Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

I won't criticize him from a team standpoint, he's been a team guy & been classy, but it's obvious that he's been padding his retirement too. His reluctance to stay in the pocket 1 second longer to make a throw, or to run (which he still can, just not as fast) shows to the league that he's either lost his judgement, or is not willing to take a hit. He plays not to lose, whether its his fault or Gibbs' coaching him that way.
I don't see him getting much other than a #2 job anywhere else. He could help us here as a backup, but the question is do we need he AND Collins?
I've said in other posts we really need to get a qb w/a late rnd. pick or undrafted free agent & groom them as a future backup. W/ 2 old backups, that isn't possible.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=freddyg12;253230]I won't criticize him from a team standpoint, he's been a team guy & been classy, but it's obvious that he's been padding his retirement too. His reluctance to stay in the pocket 1 second longer to make a throw, or to run (which he still can, just not as fast) shows to the league that he's either lost his judgement, or is not willing to take a hit. He plays not to lose, whether its his fault or Gibbs' coaching him that way.
I don't see him getting much other than a #2 job anywhere else. He could help us here as a backup, but the question is do we need he AND Collins?
I've said in other posts we really need to get a qb w/a late rnd. pick or undrafted free agent & groom them as a future backup. W/ 2 old backups, that isn't possible.[/quote]

correction, we could keep a young qb on the practice squad. that would be ideal

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=BrudLee;253021]Why is it that everyone's dancing around the main issue here?

[IMG]http://www.redskins.com/uploads/photos/temp/main/INDMBEEDMLME/BrunellMark2.jpg[/IMG]

Mark Brunell has the best head of hair in all of football. Frankly, he should be promoted to the coaching staff to make sure the helmet doesn't ruin his line.[/quote]


You are right about that. :food-smil

I don't know how he's kept it with all of the helmet-wearing. Most QBs are half-bald many years before Mark's age. He has a supernatural scalp.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=BrudLee;253021]Why is it that everyone's dancing around the main issue here?

[IMG]http://www.redskins.com/uploads/photos/temp/main/INDMBEEDMLME/BrunellMark2.jpg[/IMG]

Mark Brunell has the best head of hair in all of football. Frankly, he should be promoted to the coaching staff to make sure the helmet doesn't ruin his line.[/quote]


You are right about that. :food-smil

I don't know how he's kept it with all of the helmet-wearing. Most QBs are half-bald many years before Mark's age. He has a supernatural scalp.


Exhibit A: [IMG]http://www.rtsports.com/hs/matt_hasselbeck.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

he's not a starter in for any team in this league...

he can provide guidence and support, but as for getting the job done, week in, week out- no chance

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;253304]he's not a starter in for any team in this league...

he can provide guidence and support, but as for getting the job done, week in, week out- no chance[/quote]


Okay, if you're Cleveland right now...who do you take rihgt now Mark Brunell....or Charlie Fried?

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

i hope he stays,he is still a formidibile qb!

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

It would be hilarious if the Jets signed him and he beats Ramsey out for a job AGAIN. :D

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=Buster;253323]It would be hilarious if the Jets signed him and he beats Ramsey out for a job AGAIN. :D[/quote]

Chad Pennington might be one good lick from making that happen, you never know.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

If Brunell retires are there any cap implications such as dead money to worry about?

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=Citizens for 81;253398]If Brunell retires are there any cap implications such as dead money to worry about?[/quote]


Good question....Schneed or ThatGuy??

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=Citizens for 81;253398]If Brunell retires are there any cap implications such as dead money to worry about?[/quote]

it's the same as if he were cut... which would mean 2.3mill more in cap space next year (vs staying on the roster).

he's still a decent backup, but it's tempting to let him go and use the money elsewhere, since he's vastly overpaid (as a backup).

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

Since they will barely save anything on the cap, they should keep him. I would say that he might be the most dangerous backup in the league if he stays and gets healthy. He is a different guy when healthy. I think the groin injury in pre-season derailed everything for him.

It was no coincidence that his best weeks came when he had long rests.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=12thMan;252718]I could definitely see him playing elsewhere with no problem. Look around the league right now - heck the NFC. It's hard to find a hand full of QBs having solid seasons.

