Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

I really think JC could give the team that much needed spark. If we as fans know the team isn't goin' anywhere with Brunell, don't you think the players on the team know that as well? I would think they would be frustrated with the same guy leading them. The Cowboys knew they weren't goin' anywhere with Bledsoe so Parcells benched him! What's so damn great about sorry ass Brunell? :doh:

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

frankly, Brunell himself could provide the spark if he just started making the throws it takes to WIN the game not manage it. the question is will he? (can he?)

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=illdefined;236359]Last season after seven games, the running back tandem of Ladell Betts and Portis had combined for 20 receptions. This season, Betts and Portis have 38 catches."[/quote]Don't hurt me! I can explain! :cheeky-sm

I think this stat is purely product of system. Since in Gibbs' offense the backs would block almost exclusively on many passing plays, they never had a chance to catch the passes. Brunell would throw passes away last year, whereas now, he completes those passes to the back. It would fortify your explination of Brunell's increased completion percentage this year.

It's certainly been a positive change. Brunell is averaging near a half yard more per attempt this year. (6.7 in 2005, 7.1 in 2006).

I would argue that this is an instance of him grasping the system (Saunders' history involves a ton of checkdowns), but no matter how you explain it, it doesn't change what hes done.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=illdefined;236473]frankly, Brunell himself could provide the spark if he just started making the throws it takes to WIN the game not manage it. the question is will he? (can he?)[/quote]Good Point. I don't think he's been asked by Saunders to go win the game, so until he is coached otherwise, I doubt we will see him begin to make riskier throws. Of course, if the defense continues to suck against the Cowboys, he may have to (which is pretty much what you've been saying all along). To this point, the Skins offense has never had to be desperate. Hopefully, they can grab the lead and keep it.

Please, GW, get it together out there.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;236126]Not to say that Romo didn't play well, but if I'm Gregg Williams and I need to save the season, I'm thanking the football gods that I get to face Tony Romo and not Drew Bledsoe next week. Williams' defense hasn't confused anyone this year, and with Romo who is still very green, he gets another shot.

Jason Campbell will not make his first start against a division rival. He may play some in relief this week, but only if the situation appears dire.[/QUOTE]

It's a good thing your not Greg Williams then!

How anyone can say that we are better off to go against a QB who outplayed Bledsoe which is why he's starting in the first place, I really don't get it. Are you saying John Fox knows nothing about defense? We couldn't beat an over the hill lowsy QB in Bledsoe, know you think we will have an easier time of it against Romo? Did you not see the game we played against the Titans, how confused did Vince Young look? How confused did Romo look last night? I really don't get that statement, especially since you stated that Williams hasen't confused anyone this season. My guess is because we have done nothing all year everyone better watch out?:confused: :doh:

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;236493]Don't hurt me! I can explain! :cheeky-sm

I think this stat is purely product of system. Since in Gibbs' offense the backs would block almost exclusively on many passing plays, they never had a chance to catch the passes. Brunell would throw passes away last year, whereas now, he completes those passes to the back. It would fortify your explination of Brunell's increased completion percentage this year.

It's certainly been a positive change. Brunell is averaging near a half yard more per attempt this year. (6.7 in 2005, 7.1 in 2006).

I would argue that this is an instance of him grasping the system (Saunders' history involves a ton of checkdowns), but no matter how you explain it, it doesn't change what hes done.[/QUOTE]

i knew you could do it. i'd agree it doesn't change what he's done, which is lose games without getting interceptions. not sure why're you're content with Brunell still grasping the system by midseason, but is part of Al Saunders system using the other receivers? just for reference, what are the Manning brothers YPA?

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=Fan4Life;236150]Look at Gibbs avatars. Thats the way he looks all game long. No passion no concern no urgency no excitement no interest no winning record. This is why will not see JC.[/quote]


i like my avatar...

go skins

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=Twilbert07;236369]Campbell might not be able to outplay Brunell now, but he would deliver an intangible: a spark. Brunell gives me little hope that he'll ever do anything but "manage" more losses and an occasional win.[/quote]

I hope you are right. It would be exciting to see JC come in and perform like we are all hoping he will some day. If the coaches decide that will be this week or next, I'll be routing for him. We all will.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=Fan4Life;236201]If an employee at any job wasnt up to par in their duties and was constantly being told he had better do a better job or else but no repercussions came from it 9 times outta 10 that person would continue to do half assed work because he knows he can get away with it. But if the CEO,president whatever the case may be came in and said look ya slack bastard do your job right or your will be demoted,fired,etc... It may change their tune.[/QUOTE]

Ah the beatings will continue until morale improves.

