|
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
| View Poll Results: Starting QB: Opening Day 2006 | |||
| Brunell |
   
|
64 | 57.66% |
| Ramsey |
  
|
5 | 4.50% |
| Campbell |
  
|
39 | 35.14% |
| Other (who) |
  
|
3 | 2.70% |
| Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
12-02-2005, 11:19 AM
|
#1 |
|
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
I don't think Heath Schuler ever got a fair shake.
Let's bring him back - I mean, what the hell!!? |
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 11:21 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 11:21 AM
|
#3 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Antonio
Age: 38
Posts: 355
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't multiple teams after Mark Brunell? And we rushed to sign him before anyone else did?
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 11:38 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bristow VA
Age: 50
Posts: 254
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 11:59 AM
|
#5 |
|
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 85
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
I just dont understand...why a game of semantics? We signed Mark Brunell to make us win now. If we are not winning now...then the premise for signing Mark Brunell is no longer valid...and it would have been more beneficial to see whether Ramsey could play. Its not really a game of semantics...because the distinction is that we went out and signed Brunell..and gave up a lot to get him in the process...
If he was already on the roster when gibbs got here...and then was putting up good numbers this year...then i would agree with you 100%...It would not be fair to judge Brunell...say all the losing is his fault or whatever... But based on the fact that we went out and got HIM...and gave up a ton in the process...i think it is completely legit to look at the teams results since he's been here...and say you know...if i had to give up all of that again...just to have a losing team...i wouldnt do it. If you agree with that...then signing Brunell was a mistake |
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:29 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
We signed Mark Brunell because we felt he gave us the best chance to win. We have also signed other players to help us to win. My question to you is this: going by what you stated, should the Redskins end this season without a playoff appearance, then should we not cut every player that we have paid tons of money to? It only makes sense. Why would you only cut Brunell - who has been doing his job - and not cut Moss, Portis, Springs, Carlos Rogers, etc.....do you see my point? This is a team sport. You win as a team, you lose as a team. If Brunell was playing as bad as he did last year, I would see a reason to talk about benching him or cutting him, but that hasn't been the case. You also have to keep in mind that this team had no veteran qbs before last year. Every good team has a good veteran quarterback either starting or as back-up. The vets are there not only to play or to be plugged in should the starter go down, but also as teachers to help further develop the younger quarterbacks. There are things that the older quarterbacks can show the younger guys that maybe the coaches can't show. That is why it is important to sign a veteran quarterback, no matter the situation. With that said, I would have rather had Mark Brunell than any other qb that was on the market at that time.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!" |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:38 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
I really don't think that's the case, but that seems to be what you are arguing. Barry Sanders didn't get benched because he produced. QBs, however, get benched or cut despite talent if they don't produce wins (Jeff George?). Granted, I could be wrong, but I don't think this discussion is going anywhere if everyone is operating off of different assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:03 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 85
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
hahaha...and why oh why the Kurt Warner era????? Why not the Ramsey era??? He was a 1st Rounder...i mean did he come out of college with a sign on his back that read destined to never play. People ought to realize that going out and getting a veteran guy while we had a 1st rounder entering his 3rd year in the league was a choice...rather than a necessity and in my opinion as it stand right now...it looks like we made the wrong choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:06 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:35 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bristow VA
Age: 50
Posts: 254
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 12:42 PM
|
#11 | |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
|
Re: Poll: Starting QB 2006
Quote:
Your "hindsight" will be much appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
