Re: Brunell
 

12TH MAN, that was the best post i have seen all season. you are 100% correct. We have played all thee games, and have been tested in different situations. And are growing as team. I dont care who's fault the int was, the fact is our conversion rate was good, by the first half we owned the hawks. And frankly I think the offense finally bailed us out of a game instead of the defense doing so. God knows the deffense deserved it. Brunell has proved that he is not over the hill yet. He may not be 100% of what he was, but with talent spread out like we have do we need a manning as a QB? I dont think so just someone to lead the team and avoid making costly mistakes throughout the season. As for the Denver game being a real test. IMO I disagree, no one is making any fuss over Denver right now, and even though we are getting bad press we are still getting press becuase everyone said after dallas and Chicago that maybe gibbs shouldnt have come out of retirement, now they have to keep digging in till they find a miracle that has happened to explain why they were wrong about him. Denver will be a tough game cause we are still growing but I think Portis needs a big game so Moss doesnt keep stealing the highlight reels, and Denver might be the place for him to do it.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=SARPUP]12TH MAN, that was the best post i have seen all season. you are 100% correct. We have played all thee games, and have been tested in different situations. And are growing as team. I dont care who's fault the int was, the fact is our conversion rate was good, by the first half we owned the hawks. And frankly I think the offense finally bailed us out of a game instead of the defense doing so. God knows the deffense deserved it. Brunell has proved that he is not over the hill yet. He may not be 100% of what he was, but with talent spread out like we have do we need a manning as a QB? I dont think so just someone to lead the team and avoid making costly mistakes throughout the season. As for the Denver game being a real test. IMO I disagree, no one is making any fuss over Denver right now, and even though we are getting bad press we are still getting press becuase everyone said after dallas and Chicago that maybe gibbs shouldnt have come out of retirement, now they have to keep digging in till they find a miracle that has happened to explain why they were wrong about him. Denver will be a tough game cause we are still growing but I think Portis needs a big game so Moss
doesnt keep stealing the highlight reels, and Denver might be the place for him to do it.[/QUOTE]

Good Post! One of the things I hadn't thought about (I'm still enjoying the win) is Portis former association with Denver. That should be a powerful motivator for him to kick some ass. The defense has to be stoked about the offense looking like an offense. They also played less yesterday with Gibbs ball control game plan. You know those big ol' dudes love that

Re: Brunell
 

We're 3-0 with Brunell, and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 with the playcalling and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 after beating Chicago, Dallas, and Seattle, and thats all that should matter.

WE ARE 3-0!!!!! It has been 14 YEARS since we were 3-0!!! Lets enjoy this while it lasts....

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]We're 3-0 with Brunell, and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 with the playcalling and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 after beating Chicago, Dallas, and Seattle, and thats all that should matter.

WE ARE 3-0!!!!! It has been 14 YEARS since we were 3-0!!! Lets enjoy this while it lasts....[/QUOTE]

amen

Re: Brunell
 

May I add, three and 0 - all against NFC teams.

We're building a good case for a P/O appearance down the road when all those formulas get sticky.

Re: Brunell
 

The redskins definitely have a schedule that will allow them to continue to roll against weak teams. This team could easily be 6-1.

Re: Brunell
 

I'll take 4-0 for now!!

Re: Brunell
 

Amen!! Brunell is playing solid and 3-0. He has been clutch and compared to the majority of other QB's this year statistically. We find ourselves picking Brunell apart for solid play and analyzing every mistake, from lack of audibles a tipped int, his weak arm. I do not know what would happen if Ramsey was playing, but Brunell in my eyes has earned the right to be our starting QB and has us off to the best start since 1991. I agree everyones opinion is exactly that, but he has not lost us any games and every QB throws INT's, makes bad decisions whether your Manning who has had a very slow start the 1st 3 weeks and came out this week, Culpeper who is bombing this year after last year. Brunell no matter his age and I think very difficult for some people to see past is getting the job done with a weaker arm than Ramsey, and older legs that has won us two games. It does make interesting reading, but Brunell does not deserved to be bashed because of last year bad play, Ramsey QB switch (not his fault), or his solid play this year and what people percieve as a underthrown ball that goes for 20 yards and speculate that if it wasn't he would have took it to the house or he threw a bad ball and tipped off Portis for a INT those things happen. Bad teams fans pick these things apart and speculate but we are winning, do not understand we finally have good things to talk about and getting better weekly.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Good Post! One of the things I hadn't thought about (I'm still enjoying the win) is Portis former association with Denver. That should be a powerful motivator for him to kick some ass. The defense has to be stoked about the offense looking like an offense. They also played less yesterday with Gibbs ball control game plan. You know those big ol' dudes love that[/QUOTE]


