Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Hello Everyone!

Well, once again this was a ridiculous game to lose. That is really just the theme of the season at this point. It was a game that was completely dominated by the Washington Redskins, and they still lost. If the defense and rushing game had played like this when Brunell was the Quarterback, the Redskins would be in the playoffs right now. I think they should have kept him in, which I said back then and I do now. You can’t make roster changes because of pressure from the fans.

I don’t think Campbell is necessarily playing poorly, he is making the type of mistakes that you would expect a rookie to make. However, if they were serious about making the
playoffs they should have stuck with Brunell. I said it at the time and I stick by that.

As far as the Ladell Betts re-signing, it was a good re-singing by the Redskins and a guy who should bring a lot to the table next year. Do I think he was crazy to resign with the Redskins and not test the market? I do not. Honestly, I think if Clinton Portis was running behind these holes, he would have broke a few of them in that Eagles game for another 50 yards and a TD. I don’t think that Betts could have gotten a lot more in the free agent waters, but I’m glad the Redskins kept I am also not completely sold on Portis staying in Washington. The Redskins may see an opportunity with Ladell Betts to try to shop Portis and see if there is a good market for him where they can sure up some other areas of the team.

Looking at the rest of the season, Joe Gibbs just needs to tell the guys that they are going to get cut if they don’t play their hearts out and he must mean it. This team needs some sort of re-charge and guys need to know that if they aren’t playing hard they will be gone for the team. Period, cut and dry.


Thanks again guys. It’s been a rough year….


Tony.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

I am also not completely sold on Portis staying in Washington. The Redskins may see an opportunity with Ladell Betts to try to shop Portis and see if there is a good market for him where they can sure up some other areas of the team.

Interesting observation by Tony

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Stuck with Brunell? Whaaa?

Sorry, not a fan of the dink and dunk.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

I have to disagree with Tony on Brunell being in the game would have given us a better shot at being in the playoffs. No, Brunell doesn't throw those ints., but he damn sure doesn't rally in the second half and throw a strike to Randel El for a TD, or scrambles for a few key first downs.

Against Tampa Bay Jason played a good game, and they beat Carolina.
The only game I can honestly question is the game that we lost against Atlanta.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

I might add, I think people are running a little too far with the Ladell Betts signing.

I love Betts to death, but come next year the wear and tear of sixteen game season is a different animal. And I'm just not sold on putting all of our eggs in basket like that.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;259822]I might add, I think people are running a little too far with the Ladell Betts signing.

I love Betts to death, but come next year the wear and tear of sixteen game season is a different animal. And I'm just not sold on putting all of our eggs in basket like that.[/QUOTE]

I agree. It's funny because on the one hand you've got people complaining about lack of depth on the team but on the other hand we make a move to ensure we have two starting caliber running backs on our team and now people are saying there's no room for the two of them. Why can't we just be happy that we have Portis AND Betts?

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Interesting take on Portis.

As for Brunell, he does have a point if the D was playing well and the running game was going this good earlier in the year who knows what could have happened. But I do think it's time to see what JC can do and to start getting him ready for the long haul.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Was starting Campbell the cause of the Defense and running game resurgence. Maybe the team responded positively to Campbell getting the start. If Brunell had stayed in maybe the team wouldn't have felt the inclination to step up and perform.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=Mattyk72;259825]Interesting take on Portis.

As for Brunell, he does have a point if the D was playing well and the running game was going this good earlier in the year who knows what could have happened. But I do think it's time to see what JC can do and to start getting him ready for the long haul.[/quote]


I agree, and mentioned this in a previous thread. Its possible that we would be in the playoff hunt if we would have kept Brunell in there a little longer. Our running game, which had been struggling, is clicking. Our pass protection is better.

I agree w/ the benching and do think its time though to see what JC can do. We aren't a superbowl caliber team w/ either qb so it's JC's time right now.

