Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9

GTripp0012 · 12-13-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

Our record was no better with brunell in...........plus our defense did not play well at all this game, it was our offense that stayed on the field due to Campbell's third down conversions....and the defense lost us the game in the final 5 minutes by not getting off the field. Brunell threw a game losing td pick against the eagles as well. It all goes back to our run D, without a run D, you can't win.

Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.

Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.

The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.

Hog1 · 12-13-2006, 04:28 PM

Although I think the QB play would have been more consistent with MB. The D was garbage, as was the O. In the same mode we were playing, we would be much the same with MB, if he were still in. Who's to say that JC DID spark the new intensity in the D, and the O line???? Effectively, the season was lost before the change (athough not mathematically). I enjoy the O play far more with JC, not to mention the value of honing the future Redskin Montana!!!

The Zimmermans · 12-13-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.

Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.

The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.

would brunell have made that throw to Randel El for the TD????

hail_2_da_skins · 12-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Hello Everyone!

Well, once again this was a ridiculous game to lose. That is really just the theme of the season at this point. It was a game that was completely dominated by the Washington Redskins, and they still lost. If the defense and rushing game had played like this when Brunell was the Quarterback, the Redskins would be in the playoffs right now. I think they should have kept him in, which I said back then and I do now. You can’t make roster changes because of pressure from the fans.

I don’t think Campbell is necessarily playing poorly, he is making the type of mistakes that you would expect a rookie to make. However, if they were serious about making the
playoffs they should have stuck with Brunell. I said it at the time and I stick by that.

As far as the Ladell Betts re-signing, it was a good re-singing by the Redskins and a guy who should bring a lot to the table next year. Do I think he was crazy to resign with the Redskins and not test the market? I do not. Honestly, I think if Clinton Portis was running behind these holes, he would have broke a few of them in that Eagles game for another 50 yards and a TD. I don’t think that Betts could have gotten a lot more in the free agent waters, but I’m glad the Redskins kept I am also not completely sold on Portis staying in Washington. The Redskins may see an opportunity with Ladell Betts to try to shop Portis and see if there is a good market for him where they can sure up some other areas of the team.

Looking at the rest of the season, Joe Gibbs just needs to tell the guys that they are going to get cut if they don’t play their hearts out and he must mean it. This team needs some sort of re-charge and guys need to know that if they aren’t playing hard they will be gone for the team. Period, cut and dry.

Thanks again guys. It’s been a rough year….

Tony.

Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.

backrow · 12-13-2006, 04:35 PM

I say we shop players A l p h a b e t i c a l l y. A-As go first!

The Zimmermans · 12-13-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins

Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.

I finally have faith that the offense won't go three and out on every possession now. And I enjoy watching campbell play, he's more exciting that old man brunell. We were losing with both guys, at least now I enjoy watching the offense.

SmootSmack · 12-13-2006, 04:46 PM

Statisically (yards rushing, yards passing, yards allowed, etc.) there isn't a markedly huge difference between Brunell's last four starts and Campbell's first four. And I also think the offense has been "simplified" the past few games. I don't think it has much to do really with Campbell being in there necessarily, though it's a factor sure, I think it has more to do with the opponents and with the fact that Gibbs really likes to run the ball a lot later in the year.

But the bottom line isn't about the wins and losses (though a win would be fantastic) it's about what's more beneficial long-term-playing Brunell whose career has plateaued or playing Campbell whose career is on the runway ready to take off?

firstdown · 12-13-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins

Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.

Then why is MB yards per pass play a yard more than JC if he is making all those long passes and not dumping it off?

GTripp0012 · 12-13-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

would brunell have made that throw to Randel El for the TD????

We'll never know. He's capable of it, although obviously Campbell is more likely to try that throw.

One successful play a game does not make, so I fail to see what you are trying to say.

Gmanc711 · 12-13-2006, 05:17 PM

This is the first time I've talked to Tony and disagreed with him. Ussually we'll talk it out a little bit, but I think the reason we have such a running game is because teams wont put 8 guys in the box anymore.

I think in turn, the lack of 3 and outs is allowing our D to play better.

The Zimmermans · 12-13-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We'll never know. He's capable of it, although obviously Campbell is more likely to try that throw.

One successful play a game does not make, so I fail to see what you are trying to say.

Would mark brunell have scrambled for those two first downs????

GTripp0012 · 12-13-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

Then why is MB yards per pass play a yard more than JC if he is making all those long passes and not dumping it off?

Thank you, firstdown. It can be said 1,000,000 ways, but that's really all that needs to be said about our passing game since JC took over.

Also, TAF is right on the money here. The switch was NOT about winning more games (Tony's point), although if Campbell had defied all expectations (not likely), it could have been done. The switch was about starting JCs career when it seemed safe to do so.

GTripp0012 · 12-13-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

Would mark brunell have scrambled for those two first downs????

Doubt it. He was more hesitant scrambling this year.

Are you still trying to tell me that a few select plays make up for a consistent drop in performance?

The Zimmermans · 12-13-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Doubt it. He was more hesitant scrambling this year.

Are you still trying to tell me that a few select plays make up for a consistent drop in performance?

yes, exactly my point, brunell doesn't make those few game changing plays that we need. The ones that give the offense life. The ones that get us yards even if the O-line breaks down, or the receivers are covered.

GTripp0012 · 12-13-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I think in turn, the lack of 3 and outs is allowing our D to play better.

Our 3 and outs are pretty much the same under Campbell as they were under Brunell.

Our offense has done a good job this year avoiding 3 and outs.

12-13-2006, 04:28 PM	#17 (permalink)
Hog1 Playmaker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 3,244	Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9 Although I think the QB play would have been more consistent with MB. The D was garbage, as was the O. In the same mode we were playing, we would be much the same with MB, if he were still in. Who's to say that JC DID spark the new intensity in the D, and the O line???? Effectively, the season was lost before the change (athough not mathematically). I enjoy the O play far more with JC, not to mention the value of honing the future Redskin Montana!!! __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" --Thomas Jefferson

12-13-2006, 04:35 PM	#20 (permalink)
backrow The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 36.2944 by -76.251 Posts: 1,336	Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9 I say we shop players A l p h a b e t i c a l l y. A-As go first! __________________ '37,'42,'83,'88,'92 NFL & Superbowl Champion Redskins

12-13-2006, 04:46 PM	#22 (permalink)
SmootSmack Patience=Virtue Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 21,502	Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9 Statisically (yards rushing, yards passing, yards allowed, etc.) there isn't a markedly huge difference between Brunell's last four starts and Campbell's first four. And I also think the offense has been "simplified" the past few games. I don't think it has much to do really with Campbell being in there necessarily, though it's a factor sure, I think it has more to do with the opponents and with the fact that Gibbs really likes to run the ball a lot later in the year. But the bottom line isn't about the wins and losses (though a win would be fantastic) it's about what's more beneficial long-term-playing Brunell whose career has plateaued or playing Campbell whose career is on the runway ready to take off? __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

12-13-2006, 05:17 PM	#25 (permalink)
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rochester,NY Posts: 6,213	Re: Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9 This is the first time I've talked to Tony and disagreed with him. Ussually we'll talk it out a little bit, but I think the reason we have such a running game is because teams wont put 8 guys in the box anymore. I think in turn, the lack of 3 and outs is allowing our D to play better. __________________ #21 I bleed Yellow, Maroon, and Black....too funny....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Tony McGee On Redskins at 4-9

2006 archive