Changing Horses Mid-Stream? (Should we switch QB's)

[1niksder]

Hey guys. I'm currently on a 5 day fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico and am using a computer at a hotel in Naples. So I won't be able to respond for a few days until I return.

I did see the game however. Not very impressed with Brunell. This thread is very long but from the few posts I saw, sounds like most of you have the same opinion. John Madden was correct, not the right person at QB, and I agree. Jason needs to play.

My signature has not changed...

I really hope Gibbs and Co. see the light.

BTW - Caught a 347 pound Marlin. SWEEEEEEEET!

Right now, the Redskins are a team without options. They can't improve themselves quickly with personnel or strategy switches, especially at quarterback, where Coach Joe Gibbs has wed himself to Brunell with no plausible alternatives. Behind Brunell, there is nothing, at least for 2006 and, if you are talking about serious Super Bowl contention, probably for 2007, too. Young Jason Campbell is so fresh you don't even have to keep him refrigerated. Such project players usually take years. On the other hand, Todd Collins has been in the deep freeze since '97, the last season he started a game. Defrost him at your peril.

The Redskins have made their bed of golden nails. Now they have to lie on it. They must play out the expensive hand they've dealt themselves and do it with conviction -- not because it's the best way, but because, at this point, it's their only way. So, forgive them their cliches in Dallas. This is one time when it would be mutiny under fire not to follow the party line.

link

[Irn-Bru]

There's a false dilema being perpetuated in this thread (among others). A couple of things that I think are clear:

* Supporting Brunell and Gibbs' decision to play Brunell does not equate to blind optimism.

* It does make you "realistic" to say that Brunell has been playing poorly. It does NOT make you "realistic" to necessarily conclude from this that he must be benched now.

* A fan can support Brunell and Gibbs' current decisions without saying anything about other fans. . .in other words, my support of Brunell is not a threat to your fandom. Neither do I consider you a threat to my fandom simply because you think Brunell should be benched. (Is this one finally clear??!)

* Noticing that we're 0-2 isn't being perceptive, it's seeing the obvious. Concluding from an 0-2 start that a shakeup at QB is what we need is far from being "realistic" per se. Therefore, saying "We're 0-2, the time for change is now!" isn't a very convincing argument.

* People should at least acknowledge that they are being a bit optimistic as to whether or not starting JC now will help / hurt his career. I hear names like Peyton, Ben, and Carson being thrown around. Few have mentioned Ramsey and a host of other QBs who may have been good but seem to have been shaken up by being thrown to the wolves.

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

[SkinzCanes]

* People should at least acknowledge that they are being a bit optimistic as to whether or not starting JC now will help / hurt his career. I hear names like Peyton, Ben, and Carson being thrown around. Few have mentioned Ramsey and a host of other QBs who may have been good but seem to have been shaken up by being thrown to the wolves.

Sure there are cases like Ramsey. But if you look at the qb's that are doing well in the NFL right now you will that an overwhelming percentage of them either started in their first or second seasons in the league. Palmer, Eli, Peyton, Big Ben, Bulger, McNabb, Brady, Brees, Leftwhich. Obviously JC would struggle some as a first time starter, seeing as how most do. But to me it makes no sense to play Brunell while he is learning the offense and struggling, and then go through the same thing with JC. The offense as a whole is still learning this offense so why not start the guy that is supposed to lead it in the future. Let JC learn with the rest of the O.

[die cowboys die]

There's a false dilema being perpetuated in this thread (among others). A couple of things that I think are clear:

* Supporting Brunell and Gibbs' decision to play Brunell does not equate to blind optimism.

* It does make you "realistic" to say that Brunell has been playing poorly. It does NOT make you "realistic" to necessarily conclude from this that he must be benched now.

* A fan can support Brunell and Gibbs' current decisions without saying anything about other fans. . .in other words, my support of Brunell is not a threat to your fandom. Neither do I consider you a threat to my fandom simply because you think Brunell should be benched. (Is this one finally clear??!)

