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

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:

welch wrote:And lets remember: 5 wins and 6 losses, but what happened? Who won those last five games? Redskins or the other guys? Did they finish out aginst the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles?

Who led the team?

the defense.

Yes, the defense led our team to 24 points, 17 points, 35 points, 35 points, and 31 points in the last 5 games of the season.

um, yes, mostly. the defense and the run game, not so much brunell.

WEEK 13 VS. RAMS:
defense holds rams to about 25% fewer total yards (191) than we amass in our run game alone (257). we put 2 RBs over 100 yards. brunell's most notable contribution was fumbling the ball out of the end zone for a safety that could have cost us the game-- except the defense bailed us out by recovering a fumble on the next play. the offense then staged a drive of 8 straight run plays before brunell got credit for a 4 yard TD pass.

WEEK 14 VS. ARIZONA:
brunell responds to the defense forcing 4 turnovers by throwing 3 interceptions of his own, and fumbling twice. we end up squeaking out a win on antonio brown's kick return for TD.

WEEK 15 VS. DALLAS:
4 of the redskins' 5 TD drives begin at the following yardlines due to overwhelming pressure from the defense forcing turnovers and a bad punt from poor field position:

DALLAS 21
DALLAS 34
DALLAS 38
DALLAS 21

brunell only needed to throw 12 passes. he did a great job by not screwing up but you simply can't pretend he was the "leader" of this victory.

WEEK 15 VS. GIANTS:
brunell leads 2 drives for TDs for our team, and throws a TD to the giants on a horrible INT. net result, 1 TD.
the defense steps up, lamar marshall intercepts eli, and portis gets a quick TD from their 20.

brunell gets injured and leaves the game. our defense holds them only to one more field goal, while ramsey leads us on 2 TD drives (without turning the ball over, i might add). again, brunell cannot be assigned credit for "leading" us to this victory.

WEEK 17 VS. PHILLY:
Skins are LOSING 17-20 to the decimated and hapless eagles. the offense goes 3-and-out for the 2nd series in a row.
lamar marshall intercepts mcmahon and gives us the ball at their 22. portis scores a TD on the next play.

on the ensuing series, joe salave'a recovers a fumble on our 40. the offense again goes 3-and-out.

defense holds them to 1 first down, then punt. we get 1 first down, then punt.

daniels sacks detmer, sean taylor runs it in for the TD that ices the game with 2:30 left.

the defense inarguably led the team to this win.

And which defensive player called the huddle, led them to the line of scrimmage, took the snap, and ran the offense?

welch wrote:And which defensive player called the huddle, led them to the line of scrimmage, took the snap, and ran the offense?

uh... what does that have to do with anything? no, the defense did not run the offense any more than brunell lined up at middle linebacker.
but YOU argued that brunell "led" the team to those point totals. i think the games pretty clearly showed that the defense and rushing attack led the way to those wins. brunell followed them up and finished them off- which he deserves all due credit for. i am not trying to minimize that. but to say that he "led" the team to those wins is incogitable and unsupportable.

contrary to popular belief, i don't hate brunell. i respect the contributions he made last year and think if he could stay at 100% throughout 2007 we would easily win the superbowl. i will still be excited to see what he can accomplish since he will surely be the starter this year.

but a lot of us saw a serious decline in his play throughout the season that went beyond his lack of options at WR. he simply looked worn down physically, and i have a hard time understanding how that did not seem apparent to everyone.

Despite Brunell's solid performance last season I think that the longterm interests of the team would be served by Campbell starting this season. The only way a young qb learns is by playing, not by sitting on the bench and holding a clipboard. If you look at the top 10 NFL passers from last season (based on qb rating), 9 out of 10 started in either their first or second season. I don't think that it's a coincidence that these guys are the top qb's now in the NFL.

It's just media hype

I hope I'm wrong but I don't believe Brunnel will lead us to the Super Bowl -- I sure hope I eat these words but at his age and physical condition, I don't see it happening.

I did not like him throwing the ball out of bounds so quickly last year...posters here blamed Thrash and Jacobs for not getting open -- I don't believe that. He never even looked their way, and I noticed them open too. It was Moss, ey, maybe Portis if he dumpped it off before heaving it 3 rows deep in the stands. I'm not sure Lloyd and El will add a lot, if Brunnel isn't willing to hang in and check out his options. He does not scare defenses and they crowd the line too much...he has very happy feet now. I'd like to see Campbell start the year and get us ready for late 2006 and 2007.

