Think about it.

redskinsfan0456 · Post by **redskinsfan0456** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:55 am

Think about it. The Redskins have not won a game since January 7th including preseason. What in the world happened to this team they looked so promising for this season. I can't see this team winning many games this year. I guess you could say there are plenty of games left but when are they going to get it in gear.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:59 am

Honestly, I think this has to do with the transition into Saunders'offense. Last year was the team's second season in JG's offense, and they "got it" With improved personnel, and the same offense, they'd probably be clickin' more about now.

However, that's not the case, and it is painful to watch the growing pains. But hey, when we reap the benefits, the pain will be a distant memory. So rest easy knowing that we have lotsa qualified people working to get this team up to speed as the season progresses.

THEY'LL lose sleep in the weeks ahead, so WE won't have to. :wink:

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:01 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Honestly, I think this has to do with the transition into Saunders'offense. Last year was the team's second season in JG's offense, and they "got it" With improved personnel, and the same offense, they'd probably be clickin' more about now.

However, that's not the case, and it is painful to watch the growing pains. But hey, when we reap the benefits, the pain will be a distant memory. So rest easy knowing that we have lotsa qualified people working to get this team up to speed as the season progresses.

THEY'LL lose sleep in the weeks ahead, so WE won't have to.

Right, i forgot about all those Super Bowl trophies Saunders won in Kansas City.

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:06 am

I don't think it's as much a problem with the offense as it is with the QB. There were times today that we had open WRs and Brunell just made terrible passes. And that INT he threw was just pitiful. He basically lobbed it up there for anyone to pick off. What on earth was that?

Gibbs4Life · Post by **Gibbs4Life** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:21 am

That was Boonell's sub concious effort to say "BENCH ME!!!!!!"

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:49 am

Gibbs4Life wrote:That was Boonell's sub concious effort to say "BENCH ME!!!!!!"

When you're right, you're right.

redskins56 · Post by **redskins56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:47 am

cvillehog wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Honestly, I think this has to do with the transition into Saunders'offense. Last year was the team's second season in JG's offense, and they "got it" With improved personnel, and the same offense, they'd probably be clickin' more about now.

However, that's not the case, and it is painful to watch the growing pains. But hey, when we reap the benefits, the pain will be a distant memory. So rest easy knowing that we have lotsa qualified people working to get this team up to speed as the season progresses.

THEY'LL lose sleep in the weeks ahead, so WE won't have to.

Right, i forgot about all those Super Bowl trophies Saunders won in Kansas City.

He can't win Super Bowls with the league's worst defense over the past 5 years. What he can do is orchestrate a top-notch offense, which he did. No team scored more points or compiled more yards than the Chiefs did in the last 5 years under Saunders.

Kansas City's not winning a Super Bowl had nothing to do with him.

Uaintready · Post by **Uaintready** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:54 am

I really didnt like the Jg offennse cause it was to predictable but now I think that with the new personel we would be doing ok right now.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Honestly, I think this has to do with the transition into Saunders'offense. Last year was the team's second season in JG's offense, and they "got it" With improved personnel, and the same offense, they'd probably be clickin' more about now.

However, that's not the case, and it is painful to watch the growing pains. But hey, when we reap the benefits, the pain will be a distant memory. So rest easy knowing that we have lotsa qualified people working to get this team up to speed as the season progresses.

THEY'LL lose sleep in the weeks ahead, so WE won't have to.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:57 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Honestly, I think this has to do with the transition into Saunders'offense. Last year was the team's second season in JG's offense, and they "got it" With improved personnel, and the same offense, they'd probably be clickin' more about now.

However, that's not the case, and it is painful to watch the growing pains. But hey, when we reap the benefits, the pain will be a distant memory. So rest easy knowing that we have lotsa qualified people working to get this team up to speed as the season progresses.

THEY'LL lose sleep in the weeks ahead, so WE won't have to.

Saunder's offense is not making Brunell suck. He is playing exactly like he did two years ago. The interception at the one yard line, an underthrown floater was his signiture pass that year. His inability to hit open receivers and badly thrown balls. And again he had a hard time getting it past the line of scrimage, except for the aforementioned underthrown floaters.

I'm not saying he was the only issue, but if you don't have a QB you aren't going to win any games regardless of how the team plays. Bledsoe was mediocre and horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. Brunell was horrible all the time.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:02 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Bledsoe was mediocre and horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. Brunell was horrible all the time.

So you mention the "few times the Skins got pressure on [Bledsoe]", but you fail to acknowledge the many times Dallas made our o-line crumble off the snap????!!!

I found your post informative and you made a good point about needing a QB to get the job done, but to ignore our line woes when talking about our QB while excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure seems doesn't make sense, IMHO.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:08 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Bledsoe was mediocre and horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. Brunell was horrible all the time.

So you mention the "few times the Skins got pressure on [Bledsoe]", but you fail to acknowledge the many times Dallas made our o-line crumble off the snap????!!!

I found your post informative and you made a good point about needing a QB to get the job done, but to ignore our line woes when talking about our QB while excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure seems doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Don't get it. I said Bledsoe was "horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. You said I was "excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure." What am I missing? Saying he is horrible is excusing him?

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:12 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Bledsoe was mediocre and horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. Brunell was horrible all the time.

So you mention the "few times the Skins got pressure on [Bledsoe]", but you fail to acknowledge the many times Dallas made our o-line crumble off the snap????!!!