* Noticing that we're 0-2 isn't being perceptive, it's seeing the obvious. Concluding from an 0-2 start that a shakeup at QB is what we need is far from being "realistic" per se. Therefore, saying "We're 0-2, the time for change is now!" isn't a very convincing argument.

* People should at least acknowledge that they are being a bit optimistic as to whether or not starting JC now will help / hurt his career. I hear names like Peyton, Ben, and Carson being thrown around. Few have mentioned Ramsey and a host of other QBs who may have been good but seem to have been shaken up by being thrown to the wolves.

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

would you "support" a legally blind guy being the pilot in your next airplane ride? what if he used to be a really good pilot before he lost his vision? or maybe you'd rather him give instructions from the co-pilot seat, to someone who had no idea how to fly but could actually see well.

[Mursilis]

* People should at least acknowledge that they are being a bit optimistic as to whether or not starting JC now will help / hurt his career. I hear names like Peyton, Ben, and Carson being thrown around. Few have mentioned Ramsey and a host of other QBs who may have been good but seem to have been shaken up by being thrown to the wolves.

I used to be a big fan of Ramsey, but I'm beginning to finally accept what's becoming more and more obvious - he's just not an NFL starting QB. I used to think he was a good football player in a bad situation, but maybe the truth is he's is/was a not-so-good player in a bad situation? How many opportunities do the Ramseys/Bollers/Harringtons of the world need before we can all finally say "It's not the coach/WRs/O-line/situation - it's them!"?

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36, an age at which any doctor will tell you one's physical abilities are in decline. It's also a fact that a QB as old as Brunell has never won the Super Bowl. These facts easily support the premise that what we're seeing from Brunell so far isn't going to improve by much, if at all.

[Mursilis]

* People should at least acknowledge that they are being a bit optimistic as to whether or not starting JC now will help / hurt his career. I hear names like Peyton, Ben, and Carson being thrown around. Few have mentioned Ramsey and a host of other QBs who may have been good but seem to have been shaken up by being thrown to the wolves.

Sure there are cases like Ramsey. But if you look at the qb's that are doing well in the NFL right now you will that an overwhelming percentage of them either started in their first or second seasons in the league. Palmer, Eli, Peyton, Big Ben, Bulger, McNabb, Brady, Brees, Leftwhich. Obviously JC would struggle some as a first time starter, seeing as how most do. But to me it makes no sense to play Brunell while he is learning the offense and struggling, and then go through the same thing with JC. The offense as a whole is still learning this offense so why not start the guy that is supposed to lead it in the future. Let JC learn with the rest of the O.

Note the highlighted part. This to me is the key to why Brunell needs to be benched - why do we need to repeat the rebuilding process twice?!?!

[Mursilis]

would you "support" a legally blind guy being the pilot in your next airplane ride? what if he used to be a really good pilot before he lost his vision? or maybe you'd rather him give instructions from the co-pilot seat, to someone who had no idea how to fly but could actually see well.

That's hilarious!
And yet so painfully true . . .

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36...

FYI - Joe Gibbs is 17-19 as Redskins Coach in his second stint with the team, and he is about to turn 66 yrs. old. Based on your logic, we should sit him for his son Coy, who's 33 and as yet unproven in the NFL. Would that make sense to you, too?

[Mursilis]

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36...

FYI - Joe Gibbs is 17-19 as Redskins Coach in his second stint with the team, and he is about to turn 66 yrs. old. Based on your logic, we should sit him for his son Coy, who's 33 and as yet unproven in the NFL. Would that make sense to you, too?

You do know that coaches don't actually play, right?
I never said Brunell isn't smart or experienced enough to do the job - he's just getting older, and science says that means his physical skills are in decline. Now sometimes older QBs can still be effective (we saw that when Brad Johnson beat us in Week 1, and the Vikes are now 2-0, but then Brad Johnson actually has a winning record as a Vikes starter, something Brunell can't say), but Brunell hasn't shown that yet. Maybe if we could put Brunell's head on JC's body . . .

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36...

