The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Champsturf wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Sitting a quarterback for two full seasons is almost unheard of. If Campbell isn't ready to start taking some NFL snaps in 2006, he'll never be ready.
.

He'll "NEVER" be ready? Are you some sort of psychic or something? So is Phillip Rivers never gonna be ready?? What about the majority of other QB's who get drafted and don't see action until the starter is injured? Will they never be ready because they didn't make your time limit for QB success? ..uh doubt it.

Haha...just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't make it "unheard of"...try this. Most quarterbacks drafted don't see meaningful action for a few years. Only a few so-called franchise QB's come in as a starter. Not sitting is the rarity so Im not quite sure what you are talking about.

Most first round QB's come in and sit and only see some mop up duty in blowout games. That couldn't happen for us because Campbell was behind Patrick Ramsey and was the 3rd string QB.

Likely that Ram will not be here next year, so Campbell's first actino will come either due to injury to Brunell as the starter, in mop up duty, or he will beat out Brunnel in training camp.

Campbell will not sit for two consecutive years. He will likely be the #2 or #1 next year where he will see regular season action.

The point I am making is that you guys cry and moan about how bad Brunell is after we lost, but you don't give him any credit for leading this team to it's first playoff victory in 6 years.

Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

Just a couple of quick comments:

I think SSIII was saying that most FIRST round QB's start their second year at the latest. The Rivers situation is a little dicey. Brees stepped his play WAY up when he was drafted and it would be stupid to pull him at this point. They have plenty of cap space, so keeping Rivers isn't a big deal.

As far as dumping on Brunell for us losing, I am one of them. I am also one that ate crow about midseason and gave him his props. As for him winning that Tampa game..are you serious? Our offense had NOTHING to do with winning that game. Give all of your props reserved for Brunell and give them where they belong...to the DEFENSE.

You guys just don't get it. Brunell didn't win the game, of course not, but he didn't lose it either. WE WON the game. Had he thrown a ton of ints or fumbled a bunch we likely would have lost.

So no one unit wins the game, its the team. I don't care if you have the 85 Bears Defense, if your offense is careless with the ball you loose (see last year).

Did you hear me on here complaining about the defense when Brunell and the O put up 35 pts in Tampa and we still lost??

NO, its a team game.

The Hogster wrote:Even still, Hasselbeck only threw for 1 more TD...1 MORE...not 10 more 1 more. The way you guys tell the story, Brunell can't come close to his level.

uh... i think you need to look a little deeper into the stats than just the "bottom line" as you say.

*why on earth would hasselbeck be throwing for a ton of TDs when all they had to do was hand the ball off to sean alexander? he alone scored 27 TDs! all 3 RBs on the 'skins totalled 14 TDs, by comparison.

The Hogster wrote:Remember last season?? Gibbs yanked Brunell when he was stinking it up then. Even though our offense was not as good as it is now, he still pulled the trigger.

the season was already over by that point. and everyone on else knew brunell was not going to cut it at least a MONTH before he finally gave in. so we have plenty of reason to worry that he'll stick with him too long.

The Hogster wrote:You guys just don't get it. Brunell didn't win the game, of course not, but he didn't lose it either. WE WON the game. Had he thrown a ton of ints or fumbled a bunch we likely would have lost.

i am pretty sick of hearing this argument about brunell. the fact is, opponents scored 45 points this year off of his turnovers-- 14 of those came in the 1st tampa game ALONE. yes-- the very tampa game that he has been praised for.

in any case, any moron on this board (myself included!) could avoid turning the ball over with a 14 point lead. hand-off, hand-off, throw it out of bounds, punt. Repeat, repeat, repeat. just because he avoided being a completely idiotic pile of garbage doesn't qualify as a "positive". in case you forgot, he threw for exactly 41 yards in that game. FOURTY-ONE YARDS!!! don't even TRY to make this out to be an asset, that is an insult to the defense. we won that game in spite of brunell, not because of him! we BARELY got out of there alive, thanks to the amazing D. if you feel comfortable counting on them to be that heroic week in and week out, you are a braver man than i, i guess.

I guess I am then. He threw for 41 yards...he only attempted 15 passes. We had an early lead and didn't throw the ball a lot.

