Changing Horses Mid-Stream? (Should we switch QB's)

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:49 am

According to NFL.com, the Texans officially have the league's worst defense. Unfortunately, they'll probably make Brunell look good.

Or not ...

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:51 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
skinsfanno9 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:[* I have little reason to think that Brunell has nothing left in the tank. That's a very broad generalization about a man who's proven the same accusation wrong in the past.

You wouldn't happen to know Brunell's record as a starter for the Redskins, would you? 'Cause if it was say, 13-15 or something like that, perhaps his "comebacks" haven't been all that terrific.

Usually I don't think 13-15 when I think of Brunell's record as a starter for the Redskins. I generally think of 10-6 + a playoff win.

Right now I might think of 0-2, but so what? With 14 games to go, a lot can still happen.

EXACTLY my point. Take off your blinders and wake up to reality. Being an eternal optimist is not a very good trait, in my world. I prefer being a realist.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:51 am

Irn-Bru --> I'd feel alot better if those were non conference losses instead of both being conference losses and one of them a divisional loss.

Even winless we're still down only 1 game from tying for first. But you need to win your divisional and conference games to get to the playoffs, even asd a wildcard (last year is the perfect example)

skinsfanno9 · Post by **skinsfanno9** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:52 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Usually I don't think 13-15 when I think of Brunell's record as a starter for the Redskins. I generally think of 10-6 + a playoff win.

Yeah, I'm sure everyone will agree that Brunell, not Portis and the Defense was the reason the Skins made it to 10 wins. He was rock solid all season long. :roll:

Again, I truly hope Brunell has yet another come back after yet another horrid run. Perhaps this one will last at least 3 games and will get us back to a winning record.

Then again, at this point, I hope far more that we make a move to the future and put Brunell in a mentor role.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:53 am

uh... how does this even qualify as a question? brunell was the worst QB in the entire NFL this week- and that includes aaron brooks, with his 2 fumbles in 4 total snaps. brooks at least had the decency to get injured and leave the game, giving someone else a chance. just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

he needs to be benched IMMEDIATELY or we are staring at 2004 all over again, people. actually, no, our defense isn't as good as it was then, so we would be lucky to go 3-13.

the only hope is that maybe saunders will DEMAND a QB change be made.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:53 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Usually I don't think 13-15 when I think of Brunell's record as a starter for the Redskins. I generally think of 10-6 + a playoff win.

By that same logic, we should've kept Lavar. After all, with him, we were 10-6 with a playoff win! You're an intelligent, fair-minded fan (from what I've read), but you're giving too much credit to Brunell for last year. He was good at times, but awful sometimes too, and he's only going downhill. A QB that old has never won the Super Bowl. Is this team trying to win games, or tempt fate?

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:55 am

Champsturf wrote:EXACTLY my point. Take off your blinders and wake up to reality. Being an eternal optimist is not a very good trait, in my world. I prefer being a realist.

You act like you've got a much better view of the world than I do. While that may be so, I need to point out that "realists" last season made bets that they would walk from Bristol to DC naked if the Skins made the playoffs. Realists thought Gibbs was too old, optimist Redskins fans were the ones that Gibbs could still do well in the NFL.

It's not that unrealistic to think that Brunell can still make things happen, or that our offense will begin to click and that our defense will play better.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:56 am

die cowboys die wrote:just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

Yup. That's EXACTLY what this team needs in its leader. When the going gets tough.....quit. :roll:

I guess this is from the Jeff George "Leadership-is-overrated" school of thought. :lol:

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:57 am

Mursilis wrote:By that same logic, we should've kept Lavar. After all, with him, we were 10-6 with a playoff win!

Lavar didn't play nearly as much as Brunell, nor did he play as central a role as Mark even when he was in the game! I don't know if that's a fair comparison, to be honest.

The rest of the post was loaded, and there wasn't much that I could really answer.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:57 am

I have NO idea how there can be ANy Brunell supoorters. Have any of them even watched the last 10 games, preseason included? It's flat out gross. He is no longer a starting caliber QB in the NFL. I'm making the official announcement...lol

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:58 am

I think you guys are just talking past each other now

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:59 am

thaiphoon wrote:I think you guys are just talking past each other now

It appears so.

I can see what they are saying but I disagree. Some people cannot believe that someone with my viewpoint even exists. Just the way things go, I suppose.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:00 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

Yup. That's EXACTLY what this team needs in its leader. When the going gets tough.....quit.

I guess this is from the Jeff George "Leadership-is-overrated" school of thought.

Another post with still no answer as to what you saw was better? What a joke.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:01 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
thaiphoon wrote:I think you guys are just talking past each other now

It appears so.

I can see what they are saying but I disagree. Some people cannot believe that someone with my viewpoint even exists. Just the way things go, I suppose.

I believe someone can exist with your beliefs. There are people with mental issues as well as drugs problems all over this earth.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:03 am

Champsturf wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
thaiphoon wrote:I think you guys are just talking past each other now

It appears so.

I can see what they are saying but I disagree. Some people cannot believe that someone with my viewpoint even exists. Just the way things go, I suppose.

I believe someone can exist with your beliefs. There are people with mental issues as well as drugs problems all over this earth.

