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

CLL - Did Gibbs show Ramsey that same confidence? There is no question now that Gibbs is going with Brunell regardless of the outcome. Maybe he is right that both Collins and Campbell are not NFL quality quarterbacks and Brunell, for all of his faulty play, is the only option.

nuskins wrote:Mark Brunells stats are cosmetic, they look good on paper but you if you wipe away the dinks & dunks and the soft defenses at the end of the games your left with the ugliness that is reality.

Well, I calculated Brunell's quarterback rating without the fourth quarters of the Dallas, Houston, New York and Indianapolis (games that were pretty much out of reach). It comes out to 86.33, down from 90.4, but still pretty solid. Of course, that's still with the dinks and dunks.

When I look at what has changed from 2005 to 2006, Mark Brunell isn't on that list. He's been pretty inconsistent, with performances ranging from pretty good to pretty bad, just like last year. What has changed is the play-calling, the running game, and the defense. I'm sure that's how Joe Gibbs looks at it too. That doesn't mean Brunell should be starting against Dallas, but it does mean that he shouldn't be taking so much heat.

While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

DieselFan wrote:This "Brunell saved his life" and both are "Christians" stuff is completely ridiculous. Gibbs is not some puppy dog. Stop the conspiracy theories already.

Gibbs feels Brunell gives us a better chance to win than Campbell.

We'll see campbell, once the playoffs are a distant memory and winning is not the only objective.

Think about how ridiculous this is! Ask yourself this question: If we had Peyton Manning...do you think Gibbs would still start Brunell because Brunell is a Christian and saved his life?

If your answer is Yes, you are kidding yourself.

If you answer No, then that tells you everything you need to know about whether Gibbs would start the best quarterback or not.

IF he truly feels Brunell gives us the best chance to win then I will say it now.....HE IS FINISHED. No ONE else believes in Brunell. I am so proud of the team for not blowing up yet and having someone call him out but it's getting to the point where I would like to hear from someone like Brandon Lloyd, "I am open and he just can't get it to me". You can go back and see that I was a Brunell supporter until this week. I now have come to the realization that he can't get it done. When will Gibbs?

The Hogster wrote:While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

Ah, so it's okay to have a lagging offense for three years, but once the defense is lagging, the losses are their fault? And if Brunell is not able to put the team on his shoulders, it's now up to the D and ST to carry the extra load? Doesn't seem fair, to be blamed entirely for not doing their extra part.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Please don't tell us Ramsey fans Gibbs sticks with QB's as a matter of principle. I have never seen a QB dealt with more unfairly than Gibbs dealt with Ramsey from day one.

Remember this though Ramsey wasn't picked by Gibb's he was inherited. Everyone is trying to come up with reasons Campbell isn't starting, however I would like to give this as a point of thought, Gibbs isn't known for going with or using Black QB's, and don't give me the Doug Williams crap! Doug was brought here by Beathard and it wasn't until injury that Gibbs was FORCED to go with him. So with that based on FACT, who is to say that Danny Boy Wonder didn't see Campbell and see the next Donovan McNabb and push Gibbs to draft him? Gibbs is FAR TOO smart or atleast he used to be than to use so many draft picks on a 1st round QB that can't even SNIFF mop up time in games in 2 years. I am sorry I am not stupid and I put alot of thought into things before I say things. I really think that Campbell won't ever see starting unless injury plays a part and the Brunell gives up the best chance to win now crap is bogus at best, any HOF coach that pays attention would see that Brunell handicaps this offense more than he helps it and someone needs to make sure that Gibbs is taking his diebetes meds because whatever he is watching SURELY isn't what we are, maybe he is color blind and someone is showing old JAX footage, because for real why Gibbs even went to Jax to get thier garbage shows me that Gibbs isn't really thinking correctly. Yes we can all second guess and raise conspiracy themes all year, however to me my point of thought makes the most sense, No I am not saying that Gibbs is a racist either I am just saying that he has a personal preference to use old white veteran QB's and he isn't comfortable allowing a young rookie QB to take the reigns, however another point to that is he hired Saunders to install and run the offense, why is Gibbs saying Brunell is starting when it should be Al Saunders call? See there is too much red tape and Gibbs isn't allowing things to work and as long as he has so many different assistant head coaches he will never get this team to play as they should be playing because too many cooks spoils the broth! So this team is a joke, a comical billionair's fantasy team, and it's covered by many fans not believing that Gibbs would not allow Snyder to do things, well I have but one rebuttal, Gibbs came to get his son experience in the NFL, he has done that, add in over 5 million dollars a year and I am quiet sure even HOF Gibbs has his price. It is what it is.

