If those 20 and 30 yard completion stats made more sense, I might be inclined to agree. But he's ineffective, IMO, and something about those stats just won't jive. Those have to be from laterals where the yards count as rushing.

    If Campbell was white, would you feel the same way? Campbell is young, Brunell is struggling, and both older QBs are well into their 30s. The team needs to see what it had with Campbell.

    I'm just as hot about Arch as anyone, since the 'Skins are my team, and I only ask for one white guy on the starting D.
     
  11. Realgeorge

    Realgeorge Mentor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    675
    It was irritating that the Redskins drafted Campbell at all. The Skins had a subperb, young White talented QB in Patrick Ramsey. He was extremely poorly coached by Gibbs and his washed-up old goats from the 1980s. They went to great lengths to surround Ramsey (and Brunell for that matter) with a piszpoore offensive team to guarantee failure. Gibbs is Snyder's fundamentalist lapdog, with Vinny the Criminal as GM. The Redskins make me puke, and I've given up on the NFL. Haven't watch a friggin' play since 2003. For Gibbs it's all about assembling an all black team that looks like SW Washington DC
     
  12. White Shogun

    White Shogun Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,285
    Bowen_Fan:
    Apparently I have self-pwned again. Twice in one week! Geez. [​IMG]

    All of the numbers I quoted for Brunell are correct, except for those that pertain to passes beyond 20 and 30 yards. In my haste to prove my point, I misread the stats on NFL.com. Those numbers reflect how well a quarterback performs in number of attempts, not yards per pass.

    Having said that, Brunell's numbers still compare favorably to those of Brady, Gerrard, and especially McNair.

    I guess I haven't made my position on this issue clear enough, despite having said the same thing in every post on this thread, except the first:

    If the Redskins are giving up on the season, then by all means, they should START CAMPBELL. But I do not believe that Brunell's performance is poor enough to warrant benching him for an unproven backup unless the Redskins are ready to prepare for the future. If the Redskins are blaming Brunell for all their problems on offense, the way they blamed Archuleta for a lot of their problems on defense, then I again would argue the point.

    Again, just to be clear: I have no problem with the 'Skins starting Campbell if they're done for the season. Let's just not blame it on Brunell's performance; call it what it is.

    I would feel the same were the colors reversed. I don't think Leftwich should have been benched for Gerrard, either. I'll approach this topic in a separate thread.
     
  13. Matt_Bowen_Fan

    Matt_Bowen_Fan Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    White Shogun: I'm not looking to score points off you, so don't worry about the 'pwn' thing. I just don't feel Brunell stretches the field at all, and I'm wondering if those stats on NFL.com are passes of 20+ yards, or plays of 20+ yards. Because I'm thinking its plays, and Brunell has been throwing lots of little dumpoff passes and screens that the wideouts have been turning into respectable gains, but its been a horizontal game all the way.

    Damnit, why couldn't Snyder have locked up Trent Green? [​IMG]
     
  14. White Shogun

    White Shogun Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,285
    Bowen_Fan,
    It's self-imposed perfection. I didn't think you were trying to score points. I just don't like making inaccurate and wild claims, I try to research and back up what I say with sources. Sometimes it's the only way to refute the negative publicity and garbage that is strewn about white athletes (cf. Matt Jones benching for dropped passed.) I'm not saying that this is one of those cases though, just pointing out why I try to post information that is accurate as possible.

    The numbers that we're talking about we're pulled from Brunell's career stats, not seasonal, and they pertain to the number of pass ATTEMPTS, not how far he threw the ball or how many yards the play gained. The stat line read something like this:

    Attempts 1-20
    Attempts 20-30
    Attempts 30+

    with the appropriate number of attempts, completions, yards, etc, following each line. What this stat is telling us is how accurate a quarterback is when he throws 20 times per game, 20-30 times per game, or more than 30+ times per game, and the resulting number of yards, TD, and INT in each category. As can be expected, the more pass attempts, the better the odds the quarterbacks performance will suffer (usually), as is reflected in the numbers shown for Brunell in my earlier post.

    There aren't any situational stats available that I know of (NFL.com) for separate pass attempts broken down by short, medium, or long range passes.

    The closest thing I can find is career stats for average yards per play. I only cursorily reviewed those numbers for Brunell and a couple of the aforementioned quarterbacks; their averages were all just at or over 7.0 yards per pass attempt.

    Do you believe that the Redskins are calling so many screens and dump off passes because they believe Brunell can't get the ball downfield, or are they calling those kind of plays because they have a conservative offense?
     
  15. Matt_Bowen_Fan

    Matt_Bowen_Fan Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    Saunders and Gibbs, of all things, are NOT conservative. People always want to forget that for years, it was one of Gibbs' teams that held the single season scoring record.
    He gets that rap a lot, but I think it has more to do with the talent he had: in 2004, an injured Brunell, and pick happy Ramsey. Their top wideout, had a toe injury and couldn't go deep. But that offense was very ouf date.

    2005: a healthy Brunell, with Santana Moss and Chris Cooley as his only good receivers, has a career season.

    2006: New system, an O-line that's leaky, and lots more weapons, so to speak. I think Brunell no longer has the arm to go downfield at will, and defenses are sitting on the offense.
     

Share This Page