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

this has been commented on in the thread about the seahawks/panthers game, but thought it warranted mention in hogwash.

after seeing how horribly seattle thrashed carolina, it suddenly looks like we played a darn good game considering. it seems apparent we are the 2nd best team in the NFC. we are the ONLY NFC team to beat them this year (no, their season-ending loss to green bay doesn't count, they were not trying to win).

all that being said, seattle is clearly MUCH better than i gave them credit for-- i thought their whimpy schedule made them look good but ironically it may have merely concealed their greatness, since they never got to prove anything against good teams.

Maybe some of you who were calling for Brunell's head on a platter now realize that the guy is smart with the ball and manages the game pretty well.

Seattle made Delhomme look like Heath Schuler.

For real, at least we gave Seattle a fight. It wasn't even Delhomme that surprised me but rather the fact that Carolina could not stop Seattle at all. Our defense played much better, hit incredibly hard all game, knocked Alexander out of the game, caused turnovers, and made Seattle work for every yard. Carolina, on the other hand, imploded.

We were definately the only team in the NFC who could compete with Seattle all year and therefore there is no doubt in my mind that we were the 2nd best in our conference this year. I am having a good time telling this to all my friends who are Panthers fans today, we are clearly the better team.

The Hogster wrote:Maybe some of you who were calling for Brunell's head on a platter now realize that the guy is smart with the ball and manages the game pretty well.

Seattle made Delhomme look like Heath Schuler.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Before the game started, Delhomme had the best play-off stat's in NFL history. If one compares Delhomme's numbers to Brunell's vs. Seattle, it is clear Brunell was the better QB and was not the only reason for our loss. Seattle's defense is much better than people give them credit for.

Or, Carolina's offense was not getting it done. I think Seattle has a decent D but not very good like ours. They had a very appropriate package and plan for the limits of the Carolina offense. Carolina did not get into this game very well at all and Seattle just did what they had to with some pretty spectacular plays at the right time. Seneca who - c'mon!!!
I'm sorry, but this is not one of the better teams in the NFC. I think they put together a couple of good games and they are in for a good old stomping when they match up in Detroit.


You're right dcd! I think we need to make a few adjustments and I'm sure our team will be playing at an even better level. This is getting to be fun again.

Delhomme's biggest problem Sunday was him trying to hard to make plays. He was forcing the ball into situations he should have never even tried to go for.

Watching that game yesterday made me mad. We should be in the Super Bowl. We had the tools to beat Seattle then Carolina but our offense let us down. If our offense could have scored at least 14-17 points in the Seattle game and then against Carolina, this city would be in a frenzy right now.

People I have seen and heard on TV and Radio have mentioned the fact that if Carlos Rogers picks that ball off, the Redskins would be possibly playing in the Super Bowl. Many "prognosticators" feel that our defense was good enough to get us there and all our offense had to do was move the ball and control the clock.

Great post. I haven't heard ANYTHING about this in any of the sports pages/radio.

And say what you want about our offense, but I expected more from our defense once Alexander went down. That was a gift that should have changed the game more than it did. Seattle's defense was clearly pretty good/underrated.

Anyway, I'm not bitter!

The Hogster wrote:Maybe some of you who were calling for Brunell's head on a platter now realize that the guy is smart with the ball and manages the game pretty well.

Yeah!

Game against Tampa: FG 3 points.

Game against the Hawks: FG 3 points + lucky TD 7 points = 10 points

A combined offense score of 13 points in TWO playoff games. I nominate Redskins defense with 14 points, one more than the offense, as our REAL offense.

Ah! and Brunell should be the Playoff MVP too.

Come on man! This is not an ALL is good or ALL is bad with Brunell. He played GREAT in -some- of the regular season games and he stunk after he got injured and throughout the playoffs. What is wrong with accepting that fact?

frankcal20 wrote:Delhomme's biggest problem Sunday was him trying to hard to make plays. He was forcing the ball into situations he should have never even tried to go for.

They had only one good WR. Does that sound familiar? He was under double, triple and quadruple coverage. Shut down Santana, ooops! sorry. Shut down Smith and shut the offense down.

Carolina had no RUNNING game. Our star running back was hurt. Everytime somebody forces to play a one-dimensional game, you lose.

Carolina shgares with us the lack of alternative weapons when the main ones are shut down.

Our defense outscored our offense in the playoffs, but Brunell wasn't the problem? Was it Moss? ey? Portis? The O-line?

Anyhow, Jake Delhomme had a bad game, but he had a lot more on his shoulders. Our defense kept us in the game for a lot longer than did his. He also had to rely on a 4th string running back half the game and the 3rd for the other half.

Carlos Rogers interception for a TD could've got us that game, but it would've made the discrepency between offensive scoring and defensive scoring even more horrifying.

I think it points out a simple strategy against us. Shut down our running game, don't take chances against our defense, and make Brunell win the game against you.

dlc wrote:Our defense outscored our offense in the
I think it points out a simple strategy against us. Shut down our running game, don't take chances against our defense, and make Brunell win the game against you.