Please, throw out Brunell's completion %, and with it, the artificially inflated QB rating. He's throwing at a high % because all he's doing is throwing screens and check downs. 3rd and 7, a 3 yard pass. 3rd and 10, 5 yard pass.

Defenses will give those completions up every time.

PulpExposure wrote:Please, throw out Brunell's completion %, and with it, the artificially inflated QB rating. He's throwing at a high % because all he's doing is throwing screens and check downs. 3rd and 7, a 3 yard pass. 3rd and 10, 5 yard pass.

Defenses will give those completions up every time.

Its the worst of both worlds. Defenses don't have to stack 8 in the box to stop the run AND they don't have to drop back in coverage. They just tell everyone to wait for the completion and make a tackle a couple of yards later and there you have it....3 and out. Its a frickin joke. And I can't think Al Saunders likes it one bit.

joebagadonuts wrote:

The Hogster wrote:While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

Ah, so it's okay to have a lagging offense for three years, but once the defense is lagging, the losses are their fault? And if Brunell is not able to put the team on his shoulders, it's now up to the D and ST to carry the extra load? Doesn't seem fair, to be blamed entirely for not doing their extra part.

That's not what I said. What I said is that Brunell is under fire because, while he's playing okay, he's not playing well enough to win shootouts. It's a team game...it's not the defense's fault, or the offense's fault.

If you read my post, you would see the point that I am making, that Brunell is not tearing it up by any stretch of the imagination, however, the flaws in his individual game are amplified when we are forced to be one dimensional and throw the ball because we are giving up over 22 points per game.

A great defense and a good running game is a compliment to an average, to above average quarterback......meaning you would not hear this discussion if we were holding teams to 12 or 13 points per game....and winning....but when our offense is forced to throw the ball...the quarterback's inability to lead the team to high scoring victories is exposed.

Also, be fair...you can't be a hypocrite...when our defense was ranked #3 and our offense was near the bottom...everyone blamed the offense for our losing...now that the defense is below average and the offense can actually move the ball....you want to give the defense a pass.

We have to be realistic in our criticism of both the O and D, and also Brunell.

Brunell is no McNabb, Manning, or Brady...he'll never be able to lead us to victory when everyone in the stadium, including the other team knows what he's about to do, but can't stop it. But he is playing well enough to manage a low scoring game. We're giving up an average of 25 points per game. Brunell is not going to put up above 25 points every time out, especially when we are getting down early, and can't use our best player Portis to set up the pass.

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

The Hogster wrote:While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

Ah, so it's okay to have a lagging offense for three years, but once the defense is lagging, the losses are their fault? And if Brunell is not able to put the team on his shoulders, it's now up to the D and ST to carry the extra load? Doesn't seem fair, to be blamed entirely for not doing their extra part.

Can you read? That's not what I said. What I said is that Brunell is under fire because, while he's playing okay, he's not playing well enough to win shootouts. It's a team game...it's not the defense's fault, or the offense's fault.

If you read my post, you would see the point that I am making, that Brunell is not tearing it up by any stretch of the imagination, however, the flaws in his individual game are amplified when we are forced to be one dimensional and throw the ball because we are giving up over 22 points per game.

A great defense and a good running game is a compliment to an average, to above average quarterback......meaning you would not hear this discussion if we were holding teams to 12 or 13 points per game....and winning....but when our offense is forced to throw the ball...the quarterback's inability to lead the team to high scoring victories is exposed.

Also, be fair...you can't be a hypocrite...when our defense was ranked #3 and our offense was near the bottom...everyone blamed the offense for our losing...now that the defense is below average and the offense can actually move the ball....you want to give the defense a pass.

We have to be realistic in our criticism of both the O and D, and also Brunell.

Brunell is no McNabb, Manning, or Brady...he'll never be able to lead us to victory when everyone in the stadium, including the other team knows what he's about to do, but can't stop it. But he is playing well enough to manage a low scoring game. We're giving up an average of 25 points per game. Brunell is not going to put up above 25 points every time out, especially when we are getting down early, and can't use our best player Portis to set up the pass.