How many yards did he throw for against Seattle? We still only had 10 points. You obviously are resolved to an offseason of doom and gloom, and pessimisim..so have at it.

Oh, and your statement "the season was over by then" just shows how much of a quitter you are. The season was not over at that point.

If you remember an 8-8 team made the playoffs from the NFC. The Skins were not eliminated until 2 weeks before the end of the season.

At 6-10 we missed the playoffs by 2 games. But anyway..go ahead dump more on us about how Brunell sucks, he's done, over the hill...blah blah...keep it coming.

It's hilarious watching you disect stats trying to minimize them and spin them to suit your depressed outlook.

The Hogster wrote:I guess I am then. He threw for 41 yards...he only attempted 15 passes. We had an early lead and didn't throw the ball a lot.

How many yards did he throw for against Seattle? We still only had 10 points. You obviously are resolved to an offseason of doom and gloom, and pessimisim..so have at it.

Oh, and your statement "the season was over by then" just shows how much of a quitter you are. The season was not over at that point.

If you remember an 8-8 team made the playoffs from the NFC. The Skins were not eliminated until 2 weeks before the end of the season.

At 6-10 we missed the playoffs by 2 games. But anyway..go ahead dump more on us about how Brunell sucks, he's done, over the hill...blah blah...keep it coming.

It's hilarious watching you disect stats trying to minimize them and spin them to suit your depressed outlook.

I don't do any type of drug Hogster, but PLEASE tell me how to get some of whatever you're on. If I could have that kind of blind optimism rather than being able to see reality, all would be good.

The Hogster wrote:He'll "NEVER" be ready? Are you some sort of psychic or something? So is Phillip Rivers never gonna be ready?? What about the majority of other QB's who get drafted and don't see action until the starter is injured? Will they never be ready because they didn't make your time limit for QB success? ..uh doubt it.

Phillip Rivers probably is ready to see game action, the Chargers just have a great reason to keep him on the bench.

I didn't say if a quarterback doesn't play in his first two years that he will never be ready, I said if he is not ready to start taking snaps in his first two years, he's never going to be ready (there is a big difference). There is only so much you can learn standing on the sidelines, and if a guy can't pick those things up in two years, I would hate to see how long it takes him to adjust to things on the field.

The Hogster wrote:Haha...just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't make it "unheard of"...try this. Most quarterbacks drafted don't see meaningful action for a few years. Only a few so-called franchise QB's come in as a starter. Not sitting is the rarity so Im not quite sure what you are talking about.

I believe you when you say I don't know what I am talking about - but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

In the last 10 years, of the 24 first round quarterbacks who have been in the league two seasons, only Phillip Rivers and Chad Pennington did not start a single game in their first two seasons. Only five quarterbacks (Grossman, Druckenmiller and McNair, along with Rivers and Pennington) had not started at least half their teams games in a single season through years 2. So actually, most first round quarterbacks start getting significant playing time by their second season.

The Hogster wrote:The point I am making is that you guys cry and moan about how bad Brunell is after we lost, but you don't give him any credit for leading this team to it's first playoff victory in 6 years.

That's funny, because I've said often that Brunell deserves all the credit in the world for 2005. And now I'm saying it again - Brunell was outstanding in 2005. You can lay off your crusade.

The Hogster wrote:Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

First of all, don't even pretend to know what I know about football.

Second of all, I've said time and again that I haven't seen Campbell practice so I don't really know where he is. The argument is theoretical (IF Brunell can maintain his 2005 performance, and IF Campbell has matured to a point where he is ready to see NFL snaps, who do you start?).

Finally, you don't know what Gibbs's plan is (although we all have a guess), so don't be so quick to assume that Gibbs doesn't agree with me.

He may agree with you. I think he does agree with you actually. I mean it was him afterall who traded a great deal to draft him. Gibbs really liked what he saw from Campbell and I am sure he wants him to take over for the future.

I think the difference between you and I is small. I would prefer to see Campbell in there as a young, big, accurate and mobile game changer, but only if he is ready. At the same time, I don't criticize the heck out of Brunell to advance my belief that Campbell will be a star.

We can't hasten the process just by dumping on the guy who got us to where we were this year. People say over and over, "We won in spite of Brunnell and the Defense carried us...blah blah." That couldn't be further from the truth.

