Skins talking to Falcons about Brunell

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:45 am

Mursilis wrote:That makes a lot more sense. I mean really, who (besides Miami) trades for a 37+ y.o. QB?!?

I was talking about this quote. Our QB was 50 when we got him. :lol:

MB04 was considered over the fence too when we got him.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:44 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Mursilis wrote:That makes a lot more sense. I mean really, who (besides Miami) trades for a 37+ y.o. QB?!?

I was talking about this quote. Our QB was 50 when we got him. MB04 was considered over the fence too when we got him.

And such a successful move that turned out to be, no?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:59 am

Mursilis wrote:And such a successful move that turned out to be, no?

You won't get me to bite on that one buddy!

spudstr04 · Post by **spudstr04** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:59 pm

NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports the Falcons have not spoken to the Redskins about Mark Brunell.
Schefter confirms they have talked to the Eagles about Kelly Holcomb. Brunell would still be a logical fit in Atlanta, and the Redskins are always short on draft picks. Chris Simms, Quinn Gray, Josh McCown, Charlie Frye, and Tim Hasselbeck are other names that could become available. ~ rotoworld.com

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:11 pm

spudstr04 wrote:NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports the Falcons have not spoken to the Redskins about Mark Brunell.
Schefter confirms they have talked to the Eagles about Kelly Holcomb. Brunell would still be a logical fit in Atlanta, and the Redskins are always short on draft picks. Chris Simms, Quinn Gray, Josh McCown, Charlie Frye, and Tim Hasselbeck are other names that could become available. ~ rotoworld.com

Just trade him for a PB&J to be done with it.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:52 pm

I am a fan of keeping Brunell until Palmer is ready to be on the active roster. However, I find it funny how people hate on Todd Collins and site the fact that he's been a backup as proof that he is no good.

Why don't you believe your own eyes instead of just blinding asserting that he's been a backup forever, so he must suck.

He knows this offense and has played well when asked...even against the Steelers 1st team defense. The fact that he went 9/12 for 75 yards, doesn't prove that he is terrible. It just proves that the guy came in for limited action as a backup and threw for 75 percent probably without having much practice with the starters.

I think that Collins is nowhere near the QB that Brunell once was, but he seems from all accounts to be the best fit for this system. He even looks to be the better of the two right now.

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:05 pm

only downfall i see in dumping brunell is the cap hit. which, imo isn't even all that much.

as far as a backup, if campell goes down for a major period of time, we are up schtien creek without a paddle, even with brunell on the roster.

the only situation i see brunell useful in is if campell only goes down for only a couple of games, while/if we are still in the playoff hunt, and brunell can maybe manage those couple of games for us.

i'm sitting on the fence. not taking either side, but not worried about what happens either way.