Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Mattyk72;347563]I take it you haven't been around here very long.

Brunell is public enemy #1 to a lot of people.[/quote]


And #2.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=skinsnut;347650]I'm still hoping someone knows of the cap ramifications of trading Brunell.
I really dont think it is possible.
And then who would we get to replace him, Bramlet?

PA-Leeze.....some CAP guru, help.

I just want this Brunell trade talk to die![/quote]

Just look at our cap sheets under the release fees section. It would cost the Skins about $3.5M to get rid of MB this year.

[URL]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm[/URL]

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I was listening to the (gadawful) Sports Reporters the other day, and I agreed with what Czaben had to say (then went home and showered to get the stench off):

Behind Campbell, there is Trash 2a and Trash 2b. If Campbell goes down, the season goes with him. (paraphrased of course)

I have to agree there. We were a 5 win offensive system last year, and if Campbell goes down, we're back to the same elements of the 5 win offensive system. The defense will only take this team so far.

I hope Campbell doesn't go down and has a successful season...but if he does, I hope the analysis above is completely wrong.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I think alot of teams around the league would be sunk if their starting QB went down.

It's awfully tough these days to hold on to quality depth at that position for very long before someone swoops in and gives your backup a starting job.

Could our situation be better? Yeah probably... but at the same time having two veterans who are well versed in the offense isn't necessarily a terrible thing.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I think this just repeats what we already know, that this is Brunell's last year.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Mattyk72;347856]I think alot of teams around the league would be sunk if their starting QB went down.

It's awfully tough these days to hold on to quality depth at that position for very long before someone swoops in and gives your backup a starting job.

Could our situation be better? Yeah probably... but at the same time having two veterans who are well versed in the offense isn't necessarily a terrible thing.[/quote]

Stop making sense, you rational weirdo!

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Mattyk72;347856]I think alot of teams around the league would be sunk if their starting QB went down.

It's awfully tough these days to hold on to quality depth at that position for very long before someone swoops in and gives your backup a starting job.

Could our situation be better? Yeah probably... but at the same time having two veterans who are well versed in the offense isn't necessarily a terrible thing.[/quote]

Totally agree. I just don't get people that say, "Oh the season is lost if JC goes down." I'll bet the same could be said of at least 20 or more teams if they lost their starter. While I'm thrilled about our back-up situation, I'm satisfied with it.

Along the lines of depth, by the way, accross the board, I think we have as much depth as any team in the NFL.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

We still have a very good QB situation. Few teams can say they have 3 QBs on their roster that at least one team in the league values enough to start. While Collins and Brunell are both well past their respective primes, theres no reason to think either couldnt come in and complete 60-65% of passes and move the ball as well as Campbell could at this point in his young career. We've seen it before.

The crazy thing about the backup is that for 85% of the league, who the backup is can be the most trivial of all football facts. For the remaining 15%, it decides who continues to play up to the potential of the roster (2006 Philly), and who falls off the face of the earth (2006 Tampa).

I feel pretty good knowing that no matter who starts at QB for the Skins, the offense still gives us a pretty solid shot to win every week. Make no mistake about it, with our offense solidly entrenched in the 10-15 range in the NFL, the defense and special teams (especially FG%) will determine how many teams we beat this year.

Of course, that was the case last year too...and well you get the point.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I'm not saying that it's not completely obvious, the situation if Campbell goes down...however, I'm overstating my lack of confidence in Brunell and Collins. It's nice to have 2 veteran QBs that know the system. However, neither have "it" in them anymore to carry a team further than a quarter or 2.

It's nice to have lofty expectations, and while I have them, the realist in me sees that it really doesn't matter who the backups are...what needs to happen is this team needs to live up to it's own expectations, then exceed them.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;347855]I have to agree there. We were a 5 win offensive system last year, and if Campbell goes down, we're back to the same elements of the 5 win offensive system. The defense will only take this team so far.[/quote]He's wrong on this account though. If we had a perfectly average defense last year and perfectly average special teams (we actually had above average teams last year...but the kicking game sucked), we would have won approx. one more than half our games that Brunell started, and maybe a game less than half the games JC started. That's an 8-8 or 9-7 season. The fact that we only won 5 games was half random fluctuations of dumb luck, and half historically bad defense.

