OL not blocking Alex Brown

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Brunnell need to let go off his igo and fear to step down so that he can rest and get better. there is to much talent on the offensive side to under produce like they do. Gibbs sticks up for him, loves vetran qb's so why won't give him his job back when he feel up to it. Brunnell needs to do what's right for the team and not himself.

That's an excellent point, diehardskin2982 (SUNRA rolls his eyes). I'm not sure why we're supposed to excuse Brunell's poor play simply because he has been injured and may still be injured. If he's injured to the point where he is unable to effectively play the quarterback position and make the throws he needs to make to move the ball down the field and score, then he shouldn't be playing-- plain and simple.

It would clearly have been in the best interest of the team for Brunell to have taken himself out for a few weeks and allow the hamstring and/or or any other injuries to heal sufficiently. I appreciate his commitment to toughing it out and playing through the injury, but ultimately, that's not a sound decision when continuing to play negatively affects his performance and, subsequently, the performance of the offense as a whole.

Clearly, Gibbs is committed to Brunell as the Redskins quarterback this season, so missing a few games until the bye week shouldn't have been that big of a deal. I don't think Brunell would have lost his job, regardless of how well Ramsey played in his absence. The coaches and trainers have held out LaVar, despite his willingness to play, so that he can be completely healed and ready to contribute to the team down the backstretch of the season. Why couldn't they do the same with Brunell? It's not like Lemar Marshall is a LaVar clone. Sure, the quarterback is the linchpin of the offense, but isn't that even more reason to have a healthy quarterback in there? We're not talking about the difference between an injured Brett Favre and a healthy Doug Pederson here, or an injured Steve McNair and a healthy Billy Volek. We're talking about a guy (Brunell) who clearly isn't an effective quarterback when he's injured, and his backup (Ramsey) who is healthy and capable of performing much better than the injured starter.

[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?

[joecrisp]

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.

[sportscurmudgeon]

joecrisp:

My comment was addressed to you but indeed included commentary on some thoughts of others. It was not intended to be a rebuke; it was intended to be a rebuttal. There is a serious difference between those two things and if what I said came across as a rebuke then it was faulty expression on my part.

You said that it would have been in the best interest of the team if Brunell had taken himself out for a few weeks. My point is that a top-shelf NFL QB has an ego that will not allow him to "take himself out" for an injury that is not nearly debillitating. That ego got him where he has been and is now; it is not likely that he is going to have a complete psychological restructuring in a short period of time.

I belileve that in the depths of Brunell's mind (and the mionds of just about every starting QB in the NFL) there is a real sense that the ONLY way for the team to succeed is for them to be on the field as the leader. That may or may not be factually correct in the football sense, but I think they all believe that. So, for him to go to the coaches and "take himself out" would be a form of "checking his ego at the door".

I'm also pretty confident that if Brunell went to Gibbs/Bugel/Breaux and company and told them that his leg just will not make it through the week, the staff would decide to sit him down. I cannot see this coaching staff putting a player on the field who is too injured to play. The fact that he is playing tells me that the coaching staff is convinced that playing Brunell in whatever state of injury he exists at the moment is a better option than playing anyone else on the roster at QB. The coaches can only evaluate performance and project it to the next game; they cannot know the extent of Brunell's injury because there is no outward manifestiation of it; it's not like he's in a cast with his hamstring tug...

Another reason Brunell would be unmotivated to sit himself down is the stigma that brings to him. Last year, the Dolphins WR, Orande Gasden (sp?), opted for wrist surgery and the end to his season because he felt that playing with an injury would hurt his stats and reduce his bargaining power in his upcoming free agency. That decision turned around and bit him on the butt. He got labeled as a self-centered, me-first, greedy, undedicated player and he was not a "hot property" from that moment on. Other players have been called "soft" because of their propensity to miss games and that has cost some of them some contract money and some years of service in the league. So, there is no economic benefit to Brunell to offer to sit down. He can look around and see lots of examples where that kind of behavior has been less than fully productive for other NFL players.

I don't know if Ramsey would have been a better chioce for a starting QB than an injured Brunell in the recent weeks. But I'm not the least bit surprised that Brunell did not go to the staff and say that he could not play and that in the best interests of the Redskins, it was time to "put the kid in". That happens in movies and novels; I doubt it happens much on the sidelines.

Truth in Labeling Statement !!

Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots

Yes, but how many carbs?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by smootsmack

Yes, but how many carbs?

LOL

just remember, carbs - fiber = net carbs

[sportscurmudgeon]

smootsmack:

NO carbs, man. This is all meat!