My point is, Brunell is more than serviceable and, honestly, I think he could could challenge for a starting role somewhere.[/quote]

Are you frickin kidding me?????????? In 04 he was awful. 05 he had 1/2 a good season. This year? Nothing more needs to be said. So basically in his three years here he had 1/2 a good season. Anyone can throw screens and checkdown passes. Where a QB makes his money in the NFL is converting on 3rd down, and throwing the ball downfield. No team is going to have a 37 year unproductive QB starting that can't push the ball down the field. 2nd or 3rd string maybe.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=12thMan;253327]Chad Pennington might be one good lick from making that happen, you never know.[/quote]

Jets invested a high draft pick on a QB who has off the charts talent.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

Even when we went on our winning streak last season, no one gave Brunell any credit (in the media), so I doubt he could get signed next season and compete for starting role.

Also, it seems like this season has started a new trend with starting young QB's early. I would really like to know what the average age is for starting QB's in the league right now. I can bet its not more 27 or 28.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;253474]Since they will barely save anything on the cap, they should keep him. I would say that he might be the most dangerous backup in the league if he stays and gets healthy. He is a different guy when healthy. I think the groin injury in pre-season derailed everything for him.

It was no coincidence that his best weeks came when he had long rests.[/quote]

2.3mill is a far cry from barely anything. that's real close to what lloyd, or el, or carter, or arch will make their first year, and obviously those were high priced signings.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253489]Are you frickin kidding me?????????? In 04 he was awful. 05 he had 1/2 a good season. [B]This year? Nothing more needs to be said.[/B] [B]So basically in his three years here he had 1/2 a good season.[/B] Anyone can throw screens and checkdown passes. Where a QB makes his money in the NFL is converting on 3rd down, and throwing the ball downfield. No team is going to have a 37 year unproductive QB starting that can't push the ball down the field. 2nd or 3rd string maybe.[/quote]Question for you. [U]All future considerations aside[/U], has our offense this year been better overall under Brunell, or under Campbell [I]thus far[/I]?

(Hint: there is a correct answer to this question)

I'm not sure what the criteria for having a good season is, but depending on how you grade QBs, there are [I]good[/I] arguements for [U]both[/U] '05 and '06 in terms of which season Brunell played better in.

I have no problem with the conclusion you have arrived at, but when you say stuff like "nothing more needs to be said" as your evidence, then you are begging to be double checked. Your methods of reason seem suspect.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=That Guy;253496]2.3mill is a far cry from barely anything. that's real close to what lloyd, or el, or carter, or arch will make their first year, and obviously those were high priced signings.[/quote]Yeah, but I also think with only one day 1 draft pick and with the team unexpected to make a big free agency splash after indulging last year, we really don't need that cap space for anything. I think Brunell would be the ideal backup for us, and although I am not from the school of thought that says you need a decent backup QB to make a Championshup run, I think we would be accepting a downgrade by cutting him loose for cap room.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=That Guy;253420]it's the same as if he were cut... which would mean 2.3mill more in cap space next year (vs staying on the roster).

he's still a decent backup, but it's tempting to let him go and use the money elsewhere, since he's vastly overpaid (as a backup).[/quote]The player stays on the roster (retired reserve list) for the duration of the deal, right? You get the reprieve of his base salary and don't have to pay him any bonuses. I know when a player [I]volentarily[/I] retires, he has to give back the portion of his signing bonus that he did not earn, so does this not count as cap relief?

When the Raiders wanted Deion for their '02 playoff run, we cut him then and I think at that point we incurred his remaining cap hit (or lack thereof).

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=Redskins_P;253495]Even when we went on our winning streak last season, no one gave Brunell any credit (in the media), so I doubt he could get signed next season and compete for starting role.