They'll work harder, but only long enough to find a job/team elsewhere.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=TheBigD;236124]FIRST, I want to say that I am not sold on Romo being that great, I am not saying that he will be playing in the pro-bowl (so if you do have a bad comment about his play save it to yourself, I am talking about QB changes here), but here what I do see, he did OK against a good D.

This is intersting since Dallas has to play Washington next Sunday. This reassures me that Jason Campbell would actually do better than MB. If not, then you will know little more about your QB of the future and if you might have to draft another one.

I mean in the preseason JC would play in the 3rd or 4th quarter against the 2nd or 3rd Defense and he still didn't look like he could play that well.

The otehr thing is the play-calling, I was watching Redskins pregame on Fox5 and they were talking about how AS is not the one calling the plays, I mean he is calling them but with restrictions. They were saying that they plays the Redskins are running right now are very similar to the ones last year. They said the Gibbs is not letting AS open-up his play-book.

I have to be honest that I was not looking forward to the game next Sunday, but now it will be worth watching, who knows any given sunday a team could win. I am not saying that Dallas will win but hey at least it LOOKS LIKE we have a shot at a chance. Meanwhile, the G-wimps will have an easy game against the Texans, I hate them just as much as you guys do.

I think changes are good sometimes regardless of the position and I think JC deserves a shot. Look at Leinart now or remeber Roethlisberger when he was a rookie, Chris Simms did OK, Delhome did OK, Jason Campbell should be a starter.[/quote]

your orgainzation did the right thing,....at least they realize a change needed to be made and not waited until the season is over to see if they can still save it..........Washington, cant win with MB,...period, they cant, and if Jason Campbell is not given a chance soon,....then JG and the organization is to blame.........F**k waiting.......now is the time

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=illdefined;236496]i knew you could do it. i'd agree it doesn't change what he's done, which is lose games without getting interceptions. not sure why're you're content with Brunell still grasping the system by midseason, but is part of Al Saunders system using the other receivers? just for reference, what are the Manning brothers YPA?[/quote]Eli is 7.2 almost exactly par with Brunell. Peyton is something ridiculous like 8.0, but hes one of the greatest ever.

And as for the losing games comment, how can you even say that without trying to mislead. You lose games as a team. You aren't a worse player if you are on a losing team. You aren't a better player if you play on a winner. But if you absolutely have to assign blame, it goes on the defense for being the 28th ranked D, obviously.

I have no worries about Brunell learning/having learned/is still learning the system. None. Whatsoever.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;236520]Eli is 7.2 almost exactly par with Brunell. Peyton is something ridiculous like 8.0, but hes one of the greatest ever.

And as for the losing games comment, how can you even say that without trying to mislead. You lose games as a team. You aren't a worse player if you are on a losing team. You aren't a better player if you play on a winner. But if you absolutely have to assign blame, it goes on the defense for being the 28th ranked D, obviously.

I have no worries about Brunell learning/having learned/is still learning the system. None. Whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

i agree you lose as a team, but you also win as a team and when one side is hurting, you rely on the other to try and do what it takes to win. all we've seen is Brunell play exactly as if he still had the top 5 defense he's had while he's been here. and you're really not worried about Brunell and our offensive system? you must have him on fantasy then because the only stat you don't seem worried about is W-L.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

Is Patrick Ramsey some where laughing?

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=illdefined;236521]i agree you lose as a team, but you also win as a team and when one side is hurting, you rely on the other to try and do what it takes to win. all we've seen is Brunell play exactly as if he still had the top 5 defense he's had while he's been here. and you're really not worried about Brunell and our offensive system? you must have him on fantasy then because the only stat you don't seem worried about is W-L.[/quote]Well, W-L is the one important stat of course, but W-L doesn't tell you how well a guy is playing, so its useless to regurgitate. We are 2-5. We should switch our roster with that of the Jets! I mean, they are 4-4.