Again, I'd love to be wrong and have one of you remind me of this post in 10 months -- I just don't believe Brunnel has it anymore.

Actually, DCD, I think that Brunell led the team to those victories. In particular, he led the offense, but a whole teams follows the QB. If the QB fundamentally can't win, like Jeff George, the whole team sags.

That's why I've mention Billy Kilmer several times. He couldn't do much except win. Brunell reminds me of Kilmer. He takes a hit, he gets up, he plays, he leads. He has winning grit, which no Redskin QB has had since Rypien was shaking off Bruce Smith's hits. Obvious difference: Kilmer had better receivers, and Brunell is a better passer and runner.

And no, I don't think you, personally, "hate" Brunell, Gibbs, or the Redskins. I don't think anyone who would do that and bother to post on this board, except for the notable trolls and a few honorable followers of the wrong team.

You're probably right, Welsh, football games are won by witchcraft and magical
Qb's that lead defences from the bench; but I'll stick to the notion that professional athletes are old enough to motivate themselves and don't much require mumbo jumbo from the leader. In my opinion, QB's lead by executing plays properly and throwing good passes, and when they fail to do that they don't lead anybody. The best you can expect of an WR
you've just missed wide open for a T is a low level tolerance.
Players don't have heroes...like you think.
They want a guy out there who's carrying his weight and doing the job. When Brunell was clicking he inspired everybody; when he was awful, he didn't. All of the rest you hear is so much nonsense. By the way, Kilmer was a Dilfer. He was carried by the other guys, all of whom prayed for Sonny's health so they could build up a cushion and wouldn't have to work so hard.

Brunell probably will be the starter unless Campbell really impresses the coaches or Brunell gets hurt. With the new recievers and Cordinator he will get his chance during training camp so we will see what will happen in due time. All we need from Brunell is to manage the game and not turn it over maybe like Trent Dilfer did with the Ravens. We will depend heavily on our Defense and Running game just like always. Moss and maybe the new funbunch will be interesting to see.

HEROHAMO wrote:Brunell probably will be the starter unless Campbell really impresses the coaches or Brunell gets hurt.

If Campbell blows Mark away then I wish JC the best.

HEROHAMO wrote:With the new recievers and Cordinator he will get his chance during training camp so we will see what will happen in due time.

This IMO gives JC a lot of room/time to catch up. Mark will have to learn this new system so it puts them on a level playing field in certain areas. This will allow us to gauge his progress a bit easier. I wouldn't be shocked to see Collins look on par or better than MB and JC early in camp.

HEROHAMO wrote:All we need from Brunell is to manage the game and not turn it over maybe like Trent Dilfer did with the Ravens.

Exactly.

welch wrote:Actually, DCD, I think that Brunell led the team to those victories. In particular, he led the offense, but a whole teams follows the QB. If the QB fundamentally can't win, like Jeff George, the whole team sags.

That's why I've mention Billy Kilmer several times. He couldn't do much except win.

I find it hilarious that everyone acts like the '04 season never happened, when Brunnell was awful. As a Redskin, Brunnell is only 14-13 as a starter, which IMHO isn't nearly good enough to inspire the sort of blind loyalty I'm seeing here. Time will tell, I guess, and that's about all there is left to say.

Mursilis wrote:

welch wrote:Actually, DCD, I think that Brunell led the team to those victories. In particular, he led the offense, but a whole teams follows the QB. If the QB fundamentally can't win, like Jeff George, the whole team sags.

That's why I've mention Billy Kilmer several times. He couldn't do much except win.

I find it hilarious that everyone acts like the '04 season never happened, when Brunnell was awful. As a Redskin, Brunnell is only 14-13 as a starter, which IMHO isn't nearly good enough to inspire the sort of blind loyalty I'm seeing here. Time will tell, I guess, and that's about all there is left to say.

As long as some of you have been knocking MB you would think you guys could get his name right.

And yes time will tell. The 04 did happen and if it was up to you I'm sure he wouldn't have made the team in 05, and we know that would have been a great move

1niksder wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

welch wrote:Actually, DCD, I think that Brunell led the team to those victories. In particular, he led the offense, but a whole teams follows the QB. If the QB fundamentally can't win, like Jeff George, the whole team sags.

