The Official Warpath Sign Tim Rattay and Cut Todd Collins Thread

[crawfish]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

In this scenario Brunell is still the backup QB because after the 3-6 weeks Campbell takes back his starting job.

Yes I realize that. But what happens if Brunell has to start for lets say 5 weeks. Can we win with him as our QB? Will our passing game be at an NFL level? I doubt it. Our defense would have to go back to 04-05 form and carry the team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by crawfish

Yes I realize that. But what happens if Brunell has to start for lets say 5 weeks. Can we win with him as our QB? Will our passing game be at an NFL level? I doubt it. Our defense would have to go back to 04-05 form and carry the team.

It was last year and the year before that...by every possible measure. Will we win those 5 games? Not if the defense plays like it did this year. Then again, if the defense doesn't play better, it doesn't matter who plays QB.

[hooskins]

Also like others have said Ratty vs. Brunell for 2nd string seems like an interesting battle. Much better than Collins vs. Brunell.

Also why is this in the Draft section?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Also why is this in the Draft section?

Thanks for noticing, I just moved it.

[crawfish]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It was last year and the year before that...by every possible measure. Will we win those 5 games? Not if the defense plays like it did this year. Then again, if the defense doesn't play better, it doesn't matter who plays QB.

Sorry. Our passing game last year w/ Brunell was not very good. The guy struggles to throw for 200 yards. I remember a couple of games where he barely threw for 100 yards. Not all his fault though. But if Brunell was playing good he would not have gotten benched.

But I agree. Defense must play better!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by crawfish

Sorry. Our passing game last year w/ Brunell was not very good. The guy struggles to throw for 200 yards. I remember a couple of games where he barely threw for 100 yards. Not all his fault though. But if Brunell was playing good he would not have gotten benched.

But I agree. Defense must play better!

Uh, no? A guy who has a 1st round pick at QB behind him on the depth chart will get replaced whenever the team feels the young gun is ready. Brunell had basically been keeping the seat warm for two years.

Gibbs knew that he'd be costing us some wins when he went to Campbell, but in a lost season, the decision was an easy one. Giving up merely your best chance to win for a much better chance to win in future seasons is a no brainer. Gibbs didn't just fall off the turnip truck, he had a plan with his QBs all along and he stuck to it.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Uh, no? A guy who has a 1st round pick at QB behind him on the depth chart will get replaced whenever the team feels the young gun is ready. Brunell had basically been keeping the seat warm for two years.

Gibbs knew that he'd be costing us some wins when he went to Campbell, but in a lost season, the decision was an easy one. Giving up merely your best chance to win for a much better chance to win in future seasons is a no brainer. Gibbs didn't just fall off the turnip truck, he had a plan with his QBs all along and he stuck to it.

I have to diagree with that, the sooner we get a legitamate backup in here the sooner he can start learning the system and the players around him, unless someone believes that Campbell can lead us to a SB this season [because we know Brunell can't] then it's senseless to keep him around this season, we have to prepare for the future not worry about winning 1 or 2 extra games if Campbell goes down, because with Brunell those 1 or 2 games will result in a lesser draft pick not a playoff berth.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by offiss

I have to diagree with that, the sooner we get a legitamate backup in here the sooner he can start learning the system and the players around him, unless someone believes that Campbell can lead us to a SB this season [because we know Brunell can't] then it's senseless to keep him around this season, we have to prepare for the future not worry about winning 1 or 2 extra games if Campbell goes down, because with Brunell those 1 or 2 games will result in a lesser draft pick not a playoff berth.

Trouble is, nobody in this thread wants to deal with the reality of the 2007 salary cap. It's like I'm preaching to a collective brick wall.

David Carr signed a deal with the Panthers for $3.1 million per season. Joey Harrington signed a deal with the Falcons for $3.0 million per season. I've seen it suggested that we give Rattay a 3-year deal, with vet min salaries in years 1 and 2, and then a salary of $1.2 million in year 3. This along with a $3.5 million signing bonus. While that deal would work with our salary cap (barely, still makes it extremely tight this season); the deal wouldn't come close to comparing to the Carr and Harrington deals, it's less than $2.0 million per season. I'm not sure what the logic is that leads anyone to think that Tim Rattay deserves 33% less than David Carr or Joey Harrington.

