Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Brunell Back in 2007?

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2006, 09:17 AM   #61
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006 View Post
I see brunell retiring at seasons end.
I hope so, that would be in the best interests of he & the team. Id like Joe to keep him around as an asst. qb coach or something. Then if ALL our qbs got hurt he could come out of retirement.
He plays too tentatively at this point in his career & he shouldnt 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?
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 12-01-2006, 09:21 AM   #62
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.

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.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 09:26 AM   #63
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.
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).
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 09:28 AM   #64
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
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.
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.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 09:56 AM   #65
Franchise Player
 
skinsfan69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arlington, VA.
Posts: 9,361
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12 View Post
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).
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.
skinsfan69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 10:00 AM   #66
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 52
Posts: 10,515
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

brunell is a viable backup, but the cap number is fairly high. i think he retires
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 10:14 AM   #67
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.
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).
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 10:18 AM   #68
Impact Rookie
 
The Zimmermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodley Park, Washington DC
Age: 30
Posts: 937
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Dan Snyder is a Cancer, Joe Gibbs is the Cure
The Zimmermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 10:38 AM   #69
Impact Rookie
 
The Zimmermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodley Park, Washington DC
Age: 30
Posts: 937
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

yeah, i guess we made two first round picks in 2004, my bad
__________________
Dan Snyder is a Cancer, Joe Gibbs is the Cure
The Zimmermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 11:02 AM   #70
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Zimmermans View Post
yeah, i guess we made two first round picks in 2004, my bad
right, 04 not 05 like I posted earlier
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 07:37 PM   #71
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.
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. I think you have to evaluate your decisions in the context they were made. 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 compromise the present 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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2006, 01:26 PM   #72
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Brunell Back in 2007?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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. I think you have to evaluate your decisions in the context they were made. 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 compromise the present 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.
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.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 AM.


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 0.31229 seconds with 9 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