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

Quote:
Even though we had a great and unexpected season, all year long I have been anxious for the 2006 season. Here's why. I live in Florida and high school and college football are as popular here, if not more than pro ball. In the offseason, the local cable sports networks replay the prior seasons games from the SEC. After we drafted Jason Campbell, I decided to TIVO all of the Auburn games so I could specifacally watch Campbell. I was very impressed. Yes, Cadilac Williams and Ronnie Brown had a lot to due with their undefeated season. But when Campbell dropped back to pass, this was all him. In every game, all you heard from the booth were comments like "Wow, what a throw" or "Can you believe he made that throw" or "What a strong and accuate throw by Campbell." I'm not exaggerating, he was very impressive.


That's a very interesting post. I have been pretty skeptical of Campbell because he only had one good year in college and he had Cadillac and Ronny Brown in the backfield. I only watched a few Auburn games that year and I moslty remember the running of Brown/Cadillac and not the throwing of Campbell. When you were watching the games what were your impressions of Campbell's arm strength and mobility. Also how was he on deep throws??

We need a healthy Brunell.
Fire away.

SEATTLE.
The Redskins were 18 yards from the tying touchdown with eight minutes to play yesterday. Pretty remarkable, given the ebb and flow of the game -- mostly ebb from their standpoint. Let that be the epitaph of their 2005 season: No matter what the circumstances, they almost always gave themselves at least a chance to win, a big reason why their victory total jumped from six to 11.
Despite their pluck, though, the Redskins still lost 20-10 to the Seahawks at precipitation-filled Qwest Field and in one respect, their year ended in the same place it ended a year ago -- in a desperate search for an offense to match the team's exquisite defense. The Redskins managed only 27 points in two playoff games, and the defense and special teams had a hand in 17 of them. Heck, beginning with the regular-season finale in Philadelphia, the offense was little more than a broken-down heap on the side of the road.
Joe Gibbs has done a fabulous job since he came back of readjusting attitudes at Redskin Park and creating a unified front. The franchise has direction now, and this season definitely gives it something to build on. But offense has always been Joe's baby, and it continues to be the club's No.?1 issue. Had Mark Brunell and Co. been able to generate much of anything in the early going yesterday -- instead of starting the game with five three-and-outs -- the Redskins might be playing for the NFC championship next weekend.
"Obviously, we wanted to be much more productive than what we were in the playoffs," Gibbs said. "That'll be one of the things we look hard at -- how we can do a better job. ... It's hard to put a finger on [what went wrong]. We played some real good football teams [in Tampa Bay and Seattle]. But it's my responsibility regardless."
The record will show that the Redskins followed their 120-yard effort against the Bucs with a 74-yard effort in the first half against the Seahawks. That's about as miserable as it gets, folks. Six quarters of just wretched offense -- when it matters most, too.
The only reason the Redskins weren't totally blown out was that Seattle kept putting the ball on the ground. A dropped punt led to the only Washington points of the first half, a 26-yard field goal by John Hall, and a fumble on a kickoff put the Redskins in the aforementioned 18-yards-from-the-tying touchdown situation. But the Seahawks' "D" regrouped, Hall missed a 36-yarder to the left, and that was the ballgame.
The one TD the offense did score came on a pass that bounced off a Seattle defender and into the surprised hands of Santana Moss. Yes, the Redskins once again were the beneficiaries of more than their share of miracles -- not the least of which was the concussion that knocked NFL MVP Shaun Alexander out of the game soon after it had begun. Even without Alexander, though, the Seahawks gained 334 yards against Gregg Williams' defense.
"The guy's a playmaker," Marcus Washington said of Seattle's Matt Hasselbeck. "He really took the game in his hands. Did a good job of scrambling."
That was probably the biggest difference between the two teams: The Seahawks had a quarterback capable of taking "the game in his hands," and the Redskins didn't. Like the Bucs the week before, the 'Hawks stacked eight defenders near the line of scrimmage -- making life awfully tough for Clinton Portis (17 carries, 41 yards) -- and dared Brunell to beat them. He couldn't.
"They stuffed us," No.?8 said. "We did not run the ball the way we wanted to."
And Brunell didn't throw it well enough to discourage them from doing it. He hit a couple of plays to Chris ey (for 52 yards) and Santana Moss (for 39) in the fourth quarter, when the Redskins were playing catch-up, but what took so long? Leaders are supposed to lead. And you don't start leading in the fourth quarter, you start leading in the first.
In recent weeks, though, the Redskins seemed to go into a shell offensively in the early parts of games -- to hang back and let their defense set the tone. Granted, their poor field position in the first half yesterday dictated a more conservative approach, but still ... They appeared to be playing scared when they were backed up in their own end, playing not to lose.
That never used to be Gibbs' style. Where's the coach who once had Jay Schroeder, in his first NFL start, fade back into his own end zone at the beginning of a game -- against the mighty 49ers, no less -- and fire a 40-yard completion to Art Monk? I don't know about you, but I miss that kind of risk taking.
The Redskins made substantial progress this season, no question. But you're dreaming if you think it's going to get any easier. The Giants and Cowboys are coming on, and rest assured the Eagles will be back. Gibbs has some nice pieces on offense -- Portis, Moss, ey, the O-line -- but you can only go so far with average quarterbacking. The Redskins found out yesterday just how far that is.