I found your post informative and you made a good point about needing a QB to get the job done, but to ignore our line woes when talking about our QB while excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure seems doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Don't get it. I said Bledsoe was "horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. You said I was "excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure." What am I missing? Saying he is horrible is excusing him?

Sorry. I wasn't clear. The point is, the Skins D got little pressure on Bledsoe, so he looked horrible only a few times. Dallas violated our o-line repeatedly, so it never allowerd our Qb to get into a rhythm, or our running game to get off the ground.

OF COURSE, Mark could look horrible under THOSE situations.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:15 am

Agreed on the line. But I don't think he got the job done when he had time either and Bledsoe did. Both were bad under pressure, Brunell was still bad when he wasn't. And to your point that was more often for Bledsoe.

I did say Brunell wasn't the only problem, that I didn't enumerate the line and left the general statement seems a little nit picky to me. It sounds like we don't really have any disagreement anyway.

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:22 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Bledsoe was mediocre and horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. Brunell was horrible all the time.

So you mention the "few times the Skins got pressure on [Bledsoe]", but you fail to acknowledge the many times Dallas made our o-line crumble off the snap????!!!

I found your post informative and you made a good point about needing a QB to get the job done, but to ignore our line woes when talking about our QB while excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure seems doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Don't get it. I said Bledsoe was "horrible the few times the Skins got pressure on him. You said I was "excusing the opposing QB's performance when faced with pressure." What am I missing? Saying he is horrible is excusing him?

Sorry. I wasn't clear. The point is, the Skins D got little pressure on Bledsoe, so he looked horrible only a few times. Dallas violated our o-line repeatedly, so it never allowerd our Qb to get into a rhythm, or our running game to get off the ground.

OF COURSE, Mark could look horrible under THOSE situations.

so, mark was shell shocked, and he didn't perform well. didn't ramsey get yanked for that same thing last year? as a matter of fact, i think boonell is doing his best ramsey impressions right now. when brunell got the call in the chicago game, the difference in pocket presence was night and day. but boonell is not rolling out, and moving around like he did then. he said he was healthy at the time.

right now, he is doing the 'deer in headlights' thing. just as he did in '04, he seems to be against throwing deep, and there isn't any real zip on his passes when he does, which gives me the impression that he is hurt again. we had to sit through 9 games in 04. how long will it be this year.

the future IS now people.

Donkey McDonkerton · Post by **Donkey McDonkerton** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:29 am

being 0-3 and going with JC as the QB is better than 1-2 with Brunell...im just saying.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:40 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:It sounds like we don't really have any disagreement anyway.

That's probably the case. :lol:

We want the Skins to win. We hate to see them lose, particularly to the Pies.

Of course, there's 14 more games to go, and plenty of time to make the necessary changes all around, not just under center.

HTTR

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:45 am

Donkey McDonkerton wrote:being 0-3 and going with JC as the QB is better than 1-2 with Brunell...im just saying.

and i'm just agreeing.

i mean really, does anyone think boonell will be able to take us to the superbowl this year? maybe three people. boonell, his mom, & redeemed

does anyone think JC will be able to take us there? not many would.

what about next year?

point is, looking foward, when does it make sense to put JC in? i mean, if leaving boonell in would net a lombardi trophy in february, it would be worth it this year. but it just doesn't seem logical. what about next year? boonell is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that old man time will not be denied.... if we must go through these 'growing pains' now, why not go through them with campell?

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:50 am

hailskins666 wrote: point is, looking foward, when does it make sense to put JC in? i mean, if leaving boonell in would net a lombardi trophy in february, it would be worth it this year. but it just doesn't seem logical. what about next year? boonell is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that old man time will not be denied.... if we must go through these 'growing pains' now, why not go through them with campell?

Exactly! Sticking with Brunell now only to go to JC in 2007 is akin to throwing away two years in a row (although hopefully JC won't have a full season of 'growing pains').

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:03 am

Mursilis wrote:
hailskins666 wrote: point is, looking foward, when does it make sense to put JC in? i mean, if leaving boonell in would net a lombardi trophy in february, it would be worth it this year. but it just doesn't seem logical. what about next year? boonell is proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that old man time will not be denied.... if we must go through these 'growing pains' now, why not go through them with campell?

Exactly! Sticking with Brunell now only to go to JC in 2007 is akin to throwing away two years in a row (although hopefully JC won't have a full season of 'growing pains').

only ONE way to find out......

NC43Hog · Post by **NC43Hog** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:11 am

hailskins666 wrote:.. if we must go through these 'growing pains' now, why not go through them with campell?

AMEN!

The season is still young, but I am having a terrible feeling of Deja Vu ala 2004. There is plenty of blame to go around tho - OL, DL CB - Kenny Wright!!!!

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:13 am

If Mark continues to play like this I think both Saunders and Gibbs will make a change. I just do not think that is going to happen soon as Gibbs will give him more leeway because Gibbs just seems to really want the experienced QB at the position. I think things will be better - lets face it, it cannot get much worse!

I do think a change will happen soon just not in the next few weeks UNLESS this level of play continues. C'mon guys we are not playing well and it's not just the QB!

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:46 pm

I haven't noticed any posts that have said that QB is our only issue.

QB is certainly a big issue, lots of others have been discussed too.

It makes no more sense to deal with only the QB issue then to deal with everything but the QB issue.