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

JGibbs was just on NBC4. He was talking about different things.....

How it was very difficult for the team last year to come out of all the losses last year.
He said some other stuff, but it wasn't really that important.
One main thing that stuck in my head is that he supposedly said that Brunell's days with the Redskins are NOT over.

Oh boy...I pray he's just saying that to be modest. Brunell better not play for us. He's terrible. I can't bear with old noodle arm any longer.



WATCH IT RIGHT NOW. He's coming on in about 18 minutes!!!...again...

Wait....he didn't talk about Brunell the second time though....

Well i hope what he means by Brunell's days with the redskins are not over, he means that he will mentor Ramsey on the practice field along with nwe QB coach Bill Musgrave. The only reason Brunell should play, is if were winning 40-0 or more. Otherwise he can make friends with the bench because thats all heel be seing all season

washington53 wrote:Well i hope what he means by Brunell's days with the redskins are not over, he means that he will mentor Ramsey on the practice field along with nwe QB coach Bill Musgrave. The only reason Brunell should play, is if were winning 40-0 or more. Otherwise he can make friends with the bench because thats all heel be seing all season

Even with Ramsey as QB we wil never be up 40-0 or even close to that. Every player has a off year and Brunell was just plain out terrible. I wouldn't like to see him start but Ramsey won't lead to a big year. Too mny bad decisions in the pocket.

Well, what can the poor man say?

He was the main instrument in landing Brunell here and giving him a boat load of cash.

He HAS say that he will be a Redskin at least for next year.

So, did he say anything new ? We already knew where he stood on Brunell.

Washingtons#1fan wrote:

washington53 wrote:Well i hope what he means by Brunell's days with the redskins are not over, he means that he will mentor Ramsey on the practice field along with nwe QB coach Bill Musgrave. The only reason Brunell should play, is if were winning 40-0 or more. Otherwise he can make friends with the bench because thats all heel be seing all season

Even with Ramsey as QB we wil never be up 40-0 or even close to that. Every player has a off year and Brunell was just plain out terrible. I wouldn't like to see him start but Ramsey won't lead to a big year. Too mny bad decisions in the pocket.

I think Ramsey's decision making will get alot better this season, maybe not to 40-0 games but they will be good.

What was the urgent part, exactly ??

Maybe he wanted us to see Joe 18 minutes later..

even if we were up 40-0, which would be on clinton portis' running ability. we shoudln't put brunell in we should put hasselback in.

About the urgent part....Yeah washington53 got it right. I just wanted you all to check the thread and be able to watch it before it passed. It's not so urgent anymore.

vife wrote:even if we were up 40-0, which would be on clinton portis' running ability. we shoudln't put brunell in we should put hasselback in.

I hate to say it but I agree with you. I know almost NO one agrees with this thought but I'd definitely like to see Hasselbeck get a chance before Brunell gets on the field too. But that's just a dream because there's no way JGibbs is going to "disrespect" noodle arm.

El Mexican wrote:Well, what can the poor man say?

He was the main instrument in landing Brunell here and giving him a boat load of cash.

He HAS say that he will be a Redskin at least for next year.

I'm pretty sure JGibbs is not a poor man.

vife wrote:even if we were up 40-0, which would be on clinton portis' running ability. we shoudln't put brunell in we should put hasselback in.

Hasselback looked better then both of them last preseason

snowskin wrote:

vife wrote:even if we were up 40-0, which would be on clinton portis' running ability. we shoudln't put brunell in we should put hasselback in.

Hasselback looked better then both of them last preseason

Who did he play against? 3rd teamers and guys that wouldn't be making the cut. Not a realistic assesment of his skills. I agree that he should get mop-up time before Brunell, though.

JSPB22 wrote:

snowskin wrote:Hasselback looked better then both of them last preseason

Who did he play against? 3rd teamers and guys that wouldn't be making the cut. Not a realistic assesment of his skills. I agree that he should get mop-up time before Brunell, though.

I agree, I think that we tend to overvalue some of our reserve guys quite often because we like them so much (I'm not saying that liking them is wrong, though. . .I love being a biased fan).

But when we talk about putting certain guys (like Hassleback) in, think about it in terms of Washington being a playoff team with (player) at that position. This is especially relevant to the QB situation--just read this sentence out loud and think about how it sounds:

. . .And Washington, led by quarterback Tim Hassleback, are now into the 2nd week of the NFC playoffs. . .

Just doesn't sit right with me, for some reason. . .


But I still love the guy, and hope that he is our #2 (I don't care if he had a 0.0 QB rating one time, he's gotta be better than Brunell).

Who is the Back-up QB, and who is #3 on the depth chart?

I hate Brunnel I wanted Pat to start from day 1! Will Pat ever complete a full 16 game season!!!! jeeeeezzz

snowskin wrote:

vife wrote:even if we were up 40-0, which would be on clinton portis' running ability. we shoudln't put brunell in we should put hasselback in.

Hasselback looked better then both of them last preseason

The guy played agains 3RD STRINGERS ard below... What do you expect??

Fanforever wrote:Who is the Back-up QB, and who is #3 on the depth chart?

Back up: Brunell

3rd: Hasselbeck