Brunell

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:02 pm

cleg wrote:Ok, so we know with some certainty that Brunell will not lead this team to a Championship. Is that better ya jerk?

Not really.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:12 pm

JPFair wrote:Another one bites the dust!!

Is this blog only for people who have 100% blind devotion to the Skins? I have to say in my short time here it seems to be kind of cliqueish - I wonder if I am conversing with 12 year old boys who cannot deal with an opinion different than theirs.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:15 pm

He never got the job done in Jax with some pretty good teams and at the time a very weak AFC conferance - he was aweful his first year here and totally ran out of gas last year.

Actually, he did quite well in Jacsonville and in fact took them to the AFC Championship game. Also, it's debatable whether Brunell ran out of gas last year or whether the focus on Moss and the injury to David Patten, as well as the lack of any other decent WR threat put a halt to our offense. Given that Brunell only had one quality WR, as well as Cool

ey, I think he did quite well to get where we did. You think we would have done as well with Campbell coming down the stretch, at crunch time?

Campbell but he is not a rookie. Look at Phillip Rivers and the job he is doing with San Diego

Yeah, and how long did Rivers sit on the Bench in San Diego waiting for his time to come? While he was sitting, he learned a complex offense and because he waited, he was able to pick it up relatively quickly once he became the starter. I'm glad you used Rivers as an example cuz it's a perfect example of why a top draft pick QB should wait on the bench for a while before he's a starter. Exactly HOW long he should wait is up to the coaches, but he should definitely wait.

Brunell alone cost us the game agaisnt the Vikes and it won't be the last one I fear.

How did HE alone cost us the game against the Vikes? Granted he wasn't great in the game, but HE cost us the game? What about our O-line? Our running game? Did they not contribute to the loss as well?

He did this last year where the team got hot and made plays from his dink and dunk passes but when it truely counted in the playoffs agaisnt truly good teams it does not work.

So, isn't it a GOOD thing that he did this last year when "we got hot" and made it to the playoffs? Would you rather he DIDN'T do this last year? As for doing it against truely good teams, you don't think Tampa Bay was a good team last year? How bout Seattle, we gave them a good fight for three and a half quarters, didn't we?

Ok, so we know with some certainty that Brunell will not lead this team to a Championship

When you say "WE", who exactly is "WE"? Don't you think you should say "I", or perhaps clarify who you mean by WE? You're the only one I've seen on this board that's said we "know with 90% certainty" that Brunell doesn't have what it takes. Please don't lump ME in with that comment cuz I'm not on board with it.

Is that better ya jerk?

Awwwww Man, you had to go and ruin it, didn't you?

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:23 pm

cleg wrote:
JPFair wrote:Another one bites the dust!!

Is this blog only for people who have 100% blind devotion to the Skins? I have to say in my short time here it seems to be kind of cliqueish - I wonder if I am conversing with 12 year old boys who cannot deal with an opinion different than theirs.

No, but what you posted was pretty meaningless. Can't you say that any QB has a "90%" chance of not leading their team to a championship? Only one NFL team will win the Super Bowl this year (just as it has been for the last 40 or so years). And, what are the chances that the team that wins will do so almost solely on the back of their quarterback? We could win the Super Bowl this year, and do so as a complete team effort, and you would still say Brunell didn't have what it took to get it done himself. Well, duh! No one does!

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:28 pm

cvillehog wrote:
cleg wrote:
JPFair wrote:Another one bites the dust!!

Is this blog only for people who have 100% blind devotion to the Skins? I have to say in my short time here it seems to be kind of cliqueish - I wonder if I am conversing with 12 year old boys who cannot deal with an opinion different than theirs.

No, but what you posted was pretty meaningless. Can't you say that any QB has a "90%" chance of not leading their team to a championship? Only one NFL team will win the Super Bowl this year (just as it has been for the last 40 or so years). And, what are the chances that the team that wins will do so almost solely on the back of their quarterback? We could win the Super Bowl this year, and do so as a complete team effort, and you would still say Brunell didn't have what it took to get it done himself. Well, duh! No one does!

You guys are right. I forgot that we should not question the wisdom of Joe Gibbs and the 25 other coaches on this team. All hail coach Joe.