Are you saying he hasen't been motivated up till now?

I don't care how motivated he is, it's irrelevent if we don't force defenders from stacking the box.

I am curious you don't believe the entire denver team will more motivated to stop Portis being he left them because he felt he was the reason they were so good at running the ball?

You don't think Bailey will be motivated to shut down our passing game, although I don't know how motivated you have to be to do that?

Remember the air is awfully thin at mile high!

Re: Brunell
 

Is Bailey healthy enough to play? I know he didn't play last week.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]We're 3-0 with Brunell, and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 with the playcalling and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 after beating Chicago, Dallas, and Seattle, and thats all that should matter.

WE ARE 3-0!!!!! It has been 14 YEARS since we were 3-0!!! Lets enjoy this while it lasts....[/QUOTE]


'nuff said! :food-smil

Re: Brunell
 

I dont think Bailey is healthy enough to play and if he does play, Moss will run circle around him if he isnt 110%.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Are you saying he hasen't been motivated up till now?

I don't care how motivated he is, it's irrelevent if we don't force defenders from stacking the box.

I am curious you don't believe the entire denver team will more motivated to stop Portis being he left them because he felt he was the reason they were so good at running the ball?

You don't think Bailey will be motivated to shut down our passing game, although I don't know how motivated you have to be to do that?

Remember the air is awfully thin at mile high![/QUOTE]


That's ............ah............alot of conclusions/questions from a rather innocent remark. To address, 1) I do believe he has shown motivation to this point. I also believe any performance can be eclipsed given the proper environment 2) Irrelevant is pretty strong talk. Our passing game is taking shape and proving to be effective. It will greatly aid in said prevention, and asundry box stacking. 3) Are you asking me if I believe the entire Denver roster will be lining up opposite Portis, with coaching staff? No I don't believe that will happen. If it does, Poor, poor Clinton. 4) Bailey, ain't no Darryl Green! Finally, the air is getting pretty thin here as well!

Re: Brunell
 

we played well, but we need audibles, BAD. they new we'd run every first down, we watched them stack 8-9 on the line, not even TRYING to disguise it, and then we'd run headfirst into them anyways. That's just beyond retarded.

luckily brunell had 3rd down conversion after conversion... our team faltered a bit in the 2nd half, but we pulled it out, which i what counts.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]we played well, but we need audibles, BAD. they new we'd run every first down, we watched them stack 8-9 on the line, not even TRYING to disguise it, and then we'd run headfirst into them anyways. That's just beyond retarded.

luckily brunell had 3rd down conversion after conversion... our team faltered a bit in the 2nd half, but we pulled it out, which i what counts.[/QUOTE]


Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.

I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a toss sweep....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes, but I believe the playcalling we had Sunday plays to our strengths. It keeps a very good offense off the field and allows our defense a chance to rest. Even if we don't score on that drive, we're not allowing the other team as much time to score....we're keeping the score low which is going to be the key in beating teams with very very good offenses...i.e. Philly and NYGiants!

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.
[/QUOTE]

excellent post

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.

