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

Second Half in dallas sees Tony Romo replace Bledsoe, well parcells is one up on us, he he, deflections for and INT by Antonio Pierce.

Bill Parcells is a winner compared to Gibbs this year. Drew Bledsoe would be Jesus Christ here compared to Mark Brunell.

Gibbs would start Jason Campbell, but that would prove he was wrong about Mark Brunell.

Every time I look at teh TV screen and see Romo make a play, I wonder why we can't be that team.

Romo throws 3 picks, 1 taken back for a touchdown.


I already went to CowboysGuide.com and told them that on behalf of the Washington Redskins nation I wanted to welcome in the Tony Romo era.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Atleast 1 coach in the NFC East has the cajones to take out his struggling, veteran QB.

bledsoe isn't a horrible QB, neither is brunell. they are just not good fits for their current teams. brunell might be a good QB for baltimore or something, but without a stellar defense he is absolutely worthless. it is also insanity to waste the WRs we have on someone like him.

Damn, I wish Gibbs would do that for us, And play Campbell

redskingush wrote:Second Half in dallas sees Tony Romo replace Bledsoe, well parcells is one up on us, he he, deflections for and INT by Antonio Pierce.

Wow, maybe Gibbs ought to pay attention.

[quote="JPM36"]Romo throws 3 picks, 1 taken back for a touchdown./quote]

At least he's got a 1/2 half game of real NFL experience against a division rival. Next week he'll start and get a full game of real playing time. Lets hope that come Nov. 5, he is not polished enough to beat us......

Gus,

JPM36 wrote:I already went to CowboysGuide.com and told them that on behalf of the Washington Redskins nation I wanted to welcome in the Tony Romo era.

Did they tell you to thank Gibbs for sticking with Brunell in Week 2, and Week 9?

*waits for someone to say they want Parcells to replace Gibbs

Yeah pulling Bledsoe for Romo worked out great... Trust Coach Gibbs. When he thinks Campbell is ready, he'll make the switch. I have faith in him.


Isn't it funny how the Cowboys fans boo Bledsoe when he messes up but they don't boo Roy Williams when he does?

Shouldn't they also boo Roy every time he gets beat deep?

Or would that just be too much work over a 3 hour game?

Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

That's all easy to say in hindsight, but you could just as easily say playing it safe and sticking with the veteran longer sure panned out for us in 2004, when we had the #3 defense and didn't even get to .500. Looks like we're sticking with the veteran now, but do you think it's really going to get us anywhere? Sticking with Brunell won't get us to the playoffs.

Romo came in off the bench in the middle of the game. Few QBs would do well in that situation. Bledsoe had 7 games; we should hold judgment on Romo for at least 3-4 games.

Mursilis wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

That's all easy to say in hindsight, but you could just as easily say playing it safe and sticking with the veteran longer sure panned out for us in 2004, when we had the #3 defense and didn't even get to .500. Looks like we're sticking with the veteran now, but do you think it's really going to get us anywhere? Sticking with Brunell won't get us to the playoffs.

Romo came in off the bench in the middle of the game. Few QBs would do well in that situation. Bledsoe had 7 games; we should hold judgment on Romo for at least 3-4 games.

He should be better over the next few games. Has a fearless personality, something Bledsoe lacks in spades as evidenced by how long he holds the ball.

Only problem I have with him is the exact opposite of Bledsoe. Gunslinger mentality.

Gunslingers make me nervous. I'm not a fan of the Brett Farve types.

Primetime42 wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

That's all easy to say in hindsight, but you could just as easily say playing it safe and sticking with the veteran longer sure panned out for us in 2004, when we had the #3 defense and didn't even get to .500. Looks like we're sticking with the veteran now, but do you think it's really going to get us anywhere? Sticking with Brunell won't get us to the playoffs.

Romo came in off the bench in the middle of the game. Few QBs would do well in that situation. Bledsoe had 7 games; we should hold judgment on Romo for at least 3-4 games.

He should be better over the next few games. Has a fearless personality, something Bledsoe lacks in spades as evidenced by how long he holds the ball.

Only problem I have with him is the exact opposite of Bledsoe. Gunslinger mentality.

Gunslingers make me nervous. I'm not a fan of the Brett Farve types.

Neither is Joe Gibbs, or a lot of people. Big gambles lead to big rewards, but also big failures. Still, Farve won a ring gunslinging, whereas Mr. Supersmart (Brunell) hasn't. Sometimes, you've just got to have the courage to take a risk. Parcells did this time, Gibbs won't yet. We'll see how it plays out.

Mursilis wrote:

Primetime42 wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

That's all easy to say in hindsight, but you could just as easily say playing it safe and sticking with the veteran longer sure panned out for us in 2004, when we had the #3 defense and didn't even get to .500. Looks like we're sticking with the veteran now, but do you think it's really going to get us anywhere? Sticking with Brunell won't get us to the playoffs.

Romo came in off the bench in the middle of the game. Few QBs would do well in that situation. Bledsoe had 7 games; we should hold judgment on Romo for at least 3-4 games.

He should be better over the next few games. Has a fearless personality, something Bledsoe lacks in spades as evidenced by how long he holds the ball.

Only problem I have with him is the exact opposite of Bledsoe. Gunslinger mentality.

Gunslingers make me nervous. I'm not a fan of the Brett Farve types.

Neither is Joe Gibbs, or a lot of people. Big gambles lead to big rewards, but also big failures. Still, Farve won a ring gunslinging, whereas Mr. Supersmart (Brunell) hasn't. Sometimes, you've just got to have the courage to take a risk. Parcells did this time, Gibbs won't yet. We'll see how it plays out.