Knowing how much Gibbs loves Portis and how he thinks of him as a core redskin, i have to disagree that the redskins will shop him. Don't see it.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=redsk1;259845]I agree, and mentioned this in a previous thread. Its possible that we would be in the playoff hunt if we would have kept Brunell in there a little longer. Our running game, which had been struggling, is clicking. Our pass protection is better.

I agree w/ the benching and do think its time though to see what JC can do. We aren't a superbowl caliber team w/ either qb so it's JC's time right now.

Knowing how much Gibbs loves Portis and how he thinks of him as a core redskin, i have to disagree that the redskins will shop him. Don't see it.[/quote]


The running game clicking may indirectly have to do with Campbell's willingness and ability to throw the long ball. With Brunell you could pretty much take that out of the equation and stack the box with 8. So, I'm not sold on that either.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=redsk1;259845]I agree, and mentioned this in a previous thread. Its possible that we would be in the playoff hunt if we would have kept Brunell in there a little longer. Our running game, which had been struggling, is clicking. Our pass protection is better.

I agree w/ the benching and do think its time though to see what JC can do. We aren't a superbowl caliber team w/ either qb so it's JC's time right now.

Knowing how much Gibbs loves Portis and how he thinks of him as a core redskin, i have to disagree that the redskins will shop him. Don't see it.[/quote]Yeah, I always thought that we could have collected a few more wins if we were patient with Brunell in there and allowed the rest of the team to correct itself. But at some point, simply squeezing in as a wild card in a ridiculously weak conference so you can get crushed by a good team on the road in January has to come second to getting your young gun some expierence.

Would have been nice to go to 9-7, grab the 6 seed and gotten to play Dallas in the WC round, but as long as we do well next year due to this move, I'm happy.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Wouldn't the Redskins incur a large cap hit if they traded Portis? I think that if the you trade a player under contract the signing bonus accerlerates similar to when you cut him - am I right on this?

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Our record was no better with brunell in...........plus our defense did not play well at all this game, it was our offense that stayed on the field due to Campbell's third down conversions....and the defense lost us the game in the final 5 minutes by not getting off the field. Brunell threw a game losing td pick against the eagles as well. It all goes back to our run D, without a run D, you can't win.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Portis is a BALLER................he stays

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

I may vomit if we trade Portis...team guy, "true Redskin," plays his heart out, he is a model for what you want the rest of the team to look and play like...if we trade him...well, we'd be back at square 1 with no lessons learned

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259856]Our record was no better with brunell in...........plus our defense did not play well at all this game, it was our offense that stayed on the field due to Campbell's third down conversions....and the defense lost us the game in the final 5 minutes by not getting off the field. Brunell threw a game losing td pick against the eagles as well. It all goes back to our run D, without a run D, you can't win.[/quote]Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.

Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.

The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Although I think the QB play would have been more consistent with MB. The D was garbage, as was the O. In the same mode we were playing, we would be much the same with MB, if he were still in. Who's to say that JC DID spark the new intensity in the D, and the O line???? Effectively, the season was lost before the change (athough not mathematically). I enjoy the O play far more with JC, not to mention the value of honing the future Redskin Montana!!!

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=GTripp0012;259877]Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.

Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.

The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.[/quote]

would brunell have made that throw to Randel El for the TD????

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=Gmanc711;259801]Hello Everyone!

Well, once again this was a ridiculous game to lose. That is really just the theme of the season at this point. It was a game that was completely dominated by the Washington Redskins, and they still lost. If the defense and rushing game had played like this when Brunell was the Quarterback, the Redskins would be in the playoffs right now. I think they should have kept him in, which I said back then and I do now. You can’t make roster changes because of pressure from the fans.

I don’t think Campbell is necessarily playing poorly, he is making the type of mistakes that you would expect a rookie to make. However, if they were serious about making the
playoffs they should have stuck with Brunell. I said it at the time and I stick by that.