I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a toss sweep....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes, but I believe the playcalling we had Sunday plays to our strengths. It keeps a very good offense off the field and allows our defense a chance to rest. Even if we don't score on that drive, we're not allowing the other team as much time to score....we're keeping the score low which is going to be the key in beating teams with very very good offenses...i.e. Philly and NYGiants![/QUOTE]

why not toss it to portis on the outside then? just cause they load 9 guys up in front of the oline doesn't mean you've got to throw it deep every time... they could audible to a sweep or outside run and keep the clock ticking while avoiding the pitfalls of running straight into 200 guys that aren't going to be moving.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]why not toss it to portis on the outside then? just cause they load 9 guys up in front of the oline doesn't mean you've got to throw it deep every time... they could audible to a sweep or outside run and keep the clock ticking while avoiding the pitfalls of running straight into 200 guys that aren't going to be moving.[/QUOTE]


Isn't that what I just said?

[QUOTE=Skinsguy]I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a [B]toss sweep[/B]....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes,[/quote]

However, I'm not only thinking in terms of a deep pass....receivers can drop short passes that are rushed just as easily. Either way, there is a potiential of gaining no yards AND stopping the clock. The only thing with the toss sweep is that if the defense starts sniffing it out, because we're going to audible to it quite often, then blowing up a toss sweep can have the potiential of even more loss of yards than running it up the middle. Most of the time, at worst, a run up the middle might lose you a yard, but a toss sweep has the chance to lose big yards.

And, thinking about it more, an NFL defense loading 8 or 9 guys up in the box, do we really think they're not fast enough to stretch the defense out?

What alot of us failed to mention was that Gibbs' gameplan for that second half was to open the offense up more and take some shots, but we couldn't bury the Seahawks' offense enough to take those chances. I personally like the steady pace of our offense mixing it up and eating time off the clock...it takes alot of pressure off our defense and gives our offense more confidence.

Re: Brunell
 

Anyway, I came to this thread (reading some of it along the way) to say this. I am happy that Brunell is playing well and I do definately acknowledge it. I'm very glad that he is because it not only answers questions about Brunell, but it also shuts up alot of the media that said the game has passed Gibbs by, and he was crazy. I was questioning the switch, and I am a Ramsey fan, but we're winning and Brunell is looking good. If I knew more than Gibbs I'd be coaching.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]That's ............ah............alot of conclusions/questions from a rather innocent remark.[/QUOTE]

oh i know that feeling :doh:

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]That's ............ah............alot of conclusions/questions from a rather innocent remark. To address, 1) I do believe he has shown motivation to this point. I also believe any performance can be eclipsed given the proper environment 2) Irrelevant is pretty strong talk. Our passing game is taking shape and proving to be effective. It will greatly aid in said prevention, and asundry box stacking. 3) Are you asking me if I believe the entire Denver roster will be lining up opposite Portis, with coaching staff? No I don't believe that will happen. If it does, Poor, poor Clinton. 4) Bailey, ain't no Darryl Green! Finally, the air is getting pretty thin here as well![/QUOTE]


Just addressing your so called conclusions predicated on nothing more than unrealistic thought, that's all.

Our passing game is taking shape? We had a nice game, NICE, Ray Rhodes is the defensive coordinator for Seattle I wouldn't get to worked up about it.

Denver is the real test.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Just addressing your so called conclusions predicated on nothing more than unrealistic thought, that's all.

Our passing game is taking shape? We had a nice game, NICE, Ray Rhodes is the defensive coordinator for Seattle I wouldn't get to worked up about it.

Denver is the real test.[/QUOTE]

Dear Off, Don't you think the passing game is taking shape?
Do you think Ray Rhodes is unconcerned with two last minute wins with nothing less than superhuman efforts on many peoples parts? Do you think Ray Rhodes imagines a team riding high on emotion, and confidence, just finding it's game (and 3-0) with numerous weapons the skins possess is not reason for concern? If you believe that does not get him "worked up", I don't think you know Ray Rhodes!
If I told you to [b]"have a nice day",[/b] would I be pre-supposing events, yet undetermined, and existing solely in a future timeframe to be played out at a time and place not within my realm of control or speculation? Perhaps you have attached a ridiculous level of scrutiny to a rather innocuous statment?

