Brunell Traded to Seahawks! (rumor)

[Fios]

Let's not even put the greatness of Darrell Green in the same thread as MB of the skins.

You're missing the point

[Mursilis]

I'll always remember going to the playoffs ... why not? Brunell is hardly the scapegoat around which we should hang the team's recent failures. That isn't to say he was a boon last season but to remember him in a persistently negative light is to remember him incorrectly.

I'd have to disagree, and as far as scapegoats go, he's as good as any. Two of the three seasons he's been here, he's had to have been benched for ineffectiveness. Remember also that in 2004, unlike last year, the defense was top 3, and it was strictly the offense (and mostly the passing game - Portis still had a solid season) that was letting down the team. When Ramsey finally got in there, he got as many wins in fewer games as MB did, and had much better numbers. As for 2006, the record wasn't all MB's fault, as a lot of things went wrong last year, and I don't think starting JC from Week 1 would've meant more than 1-2 additional wins, but certainly the additional experience and preparation would've helped him be further along this season. I won't deny that MB has had good games (so has Rex Grossman), but overall, I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

[skinsfan#33]

...the first of those two passes in Big D was a bad through that Moss made a great play on it. The other one was the ONLY deep pass in three years thrown well by MB.

Honestly, did you stop watching the Skins after that Dallas game? Did you fall into a euphoria-induced coma for the rest of that season?

Are talking to yourself?

I clearly remember Mark tossing deep balls after that game.

Yes, he did! And they were routinely short by 5 or 10 yards. So the WR would have to wait for the ball and would either get tackled on the spot or the DB would now have time to knock the ball down.

The dud was being considered for the Pro Bowl

Hey, I'm all for overlooking typos, because I'm guilty of them all the time, but the irony of this one is just too funny! And I think you are the only person in the world that thinks MB had a PB worthy season in 2005 or any year that starts with a 2.

To imply that he threw no more deep balls is either ignorant, stupid, or just plain moronic. Take your pick.*

If this is multiple choice I select D. None of the above!

Look I know you have this MB fetish and I respect most of what you post, but your infatuation with #8 really hurts your credability!


*Mind you, his 04 and 06 seasons were certainly not praiseworthy, at least not for his performance on the field. I'll be the first to admit that.[/quote]

[Fios]

The dud was being considered for the Pro Bowl

Hey, I'm all for overlooking typos, because I'm guilty of them all the time, but the irony of this one is just too funny!

Look I know you have this MB fetish and I respect most of what you post, but your infatuation with #8 really hurts your credability!

[skinsfan#33]

The dud was being considered for the Pro Bowl

Hey, I'm all for overlooking typos, because I'm guilty of them all the time, but the irony of this one is just too funny!

Look I know you have this MB fetish and I respect most of what you post, but your infatuation with #8 really hurts your credability!

like I said. I'm guilty of them all the time!

[skinsfan#33]

1 out of 100, better odds than the lottery!

Incorrect

What?

[Fios]

And I think you are the only person in the world that thinks MB had a PB worthy season in 2005 or any year that starts with a 2.

No, in fact, he is not

[skinsfan#33]

Honestly, I don't think he can see when he steps up into the pocket. He's at least 6 inches shorter than most of his linemen.

Great point. I believe thats why he airs a lot of WR's out to dry. I've noticed his passes are usually high.

A short QB and midget WR's aren't a good mix.

That's why historically, Brunell throws to the outside more often than he does over the middle...

...unless, of course, his team is down by 13 points, and he needs two TDs to seal the win against a bitter rival.

Say what you will about Brunell, he did give us that one great memory. I'll always remember him fondly for that long after the sour taste of '04 and '06 have been washed away sands of time.

So let me get this straight....you'll remember his two great passes in three years over what a weight he was to this team, dragging them down? To each his own I guess.

I'll always remember going to the playoffs ... why not? Brunell is hardly the scapegoat around which we should hang the team's recent failures. That isn't to say he was a boon last season but to remember him in a persistently negative light is to remember him incorrectly.




He is dead, right? I sure hope my eulogy wasn't early

I did say, "to each his own," right? You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Who's to say which is right? Frankly, I think the Skins went to the playoffs INSPITE of Brunell.

Honestly, I grow tired of rehashing this debate, it becomes "how I remember it" versus "how it actually was" and it gets old.

I agree. I'm with the way it actually was group!

[Fios]

1 out of 100, better odds than the lottery!

Incorrect

What?

http://www.lottogenie.com/html/odds.html

[Fios]

Honestly, I don't think he can see when he steps up into the pocket. He's at least 6 inches shorter than most of his linemen.

Great point. I believe thats why he airs a lot of WR's out to dry. I've noticed his passes are usually high.

A short QB and midget WR's aren't a good mix.

That's why historically, Brunell throws to the outside more often than he does over the middle...

...unless, of course, his team is down by 13 points, and he needs two TDs to seal the win against a bitter rival.

Say what you will about Brunell, he did give us that one great memory. I'll always remember him fondly for that long after the sour taste of '04 and '06 have been washed away sands of time.