As far as the Ladell Betts re-signing, it was a good re-singing by the Redskins and a guy who should bring a lot to the table next year. Do I think he was crazy to resign with the Redskins and not test the market? I do not. Honestly, I think if Clinton Portis was running behind these holes, he would have broke a few of them in that Eagles game for another 50 yards and a TD. I don’t think that Betts could have gotten a lot more in the free agent waters, but I’m glad the Redskins kept I am also not completely sold on Portis staying in Washington. The Redskins may see an opportunity with Ladell Betts to try to shop Portis and see if there is a good market for him where they can sure up some other areas of the team.

Looking at the rest of the season, Joe Gibbs just needs to tell the guys that they are going to get cut if they don’t play their hearts out and he must mean it. This team needs some sort of re-charge and guys need to know that if they aren’t playing hard they will be gone for the team. Period, cut and dry.


Thanks again guys. It’s been a rough year….


Tony.[/quote]

Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

I say we shop players A l p h a b e t i c a l l y. A-As go first!

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=hail_2_da_skins;259885]Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.[/quote]

I finally have faith that the offense won't go three and out on every possession now. And I enjoy watching campbell play, he's more exciting that old man brunell. We were losing with both guys, at least now I enjoy watching the offense.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Statisically (yards rushing, yards passing, yards allowed, etc.) there isn't a markedly huge difference between Brunell's last four starts and Campbell's first four. And I also think the offense has been "simplified" the past few games. I don't think it has much to do really with Campbell being in there necessarily, though it's a factor sure, I think it has more to do with the opponents and with the fact that Gibbs really likes to run the ball a lot later in the year.

But the bottom line isn't about the wins and losses (though a win would be fantastic) it's about what's more beneficial long-term-playing Brunell whose career has plateaued or playing Campbell whose career is on the runway ready to take off?

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=hail_2_da_skins;259885]Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.[/quote]
Then why is MB yards per pass play a yard more than JC if he is making all those long passes and not dumping it off?

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259884]would brunell have made that throw to Randel El for the TD????[/quote]We'll never know. He's capable of it, although obviously Campbell is more likely to try that throw.

One successful play a game does not make, so I fail to see what you are trying to say.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

This is the first time I've talked to Tony and disagreed with him. Ussually we'll talk it out a little bit, but I think the reason we have such a running game is because teams wont put 8 guys in the box anymore.

I think in turn, the lack of 3 and outs is allowing our D to play better.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=GTripp0012;259901]We'll never know. He's capable of it, although obviously Campbell is more likely to try that throw.

One successful play a game does not make, so I fail to see what you are trying to say.[/quote]

Would mark brunell have scrambled for those two first downs????

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=firstdown;259897]Then why is MB yards per pass play a yard more than JC if he is making all those long passes and not dumping it off?[/quote]Thank you, firstdown. It can be said 1,000,000 ways, but that's really all that needs to be said about our passing game since JC took over.

Also, TAF is right on the money here. The switch was NOT about winning more games (Tony's point), although if Campbell had defied all expectations (not likely), it could have been done. The switch was about starting JCs career when it seemed safe to do so.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259904]Would mark brunell have scrambled for those two first downs????[/quote]Doubt it. He was more hesitant scrambling this year.

Are you still trying to tell me that a few select plays make up for a consistent drop in performance?

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=GTripp0012;259908]Doubt it. He was more hesitant scrambling this year.

Are you still trying to tell me that a few select plays make up for a consistent drop in performance?[/quote]

yes, exactly my point, brunell doesn't make those few game changing plays that we need. The ones that give the offense life. The ones that get us yards even if the O-line breaks down, or the receivers are covered.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=Gmanc711;259902]I think in turn, the lack of 3 and outs is allowing our D to play better.[/quote]Our 3 and outs are pretty much the same under Campbell as they were under Brunell.

Our offense has done a good job this year avoiding 3 and outs.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=GTripp0012;259911]Our 3 and outs are pretty much the same under Campbell as they were under Brunell.

Our offense has done a good job this year avoiding 3 and outs.[/quote]

your sure of that statistic? i have a feeling the three and outs have decreased.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259910]yes, exactly my point, brunell doesn't make those few game changing plays that we need. The ones that give the offense life. The ones that get us yards even if the O-line breaks down, or the receivers are covered.[/quote]Touche on that "playmaker" point, but what has resulted from all that playmaking?