You guys are jumping the gun.

Romo spent 3 years in our system before Parcells let him take a snap. There were reasons for that.

1- He had to learn a pro-style offense from the ground up.

2- He had to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL as opposed to D-1AA

3- He had to learn how to game manage

4- Most of all he had to prove himself capable of taking care of the offense better than the guy ahead of him (jury's out)

I guarantee you if Joe Gibbs plays that kid Campbell now, he'd get the snot knocked out of him.

Is that really what you want to do for a QB you spent 2 first rounders to get your hands on?

Parcells and Gibbs are old-school. They don't believe in trial-by-fire in the QB position. A guy has to be ready.

If Campbell isn't playing over that chump Mark Brunell it's because Gibbs doesn't think he's ready and doesn't want him to develop what I now refer to as "Chad Hutchinson Syndrome".

In other words, shell-shocked.

Romo's playing in Dallas because quite frankly, it's his time. We need to find out what we have in him, because otherwise, we've got to draft somebody in April.

Ain't Campbell's time yet.

PS: FYI it took Favre 4 years playing time to learn how to win with that gunslinger mentality.

Romo is more comparable to Favre in his first years in Green Bay.

Favre learned a lot over time from good coaches. Romo'd have to follow in a lot of footsteps.

You call it "Chad Hutchinson Syndrome," Primetime, we call it "the Patrick Ramsies"


I hate to say that I agree with you, PT, but well-spoken arguments are well-spoken arguments. . .

Primetime42 wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Primetime42 wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Guys, just look at the mess you have in Pukes land now:

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

This situation just helps illustrate the importance and timing of any choice to replace a QB.

That's all easy to say in hindsight, but you could just as easily say playing it safe and sticking with the veteran longer sure panned out for us in 2004, when we had the #3 defense and didn't even get to .500. Looks like we're sticking with the veteran now, but do you think it's really going to get us anywhere? Sticking with Brunell won't get us to the playoffs.

Romo came in off the bench in the middle of the game. Few QBs would do well in that situation. Bledsoe had 7 games; we should hold judgment on Romo for at least 3-4 games.

He should be better over the next few games. Has a fearless personality, something Bledsoe lacks in spades as evidenced by how long he holds the ball.

Only problem I have with him is the exact opposite of Bledsoe. Gunslinger mentality.

Gunslingers make me nervous. I'm not a fan of the Brett Farve types.

Neither is Joe Gibbs, or a lot of people. Big gambles lead to big rewards, but also big failures. Still, Farve won a ring gunslinging, whereas Mr. Supersmart (Brunell) hasn't. Sometimes, you've just got to have the courage to take a risk. Parcells did this time, Gibbs won't yet. We'll see how it plays out.

You guys are jumping the gun.

Romo spent 3 years in our system before Parcells let him take a snap. There were reasons for that.

1- He had to learn a pro-style offense from the ground up.

2- He had to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL as opposed to D-1AA

3- He had to learn how to game manage

4- Most of all he had to prove himself capable of taking care of the offense better than the guy ahead of him (jury's out)

I guarantee you if Joe Gibbs plays that kid Campbell now, he'd get the snot knocked out of him.

Is that really what you want to do for a QB you spent 2 first rounders to get your hands on?

Parcells and Gibbs are old-school. They don't believe in trial-by-fire in the QB position. A guy has to be ready.

If Campbell isn't playing over that chump Mark Brunell it's because Gibbs doesn't think he's ready and doesn't want him to develop what I now refer to as "Chad Hutchinson Syndrome".

In other words, shell-shocked.

Romo's playing in Dallas because quite frankly, it's his time. We need to find out what we have in him, because otherwise, we've got to draft somebody in April.

Ain't Campbell's time yet.

PS: FYI it took Favre 4 years playing time to learn how to win with that gunslinger mentality.

Romo is more comparable to Favre in his first years in Green Bay.

Favre learned a lot over time from good coaches. Romo'd have to follow in a lot of footsteps.

How can you cite Farve? He played in 15 games (starting 13) by his second year - he wasn't forced to develop on the bench, he developed on the field! And 4 years is an unreasonable time frame to keep a guy on the bench, especially a first round pick. JC is only on a 5 year contract! I don't want to see another Redskins QB start here and leave to flourish elsewhere.

I love it when people forget that Favre warmed the bench for a year in Atlanta and was supposed to spend another behind Majkowski in Green Bay

He only played cuz the Majik-Man went down, remember?

If Brunell/Bledsoe had broken their legs, that's another story entirely.

Primetime42 wrote:I love it when people forget that Favre warmed the bench for a year in Atlanta and was supposed to spend another behind Majkowski in Green Bay

He only played cuz the Majik-Man went down, remember?

What made you think I forgot?

A more direct comparison for Romo would be Jake DelHomme.

He sat for several years in New Orleans, and now one could argue that he would be a welcome addition to more then two-thirds of the teams in the NFL, including both Washington and Dallas.

Parcells and Gibbs are old-school coaches that in some aspects still have the pre-salary cap mentallity, when it was typical to sit a rookie for a couple of years in favor of veteren.

In this case the inconsistent play, sub-performing OL, and the immobility of Bledsoe forced Parcells's hand to a certain degree.

You have a veteran that you pulled out with little chance to come back and put in a rookie who played even worse.

Rome didn't play worse. He made some mistakes, but unlike Bledsoe he was actually able to move the offense. It was obvious from watching that game that having a mobile qb really does make a difference when you're oline isn't very good.