Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

joecrisp · 10-20-2004, 06:16 PM

Thanks for clarifying, SC. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with your assessment that the ego reigns supreme among NFL quarterbacks, and most NFL players, for that matter. I guess we just disagree where it pertains to how both Brunell and the coaching staff should have handled his injury.

When I say Brunell should have "taken himself out," I'm not suggesting that he make some altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of his young backup. I'm just saying that, as a veteran, he should have recognized that the injury has been affecting his ability to throw the ball effectively, and as a leader, he should have recognized that it would be in the best interests of himself and the team-- both in the short-term and the long-term-- to acknowledge the significance of the injury and rest himself until the injury healed completely.

Everybody knows hamstring and other muscle injuries tend to linger much longer, and are more susceptible to frequent aggravation, if that tissue isn't given the proper rest to completely mend. Time and again over the past few weeks, I've seen Brunell get knocked out of bounds, and he comes up limping. He's been trying to disquise the injury as much as possible, but it's clear that hamstring is giving him a little more than a tug. You can see it in the way he runs on rollouts and scrambles, and how he walks. I'm saying that as a former athlete and certified personal trainer. I've tried competing with those kinds of injuries, and I've worked with lots of injured athletes, so I have a pretty good eye for the way certain injuries affect a person's gait, body language, and physical performance. So I disagree that there is no outward manifestation of Brunell's injury. There's no cast or sling, but the injury is apparent, nonetheless.

From a financial and career standpoint, I really don't see taking 2-3 weeks off to heal a hamstring as having a detrimental effect for him and his career. Gibbs has repeatedly expressed his unwavering confidence in Brunell, and his intent to continue playing Brunell as the starter-- win, lose or draw. Brunell just signed a huge contract that, due to cap implications, will keep him a Redskin for at least three years-- which is all any player can really hope for at any given time. Plus, at this point in his career, Washington is likely to be his final stop, unless he decides to play through age 38. If Brunell sat and got healthy, Gibbs would put him right back in as soon as the injury was healed.

I think this whole thing has a lot more to do with Gibbs trying to avoid a quarterback controversy, and trying to be too protective of his quarterbacks (both Brunell and Ramsey), rather than doing what is ultimately the best thing for the team to win games now. Of course, playing Ramsey would entail certain risks, and Joe Gibbs is not a gambler-- at least not in football terms-- regardless of what the payout might have been. What I think he refuses to acknowledge (I think he knows it, but just isn't saying it-- at least not to the public) is that allowing Brunell to play injured may have been the biggest risk of all. It's clearly a risk that hasn't paid off-- at least, not yet.

10-20-2004, 06:16 PM	#35
joecrisp The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Age: 50 Posts: 1,501	Thanks for clarifying, SC. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with your assessment that the ego reigns supreme among NFL quarterbacks, and most NFL players, for that matter. I guess we just disagree where it pertains to how both Brunell and the coaching staff should have handled his injury. When I say Brunell should have "taken himself out," I'm not suggesting that he make some altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of his young backup. I'm just saying that, as a veteran, he should have recognized that the injury has been affecting his ability to throw the ball effectively, and as a leader, he should have recognized that it would be in the best interests of himself and the team-- both in the short-term and the long-term-- to acknowledge the significance of the injury and rest himself until the injury healed completely. Everybody knows hamstring and other muscle injuries tend to linger much longer, and are more susceptible to frequent aggravation, if that tissue isn't given the proper rest to completely mend. Time and again over the past few weeks, I've seen Brunell get knocked out of bounds, and he comes up limping. He's been trying to disquise the injury as much as possible, but it's clear that hamstring is giving him a little more than a tug. You can see it in the way he runs on rollouts and scrambles, and how he walks. I'm saying that as a former athlete and certified personal trainer. I've tried competing with those kinds of injuries, and I've worked with lots of injured athletes, so I have a pretty good eye for the way certain injuries affect a person's gait, body language, and physical performance. So I disagree that there is no outward manifestation of Brunell's injury. There's no cast or sling, but the injury is apparent, nonetheless. From a financial and career standpoint, I really don't see taking 2-3 weeks off to heal a hamstring as having a detrimental effect for him and his career. Gibbs has repeatedly expressed his unwavering confidence in Brunell, and his intent to continue playing Brunell as the starter-- win, lose or draw. Brunell just signed a huge contract that, due to cap implications, will keep him a Redskin for at least three years-- which is all any player can really hope for at any given time. Plus, at this point in his career, Washington is likely to be his final stop, unless he decides to play through age 38. If Brunell sat and got healthy, Gibbs would put him right back in as soon as the injury was healed. I think this whole thing has a lot more to do with Gibbs trying to avoid a quarterback controversy, and trying to be too protective of his quarterbacks (both Brunell and Ramsey), rather than doing what is ultimately the best thing for the team to win games now. Of course, playing Ramsey would entail certain risks, and Joe Gibbs is not a gambler-- at least not in football terms-- regardless of what the payout might have been. What I think he refuses to acknowledge (I think he knows it, but just isn't saying it-- at least not to the public) is that allowing Brunell to play injured may have been the biggest risk of all. It's clearly a risk that hasn't paid off-- at least, not yet.