I'm not sure how Brunell should play more like he has a weak defense. Should he throw more INTs? Should he remind his offensive line to not hold because they can't recover from it? Should he pay the defensive line to not rush hard? I kinda see what you are trying to say, but I don't think its reasonable to have the offense play out of character to rectify a situation created by the defense playing out of character all season long.

I think this is a great case of two wrongs not making a right.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=Crat92;236628]Is Patrick Ramsey some where laughing?[/quote]

Yep, on the Jets' bench. He's laughing to keep from crying over the increased playing time he's seeing there.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=Crat92;236628]Is Patrick Ramsey some where laughing?[/quote]

Even though I am not a Redskins fan, but I do like the rest of Washington sports teams. There is something about Washington having players not playing so well here and once they are gone they become superstars (I know not all of them) and also the ones who do really well come here to suck and retire (Lloyd, Randel El, stackhouse and even Jordan well he was old to begin with). Brad Johnson won a super bowl, Trent Green did well in St. Louis and KC, you look at the basketball players we traded away, Webber, Hamilton...This city sure knows how to find the next big thing and then trade them away.

Ramsey on the other hand, is not one of those, he was never good. That guy lacked everything except for arm strength. He used to hand out INTs like candy on Halloween night.

Commentators keep talking about Dallas not having a good QB since Aikman left, when was the last time Washington had a great one and how many has Washington put under the center since late 90s.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote]we traded away, Webber, Hamilton...[/quote]
Jordan chased Hamilton out of town, and I've never forgiven him!

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;236641]
I'm not sure how Brunell should play more like he has a weak defense. Should he throw more INTs? Should he remind his offensive line to not hold because they can't recover from it? Should he pay the defensive line to not rush hard? I kinda see what you are trying to say, but I don't think its reasonable to have the offense play out of character to rectify a situation created by the defense playing out of character all season long.[/QUOTE]

If Brunell could throw on the move into tight spaces to his primary receivers downfield, he A) wouldn't be throwing any more INTs than the guaranteed punts we've been getting checking down on 3rd and long B) COULD recover from holding penalties that you imply the same o-line as last year is suddenly getting a rash of.

were those two tosses in Dallas, deep, and over the middle, to Moss in the 4th quarter last year 'out of character' for Brunell? you bet. did they win us that game and get credited for 'turning around' the season? yep.

has Brunell even tried something like that this year, whatever it takes to win a game, even if its 'out of character'? no. so lo and behold, here we are with no season turnaround.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

We shouldnt compare brunell to last years number because last year's numbers sucked. We had a horrible offense last year, and it's a little bit better this year. This year, we need to take more risks on offense because we don't have a consistent defense. Las year Turnovers were the deciding factor, because with our defense we werent gonna give up a lot of points as long as we didnt' turn the ball over and give them good field position. This year, we let them score no matter where they start, making the turnover margin meaningless. Brunell has to cut out this conservative crap and take risks, or else we need someone in there that will.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;236776]We shouldnt compare brunell to last years number because last year's numbers sucked. We had a horrible offense last year, and it's a little bit better this year. This year, we need to take more risks on offense because we don't have a consistent defense. Las year Turnovers were the deciding factor, because with our defense we werent gonna give up a lot of points as long as we didnt' turn the ball over and give them good field position. This year, we let them score no matter where they start, making the turnover margin meaningless. Brunell has to cut out this conservative crap and take risks, or else we need someone in there that will.[/quote]

That horrible offense was 11th overall in the league and broke team records for rushing and receiving. How horrible is that?

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

47 yards of passing against the seahawks, and no better against the bucs. THAT HORRIBLE. plus we played a weak schedule. AAAAAND our defense gave us endless numbers of possessions, which is not the case this year. WHAT were you watching last year in regards to brunell?????