. . .and 6+7=13 and iTunes just released version 7.0 and John Calvin is a theologian. . . .this is fun. . .what other unrelated stuff exists, kids?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:05 am

Seriously Champsturf... I'm in the anti-Brunell camp along with you. But thats uncalled for. It is a difference of opinion, that is all.

Keep it as such please and don't turn it personal ...

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:07 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

Yup. That's EXACTLY what this team needs in its leader. When the going gets tough.....quit.

I guess this is from the Jeff George "Leadership-is-overrated" school of thought.

when you're driving the bus and you keep steering it off a cliff, that does not qualify as "leadership". you should let someone else drive.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:09 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
Champsturf wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
thaiphoon wrote:I think you guys are just talking past each other now

It appears so.

I can see what they are saying but I disagree. Some people cannot believe that someone with my viewpoint even exists. Just the way things go, I suppose.

I believe someone can exist with your beliefs. There are people with mental issues as well as drugs problems all over this earth.

. . .and 6+7=13 and iTunes just released version 7.0 and John Calvin is a theologian. . . .this is fun. . .what other unrelated stuff exists, kids?

WOW! I guess you're the latter.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:10 am

die cowboys die wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

Yup. That's EXACTLY what this team needs in its leader. When the going gets tough.....quit.

I guess this is from the Jeff George "Leadership-is-overrated" school of thought.

when you're driving the bus and you keep steering it off a cliff, that does not qualify as "leadership". you should let someone else drive.

love YOUR sig

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:12 am

thaiphoon wrote:Seriously Champsturf... I'm in the anti-Brunell camp along with you. But thats uncalled for. It is a difference of opinion, that is all.

Keep it as such please and don't turn it personal ...

Sorry, but morons (no names mentioned) are upsetting me. It's bad enough that my team is awful, but to have morons (still no names) blind to see what is happening, then calling me out, is maddening.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:16 am

Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Usually I don't think 13-15 when I think of Brunell's record as a starter for the Redskins. I generally think of 10-6 + a playoff win.

By that same logic, we should've kept Lavar. After all, with him, we were 10-6 with a playoff win! You're an intelligent, fair-minded fan (from what I've read), but you're giving too much credit to Brunell for last year. He was good at times, but awful sometimes too, and he's only going downhill. A QB that old has never won the Super Bowl. Is this team trying to win games, or tempt fate?

Maybe we should have, last year our run D was a lot better when he started playing than when he wasn't. I am not really hung up over that though. But we defeintly need to play Campell.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:17 am

Champsturf wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:just like in '04, brunell was a selfish bastard and didn't check himself out of the game even though he was ruining the entire team.

Yup. That's EXACTLY what this team needs in its leader. When the going gets tough.....quit.

I guess this is from the Jeff George "Leadership-is-overrated" school of thought.

when you're driving the bus and you keep steering it off a cliff, that does not qualify as "leadership". you should let someone else drive.

love YOUR sig

haha thanks... my friend said that and i just thought it was brilliant. :lol:

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:18 am

And again, there's no reason to call people names either. It is a difference of opinion. Irn-Bru is entitled to his opinion. So are you. He might be thinking that you are a moron as well, but he's not going to call you one.

It is public discourse my friend and it works better when people can rationally argue the merits of their viewpoint without resorting to name calling.

I'd really hope to see you argue your case instead of resorting to namecalling. I'm in the same camp so I'm naturally predisposed to your position. But I'll not agree with your tactics. If you want to engage in namecalling, take it to Smack.

Of course, you could simply just argue your case and let the games unfold as they are going to. The best thing about the difference in opinion between yours and Irn-Bru's is that we get to see at the end of the season who is right and who is not.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:24 am

thaiphoon wrote:And again, there's no reason to call people names either. It is a difference of opinion. Irn-Bru is entitled to his opinion. So are you. He might be thinking that you are a moron as well, but he's not going to call you one.

It is public discourse my friend and it works better when people can rationally argue the merits of their viewpoint without resorting to name calling.

I'd really hope to see you argue your case instead of resorting to namecalling. I'm in the same camp so I'm naturally predisposed to your position. But I'll not agree with your tactics. If you want to engage in namecalling, take it to Smack.

Of course, you could simply just argue your case and let the games unfold as they are going to. The best thing about the difference in opinion between yours and Irn-Bru's is that we get to see at the end of the season who is right and who is not.

I didn't call anyone a name. That is not allowed...no personal attacks.

As far as opinion goes, he can keep it...to himself next time, I hope.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:33 am

Champsturf wrote:I didn't call anyone a name. That is not allowed...no personal attacks.

As far as opinion goes, he can keep it...to himself next time, I hope.

I didn't call you out on it (and wasn't going to), but since you seem to be in the mood for splitting hairs. . . .

The line that THN draws very clearly in our rules is as follows:

5. Agree to disagree. Everyone's opinion counts, is valued, and should be respected. If you can't respect someone's point of view -- ignore it! Personally attacking another poster by name-calling will not be tolerated. You may call someone's comments "stupid" without calling the person who made the post "stupid".

While it was clever to say "(no names)" it was clear that you were leveling an attack against a person(s). You could have called the idea inane, moronic, ridiculous, whatever. . .but the moment you personalize it, (e.g. the moment you say "a moron" rather than "a dumb idea"), it's a personal attack.

And, when it comes to personal attacks, please keep those in PMs or in Smack. Please and thanks.