Either way, the D and kicking game should improve enough to add 4 wins onto our total from last year. Little luck and we should be a playoff team.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Mattyk72;347856]It's awfully tough these days to hold on to quality depth at that position for very long before someone swoops in and gives your backup a starting job.[/quote]This is an excellent point, but I don't think its hard at all to find a good veteran backup at a bargain basement price. This is because teams from all over like to fill up their rosters with "developmental" (i.e. bad) QB's, and that puts guys like Tim Rattay (and Volek a year ago) on the market to be had for bargain basement prices. These guys have been successful everywhere they were and don't have the stature to challenge the incumbant for his job. They are ideal for backup roles.

You can also find great QB prospects in rounds 2+3 of the draft every year if you are one of the (three...) teams that knows how to evaluate QBs.

But yeah, not hard at all to find a good QB in the NFL today at a bargain basement price. So if someone is willing to trade out the wazoo for your backup, politely thank them and pick up some nice loot without making your team any worse in the short term.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;347865]I'm not saying that it's not completely obvious, the situation if Campbell goes down...however, I'm overstating my lack of confidence in Brunell and Collins. It's nice to have 2 veteran QBs that know the system. However, neither have "it" in them anymore to carry a team further than a quarter or 2.

It's nice to have lofty expectations, and while I have them, the realist in me sees that it really doesn't matter who the backups are...what needs to happen is this team needs to live up to it's own expectations, then exceed them.[/quote]NFL defenses still play way too soft. Yeah, these veteran guys are short on physical ability. But I prefer to think of them as the wise old sages who will beat you with their minds.

Think Peyton Manning, SB XLI. Nothing difficult, just get the ball to an athlete in open space and pick up yardage. (And that was the best D in the NFC, mind you)

Easiest way in the world to move the ball.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;347854]Just look at our cap sheets under the release fees section. It would cost the Skins about $3.5M to get rid of MB this year.

[URL]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

Great link but I'm not sure how to read it.
Does this mean the skins have 1.8M of cap space but would cost 3.5M to cut brunell?

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=offiss;347538]No it doesn't! If Campbell goes down it's over. what a lousy job we have done at the backup QB position.[/QUOTE]

We need to pick-up Byron Leftwich b4 someone else gets him to be the backup/starter.

He is from DC, so the city would be behind another young gifted QB in the mix

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=SkinsFanSince91;347949]We need to pick-up Byron Leftwich b4 someone else gets him to be the backup/starter.

He is from DC, so the city would be behind another young gifted QB in the mix[/quote]

So you want the Redskins to sign Leftwich to stir up a quarterback controversy? :doh:

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Southpaw;347973]So you want the Redskins to sign Leftwich to stir up a quarterback controversy? :doh:[/quote]

There'd be no controversy, Leftwich can't stay healthy.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Buster;347976]There'd be no controversy, Leftwich can't stay healthy.[/quote]

I agree. I was refering to SkinsFans "[I]backup/starter[/I]" remark.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=offiss;347538]No it doesn't! If Campbell goes down it's over. what a lousy job we have done at the backup QB position.[/QUOTE]

So who should be the backup then?

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=SmootSmack;347986]So who should be the backup then?[/quote]

Randel El. :)

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

that would be sweet, we could run the option

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

It would definitely make the opposition's game planning and prep difficult. :)

I don't think the option would work in the NFL though. Defenders are too fast for it, at least it wouldn't work as an offense like in college, it could work if run just occasionally.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;347986]So who should be the backup then?[/QUOTE]

We should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago, as the great evaluator Bobby Beathard used to do, if Gibbs had the fore sight we could have been developing a backup for the last 2 years who would be ready to step in if Campbell went down, perhaps he wouldn't be great, but he could be adequate, as well he could also bring trade value down the road.

We have no idea what Palmer has because Gibbs is scared to death to give the kid any playing time in the pre season, he saw the field once! Can someone please explain why you can't get your rookie QB at least 2 series a game in the pre-season? Gibbs acts as if the world will come to an end if a rookie QB gets some much needed experience in the pre-season, that little peek in the pre-season could provide valuable info on needs come next draft, and whether or not Palmer has real potential, or just a successful big brother.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

Palmer was a project pick anyway and no real threat to even make the team. I think the hope was he would show enough to be worth sticking on the practice squad and he proved to not even be worth that.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I would just like to know one thing. Since Collins, has replaced the "prayer mongering" Brunell, does that mean Joe2 and Collins are attending Choir practice together now?