FYI - Joe Gibbs is 17-19 as Redskins Coach in his second stint with the team, and he is about to turn 66 yrs. old. Based on your logic, we should sit him for his son Coy, who's 33 and as yet unproven in the NFL. Would that make sense to you, too?

You do know that coaches don't actually play, right?
I never said Brunell isn't smart or experienced enough to do the job - he's just getting older, and science says that means his physical skills are in decline. . .

Science also indicates that Gibbs is nearing the age when Alzheimers sets in, and when he'd require to wear Depends and stuff. Of course, it's obvious it's not true, despite his losing reocrd with the Skins.

[Irn-Bru]

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36, an age at which any doctor will tell you one's physical abilities are in decline. It's also a fact that a QB as old as Brunell has never won the Super Bowl. These facts easily support the premise that what we're seeing from Brunell so far isn't going to improve by much, if at all.

Right, and here's where we would disagree. Looking at Brunell's overall record sounds nice when in support of your conclusion (and you've quoted 13-15 quite a bit), but it really isn't a good indicator of how well Brunell has played for us. Last year there was talk in the media that Brunell was a legitimate contender for MVP. Last year we went 10-6 and won the wild card.

The year before that? Not so great.

Brunell isn't "13-15 as a starter" as if that is all one season. The reality is more complex than that, but if you look at his performance last year then it's clear (well, clear to me anyway) that he's capable of performing well.

As for his age, there is some weight that goes along with that. Brunell won't be able to do this at the age of 40, that's for sure. However, in 2004 many thought that Brunell no longer had anything left in the tank--something he disproved an entire year later when he was even older! It still seems to me like Brunell has what it takes, physically, to succeed. But right now he's:
* Not comfortable in the pocket (partly the line's fault, partly his own)
* Too quick to throw away or consider a play broken
* Not comfortable with the offensive system around him
* Not playing with a team that is clicking as a whole
* Not playing with a great running back

Just like last year, once some of these other parts of his play start alligning, his physical age won't be a bottleneck to our success. Then again, perhaps Gibbs will be starting Jason Campbell before this does / could happen. I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we see Mark continue to play AND start to see some quality play from him.

Everything I've written happens to be my arguments as to why I think Brunell can still play. But please remember that all I'm trying to say was that monopolizing the term "realist" for those who want to bench Brunell is absurd. And it is absurd, since a case can easily be made either way.

. . .or maybe I should simply start saying that I'm being a "realist" and you all are "optimists" that think JC can perform better. Because then we'll be saying the exact same argument, with the names switched, and we can argue right past each other all day under the ridiculous premise that one side in this debate is "realistic" and pragmatic, and the other side is "blind" and are optimists beyond reason. (Do you see why this would be / currently is so unfruitful and insulting to everyone's ability to reason?)

[Skinsfan55]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

Now I thought Mark actually played very well in Minny (he got rid of the ball quickly, and completed 60.7%.) but obviously he struggled somewhat in Dallas.

I still believe that Mark can be the best QB for the Redskins (of course, like everyone else I am excited to finally see Jason Campbell unveiled).

Brunell doesn't make many mistakes, he still has the arm to make the throws he needs to, he's mobile enough to roll out and scramble, and he's accurate. We don't need a World Beater for a quarterback, just someone to guide the offense.

Mark can do that... I don't think Jason Campbell can take the reins and have immediate success. There's a big learning curve when you go from leading the scout team to leading the Redskins.

[Mursilis]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

But you didn't address his productivity decline last year. First 8 games, he had 6 games with 200+ yards, including 2 300+ yd. games. Last 8 games, he only had 1 200+ yrd. games and 0 300+ yd. games.

[Fios]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

But you didn't address his productivity decline last year. First 8 games, he had 6 games with 200+ yards, including 2 300+ yd. games. Last 8 games, he only had 1 200+ yrd. games and 0 300+ yd. games.

But you didn't address losing Patten to injury and how much of an impact that had on the passing game and you also didn't address how much the offense relied on the running game in that final stretch

[Chris Luva Luva]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

But you didn't address his productivity decline last year. First 8 games, he had 6 games with 200+ yards, including 2 300+ yd. games. Last 8 games, he only had 1 200+ yrd. games and 0 300+ yd. games.