Also, it seems like this season has started a new trend with starting young QB's early. I would really like to know what the average age is for starting QB's in the league right now. I can bet its not more 27 or 28.[/quote]

as of 12/31/2006: (palmer, rivers, and campbell have birthdays in december)

22 (alex smith)
23, 23, 23, 23
24
25, 25, 25, 25, 25
26, 26, 26
27, 27, 27
28, 28
29, 29
30, 30, 30
31, 31
33
34
36, 36
37 (jeff garcia)
38 (brad johnson)

average age = 902/32 = 28.1875 years old... median is 27.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;253500]Yeah, but I also think with only one day 1 draft pick and with the team unexpected to make a big free agency splash after indulging last year, we really don't need that cap space for anything. I think Brunell would be the ideal backup for us, and although I am not from the school of thought that says you need a decent backup QB to make a Championshup run, I think we would be accepting a downgrade by cutting him loose for cap room.[/quote]

clements? that'd be an overall roster upgrade, and push more talent into the starting 22, which brunell wouldn't contribute to unless an injury occured, and
at that point, the risk/reward of possibly having him give you nothing still makes a good arguement for cutting him.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;253502]The player stays on the roster (retired reserve list) for the duration of the deal, right? You get the reprieve of his base salary and don't have to pay him any bonuses. I know when a player [I]volentarily[/I] retires, he has to give back the portion of his signing bonus that he did not earn, so does this not count as cap relief?

When the Raiders wanted Deion for their '02 playoff run, we cut him then and I think at that point we incurred his remaining cap hit (or lack thereof).[/quote]

the main uses of the retired-reserve list tend to be:

A) for a player signing a deal to retire with his old team (ie, webb signing to retire as a dolphin after spending a couple years in cinncy, or brian mitchell signing a one day deal to retire as a skin).

B) a player signs a five year deal and retires after the first year... two years later, he gets re-instated and goes on the retired-reserve list of whichever team has his rights until they decide what to do (place on the roster or release them).

i believe gauranteed money is gauranteed money. a lot of times retiring players have given signing bonuses back or redone contracts immediately before calling it quits (gannon, meadows, etc (even deion gave money back)). with lavargate and the new stricter rules on recovering gaurantees, i'm not sure how easy it'd be to return money now.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

I see brunell retiring at seasons end.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;253498]Question for you. [U]All future considerations aside[/U], has our offense this year been better overall under Brunell, or under Campbell [I]thus far[/I]?

(Hint: there is a correct answer to this question)

I'm not sure what the criteria for having a good season is, but depending on how you grade QBs, there are [I]good[/I] arguements for [U]both[/U] '05 and '06 in terms of which season Brunell played better in.

I have no problem with the conclusion you have arrived at, but when you say stuff like "nothing more needs to be said" as your evidence, then you are begging to be double checked. Your methods of reason seem suspect.[/quote]


Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=vaoutlaws2006;253518]I see brunell retiring at seasons end.[/quote]

[FONT='Lucida Sans']I hope so, that would be in the best interests of he & the team. I’d like Joe to keep him around as an asst. qb coach or something. Then if ALL our qb’s got hurt he could come out of retirement.[/FONT]
[FONT='Lucida Sans']He plays too tentatively at this point in his career & he shouldn’t jeopardize his health by playing any longer. Remember the good old days (those of you old enough!) when guys retired w/their team because they knew it was time, & they were too old? [/FONT]

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253544]Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.[/quote]


I still think Brunell is a viable back-up and could start for at least two teams in the NFL and they wouldn't see much if any dropoff.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253544]Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.[/quote]

2 1st Rnd. picks? Sure about that?
I thought we swapped 1st rnd. picks w/Denver & gave them 2 later rnd. picks (3rd & 4th I believe).

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=12thMan;253550]I still think Brunell is a viable back-up and could start for at least two teams in the NFL and they wouldn't see much if any dropoff.[/quote]

He may be, but he's like an old boxer that doesn't want to risk taking one on the chin, so for 10 rounds he dances & holds his opponent just enough, but never lands anything close to a knock out blow.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=freddyg12;253552]2 1st Rnd. picks? Sure about that?
I thought we swapped 1st rnd. picks w/Denver & gave them 2 later rnd. picks (3rd & 4th I believe).[/quote]

I believe this years's number one pick was given to Denver in order for us to move up and take him with the 25th pick in the 05 draft. So that would make two first rounders invested in JC.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

brunell is a viable backup, but the cap number is fairly high. i think he retires

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253565]I believe this years's number one pick was given to Denver in order for us to move up and take him with the 25th pick in the 05 draft. So that would make two first rounders invested in JC.[/quote]

We traded our 1st rnd. pick in 05 (plus 2 later rnd. picks) for their 1st rnd. pick in 06. That's a 1st for a 1st, not 2 1st rnd. picks. In 05 we had 2 1st rounders, Carlos Rogers (9) & Jason C (25).