However, I would agree, Denver is a real test

Re: Brunell
 

Originally Posted by offiss
Are you saying he hasen't been motivated up till now?

I don't care how motivated he is, it's irrelevent if we don't force defenders from stacking the box.

I am curious you don't believe the entire denver team will more motivated to stop Portis being he left them because he felt he was the reason they were so good at running the ball?

You don't think Bailey will be motivated to shut down our passing game, although I don't know how motivated you have to be to do that?

Remember the air is awfully thin at mile high!




[url]http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/broncos/article/0,1299,DRMN_17_4130396,00.html[/url]


"Right now, I want to be in the end zone more than anybody," said Portis, who hasn't scored since Dec. 12 and watched Sunday as even a reserve H-back got a touchdown for the Washington Redskins. "But if it's not happening, I can't force myself."

With the Redskins taking a 3-0 record into their game Sunday against his former team (2:15 p.m., Invesco Field at Mile High, KDVR- Channel 31), Portis isn't complaining.

"Whatever it takes, that's our team's message now, whatever it takes," Portis said.

Consider his performance eclipsed

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Dear Off, Don't you think the passing game is taking shape?
Do you think Ray Rhodes is unconcerned with two last minute wins with nothing less than superhuman efforts on many peoples parts? Do you think Ray Rhodes imagines a team riding high on emotion, and confidence, just finding it's game (and 3-0) with numerous weapons the skins possess is not reason for concern? If you believe that does not get him "worked up", I don't think you know Ray Rhodes!
If I told you to [b]"have a nice day",[/b] would I be pre-supposing events, yet undetermined, and existing solely in a future timeframe to be played out at a time and place not within my realm of control or speculation? Perhaps you have attached a ridiculous level of scrutiny to a rather innocuous statment?

However, I would agree, Denver is a real test[/QUOTE]


What does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?

What does Ray Rhodes getting worked up have anything to do with his ignorance as a coach?

I would imagine he would be very worked up, if I had no clue how to diagnois and stop offenses I would be worked up to, that doesn't mean he will be any better, our fire power is like a nucleur missle without a lauch sequence, it looks pretty powerful if you could get it off the ground.

My biggest point about this is that we have been fortunate to play teams who are less talented than us, and in seattle's case not as well coached. With denver we are in agreement, we have to go into an opposing teams stadium, against a good team, it's great we are 3-0 but be carefull of falling in love with that because we haven't faced real playoff caliber teams, which Denver is one of. If we beat Denver then we will have something to really hang our hats on, I just don't think we will, I believe they will bottle up our offense this week, and denver will do just enough on offense to beat us, but I hope I am wrong.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE]hog1- Are you saying he hasen't been motivated up till now?[/QUOTE]

No, that was my question for you, you stated that Portis should be motivated to play his old team, insinuating that with extra motivation he will be a real force to deal with. And my reply was if anyone should be motivated it should be Denver, Portis is the one who initiated the contract problems with Denver, not the other way around. Portis shouldn't need his old team to be motivated to run, I stated whether he is motivated or not is irrelevant, because so long as there's 7,8,9, men in the box he's going no where, regardless of his motivation, so to answer your question yes I think he's motivated, but no as far as extra motivation regarding Denver, he will run as well as the blocking will allow.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]No, that was my question for you, you stated that Portis should be motivated to play his old team, insinuating that with extra motivation he will be a real force to deal with. And my reply was if anyone should be motivated it should be Denver, Portis is the one who initiated the contract problems with Denver, not the other way around. Portis shouldn't need his old team to be motivated to run, I stated whether he is motivated or not is irrelevant, because so long as there's 7,8,9, men in the box he's going no where, regardless of his motivation, so to answer your question yes I think he's motivated, but no as far as extra motivation regarding Denver, he will run as well as the blocking will allow.[/QUOTE]

Your post make no sense. However, if you think running backs and their success are tied strictly to the effectiveness of their respective lines, your wrong.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]What does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?

What does Ray Rhodes getting worked up have anything to do with his ignorance as a coach?