So let me get this straight....you'll remember his two great passes in three years over what a weight he was to this team, dragging them down? To each his own I guess.

I'll always remember going to the playoffs ... why not? Brunell is hardly the scapegoat around which we should hang the team's recent failures. That isn't to say he was a boon last season but to remember him in a persistently negative light is to remember him incorrectly.




He is dead, right? I sure hope my eulogy wasn't early

I did say, "to each his own," right? You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Who's to say which is right? Frankly, I think the Skins went to the playoffs INSPITE of Brunell.

Honestly, I grow tired of rehashing this debate, it becomes "how I remember it" versus "how it actually was" and it gets old.

I agree. I'm with the way it actually was group!

[skinsfan#33]

1 out of 100, better odds than the lottery!

Incorrect

What?

http://www.lottogenie.com/html/odds.html

Thanks for the link backing me up!

[Fios]

You bore me, I am done with this thread

[skinsfan#33]

And I think you are the only person in the world that thinks MB had a PB worthy season in 2005 or any year that starts with a 2.

No, in fact, he is not

You got me there! I gues I should have said for seasons that start with a 2.

[SkinsJock]

I just love how some here can just continue to beat this subject to death. We should all just move on - the QB position is not the sole reason for a team's success or failure (Kitna & Marino) - end of story.

Brunell is still on the team for now because Gibbs apparently still thinks he can help this team. I do not think that Gibbs is under any illusion about the strength of Brunell's arm. There is nothing there!
I would be very nervous if we needed either Collins or Brunell to play for any extended period of time but I also think that if Gibbs and Saunders think they can still be effective then that is where we are for now.


The quarterback situation is just one concern here - we might be a very good team this year but I think we still need to have more depth at some skill positions to be a dominant team again.

[CanesSkins26]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

[BnGhog]

I agree they we may not have been better off with him, but we did get him and MB04 is part of who this team is today. Do you really think the D would have played that hard, If they thought the Offence could have done it without them. I think that our D put it on their shoulders to win because the O was so bad, and if our offence was better, that might not have happened.

Besides, If we didn't get Boonell, you guys would just be talking all kinds of crap about why didn't we get a QB, because Ramsey would have thrown 23 Ints. that year.

[rick301]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

On the surface it was probably a good decision at that moment in time. JG likes a vet at QB and MB seemed to have what he was looking for. What concerns me is that our #2 & 3 are just about identical in terms of age knowledge in the system. JC is the #1 - no question. MB will probably be #3. But where will we be at the end of the season going into next? We need to bring in younger vet as #3 to learn the system now and in a year or two draft a young stud QB with potential.

MB may be healthy now but he nicks easily - and seems to be too over-cautious. He may have more game experience under his belt but he seem to have lost the 'it' to make plays out of nothing when all heck breaks loose. TC has been playing better but there must be concerns about him or he'd be a starter somewhere.

Potentially, TC and MB may not be here at this time next year. Then you'd have 2 backup QBs new to the system behind JC - which is fine as long as JC stays healthy.

[Mursilis]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

On the surface it was probably a good decision at that moment in time. JG likes a vet at QB and MB seemed to have what he was looking for. What concerns me is that our #2 & 3 are just about identical in terms of age knowledge in the system. JC is the #1 - no question. MB will probably be #3. But where will we be at the end of the season going into next? We need to bring in younger vet as #3 to learn the system now and in a year or two draft a young stud QB with potential.

MB may be healthy now but he nicks easily - and seems to be too over-cautious. He may have more game experience under his belt but he seem to have lost the 'it' to make plays out of nothing when all heck breaks loose. TC has been playing better but there must be concerns about him or he'd be a starter somewhere.

Potentially, TC and MB may not be here at this time next year. Then you'd have 2 backup QBs new to the system behind JC - which is fine as long as JC stays healthy.

I don't know why people think this "learn the system" stuff is so complicated. QBs have been learning new offensive schemes most of their athletic lives, and if a QB has talent, he'll pick it up and be able to perform within a few weeks or months. Garcia, McNair, and Brees were all new to their teams last year, and all managed to contribute at a high level right away. Sure, playing QB in the NFL is complicated, but it's not nuclear engineering or something.

[BnGhog]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

On the surface it was probably a good decision at that moment in time. JG likes a vet at QB and MB seemed to have what he was looking for. What concerns me is that our #2 & 3 are just about identical in terms of age knowledge in the system. JC is the #1 - no question. MB will probably be #3. But where will we be at the end of the season going into next? We need to bring in younger vet as #3 to learn the system now and in a year or two draft a young stud QB with potential.

MB may be healthy now but he nicks easily - and seems to be too over-cautious. He may have more game experience under his belt but he seem to have lost the 'it' to make plays out of nothing when all heck breaks loose. TC has been playing better but there must be concerns about him or he'd be a starter somewhere.

Potentially, TC and MB may not be here at this time next year. Then you'd have 2 backup QBs new to the system behind JC - which is fine as long as JC stays healthy.