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253544]Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.[/quote]

Two #1 picks? When's the last time we had two first round picks.............I think it was back when we drafted Samuels and Lavar. If we actually had two first round picks last year we probably would have traded them away anyway, so it makes no difference.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

yeah, i guess we made two first round picks in 2004, my bad

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;253593]yeah, i guess we made two first round picks in 2004, my bad[/quote]

right, 04 not 05 like I posted earlier

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;253544]Bottom line. Brunell does not have the ability anymore to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Defenses do not respect his arm and why should they? Does anyone remember the last 6-8 games last year? If a veteran QB has a problem throwing for 170 yards a game then somehting is seriously wrong. He should have been benched coming into this year just like John Kitna was. Do you happen to remember that 2 number one picks are invested in JC? Keeping him on the bench serves no purpose. JC is going to have his lumps just like every young QB does. The future is JC not a 36 year old QB on a losing team. At this point Brunell is 3rd string material.[/quote]Hmm. I think the Kitna situation was a bit different, and actually I'd like to take a moment to revisit it. Kitna 2003 and Brunell 2005 were very similar seasons, so lets make them the same player for sake of arguement. We will call him Quarterback A.

(The Bengal 2003-2004 and Redskin 2005-2006 are VERY different situations, and you have to treat them as so)

So you are saying that the Bengals made a good decision moving right to Palmer in 2004, days after the '03 season ended? I'm not sure I agree with that. The Bengals were an 8-8 team in 2003, made the switch to Palmer suffered a ever so slight offensive dropoff (consistent for the sake of arguement), and ended up 8-8 again. Would they have been a playoff team with Kitna? I don't know, but there certainly would have been a better chance.

Since then, Palmer led the Bengals to the division crown in 2005, and coming off last nights win, appear to be in good postion to grab a WC birth this year, maybe the division if the Ravens drop 3 out of their last 4.

But was Palmer's "experience year" the reason for the offensive explosion in 2005? I tend to think it wasn't.

Now, the Redskins were a 10-6 playoff team in 2005. That's different from an 8-8 3rd place team. So right off the bat, expectations are sky high. Moving to Campbell preseason certainly would have knocked expectations down a few pegs (this is argueably a good thing). But a move like that would not have been well received at the time, because the goal was to improve on the 10-6 and win the division/get a first round bye/make a playoff run. Not to delay a year in mediocrity as we make the change to Campbell.

Obviously, the defensive dropoff threw a huge kink into our plans. Had we forseen this, we could have made the change to Campbell earlier. But once we went out in FA and sacrificed our long term well being for 2006 and 2007, we were committed to the playoffs this year and next year.

Which is why I asked you to answer the question about whether our offense was better with Brunell or Campbell thus far. [B]I think you have to evaluate your decisions in the context they were made.[/B] Yes, I think if we had made the move to Campbell preseason, and were 4-7 at this point, our playoff prospects this year would look better than they do now. But Gibbs didn't have that knowledge at the time...so it was the RIGHT decision.

Unlike the Bengals, our future is now comprimised. This team doesn't ahve a whole lot of dead weight to cut loose, and our contract restructuring is going to begin to catch up to us. At some point within the next two years, we will either start cutting the vets loose (best possible move), or we simply wont have the cap room to resign young guys like Cooley and Sean Taylor (bad move, but not beyond us).

But looking at 2007, much of this team (offensively at least) will be back. Now, ask yourself this: Would Campbell be a better player with regards to 2007 if he had started this season at QB?

I really don't think so. He's going to get 7 starts this year (barring injury), and then hes going to have the offseason. Thats a lot of playing time. Come August 2007, I don't think anybody in the organization will be like "man, I wish JC started 16 games instead of 7". Over the offseason, Campbell will progress as a player mentally no matter how many starts he got.