I would imagine he would be very worked up, if I had no clue how to diagnois and stop offenses I would be worked up to, that doesn't mean he will be any better, our fire power is like a nucleur missle without a lauch sequence, it looks pretty powerful if you could get it off the ground.

[b]My biggest point[/b] about this is that we have been fortunate to play teams who are less talented than us, and in seattle's case not as well coached. With denver we are in agreement, we have to go into an opposing teams stadium, against a good team, it's great we are 3-0 but be carefull of falling in love with that because we haven't faced real playoff caliber teams, which Denver is one of. If we beat Denver then we will have something to really hang our hats on, I just don't think we will, I believe they will bottle up our offense this week, and denver will do just enough on offense to beat us, but I hope I am wrong.[/QUOTE]

Let's just take it from "[b]My biggest point[/b]....". I would agree this will be our most difficult asssignment to date. However, I agree with some others that have said, "this is the third time a good team, got bad, after we beat them". This is not to say we kicked the sh.. out of the Patriots, etc. That does not diminish the wins they have achieved. This is a team on the rise-dramatic rise. Each week, by leaps and bounds has their performance improved as has the opponents talent. Can they beat the Broncos-HELL YEA!
Lastly, I am in no danger of falling in love with a Superbowl holographic imposter of the skins. Since George Allen, and the many who have followed have I passionately carried the torch for the Redskins! At times, like a "tough love" child have I defended them. It is for these reasons I, like many of my brothers and sisters am I REALLY enjoying their rise to fame once again.
[b]Gimme a hallelujah[/b]

Re: Brunell
 

how does a thread that starts out about brunell, then talks about what ramsey might've done, switch to being a thread about denver. :D

Re: Brunell
 

well, it started during seattle week and didn't die off fast enough i'd guess...

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Let's just take it from "[b]My biggest point[/b]....". I would agree this will be our most difficult asssignment to date. However, I agree with some others that have said, "this is the third time a good team, got bad, after we beat them". This is not to say we kicked the sh.. out of the Patriots, etc. That does not diminish the wins they have achieved. This is a team on the rise-dramatic rise. Each week, by leaps and bounds has their performance improved as has the opponents talent. Can they beat the Broncos-HELL YEA!
Lastly, I am in no danger of falling in love with a Superbowl holographic imposter of the skins. Since George Allen, and the many who have followed have I passionately carried the torch for the Redskins! At times, like a "tough love" child have I defended them. It is for these reasons I, like many of my brothers and sisters am I REALLY enjoying their rise to fame once again.
[b]Gimme a hallelujah[/b][/QUOTE]


Really what I am trying to say is this, I don't expect much out of us on offense, I am not looking at our offense as progressing, I look at what we did against Seattle, and know they are a stupid defense, that's why we scored a whopping 20 points, which I know for us is an onslaught, 2 TD's that's it, that's all we needed against Seattle, which is fine, but I want to be realistic on our chances against a real defense, and don't expect 11-15 on third down this week.

Will I be routing for them to win? Absofreakinlutly! But that doesn't mean I can't be objective as well, and I think that's the typical problem here, some of us don't want to just sit back and say we are going to just beat everyone we play, regardless if we are overmatched or not. Bottom line we can't move the ball against mediocre defenses, and so many here know we will do it against a defense as aggressive as denver's? I wouldn't be betting money on that.

Re: Brunell
 

Brunell is doing the job. Check the standings: 3-0.
I've seen more outta Brunell this season than I've seen outta any QB since Brad Johnson body slamming Robert Porcher in the home wildcard game!!! Let's enjoy the fact that we're winning close games. Brunell makes smart decisions. This team reminds me alot of the 80's teams. All heart and alot of Jesus luck. 4th and 3 and Riggins runs 41 yds for a TD against Miami??? That's story book. Well so far this season has written like a cheezy unbelievable made for tv movie. We're 3-0 and I still believe in Gibbs. Check my posts from last season and read my brother's sign on game day.
"In Gibbs We Trust"

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Really what I am trying to say is this, I don't expect much out of us on offense, I am not looking at our offense as progressing, I look at what we did against Seattle, and know they are a stupid defense, that's why we scored a whopping 20 points, which I know for us is an onslaught, 2 TD's that's it, that's all we needed against Seattle, which is fine, but I want to be realistic on our chances against a real defense, and don't expect 11-15 on third down this week.

