Why is Gibbs sticking with Brunell?

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Mursilis
mursilis
mursilis
Posts: 2415
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:07 pm

Post by Mursilis »

The Hogster wrote:Because Daniel Snyder paid 49 million dollars for him and probably has the heat on Gibbs to prove that he didn't waste nearly 50 Huge Ones, and benching Brunell would be an admission of that.


That's just silly. Lavar made a ton of money and never played much under Gibbs. I doubt the coaches even think about salaries when they decide who sits and who plays.
The Hogster
#######
#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by The Hogster »

Mursilis wrote:
The Hogster wrote:Because Daniel Snyder paid 49 million dollars for him and probably has the heat on Gibbs to prove that he didn't waste nearly 50 Huge Ones, and benching Brunell would be an admission of that.


That's just silly. Lavar made a ton of money and never played much under Gibbs. I doubt the coaches even think about salaries when they decide who sits and who plays.


Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about...the truth came out about Lavar...he had a chronic injury and didn't play alot in NY either I take it you didn't notice that he was listed as questionable on their injury report with the same knee injury he had here, and didn't play all three downs there either........that situation is totally different. Money matters in the NFL...it probably shouldn't but it does...thats just obvious...

Both Brian Mitchell and Doc Walker mentioned today that its time for the Skins to erase the salaries from the depth chart..
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________
User avatar
SkinzCanes
Hog
Posts: 1510
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:31 am

Post by SkinzCanes »

From the Washington Post....

If You Don't Play the Kid, How Do You Know He Can Play?

By Michael Wilbon
Saturday, November 4, 2006; Page E01

It's time to put Jason Campbell in a real, live NFL game. Actually, the time was two weeks ago in Indianapolis. The Colts were beating the Redskins senseless late in the fourth quarter. It was the perfect time to put Campbell in. The Redskins were going into a bye week. The game was lost. They had dropped to 2-5.

There was absolutely nothing to lose that day. The situation was screaming out for Campbell to go into the game . . . unless you're a proponent of Mark Brunell staying in to fatten up his numbers. Talk about a lost opportunity.At some point, Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders might want to find out if Campbell can play; the sooner the better. The kid could be the next Carson Palmer or Ben Roethlisberger, which would be an upgrade over Brunell in his sunset years. Or he could be Cade McNown or Akili Smith, which would be regrettable. Either way, you'd want to know, wouldn't you? And the only way the Redskins are going to find out is to play the kid. Campbell doesn't need to start, necessarily, but play.

There's hardly a No. 1 quarterback in the NFL today who didn't throw a pass his first two seasons in the NFL. But Campbell is on his way to that distinction. In fact, the Redskins have made him inactive in all 25 games he has spent in the NFL. Not a pass, not a snap. That's more of an indictment of the Redskins than of Campbell.

This isn't the NFL of the 1960s or '70s . . . or even the 1980s, when coaches thought quarterbacks needed two or three years of seasoning. In today's NFL, if you pick him you play him . . . and fairly straightaway, especially when you give up draft picks in the first, third and fourth rounds to trade up and get him. For a team that uses its draft picks wisely, that's three starters. So far, the Redskins don't know if using the 25th pick on Campbell will yield one starter.

Look, I was not an early-season proponent of benching Brunell, and if the Redskins were 4-3 going into the game tomorrow against the Cowboys I surely wouldn't be on this kick now. But it's clear that this marriage between Saunders and Brunell isn't working. It appears Saunders wants a quarterback who can zip the ball into windows and tight spaces, while Brunell was conditioned last year by Gibbs to make the safe plays and not screw it up. But Washington is 2-5, and what Saunders wants from Brunell isn't taking. The Redskins need some help right now, and heaven knows they need to know who their quarterback is going into the future. The future of the Redskins isn't Brunell any more than the future of the Cowboys is Drew Bledsoe.

So to trade three potential starters for a quarterback, then not use him at all is about as wasteful as it gets in the NFL these days. Too much time and money are invested in first-round quarterbacks to wait two-plus years to get them ready to play, or at least find out if they can.

Six quarterbacks who will start tomorrow were drafted in Campbell's class of 2005 or in 2006: San Francisco's Alex Smith, Tampa Bay's Bruce Gradkowski, Cleveland's Charlie Frye, Arizona's Matt Leinart, Tennessee's Vince Young and Oakland's Andrew Walter. If you expand the list to include the 2004 draftees, add Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, J.P. Losman and Roethlisberger. That means 10 of the league's 32 starters (which doesn't even count the injured Chris Simms) are in their third year or less.

How will Campbell be ready even by his third season if he doesn't play some now?


Once upon a time, in the dark ages of the 1980s, Gibbs was able to put Stan Humphries and Mark Rypien on the inactive list and let them age like wine.