I'm just so sick of mediocrity at arguably the most important position on the field, QB.

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

The Hogster wrote:While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

Ah, so it's okay to have a lagging offense for three years, but once the defense is lagging, the losses are their fault? And if Brunell is not able to put the team on his shoulders, it's now up to the D and ST to carry the extra load? Doesn't seem fair, to be blamed entirely for not doing their extra part.

Can you read? That's not what I said. What I said is that Brunell is under fire because, while he's playing okay, he's not playing well enough to win shootouts. It's a team game...it's not the defense's fault, or the offense's fault.

If you read my post, you would see the point that I am making, that Brunell is not tearing it up by any stretch of the imagination, however, the flaws in his individual game are amplified when we are forced to be one dimensional and throw the ball because we are giving up over 22 points per game.

A great defense and a good running game is a compliment to an average, to above average quarterback......meaning you would not hear this discussion if we were holding teams to 12 or 13 points per game....and winning....but when our offense is forced to throw the ball...the quarterback's inability to lead the team to high scoring victories is exposed.

Also, be fair...you can't be a hypocrite...when our defense was ranked #3 and our offense was near the bottom...everyone blamed the offense for our losing...now that the defense is below average and the offense can actually move the ball....you want to give the defense a pass.

We have to be realistic in our criticism of both the O and D, and also Brunell.

Brunell is no McNabb, Manning, or Brady...he'll never be able to lead us to victory when everyone in the stadium, including the other team knows what he's about to do, but can't stop it. But he is playing well enough to manage a low scoring game. We're giving up an average of 25 points per game. Brunell is not going to put up above 25 points every time out, especially when we are getting down early, and can't use our best player Portis to set up the pass.

I'm just so sick of mediocrity at arguably the most important position on the field, QB.

I agree with you...point well taken. I am not defending Brunell by the way, just trying to temper our criticism of him....he's not gonna win us any games. I really hate his face....I live in DC and a lot of people do....but seriously....we are asking a lot of any QB when we need four toudowns a game, just to be close.

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

The Hogster wrote:While Brunell isn't tearing it up, if he were playing this well with the defense we're used to, I am positive that we would be at least 4-3 right now.

Our offense is doing good things, when we have the ball...problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind...and Brunell is not the type of quarterback that can put the team on his shoulders with a shootout-type performance.

Ah, so it's okay to have a lagging offense for three years, but once the defense is lagging, the losses are their fault? And if Brunell is not able to put the team on his shoulders, it's now up to the D and ST to carry the extra load? Doesn't seem fair, to be blamed entirely for not doing their extra part.

That's not what I said. What I said is that Brunell is under fire because, while he's playing okay, he's not playing well enough to win shootouts. It's a team game...it's not the defense's fault, or the offense's fault.

If you read my post, you would see the point that I am making, that Brunell is not tearing it up by any stretch of the imagination, however, the flaws in his individual game are amplified when we are forced to be one dimensional and throw the ball because we are giving up over 22 points per game.

A great defense and a good running game is a compliment to an average, to above average quarterback......meaning you would not hear this discussion if we were holding teams to 12 or 13 points per game....and winning....but when our offense is forced to throw the ball...the quarterback's inability to lead the team to high scoring victories is exposed.

Also, be fair...you can't be a hypocrite...when our defense was ranked #3 and our offense was near the bottom...everyone blamed the offense for our losing...now that the defense is below average and the offense can actually move the ball....you want to give the defense a pass.

We have to be realistic in our criticism of both the O and D, and also Brunell.

Brunell is no McNabb, Manning, or Brady...he'll never be able to lead us to victory when everyone in the stadium, including the other team knows what he's about to do, but can't stop it. But he is playing well enough to manage a low scoring game. We're giving up an average of 25 points per game. Brunell is not going to put up above 25 points every time out, especially when we are getting down early, and can't use our best player Portis to set up the pass.

I'd respond to this, but I can't read.

Okay, I can read, I was just kidding. Anyway, I am by no means giving the defense a free pass (can't you read?!?). However, I am tired of saying that the losses are the fault of the defense (and I quote 'Our offense is doing good things'.....'problem is we are getting gouged by big plays and getting behind'...) when they're only playing as poorly as the offense has been for the most part the last two and a half years.