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;347998]I would just like to know one thing. Since Collins, has replaced the "prayer mongering" Brunell, does that mean Joe2 and Collins are attending Choir practice together now?[/QUOTE]

What does religion have to do w/ this? :confused:

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;347994]Palmer was a project pick anyway and no real threat to even make the team. I think the hope was he would show enough to be worth sticking on the practice squad and he proved to not even be worth that.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately I believe your right.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Redskins_P;348001]What does religion have to do w/ this? :confused:[/quote]
Apparently, you are not up to speed on the usual BS as to why Brunell was still the starter last season? To answer your question, religion has nothing to do with any of it. Many people here did not seem to understand that.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]We should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago, as the great evaluator Bobby Beathard used to do, if Gibbs had the fore sight [B]we could have been developing a backup for the last 2 years who would be ready to step in if Campbell went down[/B], perhaps he wouldn't be great, but he could be adequate, as well he could also bring trade value down the road..[/QUOTE]

What an [I]incredibly[/I] inane statement. For the last two years WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING CAMPBELL. In case you forgot, we drafted him in 2005. Although I haven't looked back, I'm betting you were one who blasted the pick b/c it meant that Gibbs was gonna let your boy Patrick go.

As for drafting developmental QB's - since 2000 we have drafted the following QB's:

2000 - Todd Husak (6th Round)
2001 - Sage Rosenfels (4th Round)
2002 - Patrick Ramsey (1st Round)
2003 - Gibram Hamdan (7th Round)
2005 - Jason Campbell (1st Round)
2007 - Jordan Palmer (6th Round)

The Skins consistently pick up young QB's in hopes one will develop. Throw in Casey Bramlett and that's a lot of young developmental QB's. The fact that they did not pan is not entirely Gibbs fault. The QB position is almost impossible to hit on. Take a look at this: [url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position&position=Quarterbacks]NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position[/url]

In the year 2000, six QB's were chosen before Tom Brady including such notables as Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman and Tee Martin.

Take a look at the classes of:
2001 (Michael Vick's year) - 11 QB's chosen, one current starter (two including Vick - who would be a starter but for, well you know...)
2002 (Ramsey, Harrington, Carr): 15 QB's chosen - one starter (David Garrard).
2003: (Carson Palmer): 13 QB's chosen - two starters (R. Grossman) and some second tier guys (Leftwich, Boller, Simms)
2004 (Manning, Rivers, Rothlesberger): 17 QB's chosen, 4 starters (M. Schaub - starting for a team that DIDNT DRAFT HIM).

Of the 56 QB's choosen between 2001-2004, how many of the non-starters are even in the NFL? My rough estimate based on name recognition is about 10 with most of those from the more recent drafts. How many of the non-starters are actually back-ups for the teams that originally drafted them?? The only ones that I saw were Feeley and Chris Simms. There may be a couple more.

From 2002 to present we have had six developmental QB's (including Bramlett and Hamdan). Of which one is the current starter - which looks to me to be pretty much in line with the NFL ratio.

To say that we "should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago" ignores reality and is simply wrong.

BTW: Here are Beathard's QB's (78-89) with the Skins -
1981 - Tom Flick, 4th Round
1982 - Bob Holly, 11th Round
1983 - Babe Laufenberg, 6th Round
1984 - Jay Schroeder, 3rd Round
1986 - Mark Rypien, 4th Round
1988 - Stan Humphries, 6th round

Three starters, a career backup and two no-names. Pretty good odds and clearly way above the norm.

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]We have no idea what Palmer has because Gibbs is scared to death to give the kid any playing time in the pre season, he saw the field once! Can someone please explain why you can't get your rookie QB at least 2 series a game in the pre-season? Gibbs acts as if the world will come to an end if a rookie QB gets some much needed experience in the pre-season, that little peek in the pre-season could provide valuable info on needs come next draft, and whether or not Palmer has real potential, or just a successful big brother.[/QUOTE]

Did you watch the last half of the 4th preseason game?? Did you need to see more? He had a friggin month to prepare, it was his big chance and he f'ing stunk up the joint. AND it was pretty clear that his perfomance wasn't out of character for him - show me one report !ONE REPORT! that indicated he was solid practice squad material based on his training camp perfomance. EVERYTHING I read seemed to indicate that his performance in the preseason game was pretty much on par with his play in practice. What? we should take time/reps from QB's who may actually be required to play for us so that the guy who hasn't done anything to show differently can confirm his scrubbiness??

You only need to smell sh** to know what it is. You don't need to touch it and taste it too. I guess I'll go with the coach who won three superbowls with three different QB's when it comes to the analysis of an individual QB's potential.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

collins couldnt win a game for us if we played michigan.....

