Brunell in Saunders's offense ?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Rich Gannon, Kurt Warner, and even Trent Green come to mind.

Both Gannon and Green showed scouts that they could play well before they ever got to the situations where they achieved success. Warner was never really unsuccessful anywhere, getting his first oppertunity in St. Louis and having nothing but success. Although the media makes it out to sound like these guys came out of obscurity, NFL scouts are paid to find talent like those guys. When the Raiders got Gannon and the Chiefs got Green, they both fully expected the guys to lead their respective teams to victory. The Rams didn't go out and replace Warner after Green got hurt, so the same applies to him.

With Collins, hes been in the league for so long, and has never so much as gotten a sniff. That doesn't mean hes a bad QB, but it does keep him away from the Green, Gannon, Warner category.

The important point I'm making here is that none of the three successful QBs you mentioned had to win a QB battle to get the job that made them famous. Green and Gannon were signed as starters, and Warner was annointed as one after Green's injury.

Brunell is our QB.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The important point I'm making here is that none of the three successful QBs you mentioned had to win a QB battle to get the job that made them famous. Green and Gannon were signed as starters, and Warner was annointed as one after Green's injury.

I guess if the redskins just give Collins (or campbell) the starting spot and not make them have to win it. That would allow them to be successful. I don't know... it may work.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Both Gannon and Green showed scouts that they could play well before they ever got to the situations where they achieved success. Warner was never really unsuccessful anywhere, getting his first oppertunity in St. Louis and having nothing but success. Although the media makes it out to sound like these guys came out of obscurity, NFL scouts are paid to find talent like those guys. When the Raiders got Gannon and the Chiefs got Green, they both fully expected the guys to lead their respective teams to victory.

Gannon was at best a journeyman when he first became successful at the age of 34 with the Raiders. Green had 1 year of good play with the redskins after 6 years in the league and guess who was new with STL when Green went there: Saunders. And who was there and became successful when Green was injured after becoming the starter: Warner. Saunders was no doubt part of both of their success in STL and then KC.

Sometimes, qbs are unlucky and don't get a good chance to show how good they really are. And disclaimer: not saying Collins is good. Just going by what Saunders is saying. Saunders has been around long enough to give him that respect. And I for one don't think he is blowing smoke with what he says with Collins.

[Drago]

Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins

You raised a very interesting question, "How will Brunnel fit in the new offense?". Brunnel had a comeback season last year and fizzed at the end. Why are we so optomistic that he will excel in the new offense? I'm worried that he might be the weak link in the offense. They have upgraded the playbook and the receiving corps but the field general is still the same with dimenished skills. Cambell is ready yet. I fear that Collins might see significant playing time next year. Especially if Brunnel reverts back to form.

Fizzed at the end? He had one reciever, Peyton Manning would fiz at the end with one reciever. I never was a Brunnel fan but he did get my attention last year. He did more for us last year then any recent quarterback with limited resources. I'm anxious to see what he can do with this arsenal and just maybe with more targets he will stay in the pocket longer. If he doesnt and can't get the job done I hope Gibbs doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Gannon was at best a journeyman when he first became successful at the age of 34 with the Raiders. Green had 1 year of good play with the redskins after 6 years in the league and guess who was new with STL when Green went there: Saunders. And who was there and became successful when Green was injured after becoming the starter: Warner. Saunders was no doubt part of both of their success in STL and then KC.

Sometimes, qbs are unlucky and don't get a good chance to show how good they really are. And disclaimer: not saying Collins is good. Just going by what Saunders is saying. Saunders has been around long enough to give him that respect. And I for one don't think he is blowing smoke with what he says with Collins.

again, all of those guys (and warner) had 4-5 full years as starters by the time they hit 35, so they were good enough to prove they should start for multiple years. collins has had 1 ho-hum year as a starter to this point...

you still have yet to show a QB who started at 35+ after doing nothing and was successful. naming guys with 5 years of ACTUAL playing time (100+ games w/ pre/post season) and a super bowl before 35 isn't really much in the way of proof.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I guess if the redskins just give Collins (or campbell) the starting spot and not make them have to win it. That would allow them to be successful. I don't know... it may work.