Really, to put it simply, I really think Brunell will cost us any shot at winning it all. My opinion.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:30 pm

Is that better ya jerk?

Awwwww Man, you had to go and ruin it, didn't you?[/quote]

People attacked me for my opinion so I did not ruin anything. If anything, they ruined this blog for me by attacking me for my opinion.

BTW, when I say we I am thinking of the people who agree that Brunell is washed up.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:32 pm

Well, I am 90% certain that calling someone a jerk is 100% against the THN rules.

CORRECTION: I am "quite certain" that it's against the rules.

I think THAT'S how you "ruined it". My 2 cents

.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:33 pm

cleg wrote:You guys are right. I forgot that we should not question the wisdom of Joe Gibbs and the 25 other coaches on this team. All hail coach Joe.

You're missing the point. People weren't upset with your argument (or at least I wasn't) but rather how your presented that argument.

cleg wrote:Really, to put it simply, I really think Brunell will cost us any shot at winning it all. My opinion.

That's fine. And there is some validity to that. I think this team is capable of winning with Brunell, I'm just not convinced he is going to be healthy enough in Week 21 to get the job done. Here's to hoping that we find out.

USAFSkinFan · Post by **USAFSkinFan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:36 pm

hate to pile on, but cville's right... with 32 teams in the league, the average QB has a 97% chance of not leading his team to a Championship... if Brunell gives us a 10% chance of winning a Championship that's pretty good odds actually... especially since I got 20-1 in Vegas...

Post by **admin** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:37 pm

cleg... nobody else is calling you a jerk. Nobody else has called you a name of any type.

That's because it's not allowed here. You're free to attack the post, but never the poster. No personal attacks are allowed unless it is in Smack... anything goes there... so if you need to call someone a name... take it there please.

Thanks.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:41 pm

cleg wrote:
JPFair wrote:Another one bites the dust!!

Is this blog only for people who have 100% blind devotion to the Skins? I have to say in my short time here it seems to be kind of cliqueish - I wonder if I am conversing with 12 year old boys who cannot deal with an opinion different than theirs.

I turned 11 yesterday, shows what you know :nana:

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:09 pm

Fios wrote:I turned 11 yesterday, shows what you know

An eleven year-old cup. Boy, it's a good thing that you aren't biodegradable, Fios. Whoever claims to "love the environment" actually hates Fios!

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:18 pm

cleg wrote:Thanks for presenting your opinion in a nice way instead of railing me for thinking Brunell is not our guy.

The pass to Moss to end the game was about 20 yds with Moss running the other 48 - a nice throw indeed.

It's a matter of fact that Brunell is getting far less credit than any other QB in the league for his stats based on reputation alone. People decide ahead of time that he can't throw deep, and because of this preconception they take away every yard after the catch! There is so much more at work here--the design of plays and playcalling, the openness of receivers downfield, etc.--that we can't say one way or another whether or not it's actually Brunell's "fault" that he isn't going deep.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly have seen considerable zip on some of his passes, and only a few bad throws down the field (when he has gone downfield). I don't see much evidence to suggest that he can't go downfield. . .and in my opinion saying that he can't simply because he hasn't is arguing from silence. (And therefore fallacious thinking).

cleg wrote:However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted. Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills through experience in a season in which a championship is a long shot?

As others have noted--with more or less courtesy :lol:

--you can't simply claim to have that kind of certainty of knowledge. Without any evidence for why I should believe that claim, my counter-argument can simply run thus:

"I see your point, however, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of leadership and experience are NOT wasted. Why put Campbell in to begin developing his skills through experience in a season where a championship is not a long shot?"(!!)

As you have noted later in this thread, your main point is that you think Brunell constitutes a disadvantage toward us winning ballgames. However, I have to use the last two games--and almost all of last season--as evidence to refute that claim. Campbell's time will come, and it is possible that he could perform as well as Brunell has even right now. However, I see a lot of evidence that suggests that Brunell's time to sit hasn't arrived, and that he can help us win throughout this season.

What evidence is there to believe that Brunell will be a liability rather than an asset for the rest of the year?