That's why I've mention Billy Kilmer several times. He couldn't do much except win.

I find it hilarious that everyone acts like the '04 season never happened, when Brunnell was awful. As a Redskin, Brunnell is only 14-13 as a starter, which IMHO isn't nearly good enough to inspire the sort of blind loyalty I'm seeing here. Time will tell, I guess, and that's about all there is left to say.

As long as some of you have been knocking MB you would think you guys could get his name right.

And yes time will tell. The 04 did happen and if it was up to you I'm sure he wouldn't have made the team in 05, and we know that would have been a great move

Unless you have a crystal ball or something, it's impossible to tell how Ramsey would've done as the starter for a full season, so it's pointless to discuss the 'would've beens'.

Mursilis wrote:Unless you have a crystal ball or something, it's impossible to tell how Ramsey would've done as the starter for a full season, so it's pointless to discuss the 'would've beens'.

You'd need that same ball to tell how Mark will do this UPCOMING year.
You can say what Brunell will do this year because of what you saw in 2004 and the end of 2005,,, but have no clue as to how Ramsey would have made out last year???

Didn't you see Ramsey in 2004? What about 2003? Did he play at all last year? If you can say what Mark will do after 2 years you can say what Patrick could have done last year. Or we could have faith in the guy who laed the Redskins to the playoffs. If it doesn't work out I'm sure Gibbs will be the 1st to know. I don't think he uses a cyrstal ball either

HEROHAMO wrote:All we need from Brunell is to manage the game and not turn it over maybe like Trent Dilfer did with the Ravens.

Our defense will probably be better than it was in 2005, but I'm not buying that our offense won't need to score points in 2006. A Trent Dilfer performance isn't going to cut it - this team needs to be able to score 20+ on a regular basis.

That's not saying that Brunell won't be capable of that, just that I think we need to set the bar a bit higher.

Thanks for the post Jake!

Washington Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs said that Jason Campbell, a first-round draft pick last year, will be given a chance in training camp and during the preseason to win the team's No. 2 quarterback job behind starter Mark Brunell.

Campbell was third on the depth chart last season behind Brunell and Patrick Ramsey. But with Ramsey having been traded to the New York Jets, Gibbs said Campbell will compete with free-agent newcomer Todd Collins for the job as next season's primary backup.

This really is not that big a deal! - Brunell is the starting QB based on last year, that is just the way it "works". By the way anyone who suggests that we aught to consider Brunell's play before last year cannot be taken seriously. Gibbs knows what he has (physically) with Brunell and that is taken into consideration with his leadership. Gibbs would not be the success he is by placing any thought or emhasis on bad thoughts or images from the past. He looks ahead and he thinks positively.

Gibbs said he and his assistant coaches will make the decision based on the play of Campbell and Collins during the exhibition games.

"He'll play a lot in the preseason," Gibbs said. "You'll probably get a good feel for that coming out of the preseason. We'll see how they play, and everyone will have an opinion."

Collins previously was with Al Saunders, the Redskins' new offensive coordinator, in Kansas City, and Gibbs said that Campbell's preseason playing time can be increased because Collins doesn't have to learn the offense.

Gibbs also said he will try to limit Brunell's practice-field snaps, both during training camp and the season, in an effort to keep the veteran healthy. Gibbs acknowledged that Brunell's leg injuries during his two-year Redskins tenure make for an ongoing concern, and he's spoken to the quarterback about adding a flexibility program to his training regimen.

"He can probably take a little less work during the week, too. . . . Some guys want all the reps, but I think Mark is real comfortable," Gibbs said.

Again, I think this is not that big a deal! We would not have brought in Collins (we anticipated losing Ramsey) if we did not fully consider all the options at QB and, IMO, think that Campbell was getting close to being able to take over from Brunell.

I think that Gibbs and Saunders are fairly sure that Brunell can handle being the starter for a little longer but that ideally Collins is only here to support both the other guys and that Cambell is the future and that may happen sooner than Gibbs would like but that is how it will play out.

Brunell is a winning QB and is going to continue to win some games for this team for some time - then it will be Campbell time.

crazyhorse wrote:but I'll stick to the notion that professional athletes are old enough to motivate themselves and don't much require mumbo jumbo from the leader.