It's not about just getting the starting job. It the reasoning behind why they were signed to be the starter that is the same as the reasoning why they were successful.

A good job by the scouting department. Those guys could play, they just went unnoticed early in their careers.

With Collins, it just seems like no coach (Saunders included) wants to go into battle with him. Remember, Vermeil took the KC job so he could, among other reasons, make Trent Green his QB.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

you still have yet to show a QB who started at 35+ after doing nothing and was successful. naming guys with 5 years of ACTUAL playing time (100+ games w/ pre/post season) and a super bowl before 35 isn't really much in the way of proof.

George Blanda. I say if Collins can kick a 55 yarder, we should start him opening day.

At kicker.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

And I'm not trying to start a qb controversy, but just noticing little things that people say (esp. what the coaches say).

Like gibbs saying during the last offseason that brunell still had something to contribute.

I think you are reading way too much in to a coaches comments in May, in this case Saunders. During the offseason the majority of comments made by coaches to the press about a players ability is geard to motivate that player.
Like last offseason Bugel trying to talk up dockery. He did that to try and fire him up.

What coaches say to the media in May about a player does not mean squat. That player could end up cut in the fall.
What will answer your 'thinking out loud questions' is the Qb depth chart right before regular seaon game #1.
That depth chart will speak louder than any forgetable interview in May.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I think you are reading way too much in to a coaches comments in May, in this case Saunders. During the offseason the majority of comments made by coaches to the press about a players ability is geard to motivate that player.
Like last offseason Bugel trying to talk up dockery. He did that to try and fire him up.

What coaches say to the media in May about a player does not mean squat. That player could end up cut in the fall.
What will answer your 'thinking out loud questions' is the Qb depth chart right before regular seaon game #1.
That depth chart will speak louder than any forgetable interview in May.

You're saying Saunders is trying to motivate a #2 qb on the depth charts. Why ?

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's not about just getting the starting job. It the reasoning behind why they were signed to be the starter that is the same as the reasoning why they were successful.

A good job by the scouting department. Those guys could play, they just went unnoticed early in their careers.

With Collins, it just seems like no coach (Saunders included) wants to go into battle with him. Remember, Vermeil took the KC job so he could, among other reasons, make Trent Green his QB.

Saunders never said he didn't want to go to battle with him. Actually he is saying the opposite.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

We're STILL talking about this a day later?!

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, all of those guys (and warner) had 4-5 full years as starters by the time they hit 35, so they were good enough to prove they should start for multiple years. collins has had 1 ho-hum year as a starter to this point...

you still have yet to show a QB who started at 35+ after doing nothing and was successful. naming guys with 5 years of ACTUAL playing time (100+ games w/ pre/post season) and a super bowl before 35 isn't really much in the way of proof.

Yeah, gannon started a whole bunch of games before he got to the raiders when he was almost 34, but he didn't accomplish anything. He was a journeyman by definition before he succeeded with the raiders.

Did you know he had a one year stint with the redskins ?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Yeah, gannon started a whole bunch of games before he got to the raiders when he was almost 34, but he didn't accomplish anything. He was a journeyman by definition before he succeeded with the raiders.

Did you know he had a one year stint with the redskins ?

Actually he was with the Skins for two seasons

Profile

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

We're STILL talking about this a day later?!

I mean, this isn't even thread worthy is it?? Collins??

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

We're STILL talking about this a day later?!

You know what, I don't think we're getting anywhere. I feel like I'm chasing my tail.

There's just 2 schools of thought here.

My 2 points here are:
(1) See someone play and then grade him. Don't use stats, playing time whatever before watching someone play. Others use stats and playing time first to judge a player, then watch him play. I use stats to back up what I see.
And..
(2) I take someone's word for what it is if that person has earned my respect, namely Saunders. Until he lies or shows otherwise, he has earned my respect of believing his words. I believe him and don't think he is exagerating or any of that. That's my opinion until he disproves me.

That's where I'm coming from.