I love how some folks around here saw so many options downfield for Brunell. Let's check them off.
Moss.

Did I miss anybody ?
C'mon. The guy has the heart of a lion. Did you forget that mad scramble on a blown out knee in Philly ? How many of those throwaways would've been picked off had he just gone for it ?
He was a game manager for a team in transition...the transition from 6-10 to 10-6. That's a four game improvement with a schedule you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
Having said that, I too feel that the man who wins the job in camp is the man who ought to be playing. We're not talking about preseason wins...we're talking about good decisions, footwork, patience in the pocket and the ability to know when you're about to have your ass handed to you that you've got to tuck the ball in and take it if there's nothing else.
Patches hasn't shown me anything, consistently. Campbell is a baby. What we really need, in my humble opinion, is more than one receiver. No more Royal, no more Jacobs, and sadly...no more Thrash.
You can have that Patriot, too. All he showed me was, when he wasn't getting the ball and being hailed as the Number 1 receiver was the ability to take your problems to the press.
What we need back there is not a young gunslinger who's going to need time to develop. We need maturity and calm.
We need a healthy Brunell.
Fire away.

tcwest10 wrote:I love how some folks around here saw so many options downfield for Brunell. Let's check them off.
Moss.

Did I miss anybody ?
C'mon. The guy has the heart of a lion.

That's the problem. You wont have a healthy Brunell for an entire season. It's just not possible. He's older so it's easier for him to get hurt and harder for him to recover. He was TERRIBLE the last 3 weeks during the most important games that the Skins have played in a decade. I don't know how people can argue for Brunell starting. The last few weeks he has had no arm strength or accuracy. He had receivers open yesterday, including on that third down before Hall missed the fg in the 4th quarter, and he simply couldn't get them the ball.

tcwest10 wrote:The man was playing the game with a blown out knee on his planting (weight-bearing on the pass) leg.
How many INTS did he throw in that period ?
How many would Patrick have thrown, perfectly healthy ?
Campbell ?
How many lost fumbles ? An injured Brunell managed the game not to lose. That was enough for us, for a time...until we wore the defense out doing it.
This is all I'm saying. If you make me choose from the three, I choose Brunell. This is new to me. I wasn't always a mark for Brunell. It was that gutty Philly performance that sealed the deal for me, and just to ward off the horsecrap...I'm atheist. His personal beliefs and morality mean nothing to me.
Gun to my head, that's my pick. Joe has won much more with much less at QB.

If you can behave in a more courteous, professional, healthy manner than Ramsey did this year... then you are a saint. You talk about a picture of class and dignity... first guy to always congratulate Mark on the field... first guy to console him... always a positive outlook... no bad press once he was actually on the bench.

The Hogster wrote: In my opinion we need two more WR's...I hope Jacobs is gone

and I am not a real Patten fan. I would love to see us get Moulds if the reports that he would be on the block are true. If there is any way we could get 2 good receivers to add to Moss and Thrash, we would be in really good shape. I am not sure if Patten is it, maybe he is but it was hard to tell by this season.

If anyone would have said that Brunell would lead us to the divisional round of the playoffs next year, they would have been laughed at. I am thankful for what he has done and I hope we go into it the same as this year, but giving him 1) more playmakers on offense 2) an improved variety of offensive schemes to get the ball into their hands.

In my opinion starting Brunell next season sets back the progress of this team by a year. Considering how much we gave up to get Campbell I think that it's fair to assume that he is the future qb for this franchise. Whether he comes in next season or in 2007, he is most likely going to struggle just like the vast majority of first time starters do. So why start Brunell next season and simply delay Campbell's likely first year struggles. Suck it up next season, maybe regress a little bit, but start grooming the future qb of this team.

I think our qb situation has parallels to that of the Cincinnati Bengals. Carson Palmer sat on the bench for his first season then started in his second season despite a lot of questioning of the decision because of Kitna's success in 2003. In fact Kitna's numbers in 2003 are very similar to Brunell's 2005 numbers. A lot of people thought that Kitna gave them the best chance to win in 2004, but the coaches realized that Palmer gave them the best chance to win beyond 2004 so they began grooming his as the starter sooner rather than later. And look how things turned out for them this season? Palmer in his third year in the league stepped up bigtime and turned that franchise around and became a Pro Bowler.

Between Brunell and Campbell, Brunell gives us the best chance of winning next season. But who gives us the best chance of winning beyond next season? Campbell for sure if he is as good as the coaches think he is. So we should get him in there next season, let him go through the growing pains of a first year qb, and prepare him to lead this team for years to come.

The Hogster wrote:After watching the Bears loose at home we now see that of all the quarterbacks in the playoffs this year, only one, Ben Rothlesberger is under 30 years old.

After watching the Bears loose at home we now see that of all the quarterbacks in the playoffs this year, only one, Ben Rothlesberger is under 30 years old.
Tom Brady, Chris Simms, Rex Grossman, Peyton Manning, Caron Palmer, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, and Matt Hasselbeck are only under 30...