So I think Gibbs made the switch when he did to make use JC got SOME playing time, and we really are only going to have one year to make a run at a title (and even that depends on the D finding itself these last 5 weeks). I think Gibbs also realized that although he is going to try to make the playoffs now, a 6 seed isn't going to get us to our season expectation. So at some point, he had to [U]compromise the present[/U] for the future. That point was Week 11.

Lots of things went wrong for us this year, just don't blame the QB position for things beyond the control of one player.

Re: Brunell Back in 2007?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;254038]Hmm. I think the Kitna situation was a bit different, and actually I'd like to take a moment to revisit it. Kitna 2003 and Brunell 2005 were very similar seasons, so lets make them the same player for sake of arguement. We will call him Quarterback A.

(The Bengal 2003-2004 and Redskin 2005-2006 are VERY different situations, and you have to treat them as so)

So you are saying that the Bengals made a good decision moving right to Palmer in 2004, days after the '03 season ended? I'm not sure I agree with that. The Bengals were an 8-8 team in 2003, made the switch to Palmer suffered a ever so slight offensive dropoff (consistent for the sake of arguement), and ended up 8-8 again. Would they have been a playoff team with Kitna? I don't know, but there certainly would have been a better chance.

Since then, Palmer led the Bengals to the division crown in 2005, and coming off last nights win, appear to be in good postion to grab a WC birth this year, maybe the division if the Ravens drop 3 out of their last 4.

But was Palmer's "experience year" the reason for the offensive explosion in 2005? I tend to think it wasn't.

Now, the Redskins were a 10-6 playoff team in 2005. That's different from an 8-8 3rd place team. So right off the bat, expectations are sky high. Moving to Campbell preseason certainly would have knocked expectations down a few pegs (this is argueably a good thing). But a move like that would not have been well received at the time, because the goal was to improve on the 10-6 and win the division/get a first round bye/make a playoff run. Not to delay a year in mediocrity as we make the change to Campbell.

Obviously, the defensive dropoff threw a huge kink into our plans. Had we forseen this, we could have made the change to Campbell earlier. But once we went out in FA and sacrificed our long term well being for 2006 and 2007, we were committed to the playoffs this year and next year.

Which is why I asked you to answer the question about whether our offense was better with Brunell or Campbell thus far. [B]I think you have to evaluate your decisions in the context they were made.[/B] Yes, I think if we had made the move to Campbell preseason, and were 4-7 at this point, our playoff prospects this year would look better than they do now. But Gibbs didn't have that knowledge at the time...so it was the RIGHT decision.

Unlike the Bengals, our future is now comprimised. This team doesn't ahve a whole lot of dead weight to cut loose, and our contract restructuring is going to begin to catch up to us. At some point within the next two years, we will either start cutting the vets loose (best possible move), or we simply wont have the cap room to resign young guys like Cooley and Sean Taylor (bad move, but not beyond us).

But looking at 2007, much of this team (offensively at least) will be back. Now, ask yourself this: Would Campbell be a better player with regards to 2007 if he had started this season at QB?

I really don't think so. He's going to get 7 starts this year (barring injury), and then hes going to have the offseason. Thats a lot of playing time. Come August 2007, I don't think anybody in the organization will be like "man, I wish JC started 16 games instead of 7". Over the offseason, Campbell will progress as a player mentally no matter how many starts he got.

So I think Gibbs made the switch when he did to make use JC got SOME playing time, and we really are only going to have one year to make a run at a title (and even that depends on the D finding itself these last 5 weeks). I think Gibbs also realized that although he is going to try to make the playoffs now, a 6 seed isn't going to get us to our season expectation. So at some point, he had to [U]compromise the present[/U] for the future. That point was Week 11.

Lots of things went wrong for us this year, just don't blame the QB position for things beyond the control of one player.[/quote]

Good post GT, this is deserving of a mega merge brunell closed thread w/this as the eulogy to Brunell threads in 06!
Only thing I would add is that if we'd started JC from the get go he would have had some serious pressure to deal with. As for when Gibbs decided to make the change this year, he sees more than we do, but it could've been earlier.
W/the new cba, I wouldn't say we're in cap hell after only 1 year, but you're right there are a # of guys that we'll be cutting in the next couple years.