Will I be routing for them to win? Absofreakinlutly! But that doesn't mean I can't be objective as well, and I think that's the typical problem here, some of us don't want to just sit back and say we are going to just beat everyone we play, regardless if we are overmatched or not. Bottom line we can't move the ball against mediocre defenses, and so many here know we will do it against a defense as aggressive as denver's? I wouldn't be betting money on that.[/QUOTE]

I do not challenge your loyalty as a fan, nor your right to challenge any and all opinions. That is part of the fun of the board! I do challenge your implication that there is something meritorious, or innovative regarding the stance YOU take. It is an opinion, nothing more.
It is your choice to take a defeatest attitude, and call it something else if you like. There are those of us who choose not to.

I would hardly characterize Seattle as a stupid defense as the Seahawks have had a couple of good wins against decent, if not good teams. Ray Rhodes remains highly sought after defensive coach. He is considered visionary by many, and assembled the first REAL defense the skins had since the original post Gibbs apocalypse. Our offense is gaining momentum rapidly. To suggest otherwise, would be absurd. A win, or loss in Dever this weekend won't change that. I have niether read or observed anything that convinces me the SKins won't win this game. A TEST, Hell yes! A defeat, HELL NO!!!!!!!!!
Don't forget to smell the roses today!

Re: Brunell
 

I believe Brunell is doing what we paid him all that money for. Smart football. not turning the ball over, giving our defense the chance to win field position. Thats what we are going to be and I believe Brunell understands that better than Ramsey. Brunell wont force bad throws, get out of bad plays at the line, even if its just a 1 or 2 yard gain. Lets face it Skins fans, this is who we are. We aren't the teams that put 30 pts a game back in Joes hayday. We are a defensive team with an offense that just needs to put 17 points up a game. If we put up 17 a game we can win maybe 12 games.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]I believe Brunell is doing what we paid him all that money for. Smart football. not turning the ball over, giving our defense the chance to win field position. Thats what we are going to be and I believe Brunell understands that better than Ramsey. Brunell wont force bad throws, get out of bad plays at the line, even if its just a 1 or 2 yard gain. Lets face it Skins fans, this is who we are. [b]We aren't the teams that put 30 pts a game back in Joes[/b] hayday. We are a defensive team with an offense that just needs to put 17 points up a game. If we put up 17 a game we can win maybe 12 games.[/QUOTE]

[b]YET![/b]

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]I do not challenge your loyalty as a fan, nor your right to challenge any and all opinions. That is part of the fun of the board! I do challenge your implication that there is something meritorious, or innovative regarding the stance YOU take. It is an opinion, nothing more.
It is your choice to take a defeatest attitude, and call it something else if you like. There are those of us who choose not to.

I would hardly characterize Seattle as a stupid defense as the Seahawks have had a couple of good wins against decent, if not good teams. Ray Rhodes remains highly sought after defensive coach. He is considered visionary by many, and assembled the first REAL defense the skins had since the original post Gibbs apocalypse. Our offense is gaining momentum rapidly. To suggest otherwise, would be absurd. A win, or loss in Dever this weekend won't change that. I have niether read or observed anything that convinces me the SKins won't win this game. A TEST, Hell yes! A defeat, HELL NO!!!!!!!!!
Don't forget to smell the roses today![/QUOTE]

Really what it will come down to is actions on the field, once that happens sunday you will see that I am right.

Our rapid growing offense? RAPID?????????

Ray Rhodes a VISIONAIRY? :laughing2 By many, Did he invent the wheel?

