Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Mursilis wrote:I've been saying start JC since camp, and that hasn't changed.
Mursilis wrote:Brother, it's simple. Brunell has a losing record as a starter for this team, and now, every snap he takes robs Campbell of a chance to play and improve. Since Brunell is a loser as a starter, you wanting him to start = you wanting the Redskins to lose (or at least have the best chance of losing). And you call yourself a fan?
chaddukes wrote:Mursilis wrote:Brother, it's simple. Brunell has a losing record as a starter for this team, and now, every snap he takes robs Campbell of a chance to play and improve. Since Brunell is a loser as a starter, you wanting him to start = you wanting the Redskins to lose (or at least have the best chance of losing). And you call yourself a fan?
Dude, this is ridiculous. Who are you to question who is and who isn't a fan?
You assert that Gibbs isn't throwing the deep ball because he knows that Brunell can't, and that he does know that Campbell can make those throws but won't put him in due to loyalty. You think that you know more than Gibbs, and that Gibbs would intentionally hurt the team....and you call yourself a fan?
Seriously, stop with the who is and who isn't a fan accusations? This isn't a witch hunt its a discussion board.
. Heck, I've even defended Redeemed on this board before, and I gave him that sig line (Brunell's No. 1 fan). I've got no real issue with him, and I doubt he has any with me; we're just having a little fun with each other.
Mursilis wrote:Note the
).
*
By John Clayton
• Every Monday, Joe Gibbs assembles his assistants for a staff meeting. The subject of third-string quarterback Jason Campbell comes up. Each week, Gibbs goes around the room and has an open discussion of when to give Campbell the chance to start ahead of quarterback Mark Brunell. Although it is likely Brunell will start next Sunday's game against Tampa Bay, Campbell's time is coming soon. The Redskins are 3-6 and all but out of playoff contention. The coaches like Campbell's progress, but Gibbs feels compelled to stay with a veteran quarterback to placate a team that is trying hard. Although it's not out of the question for Campbell to get the start, it's more reasonable to expect him to be in the lineup sometime after Thanksgiving, possibly in Week 12. By the way, don't think Gibbs is going to step down at the end of the season. He spent part of recent weeks in meetings looking at the 2007 salary cap and its implications on the Redskins.
SkinzCanes wrote:By John Clayton
• Every Monday, Joe Gibbs assembles his assistants for a staff meeting. The subject of third-string quarterback Jason Campbell comes up. Each week, Gibbs goes around the room and has an open discussion of when to give Campbell the chance to start ahead of quarterback Mark Brunell. Although it is likely Brunell will start next Sunday's game against Tampa Bay, Campbell's time is coming soon. The Redskins are 3-6 and all but out of playoff contention. The coaches like Campbell's progress, but Gibbs feels compelled to stay with a veteran quarterback to placate a team that is trying hard. Although it's not out of the question for Campbell to get the start, it's more reasonable to expect him to be in the lineup sometime after Thanksgiving, possibly in Week 12. By the way, don't think Gibbs is going to step down at the end of the season. He spent part of recent weeks in meetings looking at the 2007 salary cap and its implications on the Redskins.
I saw this earlier this AM on ESPN, as well, ande I'm excited about the prospect of seeing #8 at QB at the home game vs. the Panthers, or JC getting a heroes welcome as his era begins in Washington. It's a win-win situation. (Hopefully, they DO win)
SkinzCanes wrote:Yea if you're a Panthers fan or player. I'm sure that they would love to have Brunell still starting at that point.
Fios wrote:If Gibbs sticks with Brunell against Tampa, then I fear this becomes 2004 redux, IMO the guy played himself out of the starting position yesterday
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Fios wrote:If Gibbs sticks with Brunell against Tampa, then I fear this becomes 2004 redux, IMO the guy played himself out of the starting position yesterday
I agree that if Gibbs is gonna do a QB change, Tampa would probably be the better situation in which to do it. (of course, being at home would probably be less hostile for the kid).
But, if Gibbs is still willing to roll the dice with Mark in Tampa, of course, I will suport that decision as well.
roybus14 wrote:Yeah but it will show you that Joe Gibbs 2.0 needs patches, hotfixes, upgrades, etc. because the second edition is full of bugs, worms, viruses, etc....
Good one.SkinsFreak wrote:Did you hear Brunell's presser on Redskins.com today?
He was asked about all the dump-off passes in the flat. Brunell said that those passes were check-downs when he had nothing else.
Soooo... the passes in the flat were NOT designed plays, merely Brunell whimping out and not putting the ball downfield. Thanks Mark!
LOL, thats what Ive been trying to say. Saunders isn't a rookie at this. Brunell just can't get it done.
Chris Luva Luva wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Did you hear Brunell's presser on Redskins.com today?
He was asked about all the dump-off passes in the flat. Brunell said that those passes were check-downs when he had nothing else.
Soooo... the passes in the flat were NOT designed plays, merely Brunell whimping out and not putting the ball downfield. Thanks Mark!
LOL, thats what Ive been trying to say. Saunders isn't a rookie at this. Brunell just can't get it done.
SkinsFreak wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Did you hear Brunell's presser on Redskins.com today?
He was asked about all the dump-off passes in the flat. Brunell said that those passes were check-downs when he had nothing else.
Soooo... the passes in the flat were NOT designed plays, merely Brunell whimping out and not putting the ball downfield. Thanks Mark!
LOL, thats what Ive been trying to say. Saunders isn't a rookie at this. Brunell just can't get it done.
I'm with you, Chris.
Mark also said the o-line played great, he had time to throw and they rushed for over 100 yards. Hmmmm... you can see it in Marks face, he almost wants to admit he sucks.
SkinsFreak wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:SkinsFreak wrote:Did you hear Brunell's presser on Redskins.com today?
He was asked about all the dump-off passes in the flat. Brunell said that those passes were check-downs when he had nothing else.
Soooo... the passes in the flat were NOT designed plays, merely Brunell whimping out and not putting the ball downfield. Thanks Mark!
LOL, thats what Ive been trying to say. Saunders isn't a rookie at this. Brunell just can't get it done.
I'm with you, Chris.
Mark also said the o-line played great, he had time to throw and they rushed for over 100 yards. Hmmmm... you can see it in Marks face, he almost wants to admit he sucks.
SkinzCanes wrote:LOL, thats what Ive been trying to say. Saunders isn't a rookie at this. Brunell just can't get it done.
Exactly. Anybody that watched Kansas City play the last few seasons knows that these aren't the types of throws that Saunders wants his qb to make. Saunders wants to stretch the field and throw accross the middle. He calls the plays, Brunell just can't execute. I'm sure that our receivers will be real happy to see that Brunell had to throw underneath because they couldn't get open
ey, it bothers me that he is always the leading receiver and not the wide-outs.REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:ESPN'S JOHN CLAYTON CONFIRMS THAT JASON CAMPBELL WILL START ON SUNDAY VS. THE SUCS
