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

The Hogster wrote:Now serving crow.

FACT. I saw MB04 try to give the ball away four times.

FACT. ARE threw the best looking pass of the game.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:FACT. ARE threw the best looking pass of the game.

FACT - ARE had a .000 completion rate
FACT - Brunell was 14/23 for a much better .608 completion rate

CONCLUSION - Mark Brunell is better than ARE, and you 're welcome to help Champsturf with his crow. Bon Apetit!!!

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:FACT. ARE threw the best looking pass of the game.

FACT - ARE had a .000 completion rate
FACT - Brunell was 14/23 for a much better .608 completion rate

CONCLUSION - Mark Brunell is better than ARE, and you 're welcome to help Champsturf with his crow. Bon Apetit!!!

Actually, I believe that there was an interference call on R. Williams on Randle El's only pass attempt, so, while techincally 0/0 equals a .000 completion rate, your stats are misleading (what a surprise).

How people can still think that Brunell is a solid qb is beyond me. Even Ray Brown, who played with him and now coaches him, had nothing positive to say about him after the game. When asked by Brian Mitchell in post game about the oline blocking for Brunell, Brown said that Brunell can only be effective if he isn't under any pressure. Sorry but that doesn't work in the NFL. Mitchell and Ken Harvey both were highly critical of Brunell, saying that he isn't playing like a veteran and needs to step up for this team to get better. The fact is that ARE threw the nicest pass of the day for our team and that Brunell was outplayed by an undrafted qb with almost no starting experience (Romo). He didn't lose the game for us, although it sure looked like he was trying to with some of the passes that he was making.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:FACT. ARE threw the best looking pass of the game.

FACT - ARE had a .000 completion rate
FACT - Brunell was 14/23 for a much better .608 completion rate

CONCLUSION - Mark Brunell is better than ARE, and you 're welcome to help Champsturf with his crow. Bon Apetit!!!

I don't need any help because I'm not eating ANY. Brunell is washed up and did not "embarass" the Cowboys. Like Skinscanes said, Romo had the better day.

I better stop typing or I'm going to have to go to Smack, because what I have to say is no longer PG.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:FACT. ARE threw the best looking pass of the game.

FACT - ARE had a .000 completion rate

That wasn't my argument. My argument was the he threw the best looking pass. It was decisive and not underthrown.

Champsturf wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Now serving crow.

Really? To whom? I didn't see Brunell embarass the Cowboys. I saw mediocre play again from him. That is actually a compliment.

He won the game...don't be a hypocrite and take anything away from him in a win...when we lose you give him all the blame so eat your crow like a fan.

The Hogster wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Now serving crow.

Really? To whom? I didn't see Brunell embarass the Cowboys. I saw mediocre play again from him. That is actually a compliment.

He won the game...don't be a hypocrite and take anything away from him in a win...when we lose you give him all the blame so eat your crow like a fan.

Brunell kicked that last FG? I didn't think his legs were that good, which is why he can't pass. Heck, he didn't even drive us down the field to put us in position to kick it.

I'm not taking anything away from him, just not patting him on the back to make him feel good. Why would I want to do that? The guy sucks and it's time to move on.

I have NO idea why you're attcking ME and calling me a hypocrite. I never gave him ALL the blame in our losses. I just said that he sucks and needs to go. I've also said that our D sucks and the Oline sucks. The only real person that should get credit for the Redskin win is T.O. He catches that pass and it's over. As we've already seen, Brunell cannot make a comeback anymore, at least not a multiple-score comeback.

Am I a Brunell "hater?" Absolutely. I think he bring this offense down terribly. I would love to see Campbell in there, if nothing else, to see if the kid can even play.

For the record, I did give Brunell props in the Jacksonville game. Moss made an OUTSTANDING play on that last pass, but Brunell did put it the ONLY place possible. It was a GREAT pass. I said that then, and am reminding you now.

As for the topic of this thread, Brunell did NOT embarass the Cowboys, plain and simple.

Champsturf wrote:I better stop typing...

Yes, cause you need both hands for the amount of crow you gotta eat!!

Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

Had ey not slathered butter all over his gloves, Brunell, easily would have outdone Romo's numbers.

So we should thank T.O. for our win, but NOT our starting QB???

THAT makes a lot of sense.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Champsturf wrote:I better stop typing...

Had ey not slathered butter all over his gloves, Brunell, easily would have outdone Romo's numbers.

If the Cowboys hadn't slathered butter all over their gloves MB04 would have had 4 interceptions....it goes both ways.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Champsturf wrote:I better stop typing...

Had ey not slathered butter all over his gloves, Brunell, easily would have outdone Romo's numbers.

If the Cowboys hadn't slathered butter all over their gloves MB04 would have had 4 interceptions....it goes both ways.

Ain't that grand???

The only real person that should get credit for the Redskin win is T.O.

And there went your credibility, reputation, and any reason to listen to your rant. Thanks.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I wouldn't have. I would have blamed the loss on the kicker. I would have complained about MB04 no more than I have now. He didn't win the game but he didn't lose it (although he tried ). AA would have gotten a lot of blame also.

If MB04 had one of his passes caught by Dallas and it led to a score, it would have been on Brunell.

