Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
joecrisp:
NFL players have egos; that is part of what makes them NFL players. If they did not really believe that THEY are difference makers, many of them would be in some other line of work where they did not take the punishment that they do. Wishing that Brunell would "check his ego at the locker room door" is a bit unrealistic and probably not in the best interest of the team.
And what do people say about Lavar Arrington who was obviously playing well below his skill level early in the year because of his injury? They say he is a "warrior" and a "beast". NO he is not. He is a football player with an ego that drives him to play the game and when it became too painful for him to play, he had the surgery that resulted in his "vacation".
If Arrington is a warrior for playing through his injury, so is Brunell. If you think Brunell is an egomaniac who has taken leave of his senses, then tell me why the same is not true of Lavar Arrington?
The Redskins' brain trust - the coaching staff not the players or the FO - have decided that Brunell is the best QB on the squad in October 2004. If people here think that decision is half as bad as it is protrayed here, then they should go to Fed Ex with signs calling for Gibbs and company to be fired for incompetence. But I haven't seen many of those - have you?
|
Whoah, SC, let's take a step back here and look at what I actually said, instead of making assumptions about my argument, based on your aggregate impression of what others on this board have said in this debate. You addressed this rebuke to me individually, so I think your quotations and implications should at least be relevant to my post.
The point I was making was
not that LaVar is a "warrior" or a "beast" for trying to play through his injuries, nor did I imply anything about Brunell or any other player "checking their ego at the door". I don't know where you got those ideas, but I didn't give them to you.
My point was that "the Redskins' braintrust" decided it was in the best interest of the team-- and it
was-- to sit LaVar while
he mended, despite the significance of his role in the defense, so why didn't they see fit to sit Brunell? I don't care about anybody's egos here, I just want the team to put guys on the field that will help the team win. You and the coaching staff may think that means putting an injured Brunell on the field the past few weeks. I happen to think a healthy Ramsey would've been a better option-- here in October of 2004-- for the sake of winning entirely winnable games that this team has lost since Brunell was injured.
And let's get one more thing straight here: just because I disagree with the decision to continue playing an injured Brunell, doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to Gibbs and his staff, nor do I plan to go post "Fire Gibbs" signs at FedEx. Gibbs is the whole reason I'm a Redskins fan, and I think he's still capable of leading this team back to greatness. But that doesn't mean I think the guy is infallible, either. The guy's made plenty of mistakes in his career, and I happen to think that Mark Brunell is one of them...
...and I reserve the right to change my mind and eat a large, heaping plate of crow if Brunell somehow reverts to his 90s form and leads this team to respectability this season. In fact, I hope he does, because that's the only way the Redskins will have a shot at the playoffs, since Gibbs won't abandon Brunell as his starter.