And, on a side note, what about my arguments makes you think that I drink Kool-Aid and never question Gibbs because he's Gibbs?

I don't think it's fair to characterize me as blind because I disagree with you on this point. . .

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:18 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
Fios wrote:I turned 11 yesterday, shows what you know

An eleven year-old cup. Boy, it's a good thing that you aren't biodegradable, Fios. Whoever claims to "love the environment" actually hates Fios!

It's sweet that you think of me as a run-of-the-mill cup and not a highly classified state-of-the-art weapons system with a massage ... wait, I've already said too much

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:44 pm

Fios wrote:
cleg wrote:
JPFair wrote:Another one bites the dust!!

Is this blog only for people who have 100% blind devotion to the Skins? I have to say in my short time here it seems to be kind of cliqueish - I wonder if I am conversing with 12 year old boys who cannot deal with an opinion different than theirs.

I turned 11 yesterday, shows what you know

I've got you beat, I'm old enough to get emails from Congressmen!!

Back to the topic:

It's unfortunate that this turned into a post where someone took things personally, cuz it's a debatable topic. Especially after yesterday, it's hard to agree that Jason Campbell should start playing, seemingly as some posters suggest, just to get the reps. This is the regular season, and this is when we need him. Brunell doesn't need the time to mature like Campbell does. Putting Campbell in now is a no-brainer!!

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:01 pm

Fios wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
Fios wrote:I turned 11 yesterday, shows what you know

An eleven year-old cup. Boy, it's a good thing that you aren't biodegradable, Fios. Whoever claims to "love the environment" actually hates Fios!
It's sweet that you think of me as a run-of-the-mill cup and not a highly classified state-of-the-art weapons system with a massage ... wait, I've already said too much

He's a missle silo.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:31 pm

I live in Philly and listen to the two sportstalk stations in town. - for amusement purposes only and I do like the Phillies and Sixers. Anyway, it allows me to get a different perspective on things than when I lived in the DC area. Aside from the freaky people a lot of sports fans in Philly really know football and they agree that the Skins will not be likely to succed with Brunell under center. Of course, they do think the Iggles are going to win every year.

I just can not stand watching Brunell play. He's frumpy and fragile. Look, I am as big a Skins fan as anyone and really want this team to do well. I just think that we (the fan base) should not accept everything the coaching staff tells us as fact - they can be wrong and I think they are wrong on Brunell.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:51 pm

cleg wrote:I just can not stand watching Brunell play. He's frumpy and fragile. Look, I am as big a Skins fan as anyone and really want this team to do well. I just think that we (the fan base) should not accept everything the coaching staff tells us as fact - they can be wrong and I think they are wrong on Brunell.

The fact that you think the coaches are wrong on Brunell is pretty well established. What I don't think you've explained well is why you believe this to be so and why we ought to agree with you. . . I mean, no offense but I'm not sure that "frumpy and fragile" constitutes a good argument.

Right now you're simply positing it as your opinion and that's fine. But if it's a tossup between two opinions (cleg and Coach Gibbs) can you really be surprised if most people trust Gibbs? That isn't being a homer, that's just trusting the pro to do his job.

So, let's make this more than a match between opinions. Why is it exactly that our team will not have success with Brunell?

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:05 pm

Nobody is doubting your love for the Skins, but do you honestly think that Philthy fans know much about running a football team?

The way I look at it is this. It's not our job to question the Coaching staff, though we certainly can, but at the end of the day what does it accomplish other than getting a load off your chest? Dan Snyder hired Joe Gibbs to do a job, and he's doing the best job he can. Not even Dan Snyder, the king of meddling owners, can tell Gibbs how to run the team. I'm sure Snyder, as much as he'd like to play the role of Owner/GM, has come to the realization that he has faith in Joe Gibbs to do the right thing. Snyder is a fan, not a coach. He's the owner, not a Coach. Gibbs doesn't tell Snyder how to be an owner, just as Snyder doesn't tell Gibbs how to be a Coach.