Ultimately, our passing offense has suffered, so although Campbell's scrambling makes the gap between the players closer than the passing stats say, there has still been a very noticible drop in production. This drop in production is killing us now that our running game is working for us.

If you are saying that it was time to move on because Brunell wasn't getting any younger, then I agree with you 100%. If your point is that our offense is better right now under JC, then you are just being ridiculous.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259912]your sure of that statistic? i have a feeling the three and outs have decreased.[/quote]I don't have the exact numbers, but I read somewhere (I'll attempt to find a link, it was either on ESPN.com or Football Outsiders) that the Skins offense has decreased in every passing category except TDs, including 3rd down conversion pct.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Here is the team's 3rd conversions in Brunell's last 4 starts versus Campbell's first four.


vs. Tennessee 5-12
vs. Indy 6-14 (2-2 4th down)
vs. Dallas 5-13 (0-1 4th down)
vs. Philly 3-13

vs. Tampa 4-13 (2-2 4th down)
vs. Carolina 4-15
vs. Atl 6-14
vs. Philly 7-16

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;259910]yes, exactly my point, brunell doesn't make those few game changing plays that we need. The ones that give the offense life. The ones that get us yards even if the O-line breaks down, or the receivers are covered.[/quote]

Agreed, Brunell doesn't make those plays. You know, we can spin stats to say a lot of things. But one thing is for sure, the offensive line and the running game in particular has been transformed since Campbell has been in. I don't think it's a coincidence either.

As far as Brunell averaging one more yd per pass play than Campbell or whatever it is, again if we compare apples to apples I'm willing to bet it's a different story. In other words, if they both have the same number of attempts, I betcha Campbell's numbers look better. That's the only way to truly compare that number.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;259917]As far as Brunell averaging one more yd per pass play than Campbell or whatever it is, again if we compare apples to apples I'm willing to bet it's a different story. In other words, if they both have the same number of attempts, I betcha Campbell's numbers look better. That's the only way to truly compare that number.[/QUOTE]

In his last four starts Brunell had 121 attempts. In his first four starts Campbell had 122 attempts

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

Betts and Duckett represent a Gibbs type of backfield. I think that Portis will be traded, contingent on there being a really good offer. Gibbs himself said he didn't know that Betts had the ability he later discovered him to have, after he traded for Portis. I think that is a pretty telling statement.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=Oakland Red;259922]Betts and Duckett represent a Gibbs type of backfield. I think that Portis will be traded, contingent on there being a really good offer. Gibbs himself said he didn't know that Betts had the ability he later discovered him to have, after he traded for Portis. I think that is a pretty telling statement.[/quote]

The trade would have to be pretty amazing to let CP go. First rounder (fill our CB and DT/DE needs with two slections?) and maybe some player to be named layer (special teamer, safety,reserve linebacker). I would be dissappointed if this happened but they don't pay me for my opinion.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[quote=TAFKAS;259916]Here is the team's 3rd conversions in Brunell's last 4 starts versus Campbell's first four.


vs. Tennessee 5-12
vs. Indy 6-14 (2-2 4th down)
vs. Dallas 5-13 (0-1 4th down)
vs. Philly 3-13

vs. Tampa 4-13 (2-2 4th down)
vs. Carolina 4-15
vs. Atl 6-14
vs. Philly 7-16[/quote]45% for Brunell, 36% for Campbell.

I would be interested to see if Brunell's last four games are consistent with his first five games. Ideally, you want the sample size to be bigger than 4 games, but with JC thats all you have.

Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;260010]45% for Brunell, 36% for Campbell.

I would be interested to see if Brunell's last four games are consistent with his first five games. Ideally, you want the sample size to be bigger than 4 games, but with JC thats all you have.[/QUOTE]

vs. Minnesota 4-13
vs. Dallas 2-14
vs. Houston 9-13
vs. Jacksonville 7-14
vs. Giants 3-11 (0-1 on 4th down)