I know this thread was started in the interests of playing fantasy GM, suggesting a course of action for the team. Luckily our coaches like Todd Collins an awful lot, because signing Rattay to a fair-market deal would put us in dire salary cap straits. It's unrealistic.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I have to diagree with that, the sooner we get a legitamate backup in here the sooner he can start learning the system and the players around him, unless someone believes that Campbell can lead us to a SB this season [because we know Brunell can't] then it's senseless to keep him around this season, we have to prepare for the future not worry about winning 1 or 2 extra games if Campbell goes down, because with Brunell those 1 or 2 games will result in a lesser draft pick not a playoff berth.

Well, if God came to me and guarenteed Jason Campbell's knees immunity vs. a pass rush, then I could really care less what happens to Brunell.

Until then, we need a competant backup.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Uh, no? A guy who has a 1st round pick at QB behind him on the depth chart will get replaced whenever the team feels the young gun is ready. Brunell had basically been keeping the seat warm for two years.

Gibbs knew that he'd be costing us some wins when he went to Campbell, but in a lost season, the decision was an easy one. Giving up merely your best chance to win for a much better chance to win in future seasons is a no brainer. Gibbs didn't just fall off the turnip truck, he had a plan with his QBs all along and he stuck to it.

3-6 w/ Brunell. 2-5 w/ JC. Is the difference really that big?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

3-6 w/ Brunell. 2-5 w/ JC. Is the difference really that big?

Well, as I stated before, not really.

Lets say we kept Brunell in there and beat Philadelphia and Tampa Bay. Well, we are still only 7-9, miss the playoffs anyway, and Campbell still has no playing experience.

Basically I'm just defending Gibbs' decision for 1) Waiting as long as he did to see if the defense got turned around, and 2) Making the switch when he did.

I'm just pointing out that we would have won some more games (whoop-de-do) had we kept Brunell in, not saying it was a bad decision to pull him when we did.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, as I stated before, not really.

Lets say we kept Brunell in there and beat Philadelphia and Tampa Bay. Well, we are still only 7-9, miss the playoffs anyway, and Campbell still has no playing experience.

Basically I'm just defending Gibbs' decision for 1) Waiting as long as he did to see if the defense got turned around, and 2) Making the switch when he did.

I'm just pointing out that we would have won some more games (whoop-de-do) had we kept Brunell in, not saying it was a bad decision to pull him when we did.

Our record would still be the same w/ or w/out Brunell. JC played well against TB.

[hooskins]

Again most people do not realize the significance of TURNOVERS. Last year we were last in league in generating turnovers. The year before we were in the top 5 towards the end of the season.

It is really simple, the more turnovers you create.
-more times you get the ball.
-more chances to score
-less pressure on the QB to drive the team all the way down the field into scoring position
-less time the D is on the field for one drive. They get off quicker and get some time to rest.


The NFL is a turnover game. You have to be winning the turnover ratio consistently to win games. It really doesn't matter who your QB is if you are winning in turnovers.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Again most people do not realize the significance of TURNOVERS. Last year we were last in league in generating turnovers. The year before we were in the top 5 towards the end of the season.

It is really simple, the more turnovers you create.
-more times you get the ball.
-more chances to score
-less pressure on the QB to drive the team all the way down the field into scoring position
-less time the D is on the field for one drive. They get off quicker and get some time to rest.


The NFL is a turnover game. You have to be winning the turnover ratio consistently to win games. It really doesn't matter who your QB is if you are winning in turnovers.

Exactly. When I said "assuming the defense is better," winning the turnover battle was included. D has gotta play better or nothing else will matter very much.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Exactly. When I said "assuming the defense is better," winning the turnover battle was included. D has gotta play better or nothing else will matter very much.

I agree, yet so many people seem to put last season solely on the the shoulders of Brunell which is just unfair.