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

i think we could possibly sitting on one of the worst QB situations in the league and most of it is because we keep hanging on to this bum collins.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

From just a back up consideration and off the top of my head - I would take our back-ups over any of the following teams:

Cleveland
Oakland
Miami
Baltimore
Jacksonville
Seattle
Kansas City
Tampa
Atlanta
Minnesota
Detroit
New York Giants

While that still is in the bottom half, I don't know all the back-ups throughout the league and would bet their are a couplle more teams I could add to this list.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

So tell me, if you could switch our back-ups with any teams who would they be?
Not the specific QB's but the TEAMS and back-ups ONLY!

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;348038]From just a back up consideration and off the top of my head - I would take our back-ups over any of the following teams:

Cleveland
Oakland
Miami
Baltimore
Jacksonville
Seattle
Kansas City
Tampa
Atlanta
Minnesota
Detroit
New York Giants

While that still is in the bottom half, I don't know all the back-ups throughout the league and would bet their are a couplle more teams I could add to this list.[/QUOTE]

I'll add Indy to that list. Unless there's something about Jim Sorgi we're just not seeing

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

In my opinion, I don't like it, but what do I know. I still think MB is a better option AFTER JC.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I think much more important is to have depth on the O-Line. With 5 linemen versus just 1 QB on the field at any time, you're 5 times more likely to see a starting lineman go down. We need to make sure we have depth on the line to protect Campbell and not worry about Collins or Brunell.

And I think we've done a really good job building depth on the line.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;348023]What an [I]incredibly[/I] inane statement. For the last two years WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING CAMPBELL. In case you forgot, we drafted him in 2005. Although I haven't looked back, I'm betting you were one who blasted the pick b/c it meant that Gibbs was gonna let your boy Patrick go.

As for drafting developmental QB's - since 2000 we have drafted the following QB's:

2000 - Todd Husak (6th Round)
2001 - Sage Rosenfels (4th Round)
2002 - Patrick Ramsey (1st Round)
2003 - Gibram Hamdan (7th Round)
2005 - Jason Campbell (1st Round)
2007 - Jordan Palmer (6th Round)

The Skins consistently pick up young QB's in hopes one will develop. Throw in Casey Bramlett and that's a lot of young developmental QB's. The fact that they did not pan is not entirely Gibbs fault. The QB position is almost impossible to hit on. Take a look at this: [url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position&position=Quarterbacks]NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position[/url]

In the year 2000, six QB's were chosen before Tom Brady including such notables as Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman and Tee Martin.

Take a look at the classes of:
2001 (Michael Vick's year) - 11 QB's chosen, one current starter (two including Vick - who would be a starter but for, well you know...)
2002 (Ramsey, Harrington, Carr): 15 QB's chosen - one starter (David Garrard).
2003: (Carson Palmer): 13 QB's chosen - two starters (R. Grossman) and some second tier guys (Leftwich, Boller, Simms)
2004 (Manning, Rivers, Rothlesberger): 17 QB's chosen, 4 starters (M. Schaub - starting for a team that DIDNT DRAFT HIM).

Of the 56 QB's choosen between 2001-2004, how many of the non-starters are even in the NFL? My rough estimate based on name recognition is about 10 with most of those from the more recent drafts. How many of the non-starters are actually back-ups for the teams that originally drafted them?? The only ones that I saw were Feeley and Chris Simms. There may be a couple more.

From 2002 to present we have had six developmental QB's (including Bramlett and Hamdan). Of which one is the current starter - which looks to me to be pretty much in line with the NFL ratio.

To say that we "should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago" ignores reality and is simply wrong.

BTW: Here are Beathard's QB's (78-89) with the Skins -
1981 - Tom Flick, 4th Round
1982 - Bob Holly, 11th Round
1983 - Babe Laufenberg, 6th Round
1984 - Jay Schroeder, 3rd Round
1986 - Mark Rypien, 4th Round
1988 - Stan Humphries, 6th round

Three starters, a career backup and two no-names. Pretty good odds and clearly way above the norm.



Did you watch the last half of the 4th preseason game?? Did you need to see more? He had a friggin month to prepare, it was his big chance and he f'ing stunk up the joint. AND it was pretty clear that his perfomance wasn't out of character for him - show me one report !ONE REPORT! that indicated he was solid practice squad material based on his training camp perfomance. EVERYTHING I read seemed to indicate that his performance in the preseason game was pretty much on par with his play in practice. What? we should take time/reps from QB's who may actually be required to play for us so that the guy who hasn't done anything to show differently can confirm his scrubbiness??