MY point is that it is an unwritten assumption that when the game needs to be won, it is in the hands of the QB to win it. You don't expect your defense or special teams to score all the points and win games.

'Playing okay' doesn't cut it when your defense and running game are both struggling. Is it fair that I expect MB to win games for us when we give up too many points. Absolutely not. Do I expect it anyway? Yes. Do I enjoy asking myself questions like Donald Rumsfeld? Not really.

I believe that it's the QB's job to carry the team, not the other way around. That being said, if I were a judge, and I'm assigning damages, I'd spread the responsibility for our dismal performance to this point equally between the O, D and ST.

MY point is that it is an unwritten assumption that when the game needs to be won, it is in the hands of the QB to win it. You don't expect your defense or special teams to score all the points and win games.

And that is basically where I disagree...you're assuming that every team can expect their QB to win games for them. Only a few quarterbacks can take the team on their backs and WIN the game darn near singlehandedly. If your premise were correct, then guys like Brett Favre would just go out every week and outscore the other team all by his lonesome.

What you're not admitting is that we need all facets of the game to work together in order to consistently win games. Is Brunell a big part of some of our offensive struggles? Certainly, but it's a tall task to ask him to dupicate what Peyton Mannning can do...which is score virtually every time we touch the ball. Or erase a 17 point deficit by passing on every down. The offense needs to score more, but the defense needs to quit giving up the explosion plays too....it's give and take...and unrealistic to think that a 36 year old veteran is going to go out there and blast off 21 points in the 4th quarter....I don't care if you put up 40 points in a game, if you give up 41, you're gonna lose.

Throw in the fact that we have been outscored dramatically in the 3rd quarter of every game...which forces us to become one dimensional, and you have the recipe for disaster unless you have one of those remarkable quarterbacks....Brunell is not one of those guys and thats obvious...but you can win without one of those guys.

That being said, if I were a judge, and I'm assigning damages, I'd spread the responsibility for our dismal performance to this point equally between the O, D and ST.

Okay, so whats the problem?

The Hogster wrote:If your premise were correct, then guys like Brett Favre would just go out every week and outscore the other team all by his lonesome.

I'm not asking MB to singlehandedly win EVERY game. That'd be unreasonable. But to play not to make mistakes all the time means that the D has to win EVERY game. To MB's credit there have been games he's taken control of - Dallas last year, when he made one good throw and one great throw to pull the game out. Or Houston this year, he was on fire. I'd like to see him do that a bit more consistantly, and I haven't seen it yet.

The Hogster wrote:Okay, so whats the problem?

I have no problem with folks saying that the defense stinks, because they do right now. What I have a problem with is folks saying that we're losing because the defense stinks, and not because MB and the offense stink too. My problem lies with the people who want to clear MB of his fair share of blame. If I lumped you in with that group, my apologies.

While I'm intrigued with the idea of starting JC, I can't say with confidence that it will make things any better. I think he'll take more chances downfield, but I don't know if he'll make too many mistakes to do any good.

I must say that while I was frustrated after the game, as I was watching Gibbs' press conference yesterday, a sense of calm washed over me. I began thinking that if we get things fixed up over the break, we could make a run of a few games and compete for the NFC East crown, given that no team is way out in front. It was like they slipped something in my Windows Media Player or something.

joebagadonuts wrote:

The Hogster wrote:If your premise were correct, then guys like Brett Favre would just go out every week and outscore the other team all by his lonesome.

I'm not asking MB to singlehandedly win EVERY game. That'd be unreasonable. But to play not to make mistakes all the time means that the D has to win EVERY game. To MB's credit there have been games he's taken control of - Dallas last year, when he made one good throw and one great throw to pull the game out. Or Houston this year, he was on fire. I'd like to see him do that a bit more consistantly, and I haven't seen it yet.

The Hogster wrote:Okay, so whats the problem?

I have no problem with folks saying that the defense stinks, because they do right now. What I have a problem with is folks saying that we're losing because the defense stinks, and not because MB and the o
ffense stink too. My problem lies with the people who want to clear MB of his fair share of blame. If I lumped you in with that group, my apologies.