Crazyhorse, are you saying that, because the NFL players are professional, they don't need leadership?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Players, coaches, analysts--everyone--constantly talk about the importance of leadership. Leadership on the field, in the locker room, at practice, and off the field. In fact, that's what makes the NFL so interesting: it is saturated with talent. The difference between winners and losers has less to do with conditioning and ability, and more to do with the intangibles: leadership, organization, and playing as a team.

What is it that you think Joe Gibbs does nowadays, anyway? He's got 2 assistant head coaches running the offense and a defensive coordinator that runs the defense for him. (Not to mention the myriad coaches that micromanage every other aspect of the team). Joe Gibbs' greatest strength has always been--and continues to be--his ability to lead a team toward a common goal. (Not, as you seem to suggest, spewing 'mumbo jumbo.')

It seems to me that in the NFL--as in all of life, or so I'm told--leaders are few and far between, badly needed, and show themselves to be successful. (Whether or not they are working with "professionals.")

crazyhorse wrote:but I'll stick to the notion that professional athletes are old enough to motivate themselves and don't much require mumbo jumbo from the leader.

You couldn't be any more wrong than you are right now. Where you awake when Steve Spurrier reigned? Or how about when Deoin and Mark Carrier were brought on. We had talent out the wazoo but lacked the leadership at the top (coach).

Gibbs 1st year back was a success and a big one. The gains that the team made could not be reflected on the score board and win/loss column. He was setting the foundation that allowed this team to spring into the playoffs like it did last season. Anyone who is a real fan could notice the difference in our players swagger in the 1st year.

What Gibbs brought back was vision, purpose, motivation and a will all of which can only be imparted to the players by a TRUE LEADER. Marty, Norv and Steve weren't leaders.

Marty, Norv and Steve weren't leaders.

Marty is a good coach who has vision. Steve might be the only one that fits here.

gay4pacman wrote:

Marty, Norv and Steve weren't leaders.

Marty is a good coach who has vision. Steve might be the only one that fits here.

Marty is a good man, but he still lacks that certain "je ne sais quoi" that Joe Gibbs has. Let's see how he does in SD this year, now that Brees is gone.

As for Spurrier, he's a leader, but not of men. He is best suited for the children in college, and that ain't a bad gig either.

gay4pacman wrote:

Marty, Norv and Steve weren't leaders.

Marty is a good coach who has vision. Steve might be the only one that fits here.

I disagree to an extent. I thought about placing his name in that list but look how his team failed to rise to the occasion last year? What has he really done? His teams never seem to rise to being anymore than above average.

Look at how Gibbs rallied a team that was supposed to be at the bottom of the east and compare it to how Marty and his allstar team performed.

they can still lead, saying they are ot leaders in comparison to gibbs is something else. they wouldn't be head coaches if they weren't natural leaders.

gay4pacman wrote:they can still lead, saying they are ot leaders in comparison to gibbs is something else. they wouldn't be head coaches if they weren't natural leaders.

Do you remember Dave Campo, Barry Switzer and Rich Kotite?

I do. And I'd hardly characterize them as natural leaders despite being head coaches.

Do you remember Dave Campo, Barry Switzer and Rich Kotite?

I hate Oklahoma and Dallas equally but Switzer did win 3 National Championships and 1 Super Bowl. Not too shabby if you ask me.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:All we need from Brunell is to manage the game and not turn it over maybe like Trent Dilfer did with the Ravens.

Our defense will probably be better than it was in 2005, but I'm not buying that our offense won't need to score points in 2006. A Trent Dilfer performance isn't going to cut it - this team needs to be able to score 20+ on a regular basis.

That's not saying that Brunell won't be capable of that, just that I think we need to set the bar a bit higher.

I agree with setting the bar high. All Im saying is if we can hold our opponents to an average of 10 points or less then the running game and good management really comes in to play. This is a new season with two new recievers and we are all eager to see if our offense can light it up. Either way Mark Brunell has a year or two left in him and Jason Campbells time will come whether it be now or next year. Im not sure if Gibbs wants him to take alot of chances depending on our game plans. I think it will be a game to game thing. Anyhow whoever the Qb is gonna be you know weve got to support him when he is in the game so all this fuss I have realized is almost pointless but somehow gratifying. Hail to the Skins....................