Shutting down our offense is indeed simple. Especially the deep passing game. Defenses have figured out that if you take away Moss you effectively shut down the vertical passing game of the Skins. Defenses show Thrash and Jacobs zero respect and rightfully so. What did either of the two do for us this season?

I think it points out a simple strategy against us. Shut down our running game, don't take chances against our defense, and make Brunell win the game against you.

Or their is always option B: Wait until the Redskins, as a whole are playing at about 40% health, and manhandle tham at key positions. Yeah, that worked REAL fine in the playoffs.

At full strength, we can take it to ANY TEAM in the league.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Maybe some of you who were calling for Brunell's head on a platter now realize that the guy is smart with the ball and manages the game pretty well.

Yeah!

Game against Tampa: FG 3 points.

Game against the Hawks: FG 3 points + lucky TD 7 points = 10 points

A combined offense score of 13 points in TWO playoff games. I nominate Redskins defense with 14 points, one more than the offense, as our REAL offense.

Ah! and Brunell should be the Playoff MVP too.

Come on man! This is not an ALL is good or ALL is bad with Brunell. He played GREAT in -some- of the regular season games and he stunk after he got injured and throughout the playoffs. What is wrong with accepting that fact?

Thanks for making my point! You did it better than I did. I don't even need to respond thanks to your thoughtful expression, but I will sum up what you said. Brunell had some great games and some below average games. EVERY QUARTERBACK IN THE LEAGUE DOES.

The only difference is you watch every Skins game and watch his bad performances, but didn't step back and realize that every quarterback has ups and downs. Brunell had more ups than downs this year. No one is perfect, and no one is to blame for every bad game.

Congrats, you stated the obvious, that Brunell had good games and bad. Whoopy Doo.. I guess every QB who doesn't have good games every week should be benched in favor of a guy who has never taken snap. Good thinkin.

3 Offensive Points against the #1 Defense. Guess what, Panthers couldnt muster much more than that against Seattle. A desperation Hail Mary TD against the Seahawks were the ONLY OFFENSIVE points they scored. So to sum up your evidence. We scored 4 less points against the number 1 defense and WON, and they scored 4 more points against an average Pass Defense and LOST. Or to further make the point, Brunell threw for 242 yds and a "lucky" TD...and Delhomme threw for 196 yds a "lucky TD" and 3 INTS...hmm doesn't quite support your assesment now does it? I guess you will think of another way to spin something in your favor...they all do. Yeah...fire em, fire em all...put in the backups...the sky is falling.

13 total offensive points in 2 playoff games....over 1oo points in the final 4 games...That is the real offense.

52 against 49ers
35 against THE SAME BUCS DEFENSE
35 against NY
31 against Philly

Our offense averaged 22.4 pts per game. We were in the Top 10 for the first half of the season and finished 11 overall. Now we have a new O-Coordinator...I expect more improvement regardless of whether Brunell gives you Goosebumps.

It's funny how you all use excuses like "lucky". According to you guys the 2 Dallas TD's were luck and the TD against Seattle was "luck". So lemme get this straight....when its advantageous to advance your "personal opinion" you down grade what someone does on the field by saying it was luck. Okay...I wonder if you say that to Santana's face if he will agree "yeah" I got lucky...doubt it.

I am no Brunell guy, but I definitely don't place our offensive shortcomings all on his shoulders.

The Hogster wrote:I am no Brunell guy, but I definitely don't place our offensive shortcomings all on his shoulders.

Neither do I.

And you are correct: I am highlighting some of YOUR points in my post. Not all is bad and not all is good with Brunell. Hell, I proposed Brunell as the MVP on offense ahead of Santana and Clinton in another thread!

Unfortunately, the debates centered around our QBs become radical in seeing ALL good or ALL bad on our favourite player. My point, in case it has not been made clear enough, is that since Brunell was hurt, he should have been benched and Ramsey given the opportunity to play.

I have no argument to question the decision made by Joe to place Brunell as the starter for most of the season. He proved everybody wrong when we thought Brunell had nothing left in him. He manages the games better than Ramsey.

But on equally balanced terms, and with the wisdom of hindsight, it is clear that Brunell was not going to give us a chance to win in his current physical condition. The guy does not want to be out EVEN when he is hurt. That was yet another problem last season.

I have the impression that Joe believed him that he was ready to play and he really was not. He could not plant his feet and draw sharply and accurately. He was challenged by offenses and if it was not by our heroic defense we would have been out of it during the last games of the regular season.

It is UNFAIR for Ramsey not to have been given a chance when the starter was not producing at all even if it was due to an injury.

I agree with everything you said there. It would have been a tough call for Gibbs to put in Ramsey at that point in time. We had to win those last couple of games, and Brunell was leading the team on a 4 game win streak at the time. I think just as you have the benefit of hindsight, we should look at the position that Gibbs was in.