That's over. It's not just superstars like Peyton Manning, Donovan McNab and Michael Vick who played as rookies. So did Marc Bulger, David Carr, Byron Leftwich, Steve McNair, Bledsoe, Jake Plummer and Joey Harrington.

None was great right away, not even Manning. But they got started.

The late bloomers, guys who didn't get into the mix until their second seasons, were Palmer, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Brett Favre and Daunte Culpepper. Leftwich played 15 games as a rookie and threw 418 passes.

Even the guys who mostly sat for two years (Damon Huard, Rivers, Mark Brunell, Chad Pennington, Matt Hasselbeck and Brad Johnson) played a little bit as rookies or sophomores. (Jake Delhomme and Kurt Warner were very late bloomers and out of the NFL for years but they weren't chosen in the first round, like Campbell.) Everybody who is playing now threw at least one pass in his first two seasons . . . except the Cowboys' Tony Romo.

Of course, the Steelers didn't want to play Roethlisberger as a rookie. But they did, and in his second season he won the Super Bowl.

Eli Manning might very well be in the process of leading his Giants to the Super Bowl this season, his third in the league.

While Palmer was sitting in his first season, behind Jon Kitna, Marvin Lewis and the Bengals designed a practice routine that very specifically would prepare Palmer to start in his second season. Months before training camp even started in Palmer's second year, Lewis had named him the starting quarterback. And it's worked beautifully. Maybe the advantage Lewis had was in knowing his owners couldn't just blow money or draft picks on a quarterback who sits.

Certainly the Redskins have enough assistants to design some kind of personalized preparation regimen that could have gotten Campbell to the point where he'd have played at least a few snaps by now. And please don't tell me that 35-year-old Todd Collins, who hasn't thrown a touchdown pass since 2002, is still ahead of Campbell! This isn't to criticize Collins in the least, but if Campbell is still behind Collins now, then the decision to trade up to draft Campbell, combined with the decision to bring in Saunders, who in turn brought in Collins, is utterly confusing, at best.

Two weeks ago, when it became apparent to him that he needed a fresher and more mobile quarterback, Bill Parcells went to the bullpen and summoned Romo, an NFL afterthought until recently, a player with none of Campbell's college pedigree. It's natural to wonder whether the Redskins, when they were watching the film of Romo shred the Carolina Panthers last week, noticed any similarities between the Cowboys' quarterback situation and their own.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

SkinzCanes wrote:From the Washington Post....


Sorry, but were you posting this because....????

Anyway! Romo's first play from scrimmage was such an up-lifting experience for Bledsoe, for Parcells, for Jones, for the offense, for the defense - ?????:twisted:

Such a stupid move by a stupid coach on a stupid team for all the wrong reasons - this was such a bad coaching decision :roll:

We will be seeing Campbell soon but it will not be done in such a classless, low-life way that Parcells did in that game!
The result was almost prophetic and only shows how stupid this idiot pukes coach is.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Smithian
-----------
-----------
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Arkansas

Post by Smithian »

I heard we paid a pretty penny for Todd Collins considering he wouldn't be starting.

Please tell me that isn't true.
"I said when he retired that Joe Gibbs was the best coach I'd ever faced." - Bill Parcells
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

Smithian wrote:I heard we paid a pretty penny for Todd Collins considering he wouldn't be starting.

Please tell me that isn't true.



Collins is making a million. Not quite a "pretty penny", considering the role that he plays of coach / player.
User avatar
REDEEMEDSKIN
~~
~~
Posts: 8496
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Post by REDEEMEDSKIN »

You know I often ask myslef the same question about Gibbs' loyalty to Brunell, and then I remember his 3-1 record against the Pukes since '05, and the doubts just float away. :up:
Back and better than ever!
Snout
Hog
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Seoul

Post by Snout »

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:You know I often ask myslef the same question about Gibbs' loyalty to Brunell, and then I remember his 3-1 record against the Pukes since '05, and the doubts just float away. :up:



Victory over the Cowboys covers many sins . . . at least until next Sunday.
jru37726
piggie
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:29 am
Contact:

Post by jru37726 »

Come on fellas.....you saw how bad Brunell played in the 3rd and 4th qtrs....he threw 3 balss that should have been INT and just seemed nervous or something.....as happy as i am to beat the Cowgirls, the fact remains is our future and more mobile QB is on the bench and #8 just doesnt have it anymore. DO you honestly think this team can win 10 games this yr with him at QB? He's gonna have to win us some guys down the stretch. It just seems like in the 3rd and 4th qtrs he gets tired and doesnt see things very well. If we get down in Philly, there is NO way #8 will bring us back. It hurts me to say it but its reality.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

We all know the answer - IMO this was just another chance for someone to vent their frustration against our coach and our QB. We continue to see new threads started on topics that are already being discussed. That then prompts others to defend their opinions.

On this topic we all agree (or most) that we will see Campbell soon and that he is apparently going to be a very good QB for our team. I do not think that Gibbs/Saunders think that he gives them the best chance to win now or he would be getting prepared to take over from Brunell.

