Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   Brunell (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/4394-brunell.html)

BleedBurgundy 01-03-2005 04:46 PM

Brunell
 
Well, now that [I]that[/I] is over with, what the hell are we going to do with Brunell? He's making insane money, playing like a third sting high school powder puff quarterback and still thinks he can be a starter in the NFL. I know Crazy Canuck is the resident expert, but, is there anything we can do to get rid of that ridiculous salary and it's disastrous effect on our cap? Can we just take the hit all at once and get it over with? I'd prefer that as opposed to stretching it out over 2 or 3 years. If we trade his sorry ass (I'm thinking some chicken selects from McDonalds and 3 nickels) do we also trade his cap hit? I need education on this...

Redskins_P 01-03-2005 04:51 PM

Bleedburgundy, from what I heard on Gibbs press conference today it doesn't look like Brunell is going anywhere. Sucks..

Beemnseven 01-03-2005 04:53 PM

The Brunell fiasco ranks right behind the Herschel Walker trade and Detroit's Scott Mitchell signing.

How could Gibbs be so wrong about this guy? Hell, Kerry Collins would have been a better aquisition.

FRPLG 01-03-2005 04:57 PM

Looks like he'd cost $7,167,000 if we release him before June 1 and $3,433,000(2005) and $5,733,000(2006) after June 1. he isn't going anywhere next year guys...just not affordable to do.

BleedBurgundy 01-03-2005 04:59 PM

Drunk Kerry Collins would have been better, I know.

I honestly believe that Gibbs has two very important abilities as concerned with player acquisition: Talent and Character evaluation. Brunell has handled his demotion well, a testament to the leadership and character which Gibbs wanted, but I believe that the time off effected Gibb's talent evaluation skills. That's a very tricky business and I believe that Brunell was just a mistake, plain and simple, attributed to rust.

Brunell needs to take a pay cut commensurate with his diminished status on the team. IF that happens, then I am fine with him on the team, but not as a rapidly diminishing 43 million dollar quarterback.

CrazyCanuck 01-03-2005 05:01 PM

I think it makes most sense to cut Brunell after June 1, 2006. That way we can eat the bulk of his signing bonus in 2007.

As for restructuring I don't see it happening. Just to clarify, many guys restructure, but very few if any take less money. In most cases restructuring means rearranging the terms of payment, not decreasing the amount of those payments.

A restructure usually involves replacing the player's upcoming salary with a signing bonus. This way the money gets spread over a few years instead of eating it all at once.

Since Brunell's 2005 salary is only $1.5M, a restructure will have minimal effect.

BleedBurgundy 01-03-2005 05:06 PM

Thanks Canuck, for the record, I was thinking pay cut. BIG PAY CUT. Hell, I was thinking pay back, as in please return your salary and signing bonus and apologize for killing weeks 1-10 or whenever he finally got benched.

Winskins 01-03-2005 05:09 PM

Why cut Brunnell? He may not be any where near worth the money we are paying for him right now, but imagine both the cap hit and the money it would take t sign a new backup quarterback. It would be ridiculous. Besides, who knows, he might still have a little bit of gas in the tank

Dirtbag 01-03-2005 05:33 PM

You need two QBs in the NFL, and given that we've already got him, we may as well keep him on the bench. Sure, he's not great (and that's being generous) but he knows the offense now, provides so-called "locker room leadership," and can back up Ramsey. *shrug*

Mattyk 01-03-2005 07:22 PM

Brunell will be back as Ramsey's backup, a high priced one at that.

Hopefully he can help mentor Ramsey for a season and we can let him go after that.

gortiz 01-03-2005 07:35 PM

I said easy big fella
 
[QUOTE=Beemnseven]The Brunell fiasco ranks right behind the Herschel Walker trade QUOTE]

Dude, the Walker trade led to the Cowboys winning 3 super bowls.....don't see Jax doing that anytime soon, it was a bad trade, but at the time it made sense, alot of sense....

GoSkins! 01-03-2005 08:07 PM

Brunnel is going to stay in Washington. Maybe they can get him to restructure so that we don't have a big cap hit until we release him in 2007. He is a smart guy and a proven QB. As a second string QB, I think he is an asset. (But not worth 43 M)!

Kevikazi 01-03-2005 11:54 PM

I say we demand that he take a big pay-cut. I'm sure Brunell knows that he wouldn't be wanted by ANY NFL team after seeing his horrible performance. I think League minimum for a veteran sounds about right.

ChounsMan 01-04-2005 09:00 AM

If I were Gibbs & I'm not. I would let things be as they are, but I would let Brunell know that he's only going to be our #2 or #3 from this point forward & if he sees another opportunity where he's gonna have a shot at starting restructuring & reducing his salary will be his only option he's got.

I'd leave the ball in his backfield.

Ramsey has proved that he's pregressing & Hasselbeck is going to serve great as our 2nd string. I'd look to draft a late rd QB or just leave Brunell as a solid #2/3.

The Skins are moving in the right direction regardless of the cap & Brunell.

GO SKINS '05!
:grouphug:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.10553 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25