But you didn't address losing Patten to injury and how much of an impact that had on the passing game and you also didn't address how much the offense relied on the running game in that final stretch

And how the lack of skilled WR's allowed teams to double and triple moss and key in on the run.

[Irn-Bru]

. . .all of the complications, it seems to me, really strengthen my original point.

[Mursilis]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

But you didn't address his productivity decline last year. First 8 games, he had 6 games with 200+ yards, including 2 300+ yd. games. Last 8 games, he only had 1 200+ yrd. games and 0 300+ yd. games.

But you didn't address losing Patten to injury and how much of an impact that had on the passing game and you also didn't address how much the offense relied on the running game in that final stretch

So you're saying the team relied more on the running game during the 5-game playoff drive? I agree. And what does that say about Brunell?

[Mursilis]

A lot of people would refute your argument FFA, because they say that Brunell tailed off towards the end of the year.

I've heard that a lot, but I decided to actually look it up:

Mark Brunell's Game Logs for 2005

Yeah, he threw some picks later on in the year, but his QB rating is still pretty solid, and he had a high completion percentage. I don't think he fell off that much, if any towards the end, except for the Philly game, which was pretty ugly.

But you didn't address his productivity decline last year. First 8 games, he had 6 games with 200+ yards, including 2 300+ yd. games. Last 8 games, he only had 1 200+ yrd. games and 0 300+ yd. games.

But you didn't address losing Patten to injury and how much of an impact that had on the passing game and you also didn't address how much the offense relied on the running game in that final stretch

And how the lack of skilled WR's allowed teams to double and triple moss and key in on the run.

That's not a problem now, is it?

[Fios]

It says that the team had one healthy wideout who was being double teamed and that the team had to lean on the running game to counter that, it says nothing about Brunell, it doesn't matter (couple of exceptions) who your QB is if your receiving corps is depleted from injuries

[die cowboys die]

That's all. Not that I think this is going to change much, but the anal retentive side of me thought it should at least be said, since many posters assume that wanting to bench Brunell is "realistic" whereas supporting him is not. (An absurd conclusion).

It's not so absurd. Brunell is 13-15 as a Redskins starter, and he just turned 36...

FYI - Joe Gibbs is 17-19 as Redskins Coach in his second stint with the team, and he is about to turn 66 yrs. old. Based on your logic, we should sit him for his son Coy, who's 33 and as yet unproven in the NFL. Would that make sense to you, too?

You do know that coaches don't actually play, right?
I never said Brunell isn't smart or experienced enough to do the job - he's just getting older, and science says that means his physical skills are in decline. . .

Science also indicates that Gibbs is nearing the age when Alzheimers sets in, and when he'd require to wear Depends and stuff. Of course, it's obvious it's not true, despite his losing reocrd with the Skins.

RON BURGUNDY: You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

[Steve Spurrier III]

FYI - Joe Gibbs is 17-19 as Redskins Coach in his second stint with the team, and he is about to turn 66 yrs. old. Based on your logic, we should sit him for his son Coy, who's 33 and as yet unproven in the NFL. Would that make sense to you, too?

I hope you're not actually suggesting that players' physical skills don't decline as they age.

And if being a coach required running and throwing, Coy would be the better bet.

[SkinzCanes]

And how the lack of skilled WR's allowed teams to double and triple moss and key in on the run.

I'm sorry but this argument doesn't fly imo. We had Moss and ey, which more than a lot of other teams had. The Carolina Panthers offense was solid all year last year and their running game was worse than ours and they only have 1 viable receiver (Steve Smith). The Seahawks reached the Super Bowl with Darrell Jackson as their only consistant target at either receiver or te, plus they have a running back who barely catches any passes, whereas Portis caught a decent # of passes for us last season.

[thaiphoon]

But please remember that all I'm trying to say was that monopolizing the term "realist" for those who want to bench Brunell is absurd. And it is absurd, since a case can easily be made either way.