You only need to smell sh** to know what it is. You don't need to touch it and taste it too. I guess I'll go with the coach who won three superbowls with three different QB's when it comes to the analysis of an individual QB's potential.[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true nit wit, Why would you bring up QB's beyond Gibbs tenure which is what my statement was about? You stated pretty clear that we have drafted 2 QB's, we gave up a whole lot to get Campbell and 3 seasons later he's finally getting his chance, and the only other 1 we drafted was Palmer, and again you continue to praise Gibbs and his ability to assess QB's and then blast Palmer for being absolutely horrible. So in other words Gibbs has drafted 1 QB other than Campbell and that's Palmer and the guy is a joke. He has taken no concern to develop depth at the QB position as I stated in 4 years, Palmer is the 1 player and shouldn't be on the practice squad.

Funny thing about those QB's he won those SB's with, he didn't draft 1 of them, he also wanted to get rid of Theisman when he arrived in DC as well, so as far as I am concerned Gibbs has NEVER proved himself a personnel guy.

Yea Gibbs can evaluate talent, take 1 look at Brunell and the deal he made to get him, the Jags saw him coming a mile away, and the fact is Brunell has been a joke since his arrival and Gibbs still can't cut the cord with a washed up QB who if he has to play is lucky to break a 100 yards passing if he completed 50 passes.

Again there is no reason to keep a player who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can't get the job done, get a youngster in there with less experience and a lot of fire what harm could it possibly bring? And we may just get lucky and find a diamond in the ruff, but to continue with the likes of Brunell and Collins is a big waste of time.

If you want experience at the backup position you got it, experienced losers!

Your assessment of Beathard is so absurd it's comical, he drafted 6 QB's with the skins, 2 of them led their teams to the SB, and the other led his team to the NFC championship game, I would say that's phenomenal results considering not 1 of them was picked before the third rd.

Yes it's hard to evaluate a QB from college to the NFL, that is why you have to take more than 1 shot at doing so for the backup QB position ala BB.

And by the way the verdict is still way out on whether or not Campbell can play in this league, he's proven nothing.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[QUOTE=offiss;348153][B]Why would you bring up QB's beyond Gibbs tenure which is what my statement was about? [/B]You stated pretty clear that we have drafted 2 QB's, we gave up a whole lot to get Campbell and 3 seasons later he's finally getting his chance, and the only other 1 we drafted was Palmer[/QUOTE]

Your original quote was:

[QUOTE=offiss;347993][B]We should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago, as the great evaluator Bobby Beathard used to do,[/B] if Gibbs had the fore sight we could have been developing a backup for the last 2 years who would be ready to step in if Campbell went down, perhaps he wouldn't be great, but he could be adequate, as well he could also bring trade value down the road.[/QUOTE]

What is a long time ago? In 2004, the first year of Gibbs' second tenure? That Year we had Hamdan and Ramsey on the squad and had just aquired Brunnell. We should have drafted another QB? Then, in 2005 and as you suggest,HE DRAFTS A QB. We should've drafted two? The developmental QB on the squad turned out to be Ramsey who netted us a sixth rounder. (Not bad bargain for a third stringer - essentially the Jets paid the going rate for what is now a short term starter (T. Green)).

So in 2005 with two young QB's and Brunnell we should've drafted another? Makes sense to me.

[QUOTE=offiss;347993] and again you continue to praise Gibbs and his ability to assess QB's and then blast Palmer for being absolutely horrible. So in other words Gibbs has drafted 1 QB other than Campbell and that's Palmer and the guy is a joke. He has taken no concern to develop depth at the QB position as I stated in 4 years, Palmer is the 1 player and shouldn't be on the practice squad.[/QUOTE]

Palmer is the one player??? NO Palmer is the SECOND player, the FIRST was Campbell. (Dear God can you be more obtuse?). And while your right, Campbell hasn't proven anything - He has better press than Ramsey did at this stage and seems to be progressing well (something Ramsey never did and still hasn't done- progress). So in 4 years, it appears that Gibbs hit on one of his two QB choices. Well above league average.