Even Gibbs will man up and say that he's done things wrong if he thinks that is the case. Can he be wrong? Absolutely! Is he wrong as far as Jason Campbell goes? It doesn't do us, as fans, any good to lose any sleep over it cuz it's not going to change how Gibbs is going to approach things. I honestly think that people wanna see Campbell in there more out of curiosity than any true belief that he can get the job done. It really is a no-brainer right now as to who should be the QB. I'm sure the majority of the board would love to see what Jason Campbell can do with this offense, but now is not the time. When the time comes, we'll see it. Brunell is our guy, and even though you might not agree with it, at least accept it and don't get uptight over it.

As for the guys in Philthy that think Brunell isn't the guy, let em think that way. Do you really care what Philthy fans think of our QB situation? It just goes to show you how scared they are of the Redskins if they're even spending any time worrying about it.

It's time to put the Brunell/Campbell thing to sleep, cuz it's a no brainer and it's simply not going to happen. Anybody that knows anything about how Joe Gibbs runs a football team will tell you that it's not going to change. Deal with it!

Now, if we were 0-4 like, say, the Arizona Cardinals, and Brunell was fumbling 3 times a game and throwing 2 or 3 INT'S at critical times during every game, and we were effectively out of the race for the NFC East, then putting Campbell in there would have a lot of merit, but right now, under the circumstances that this team is in, Brunell is the obvious and ONLY choice to be the starting QB. We already know that you want Campbell in there, but you haven't given any hard facts to support your arguement at all. If you want Campbell in there, that's fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but absent any concrete facts to back up your arguement, most people are going to side with Joe Gibbs on this one. Aside from saying "why not start him and let him get the reps", you haven't given anybody any reason to believe that your opinion is the right one. You say that, with 90% certainty, Brunell can't take us to the Championship but don't give any reasons why he can't other than the fact that you don't like watching him play. Give us facts, figures, ANYTHING to prove that Campbell should be in there instead of Brunell, and don't just say cuz he needs the reps. Whether or not Brunell should be in there is an easy question to answer.

[/quote]

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:23 pm

I cannot prove that Campbell is the better QB for the job because he has never played. Honestly, I don't know if he is any good. I have a gut feeling that Brunell is going to get hurt or blow a couple of big games for us and then Campbell WILL NOT be a viable option because he will have never played.

Maybe you guys are right about Brunells leadership qualities and now not being the time for a switch. I would feel better if the kid could at least get in a game every once in a while - maybe in a blow-out or for a series or two. I know Gibbs won't do it. So, I will shut up about the issue now.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:57 pm

cleg wrote:Maybe you guys are right about Brunells leadership qualities and now not being the time for a switch. I would feel better if the kid could at least get in a game every once in a while - maybe in a blow-out or for a series or two. I know Gibbs won't do it. So, I will shut up about the issue now.

It's kind of hard to say that won't happen, since there hasn't been the opportunity in the four weeks of this season so far.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:00 pm

cvillehog wrote:
cleg wrote:Maybe you guys are right about Brunells leadership qualities and now not being the time for a switch. I would feel better if the kid could at least get in a game every once in a while - maybe in a blow-out or for a series or two. I know Gibbs won't do it. So, I will shut up about the issue now.

It's kind of hard to say that won't happen, since there hasn't been the opportunity in the four weeks of this season so far.

We were up 21 on the Texans. He also didn't play last year in blowouts (49ers game). Even if he's only handing the ball off, why not let him get in the game?

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:02 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
cvillehog wrote:
cleg wrote:Maybe you guys are right about Brunells leadership qualities and now not being the time for a switch. I would feel better if the kid could at least get in a game every once in a while - maybe in a blow-out or for a series or two. I know Gibbs won't do it. So, I will shut up about the issue now.

It's kind of hard to say that won't happen, since there hasn't been the opportunity in the four weeks of this season so far.

We were up 21 on the Texans. He also didn't play last year in blowouts (49ers game). Even if he's only handing the ball off, why not let him get in the game?

Being up 21 when you are 0-2 isn't exactly a blowout.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:09 pm

cvillehog wrote:Being up 21 when you are 0-2 isn't exactly a blowout.

How is our record relevant?

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:14 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
cvillehog wrote:Being up 21 when you are 0-2 isn't exactly a blowout.

How is our record relevant?

Messing up and going 0-3 with a loss to the Texans would have been the worse possible scenario.