He did not lose the game for us but he surely didn't command the game.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I wouldn't have. I would have blamed the loss on the kicker. I would have complained about MB04 no more than I have now. He didn't win the game but he didn't lose it (although he tried ). AA would have gotten a lot of blame also.

If MB04 had one of his passes caught by Dallas and it led to a score, it would have been on Brunell.

He did not lose the game for us but he surely didn't command the game.

So its fair to say that he managed the game adequately?

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I don't know anyone that would be saying that Brunell would have led us to defeat. You're also right in saying that that is putting too much on him. This is all because Brunell has led us NOWHERE. Victory OR defeat. I'll give you the "managed the game" part. I, however, would like to see a leader out there. It's not like we have a dominant defense that we can rely on. We need a leader and Brunell is NOT one.....not anymore.

Champsturf wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I don't know anyone that would be saying that Brunell would have led us to defeat. You're also right in saying that that is putting too much on him. This is all because Brunell has led us NOWHERE. Victory OR defeat. I'll give you the "managed the game" part. I, however, would like to see a leader out there. It's not like we have a dominant defense that we can rely on. We need a leader and Brunell is NOT one.....not anymore.

How can you expect Campbell to provide leadership? I understand wanting a guy that is more mobile, or who has a stronger arm....but leadership? I want Campbell in there too, but not at the expense of winning games, and right now, I agree with the players and I support Brunell.

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I wouldn't have. I would have blamed the loss on the kicker. I would have complained about MB04 no more than I have now. He didn't win the game but he didn't lose it (although he tried ). AA would have gotten a lot of blame also.

If MB04 had one of his passes caught by Dallas and it led to a score, it would have been on Brunell.

He did not lose the game for us but he surely didn't command the game.

So its fair to say that he managed the game adequately?

Yes and no. Looking at the stats yes... But he threw some balls that thankfully werent picked. It honestly could have gone either way.

The Hogster wrote:

Champsturf wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

joebagadonuts wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Like it or not, Brunell "led" (however you want to interpret the word) the team to a victory over the Pukes.

If you can watch that game and claim that Brunell led us to victory, you're worse off than I thought.

I'll guarantee if Vanderjagt makes that kick, and we lose....people would swear that Brunell led us to defeat.....either way its putting too much on the guy.

I don't know anyone that would be saying that Brunell would have led us to defeat. You're also right in saying that that is putting too much on him. This is all because Brunell has led us NOWHERE. Victory OR defeat. I'll give you the "managed the game" part. I, however, would like to see a leader out there. It's not like we have a dominant defense that we can rely on. We need a leader and Brunell is NOT one.....not anymore.

How can you expect Campbell to provide leadership? I understand wanting a guy that is more mobile, or who has a stronger arm....but leadership? I want Campbell in there too, but not at the expense of winning games, and right now, I agree with the players and I support Brunell.

Campbell is a proven leader, in college. The only way we'll ever know if he can make it in the NFL, is to play him. Who's to say he can't win as many games as Brunell? No one. It's not like Brunell is actually winning games, he just isn't losing them (or not all of them and not alone).

Both Brunell and Campbell have had the same amount of time with the playbook. Frankly, I would think a kid recently out of college would have a better chance at learning something new, rather than a 35-36 year old man that has already had to TRY and learn other offensive systems recently.

in an earlier post, Chris Luva Luva wrote:Make sure this weeks thread is....

Will Philly catch Mark Brunells interceptions?

THIS WEEK'S BOLD PREDICTION: Mark Brunell will have not only have his best game as a Skin against the Iggles on Sunday, but he will have a 65+% completion percentage, will throw 0 interceptions (or near interceptions), and will AGAIN lead this team to victory.

Final line vs the Iggles: 18/25, 256 yds, 3 TDs, 0 INTs

This team has turned a corner, and the Iggles are cruisin' for a bruisin'. Don't say I didn't warn ya!!!

ARRIBA, MARK!!!



SKIN DA EAGLES!!!

That picture goes to prove how good our make up guys are on the sideline! Someone did a great job making him look like he's not the wimp we all know.

The Hogster wrote:I want Campbell in there too, but not at the expense of winning games, and right now, I agree with the players and I support Brunell.

To paraphrase from Bill Parcells, "You are what your record is." We aren't winning games...we're a losing football team, at 3-5. We have the same stinking record as the Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers.

In other words, we're one of the NFL's worst teams. Hoo-yah.

If we were winning, I'd say that's the right attitude. But, honestly...do you think it could be much worse if Campbell had been playing all along?

PulpExposure wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I want Campbell in there too, but not at the expense of winning games, and right now, I agree with the players and I support Brunell.

To paraphrase from Bill Parcells, "You are what your record is." We aren't winning games...we're a losing football team, at 3-5. We have the same stinking record as the Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers.

In other words, we're one of the NFL's worst teams. Hoo-yah.

If we were winning, I'd say that's the right attitude. But, honestly...do you think it could be much worse if Campbell had been playing all along?

NO

The Raiders have won 2 games and that's with Andrew Walters as their starter. We've only won 1 more game so I don't see how things could be any worse with Campbell as the qb.