In reality, our defense was statistically better last year, 3rd overall, and we still lost 10 games. The defense can only do so much, you have to give Brunell credit is all I am saying.

[/quote]

I don't do any type of drug Hogster, but PLEASE tell me how to get some of whatever you're on. If I could have that kind of blind optimism rather than being able to see reality, all would be good.[/quote]

So now I'm on drugs because I think Brunell can lead us next year? Really?

Blind Optimism? It must suck to be such a negative thinker. I don't call it "blind optimism". If I am not correct, I just watched Mark Brunell quarterback a team to 11 wins, and it's first postseason berth in 6 years. Yeah...I think I saw that with my own two eyes.

Oh, my bad. I am supposed to agree with you that Brunell stinks. That's right..let me take off my burgundy and gold glasses ahhh much better.

Problem is, I still see Brunell being capable...even without the glasses....hmm I guess I should get that checked out. I mean you did say the sky is falling right?

Who's criticizing the defense?

You're right, the defense was better last year and we did worse. It seems to me that addition of Santana Moss, the cohesiveness of the offense live, and the greatest running season of a Redskin ever by Clinton Portis had a lot more to do with it. The loss of Randy Thomas is probably one of the big reasons the offense died off at the end, and it wasn't because our pass protected got significantly worse. Our running attack wasn't as dominant. So what does a good team do, they rely on their QB to take them through those rough times. Brunell did not show up. In the absence of a dominant rushing game, Brunell proved to be subpar(nicely saying it) when that happened.

From what I recall, a majority of Brunell's big plays came from Moss adjustments (I admit so did Ramsey's as well), screens and flats, nothing really hard. Sometimes he blindly threw them where they were returned for a TD or should have been. He threw across the field one time at a critical time period. He throws up the middle, like in Seattle with ey, there were no defensive backs for over 10 yards.

When a team struggles, a QB stepping up is hitting someone downfield who might only be slightly open where only they can catch it. It might be making young WRs look a lot better than they are. It someone who has the accuracy to thread the needle every once and a while especially when the team needs it. It's not taking a sack or throwing the ball away, and not losing the game, especially when you're losing.

I think Brunell is way beyond any of that in his career. Our team leans on its defense. It became a playoff team with its running game. Take away the defense, even with the running game, we would have been competing for Reggie Bush this year, not the NFC East Division.

The Hogster wrote:I think the difference between you and I is small. I would prefer to see Campbell in there as a young, big, accurate and mobile game changer, but only if he is ready. At the same time, I don't criticize the heck out of Brunell to advance my belief that Campbell will be a star.

You're talking about a Catch-22 - Campbell can't get into the game until he's ready, but he's not going to be ready until he gets into the game. Most young QBs aren't that good when they first start, but need at least half a season or more to find their groove and get a feel for the pro game. I know it helps to study film and learn the playbook and all that, but in the end, experience counts, and the only way to get that is to get into the game. Holding the clipboard only gets you so far.

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I think the difference between you and I is small. I would prefer to see Campbell in there as a young, big, accurate and mobile game changer, but only if he is ready. At the same time, I don't criticize the heck out of Brunell to advance my belief that Campbell will be a star.

You're talking about a Catch-22 - Campbell can't get into the game until he's ready, but he's not going to be ready until he gets into the game. Most young QBs aren't that good when they first start, but need at least half a season or more to find their groove and get a feel for the pro game. I know it helps to study film and learn the playbook and all that, but in the end, experience counts, and the only way to get that is to get into the game. Holding the clipboard only gets you so far.

I don't disagree with anything you said...but who says that getting into the game has to be as the starter? Who is to say that it has to come now, or never?

I just say that we can bring him along progressively. This team is still a work in progress. Keep in mind, there is about a 99 percent chance he will be our backup. That means that there is an overwhelming, almost certainty, that he will play at some point in the year...i.e. if Brunell is injured, not playing well, or if there is a blowout.

That is where he will get his experience now, and he will take on more and more as he handles it.

Keep in mind that Brunell started the year this year as the backup. Campbell may very well finish the year, I just don't think he goes in as the starter for risk of throwing him into the fire in a pressure packed situation.