What do you do? His QB was leading the hottest team at the NFL right then. We had scored 35 points in back to back weeks and Brunell had thrown something like 6 TD's in the past 6 quarters that he had played, and we were in a must win situation.

What should he have done if the doctors and Brunell said that he could play, and he practiced the week of the game?

I think he did what he thought was right. It would have done a disservice to the team if we started Ram at Philly and lost. That would have basically wasted all of the efforts of the team under Brunell if that happened.

He had no way of knowing at that point. And then what do you do when Brunell became healthy in the playoffs. Like I said earlier the guy was red hott before he got hurt, so then would he have to pull Ram and put Brunell back in at Tampa, or at Seattle? Risk interuppting the continuity Ram would have been developing at a critical point in the playoffs?

All of these are tough calls that are hard even in retrospect. I think Brunell honestly thought that he could keep playing, but his performance undoubtedly suffered.

I wouldn't say it was unfair, just turns out we didn't get it done in Seattle.

It's abundantly clear that we did not have what used to be considered a "Super Bowl" team. We lacked depth at several positions, we had some major cogs just gutting it out the last three games and our weaknesses were exposed by other teams who had run the gauntlet to get where they were.
What we did show was, when healthy, we can play with anybody.
To me, that's enough to get me through the offseason. There's nowhere to go but up. Brunell or not.

The Hogster wrote:What should he have done if the doctors and Brunell said that he could play, and he practiced the week of the game?

Let me avoid hindsight as much as possible even if it is impossible. I can understand that Brunell may have been given the last two games of the season -and- the first game in the Wild Card against the Bucs. I would even add the first half of the Seattle game. But at -that- time it was clear that Brunell was ging nowhere.

Yes, the game was close and winnable. I am sure Joe thought about it. I am even speculating here, Patrick could have lost the game by many more points with several interceptions. My point is: We will never know. But we knew that Brunell was going nowhere. The mechanics of his throws were not well.

I feel that we agree on most issues. For me, as a fan of Patrick, the issue is from THIS perspective a point of fairness. Coach give me a chance! I can win it for you! I am sure Patrick was screaming in his mind.

But Joe did not. You know what? I am sure Joe was right and he made the best choice considering all possible outcomes at the time. But I still feel that in fairness, Patrick deserved a spot.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

The Hogster wrote:What should he have done if the doctors and Brunell said that he could play, and he practiced the week of the game?

Let me avoid hindsight as much as possible even if it is impossible. I can understand that Brunell may have been given the last two games of the season -and- the first game in the Wild Card against the Bucs. I would even add the first half of the Seattle game. But at -that- time it was clear that Brunell was ging nowhere.

Yes, the game was close and winnable. I am sure Joe thought about it. I am even speculating here, Patrick could have lost the game by many more points with several interceptions. My point is: We will never know. But we knew that Brunell was going nowhere. The mechanics of his throws were not well.

I feel that we agree on most issues. For me, as a fan of Patrick, the issue is from THIS perspective a point of fairness. Coach give me a chance! I can win it for you! I am sure Patrick was screaming in his mind.

But Joe did not. You know what? I am sure Joe was right and he made the best choice considering all possible outcomes at the time. But I still feel that in fairness, Patrick deserved a spot.

Fair enough. Ram did get a pretty short leash...some of that may have been his performance and some was that Gibbs was biased to Brunell because he brought him in, he was his vet pick etc.

I don't doubt that at all. But good thing is, Gibbs handpicked Brunell and Campbell so we should not have that problem again.

tcwest10 wrote:It's abundantly clear that we did not have what used to be considered a "Super Bowl" team.

I agree. Our weakenesses were exposed.

Thrash, Thomas, Patten, Noble, Tupa, etc, etc. Too many injuries. For example, it was painful to see Raymer replace Ray Brown.

We all share agreat degree of optimism about the course of our team. This is well founded optimism, not a pipe dream.

Living out here in the Pacific Northwest, we got all the Seahawks games, and they're a very good team. Defensively, the 'Skins held an explosive offense (minus Alexander, of course) to an average game. If you saw the Seahawks play regularly you'd see how impressive they are. Good enough to beat Pittsburgh, though....?

themonk81 wrote:Living out here in the Pacific Northwest, we got all the Seahawks games, and they're a very good team. Defensively, the 'Skins held an explosive offense (minus Alexander, of course) to an average game. If you saw the Seahawks play regularly you'd see how impressive they are. Good enough to beat Pittsburgh, though....?

Let's hope not. The Steelers are the AFC version of the type of team we want to be. Very good defensively, good power running game, and a Big, Accurate, Efficient game manager at QB.

It would also be good to see Cowher and Bettis get a well deserved ring...not to mention Hasselbeck seems like a tool.

hass is definetly a tool

And he wore a pinkish purple sweater in his press conference. Definitely not my kind of player. GO STEELERS.

The Hogster wrote:It would also be good to see Cowher and Bettis get a well deserved ring...not to mention Hasselbeck seems like a tool.

we can agree on that much for sure, hogster!