[QUOTE]hog1-Your post make no sense. However, if you think running backs and their success are tied strictly to the effectiveness of their respective lines, your wrong[/QUOTE]

Really? So what you are saying is Portis stinks? Because I do believe he has the lowest yards per carry of any legitamate starting back last year. There is no back who doesn't need good blocking, you have power backs who can run people over and get yards that way, or you can be Barry Sanders, out of which Portis is neither, the fact is a great line, or great blocking schemes can make any back look good, [see denver] bottom line no back does anything without good blocking, did you ever hear the saying it all starts up front? Why is that? It's what a back does with that good blocking that seperates him from the rest of the backs!

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Really what it will come down to is actions on the field, once that happens sunday you will see that I am right.

Our rapid growing offense? RAPID?????????

Ray Rhodes a VISIONAIRY? :laughing2 By many, Did he invent the wheel?



Really? So what you are saying is Portis stinks? Because I do believe he has the lowest yards per carry of any legitamate starting back last year. There is no back who doesn't need good blocking, you have power backs who can run people over and get yards that way, or you can be Barry Sanders, out of which Portis is neither, the fact is a great line, or great blocking schemes can make any back look good, [see denver] bottom line no back does anything without good blocking, did you ever hear the saying it all starts up front? Why is that? It's what a back does with that good blocking that seperates him from the rest of the backs![/QUOTE]

Hmmmmmmm..................Ray Rhodes, stupid defense? SF D coach 1994 Super bowl champ, took Green Bay D to #2, Took Skins D to # 4. Is that your definition of "Stupid defense"? What does #1 D get on your scale? Moderately effective?
Maybe you could point out in what part of any of my posts I stated "Portis stinks"? My statement was, a higher level of motivation could increase his effectiveness, as it does in all competitors. Maybe you have heard the expression "getting up for a game"? Do you know what that refers to? And that is all I have to say on the matter

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Hmmmmmmm..................Ray Rhodes, stupid defense? SF D coach 1994 Super bowl champ, took Green Bay D to #2, Took Skins D to # 4. Is that your definition of "Stupid defense"? What does #1 D get on your scale? Moderately effective?
Maybe you could point out in what part of any of my posts I stated "Portis stinks"? My statement was, a higher level of motivation could increase his effectiveness, as it does in all competitors. Maybe you have heard the expression "getting up for a game"? Do you know what that refers to? And that is all I have to say on the matter[/QUOTE]

I agree with you Hog1.
I am not sure who the brilliant defensive analists on this sight that are putting down Ray Rhodes, nor do I care, but Ray Rhodes is ONE of the top defensive coaches in the NFL. He turned our shitty defense around in one year just like Williams did last year. Where ever he goes he improves a teams D.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Hmmmmmmm..................Ray Rhodes, stupid defense? SF D coach 1994 Super bowl champ, took Green Bay D to #2, Took Skins D to # 4. Is that your definition of "Stupid defense"? What does #1 D get on your scale? Moderately effective?
Maybe you could point out in what part of any of my posts I stated "Portis stinks"? My statement was, a higher level of motivation could increase his effectiveness, as it does in all competitors. Maybe you have heard the expression "getting up for a game"? Do you know what that refers to? And that is all I have to say on the matter[/QUOTE]


Nonesense, Seifert was the defensive mind in san fran, and green bay was an offensive team, he's been miserable anytime he's been the man, stats are sometimes very misleading, the fact was we couldn't stop anyone when it counted, just like last week when he couldn't stop us when it counted. I wouldn't hire Rhodes if offered to pay me to coach, and please don't make comparisons to the impact on our defense between Rhodes, and Williams, there's no comparison, NONE!

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Defensewins]I agree with you Hog1.
I am not sure who the brilliant defensive analists on this sight that are putting down Ray Rhodes, nor do I care, but Ray Rhodes is ONE of the top defensive coaches in the NFL. He turned our shitty defense around in one year just like Williams did last year. Where ever he goes he improves a teams D.[/QUOTE]


How quickly do we forget, eh?

Re: Brunell
 

Skins always play Denver tough,as one who attended ''SUPERBOWL XX11'' I do have the attitude that we'll kick out some horse teeth on SUNDAY