The Hogster wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I think the difference between you and I is small. I would prefer to see Campbell in there as a young, big, accurate and mobile game changer, but only if he is ready. At the same time, I don't criticize the heck out of Brunell to advance my belief that Campbell will be a star.

You're talking about a Catch-22 - Campbell can't get into the game until he's ready, but he's not going to be ready until he gets into the game. Most young QBs aren't that good when they first start, but need at least half a season or more to find their groove and get a feel for the pro game. I know it helps to study film and learn the playbook and all that, but in the end, experience counts, and the only way to get that is to get into the game. Holding the clipboard only gets you so far.

I don't disagree with anything you said...but who says that getting into the game has to be as the starter? Who is to say that it has to come now, or never?

I just say that we can bring him along progressively. This team is still a work in progress. Keep in mind, there is about a 99 percent chance he will be our backup. That means that there is an overwhelming, almost certainty, that he will play at some point in the year...i.e. if Brunell is injured, not playing well, or if there is a blowout.

That is where he will get his experience now, and he will take on more and more as he handles it.

Keep in mind that Brunell started the year this year as the backup. Campbell may very well finish the year, I just don't think he goes in as the starter for risk of throwing him into the fire in a pressure packed situation.

It better be a bad injury, otherwise Joe will still start Brunell. Look at the past two seasons for my reasoning. Brunell has been hurt a lot, yet still gets the nod. Thank God it hasn't cost us anything.

Champsturf wrote:
It better be a bad injury, otherwise Joe will still start Brunell. Look at the past two seasons for my reasoning. Brunell has been hurt a lot, yet still gets the nod. Thank God it hasn't cost us anything.

You need to be thanking Gibbs and Brunell for treating you to the best season you've seen in over a decade. Be patient grasshopper. Joe knows what he is doing...why don't three 4 Superbowl Appearances, 3 Lombardi trophies, and taking this team to Rd 2 of the playoffs after 6-10 prove to you he's a good coach?

You act like our team was winning games till Gibbs came along and screwed things up for us.

I guess if someone walked up to you and gave you a million bucks you would complain that they didn't give you two million.

The Hogster wrote:

Champsturf wrote:
It better be a bad injury, otherwise Joe will still start Brunell. Look at the past two seasons for my reasoning. Brunell has been hurt a lot, yet still gets the nod. Thank God it hasn't cost us anything.

You need to be thanking Gibbs and Brunell for treating you to the best season you've seen in over a decade. Be patient grasshopper. Joe knows what he is doing...why don't three 4 Superbowl Appearances, 3 Lombardi trophies, and taking this team to Rd 2 of the playoffs after 6-10 prove to you he's a good coach?

You act like our team was winning games till Gibbs came along and screwed things up for us.

I guess if someone walked up to you and gave you a million bucks you would complain that they didn't give you two million.

Hogster, please do me a favor and quit responding to anything I write. I will try to afford you the same courtesy. You and I are completely different people with completely different perspectives and let's end it at that.

I have yet to agree with anything you've written, except when you're just agreeing with somebody else that is saying the same things that I am, just in a different way.

Also, I resent you talking down to me by calling me "grasshopper." I am patient. I've been a fan since about 1982 and have seen several bad seasons/teams. I have faith in what Gibbs is doing, but not blind faith. I have my own opinions because I can actually think for myself. They may not be same as Gibbs, or they might. I don't care. I'm here supporting my team and giving my input as to how I think they may be better. Most of us do that, but some would rather just agree wholeheartedly with Gibbs and never question anything.

The Hogster wrote:why don't three 4 Superbowl Appearances, 3 Lombardi trophies, and taking this team to Rd 2 of the playoffs after 6-10 prove to you he's a good coach?

Did anyone say he was a bad coach? We just think that there is still room for improvement, and if the hiring of Al Saunders tells us anything, it is that Gibbs agrees. If Gibbs can admit that he's not perfect, why can't you?

Also, as for Campbell playing only in garbage time - unless Brunell breaks a leg or something, that's likely to amount to the kind of playing time Ramsey got this year. Other than his Week 1 start, Ramsey only played in the Giants blowout loss, briefly in the 49ers blowout win and when Brunell got knocked out of the second Giants game, for a grand total of 14 attempts. That just won't cut it if we are trying to help Campbell progress.