While I'm intrigued with the idea of starting JC, I can't say with confidence that it will make things any better. I think he'll take more chances downfield, but I don't know if he'll make too many mistakes to do any good.

I must say that while I was frustrated after the game, as I was watching Gibbs' press conference yesterday, a sense of calm washed over me. I began thinking that if we get things fixed up over the break, we could make a run of a few games and compete for the NFC East crown, given that no team is way out in front. It was like they slipped something in my Windows Media Player or something.

I hear ya...and I apologize for the "cant you read" comment, in fact i edited it but apparently not soon enough...but yeah...I agree...I hate MB's face..his voice...his interviews...his play....but when you really take an objective step back and look at the numbers, it becomes obvious that there's a lot more going on with the Skins than Mark Brunell....there aren't many QB"s with over a 90 rating that are starting for losing teams. I thinnk that David Carr is the only other QB with over a 90 passer rating who is also quarterbacking a losing team.

To me that says that there are deeper problems...

FYI Brunell has a higher passer rating, more yards, more yards per attempt, and a higher yards per pass average than Tom Brady...problem is...we're not winning, and that is a team thing and not solely an individual thing.

11 M. Brunell QB, WAS 132 206 64.1 1465 7.11 74 7 3.4 3 1.5 11.0 83 90.4
12 Tom Brady QB, NWE 106 189 56.1 1226 6.49 35 10 5.3 3 1.6 9.0 66 86.9

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistic ... &year=2006

The Hogster wrote:

11 M. Brunell QB, WAS 132 206 64.1 1465 7.11 74 7 3.4 3 1.5 11.0 83 90.4
12 Tom Brady QB, NWE 106 189 56.1 1226 6.49 35 10 5.3 3 1.6 9.0 66 86.9

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistic ... &year=2006

You're comparing Brunell to Brady? 3 rings to zip? 5-1 vs. 2-5? A true team leader vs. a guy who's 15-18 as a starter for us? Look at who Brady's throwing to, and look at who Brunell's got. Besides, Brunell's stats are deceptive - he gets credit for all of Santana's yards when all he does is throw a 3 yd. WR screen, and Santana takes it 50+ yards. And of course his completion percentage is high if he's throwing those easy 1 yrd. dump-offs to the RB. Finally, there are all those courtesy stats he's getting at the end of games, when the other team has a comfortable lead and is just giving up yards waiting for the clock to run out.

There's a reason knowledgible football people such as Riggo, Doc Walker, B. Mitchell, Aikman, etc., people who've actually watched him play, question why he's in there. They question him as a starter because he's not helping us win, and if he's not helping us win, he's helping us lose.

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

11 M. Brunell QB, WAS 132 206 64.1 1465 7.11 74 7 3.4 3 1.5 11.0 83 90.4
12 Tom Brady QB, NWE 106 189 56.1 1226 6.49 35 10 5.3 3 1.6 9.0 66 86.9

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistic ... &year=2006

You're comparing Brunell to Brady? 3 rings to zip? 5-1 vs. 2-5? A true team leader vs. a guy who's 15-18 as a starter for us? Look at who Brady's throwing to, and look at who Brunell's got. Besides, Brunell's stats are deceptive - he gets credit for all of Santana's yards when all he does is throw a 3 yd. WR screen, and Santana takes it 50+ yards. And of course his completion percentage is high if he's throwing those easy 1 yrd. dump-offs to the RB. Finally, there are all those courtesy stats he's getting at the end of games, when the other team has a comfortable lead and is just giving up yards waiting for the clock to run out.

There's a reason knowledgible football people such as Riggo, Doc Walker, B. Mitchell, Aikman, etc., people who've actually watched him play, question why he's in there. They question him as a starter because he's not helping us win, and if he's not helping us win, he's helping us lose.

Well Put! You shot that comparison down like it should have been shot down.

The Hogster wrote:FYI Brunell has a higher passer rating, more yards, more yards per attempt, and a higher yards per pass average than Tom Brady...problem is...we're not winning, and that is a team thing and not solely an individual thing.

The statistics lie. Brady earned his numbers with games on the line. Brunell has good numbers because of his performance in garbage time. Brady is a clutch performer. Brunell is not.

With the offensive weapons we have, scoring less than 30 points per game should be unacceptable for this team.