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]Funny thing about those QB's he won those SB's with, he didn't draft 1 of them, he also wanted to get rid of Theisman when he arrived in DC as well, so as far as I am concerned Gibbs has NEVER proved himself a personnel guy.[/QUOTE]

I have never argued that Gibbs is a great "personnel guy". I think he can recognize and coach talent. Would I have made the same choices he has made in his second tenure here - probably not. And, although he may have intially wanted to get rid of Theisman - he didn't and he easily could have if he had been truly unhappy with his play. Theisman gained Gibbs confidence and Gibbs returned Theisman's work with loyalty - even when the fans were calling for Schroeder. And though he didn't draft D. Williams, Gibbs was the driving force in getting him into DC and chose him over Schroeder when push came to shove.

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]yea Gibbs can evaluate talent, take 1 look at Brunell and the deal he made to get him, the Jags saw him coming a mile away.[/QUOTE]

Undoubtedly, Gibbs overpaid for Brunnell - but at the time we were not the only suitor for his services. Certainly Miami was interested in him. IMO, Gibbs knows he overpaid and would like to have another shot at the deal. (He made a comment later in the year that there was a learning curve on player aquisition in the FA period and he would like to do some things differently).

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]the fact is Brunell has been a joke since his arrival and Gibbs still can't cut the cord with a washed up QB who if he has to play is lucky to break a 100 yards passing if he completed 50 passesAgain there is no reason to keep a player who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can't get the job done, get a youngster in there with less experience and a lot of fire what harm could it possibly bring? And we may just get lucky and find a diamond in the ruff, but to continue with the likes of Brunell and Collins is a big waste of time.[/QUOTE]

I am not gonna get into the Brunnell Bashing fight with you. Hate all you want, it just demonstrates the true basis of your position. As for "getting a youngster in", we did three - Palmer, Bramlett and the Maryland QB (I forget his name). None of them were NFL quality (as demonstrated by the lack of interest from other teams). We may get lucky and find someone - but it wasn't anybody we looked at this year. We will probably try again next year. Goes on all over the league. Keeping both Brunnell and Collins doesn't seem like the brightest thing in the world to me either. BUT - I am not aware of the cap ramifications of cutting Brunnell and that may be playing into it.


[QUOTE=offiss;347993]If you want experience at the backup position you got it, experienced losers![/QUOTE]

While I am not certain, I believe Brunnell's lifetime win percentage is pretty much on the plus side.

[QUOTE=offiss;347993]Your assessment of Beathard is so absurd it's comical, he drafted 6 QB's with the skins, 2 of them led their teams to the SB, and the other led his team to the NFC championship game, I would say that's phenomenal results considering not 1 of them was picked before the third rd.

Yes it's hard to evaluate a QB from college to the NFL, that is why you have to take more than 1 shot at doing so for the backup QB position ala BB.

And by the way the verdict is still way out on whether or not Campbell can play in this league, he's proven nothing.[/QUOTE]

Why are you picking a fight where we don't disagree? Beathard had a phenomenal record - I would imagine that it is close to unmatched (perhaps Ron Wolfe).

As for taking "more than 1 shot", Beathard did not pick a QB until his third year with the Skins and then chose six in eight years (Oh wait, that's what the Skins have done in the last eight years). Again I again point out that Gibbs has picked two QB's in four years.

The Skins record on QB picks in the last eight years is, again, about average maybe better, 1 in six was a bonified starter (or appears to be) and two back ups that have moved on to other teams (Rosenfels, Ramsey).

And while the verdict IS still out on Campbell. I will bet you $100.00 that, barring injury, he puts together a better season than Ramsey ever had for any of his three teams.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I think what this boils down to is offiss' not so secret man crush on Patrick Ramsey.

JR, I think you've presented a well thought out and rational argument and all offiss can do at this point is revert to name calling and Brunell bashing. C'mon offiss, step it up son! It's the end of the first quarter and the score is:

JoeRedskin 7
offiss 0

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

I don't think it matters who the #2 is. Mark and Todd are both vets that can throw the ball to the HB every down at least. We should be good for this year, but we should really focus on getting a young QB in the off season. Both the our backups will be collecting Social Security soon, so they won't last too much longer. It feels like we are driving a car and the gas gauge reads "empty", but we know we can get 3-4 miles on it still. Wow.....that didn't make much sense.

Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2
 

[quote=Mattyk72;348170]I think what this boils down to is offiss' not so secret man crush on Patrick Ramsey.

JR, I think you've presented a well thought out and rational argument and all offiss can do at this point is revert to name calling and Brunell bashing. C'mon offiss, step it up son! It's the end of the first quarter and the score is:

JoeRedskin 7
offiss 0[/quote]I think offiss should punt.