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?

Hey, im not sure whether or not this is a response to my post. But in case it is...perhaps i was not clear....what i said/meant to say was that I will judge the value of the BRUNELL SIGNING based on whether or not the skins make the playoffs. That i believe is a reasonable thing to do. The point is even if Brunell played pretty well...but not quite good enough to get us into playoffs...regardless of the multitude of other reasons there may have been for us not making playoffs...then ultimately his time with the skins was unsuccessful.


That's kind of playing a game of semantics though. By those standards, then Barry Sanders should have been on the bench. Obviously, it would have been foolish to have benched Sanders.

Remember, this is a team sport. Should we bench every starter because the team doesn't make the playoffs?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't multiple teams after Mark Brunell? And we rushed to sign him before anyone else did?

Yea exactly if we didn't get brunell we probally be in the mist of the Kurt Warner Experence right now.

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 If we are not winning now...then the premise for signing Mark Brunell is no longer valid...and it would have been more beneficial to see whether Ramsey could play.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

Yea exactly if we didn't get brunell we probally be in the mist of the Kurt Warner Experence right now.


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.

That's kind of playing a game of semantics though. By those standards, then Barry Sanders should have been on the bench. Obviously, it would have been foolish to have benched Sanders.

Remember, this is a team sport. Should we bench every starter because the team doesn't make the playoffs?

I don't think so. QBs are held to different standards. Nobody talks about how many games a RB or WR has won. If we don't make the playoffs, people will look back and ask why we brought in an aging QB instead of grooming younger talent.

Certainly, a QB surrounded by ZERO talent will get some slack, but that's not the case here. We DEFINITELY need some help, but this team is not completely devoid of talent.

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.

This is where I disagree with you (at this point) and think that Matty is on point. MB has played well enough to start next year, IMO. If he doesn't make the playoffs next year, then I will most likely agree the decision was wrong. However, I'm withholding judgment until that point.

So you would say that if before he was signed you knew that in the first 2 seasons he was here Brunell would not lead the skins to the Playoffs...you still would have signed him to that contract he has (which many people have said is essentially a 3 year contract). I definately would not have...and would have preferred to see what i had already on the roster.

Now if all your saying is that he has played relatively well this year...and given the fact that at this point he is already on the roster...you would consider starting him next year...i dont have a problem with that...i mean i dont neccessarily agree...but i think thats legit...

However, i dont think that negates the fact that signing him in the first place was a mistake. He's here now so def. do with him whats best for the team. But having a guy not win for 2 of the 3 years many have said he is signed for...without knowing what he'll do in his 3rd year....is much closer to a failed signing than a success i would say.

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


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.

So you would say that if before he was signed you knew that in the first 2 seasons he was here Brunell would not lead the skins to the Playoffs...you still would have signed him to that contract he has (which many people have said is essentially a 3 year contract). I definately would not have...and would have preferred to see what i had already on the roster.
I hadn't thought of it in terms of your first hypothetical. However, I don't think a 2 year turnaround is realistic for this team. We showed a lot of promise at the beginning of the season, but we have also showed that we have a lot of work left to do. So, yes, I would probably still go through with the trade knowing what I know now.

Now if all your saying is that he has played relatively well this year...and given the fact that at this point he is already on the roster...you would consider starting him next year...i dont have a problem with that...i mean i dont neccessarily agree...but i think thats legit...

I definitely agree with your second hypothetical - he's our only option at this point.

However, i dont think that negates the fact that signing him in the first place was a mistake. He's here now so def. do with him whats best for the team. But having a guy not win for 2 of the 3 years many have said he is signed for...without knowing what he'll do in his 3rd year....is much closer to a failed signing than a success i would say.

You really can't look at MB for last year - he only played half the games. This year, I look more toward him. By next year, he needs to lead this team. I think he's already doing some leading now, but, by the start of next season, there is no doubt whose team this is.