I really think that we have other players on offense who need to show that they are capable of playing better before we will see Campbell.


We have a lot of problems to solve defensively that have more to do with our success on offense than just changing QBs. We need to create some turnovers and get the ball to our offense with a short field. We need to stop allowing so many 3rd and long to turn into 1st downs. I believe that yesterday the pukes converted 10 of 16, 3rd downs. It seemed like most were 3rd and more than 10!

This defense needs to start playing with the same intensity as our Special Teams who are really playing well at this time. I liked a lot of the plays defensively but it seems these are few and far between and allowing a first down on 10 of 16 3rd downs is not a good stat IMO.



Great win guys HTTR
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:31 am
Location: Surfside
Contact:

Post by SkinsFreak »

Please... can anyone offer a rational explaination as to why Brunell offers the team the best chance to win and why Campbell doesn't at this point?

I don't even hear Gibbs or Saunders offer any insight or reasoning.

I'm hoping to hear something other than the whole "he's a veteran and has experience" thing. That 'veteran thing' isn't working for Brunell, Favre, Bledsoe, Warner... etc. IMO, it really doesn't matter how smart a qb is when they physically can't perform at a level consistant with the younger and more mobile qb's in todays NFL.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

Fact is - we all assume that Brunell is starting because Gibbs thinks he is the better QB. Imagine that? We do not know but we think that if Gibbs felt that it was in the team's best interest both now and for the future to start Campbell - then that is what would happen.

It is very annoying to some of us here that Gibbs refuses to explain why he does not start Campbell this week - he is obviously better than Brunell and according to the really knowledgeable few he will give the team the best chance to beat whoever we are playing :shock:

I think Gibbs should be explaining this to us a lot more clearly than by just starting Brunell each week - that is very misleading :wink:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
cleg
cleg
cleg
Posts: 2649
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Deep in the Heart of Giants Territory

Post by cleg »

My concern remains this: If Gibbs plays Brunell for every game and snap of a lost season then who plays QB next year? By trying to make something of a lost year like this we sacrifice next year, assuming Campbell plays then.
Drinking the Kool-Aid again...
User avatar
FiveWidez
Hog
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Post by FiveWidez »

SkinsJock wrote:
On this topic we all agree (or most) that we will see Campbell soon and that he is apparently going to be a very good QB for our team.
HTTR


How is he apparently going to be a very good QB? We have NO clue and the fact that he remains 3rd on the depth chart says quite the opposite.
Mursilis
mursilis
mursilis
Posts: 2415
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:07 pm

Post by Mursilis »

SkinsJock wrote:Fact is - we all assume that Brunell is starting because Gibbs thinks he is the better QB. Imagine that?


Sorry, I just can't.
skins#1fan
Hog
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 am

Post by skins#1fan »

they start brunell for one big reason and that is because we WERE still in the playoff chace...The NFC was wide open if we could get on a little roll and win 3 or 4 straight we were right in it. Now I have been the one person backing Brunell all of this year and last year. I dont think he is our biggest by any means. He has only threw 4 pics all year. Now since we are done I say put in Campbell by all means. Let the kid grow and mature for us.
HitDoctor
----
----
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 12:03 pm
Location: Medford, NJ
Contact:

Post by HitDoctor »

FiveWidez wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
FiveWidez wrote:
joebagadonuts wrote:My sense is that Gibbs knows enough to have a general separation of church and football. I think he truly believes that MB gives the team the best chance to win every week. If he's blind to MB's weaknesses, I think it has more to do with his preference for veteran QBs than it does his faith.


I near-death experience can change a man. And if Brunnel gives us the best chance to win then we need to face the fact that last year was a fluke and we are in need of another "rebuilding".



Who's "we"? I'm certain that the Redskins wouldn't agree that last year was a fluke. . .


We is me and you and every other fan who bought into all this hype about the season. I really don't care what the Redskins believe about last year because they are proving on the field that it was a fluke.


I don't think it was a fluke because they had chemistry and the right mix last year. Was Pittsburgh a fluke too? They are just as bad as the skins this year.
it is what it is
Inspired
piglet
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:29 pm

Post by Inspired »

I think Gibbs realizes that his return is and was always going to be a short stay. He figured a veteran QB, with all the weapons around him, was the quickest way to success. Unfortunately, two things have happened. First of all, MB has not lived up to the dependable veteran QB that Gibbs thought he would be, and second, the players around MB have not been able to overshadow his weaknesses (the injuries to Portis this season have certainly contributed to this).

It would be in Gibbs' best interest at this point to do something that he is entirely uncomfortable doing, and that is to bench MB and give JC a shot. JC deserves it, the fans deserve it and who knows, maybe it will create a spark. The same situation played out a couple of weeks ago with our evil rivals in big D and it seems like everyone is pretty happy with that decision.
Post Reply