Joe's standards are way way way too low. He was pleased with the offensive performance the first half of the Indianapolis game. The offense scored only 7 points and did not move the ball well.

Joe is groping for something to get the offense to a level of minimum competence. I think he is missing the bigger picture. Competence is not enough. We should be blowing people out.

It's like he is trying to repair old shoes. There is a lot you can do to fix up old shoes -- a new sole, a new heel, a good polish, some new laces -- but there are times when it makes more sense to bite the bullet and break in a new pair.

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

11 M. Brunell QB, WAS 132 206 64.1 1465 7.11 74 7 3.4 3 1.5 11.0 83 90.4
12 Tom Brady QB, NWE 106 189 56.1 1226 6.49 35 10 5.3 3 1.6 9.0 66 86.9

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistic ... &year=2006

You're comparing Brunell to Brady? 3 rings to zip? 5-1 vs. 2-5? A true team leader vs. a guy who's 15-18 as a starter for us? Look at who Brady's throwing to, and look at who Brunell's got. Besides, Brunell's stats are deceptive - he gets credit for all of Santana's yards when all he does is throw a 3 yd. WR screen, and Santana takes it 50+ yards. And of course his completion percentage is high if he's throwing those easy 1 yrd. dump-offs to the RB. Finally, there are all those courtesy stats he's getting at the end of games, when the other team has a comfortable lead and is just giving up yards waiting for the clock to run out.

There's a reason knowledgible football people such as Riggo, Doc Walker, B. Mitchell, Aikman, etc., people who've actually watched him play, question why he's in there. They question him as a starter because he's not helping us win, and if he's not helping us win, he's helping us lose.

EXACTLY

Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.

Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.

I agree 100%.

FiveWidez wrote:Look, I respect everyone's opinions and up until this week I was pro-Gibbs and even pro-Brunell but the reality is it will take a miracle to salvage this season. To not go with Campbell is, IMO, wasting each week. We HAVE to see what he's got. We HAVE to find a long-term QB to win here. Think about every team that has been good for the past few years....Eagles & McNabb, Colts & Peyton, Pats & Brady. Hell maybe we could even pull a Steelers and have a great one year run. Either way, I am sick of never having a franchise QB. How great would it be to have a QB we can count on being here every year? The only way we are going to find that is to play Campbell and if he isn't that guy, try again with another young QB, and then again and again until we find someone who will be behind center for a long time. I am so damn sick of this crap.

If I read this in a 3rd thread cut and pasted word for word, what should I think?

a. FiveWidez really doesn't mean what he is posting but thinks if he post the same thing in enough threads He'll believe it.

b. FiveWidez maxed out when he came up with this one so it's ok to break the rules (this is the 2nd thread this post is in - the other came with a note to the Mods)

c. FiveWidez has seen so many anti-Brunell the same thought keeps popping off his keyboard.

I don't know what I should think....

Someone in a past post noted that the offense becomes one-dimensional when the team falls behind. That is true. When you are behind, you are forced to pass more to try and score quickly to get back to a position to win. Everyone knows that to be a fundamenal law of football.

Why are the redskins always behind? Has anyone noticed that in almost every game, the offense went 3-n-out on their first possession? In 2 games, first Cartright and then Randle El provide a spark of energy and the offense went in and went 3-n-out on their next possession.

We, the Redskin fans didn't listen when many, many people said that it takes al least a year for Saunders offense to get going. We beleived that his offense would automatically allow the Redskins to score like the Chiefs and Rams did. It is not happening!

Brunell is only part of the problem but could it be that part limits the offense by limiting the types of plays that must be called to accomodate his inabilities? OR Is it possible that neither Collins or Campbell are capable of playing the position and Gibbs will not publically admit it, therefore making Brunell the only choice available? Is Gibbs trapped because there is no legitimate NFL quarterback on the Redskin team?

I was just looking at some stats. In last Sundays game, Brunell completed 27 passes for 226 yards. That equals 8.37 yards per pass. Not very effective, is it?

statistics don't always give a clear picture of whether or not a qb to doing the things he needs to do in critical situations to help his team win. ie- going 3 and out with five minutes left vs. the titans then throwing and int with one minute left.

Brady, delhomme, grossman, Brad Johnson, Vick, McNair all have a lower qb ratings than brunell. These guys are either winning games for their team or their not losing games for their team.