Point taken and my apologies if I offended anyone's sensibilities. Just IMHO the realistic long-term view is benching Brunell for JC and finally seeing what the guy has in him. I will refrain from using that adjective again. You mentioned what Brunell is doing wrong/working with. Well we'd get that out of a "green" QB too so to my way of thinking we might as well find out now what kind of QB stable we have and get it done already. My point has been to those who cry;

" you're giving up on the season by playing JC"

I have the following question...

If you're always afraid to play the young QB for fear that he will throw INT's and lose some games...when IS a good time to actually throw him in and see what we have?

After the offseason??

Then we'll have people saying "you're giving up on the team before the season begins - dontcha know we can contend for a Super Bowl??"

When the starter goes down with an injury??

What if he doesn't get injured until the last game or the next to last game? Not really alot of game experience you're giving the kid is it?

Should we just never play our young QB's and instead sign old veteran QB's who are declining physically so-as to avoid rookie mistakes??

Seriously - I'd like to know when does everyone (who is afraid of JC playing) think a young QB should start. Some might trot out that one should hold the clipboard for a few years and then start. Fair enough. So in those few years who is playing QB? A veteran that is getting the job done or one who isn't? If the veteran isn't getting the job done then why have the rookie hold the clipboard at all? Surely he can't do any worse.

Again, if someone says he could be another Peyton or Marino or Elway we always get the other side who trot out Shuler or Ramsey. Point taken. But they miss the bigger point IMHO.

At some point we'll play JC. At THAT point people will call it a "rebuilding year". We'll STILL have to deal with bad decisions and INT's that drive you crazy. Those are a product of a young QB and not many avoid them. But at some point we still have the PLAY him. If he's another Shuler I'd rather find out right now and stop wasting time and find a new QB of the future. If he's another Marino/Manning/Elway that would also be good to know since the play of a mediocre offense can be lifted by a good QB and great QB's can lead you to Championships

If Gibbs decides to stick with Brunell then obviously I'll be rooting for him to succeed. Like I've said before I want to win. If Brunell can get it done I'm all for keeping him. I don't think he can anymore but this is one man's opinion and obviously Gibb's counts and mine doesn't. Nothing will make me more happy than to be proven wrong.

Until that time please don't imply that I and others (who are clamoring for Brunell to sit and are being honest about our opinions on the state of the team) are "fair-weather fans". If you go through the Game-Day logs you'll see me cheer our team on and express optimism each play (admittedly I do "curse" a bit when we screw up). But some seem to think that not questioning front office decisions and never saying anything negative about the play of the team gives them the prerogative to call themselves "true-fans" (presumably to cow me/us into shutting up?). It doesn't, it just means that you approach being a fan differently than some others. That is all.

And Irn-Bru I'm not talking to you here as I know you have not done so.

Just

[dmwc]

For Real im all about putting JC in... i think the fact that he is wearing 17 will help

[wbbradb]

If he's another Shuler I'd rather find out right now and stop wasting time and find a new QB of the future. If he's another Marino/Manning/Elway that would also be good to know since the play of a mediocre offense can be lifted by a good QB and great QB's can lead you to Championships.

What strikes me about this argument is the assumption that right now we're "wasting time" with having JC on the bench, almost as if his skills are melting away, his arm is rusting up or something. It's easy for us fans to assume that's what's happening because we don't see anything from JC. But the coaches do. While we want to find out right now (and see the proof of it), we can't because he's on the bench. But the coaches are finding out every day what JC can do and can't do. He stays after every practice to get individual instruction, learn the offence, learn how to read defences, etc. You may say, we'll never know for sure unless he's in a game situation. That may be true, but it's also true that you would be risking an investment (not to mention a player's health and career) by putting him in before he's ready. I'm sure Gibbs and company have a plan, probably to start JC after two years of preparation. They want to stick to it. If you throw a rookie QB in there too early, you risk them learning bad habits, getting injured, or losing all confidence. For the long-term benefit of the Redskins, it's better if JC continues to sit and learn for a while longer.