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;236798]47 yards of passing against the seahawks, and no better against the bucs. THAT HORRIBLE. plus we played a weak schedule. AAAAAND our defense gave us endless numbers of possessions, which is not the case this year. WHAT were you watching last year in regards to brunell?????[/quote]

Just stating the facts. 11th ranked offense. Moss and Portis both set team records. Yeah they faded down the stretch, but how about looking at the entire season rather than just picking and choosing the worst moments. As for Brunell, his numbers stood up pretty well. 3050 yards passing, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. Hard to call that horrible if you ask me. He played much better as a whole last year compared to his year.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

I don't think brunell's body can hold up for an entire season, he gets worse as the season progresses, it was our running game and O-line who carried us into the playoffs last year, while it was brunell playing well in the beginning of the season. He seems to need two weeks to recover fully from a game, and by playoff time he's so banged up that he's useless. I think his arm is also DEAD, once he makes one big throw, he feels the effect for the rest of the game.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[quote=Daseal;236766]Jordan chased Hamilton out of town, and I've never forgiven him![/quote]

Not only that, he drafted the worst player, in my opinion, Brown what a POS. Jordan drained two of the Wizzards seasons for his own personal reputaion.

Back to the football, and I have said this before and many many people said it before me on this forum, the only reason the Redskins went so far into the playoffs was their D and the first game against Tampa said it all, the offense couldn't do anything and the D basically won the game for them but you can only do it so many times.

I can't see the Redskins making it this just because of the divisioin they are in, NFC East is tough, each of the other divisions have one or two team that the rest beat on to get their wins to keep up with eachother.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;236811]Just stating the facts. 11th ranked offense. Moss and Portis both set team records. Yeah they faded down the stretch, but how about looking at the entire season rather than just picking and choosing the worst moments. As for Brunell, his numbers stood up pretty well. 3050 yards passing, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. Hard to call that horrible if you ask me. He played much better as a whole last year compared to his year.[/QUOTE]

Those are Sheffield and A rod stats, piling up numbers against mistakes and bad pitching, where was he against a good defense? Zim is right our defense handed him the ball over and over again, Brunell may have put up some stats but stats can be very misleading at times, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Funny thing if our offense was as good as you say why is Saunders here? And why did Gibbs say he hasen't been able to adjust to the new defenses? All those thing were said because we primarly went 3 and out and kept putting the burden of victory on our defense, that is why they were out of gas at the end of the year.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

would it make a difference if these things were said by NFL insiders instead of posters on Warpath? from the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800572.html"]WP[/URL]:

"Saunders's high-powered offenses in Kansas City liked to stretch the field with long passes, but his game plans in Washington have been tailored to what Brunell does best -- throwing short passes. Two general managers said they believed Brunell, not a pure drop-back passer, was a poor fit for Saunders's preferred mode of attack, noting that he appears unwilling or unable to thread passes through tight spots over the middle or throw the ball deep downfield."

or

"An offense full of playmakers has no one making plays. Even those who once assumed they would be at the heart of the attack, like Portis, wonder where or when they will fit in."

"You start to question whether you're the person for the offense," Portis said. "If everybody was getting the ball and if everybody was doing good, then this offense would be great. But being that we're not, we have that conflict."


funny, i read this article for the first time this morning..

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

[QUOTE=illdefined;237158]would it make a difference if these things were said by NFL insiders instead of posters on Warpath? from the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800572.html"]WP[/URL]:

"Saunders's high-powered offenses in Kansas City liked to stretch the field with long passes, but his game plans in Washington have been tailored to what Brunell does best -- throwing short passes. Two general managers said they believed Brunell, not a pure drop-back passer, was a poor fit for Saunders's preferred mode of attack, noting that he appears unwilling or unable to thread passes through tight spots over the middle or throw the ball deep downfield."

or

"An offense full of playmakers has no one making plays. Even those who once assumed they would be at the heart of the attack, like Portis, wonder where or when they will fit in."

"You start to question whether you're the person for the offense," Portis said. "If everybody was getting the ball and if everybody was doing good, then this offense would be great. But being that we're not, we have that conflict."


funny, i read this article for the first time this morning..[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Portis made those comments a couple of weeks ago. After the Colts' loss.

Re: ROMO??? Why not JC???
 

What are the odds that we see campbell this sunday?????????? I'm thinking that they are pretty good. If gibbs hears enough boos for brunell i think he might make the switch at half.