I don't know why people think this "learn the system" stuff is so complicated. QBs have been learning new offensive schemes most of their athletic lives, and if a QB has talent, he'll pick it up and be able to perform within a few weeks or months. Garcia, McNair, and Brees were all new to their teams last year, and all managed to contribute at a high level right away. Sure, playing QB in the NFL is complicated, but it's not nuclear engineering or something.

Don't know if you noticed but all the QBs you mentioned played for simular, if not exactly the same systems that they did the year before. Umm same thing as we did bringing TC.

[Mursilis]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

On the surface it was probably a good decision at that moment in time. JG likes a vet at QB and MB seemed to have what he was looking for. What concerns me is that our #2 & 3 are just about identical in terms of age knowledge in the system. JC is the #1 - no question. MB will probably be #3. But where will we be at the end of the season going into next? We need to bring in younger vet as #3 to learn the system now and in a year or two draft a young stud QB with potential.

MB may be healthy now but he nicks easily - and seems to be too over-cautious. He may have more game experience under his belt but he seem to have lost the 'it' to make plays out of nothing when all heck breaks loose. TC has been playing better but there must be concerns about him or he'd be a starter somewhere.

Potentially, TC and MB may not be here at this time next year. Then you'd have 2 backup QBs new to the system behind JC - which is fine as long as JC stays healthy.

I don't know why people think this "learn the system" stuff is so complicated. QBs have been learning new offensive schemes most of their athletic lives, and if a QB has talent, he'll pick it up and be able to perform within a few weeks or months. Garcia, McNair, and Brees were all new to their teams last year, and all managed to contribute at a high level right away. Sure, playing QB in the NFL is complicated, but it's not nuclear engineering or something.

Don't know if you noticed but all the QBs you mentioned played for simular, if not exactly the same systems that they did the year before. Umm same thing as we did bringing TC.

All offensive schemes are "similar", depending on how you define that word.

[SkinsJock]

I'd have a hard time believing that any team will trade for Brunell.

I also think that as we have noticed already this season - we now have 2 old QBs backing up Campbell so I would imagine that next year - as long as Campbell shows he is the QB we all expect - we will get a veteran QB as the back-up and a younger guy to get prepared to take over from Campbell and hopefully be the back-up before he takes over from Campbell.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I'd have a hard time believing that any team will trade for Brunell.

SEA already said they want him.

[1niksder]

BRUNELL FALLS TO NO. 3

The Washington Post reports that the game-day backup to Redskins starting quarterback Jason Campbell will be Todd Collins. The decision reportedly was based on Collins' performance during the preseason.

And this means that veteran Mark Brunell is now No. 3 on the depth chart.

So the next question is whether the 'Skins are willing to pay $1.5 million in base salary to a third quarterback, especially when a lot of teams don't even have one.

We think the answer is no, and that if a trade isn't worked out soon for Brunell he'll be dumped before the start of the season, at which time his pay essentially becomes guaranteed.

Interesting take from PFT

[PulpExposure]

I don't think we're any better off having acquired him, and likely worse off. I think MB's performance, combined with JG's stubborn and misguided loyalty to him, has got to be considered the chief, or one of the chief, factor for the 22-28 record since JG came back.

Agree with that 100%.

On the surface it was probably a good decision at that moment in time. JG likes a vet at QB and MB seemed to have what he was looking for. What concerns me is that our #2 & 3 are just about identical in terms of age knowledge in the system. JC is the #1 - no question. MB will probably be #3. But where will we be at the end of the season going into next? We need to bring in younger vet as #3 to learn the system now and in a year or two draft a young stud QB with potential.

MB may be healthy now but he nicks easily - and seems to be too over-cautious. He may have more game experience under his belt but he seem to have lost the 'it' to make plays out of nothing when all heck breaks loose. TC has been playing better but there must be concerns about him or he'd be a starter somewhere.

Potentially, TC and MB may not be here at this time next year. Then you'd have 2 backup QBs new to the system behind JC - which is fine as long as JC stays healthy.

I don't know why people think this "learn the system" stuff is so complicated. QBs have been learning new offensive schemes most of their athletic lives, and if a QB has talent, he'll pick it up and be able to perform within a few weeks or months. Garcia, McNair, and Brees were all new to their teams last year, and all managed to contribute at a high level right away. Sure, playing QB in the NFL is complicated, but it's not nuclear engineering or something.

Don't know if you noticed but all the QBs you mentioned played for simular, if not exactly the same systems that they did the year before. Umm same thing as we did bringing TC.

All offensive schemes are "similar", depending on how you define that word.

[skinsfan#33]

Besides, If we didn't get Boonell, you guys would just be talking all kinds of crap about why didn't we get a QB, because Ramsey would have thrown 23 Ints. that year.

Makes perfect sense, since the in the 29 games prior to the 2005 season Ramsey had thrown 28 INTs basically one per game. So I guess he was going to play 23 games in a 16 game season to get to 23 INTs.

This is another dead horse so I'll stop beating it.