TheSchwartz Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I have probably watched 95% of all Redskins games over the last 10 years. There's always a game or two where something more important is going on so I won't say I watched every game. At half time of the Seattle game I made a promise to myself that I will definitely keep. At that point I said if Brunell comes out as the QB for the Redskins I will stop watching. The game is over. Brunell could not lead that team to a victory Saturday. Why Gibbs couldn't see it I'll never understand. Could Ramsey really do any worse in that game? There's no way it's a downgrade, so you are either getting an upgrade by putting him in there, or there is no change in your offense. Don't know about you guys, but I would take a chance on something improving with a new blood... This promise continues into next year. I will not watch any game next year where Brunell is the starter by choice. If the Skins' starter is injured and Brunell is around to be the backup then that is what it is, but if Gibbs goes with him as the starter from day 1, I am done with the Joe Gibbs era Redux. I won't "enjoy" any wins, I won't be pissed at any losses, and even if the Skins somehow manage to make it to the Super Bowl, I will not only not watch, but if the Skins win I will renounce my fanaticism for the Redskins and pick up a new team. So it's really a win/win for the Redskins... There's another question I had concerning Brunell, IIRC when the Skins got Brunell and signed him to that 6 or 7 year deal for 43 million, didn't most of the reports say it was basically a 2-year deal? I'm thinking perhaps Brunell has to be cut for salary cap reasons? Boy would that be great... As far as 2006 goes, it's pretty obvious what this team needs on offense. A QB that can run a vertical offense and a receiver that can take the pressure off of Santana... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan09 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Royal, Rock, Holdman, Kozlowski, Evans, Albright, K. Campbell, Stoutmire, R. Brown (retired) are the unrestricted free agents and jimoh and killings are restricted free agents just off the top of my head. I also found out today that Dockery can opt out of his final year and become a restricted free agent. but the redskins will match any offer if he chooses to do that. I hope they resign Stoutmire and Evans they are solid players. Derrik Frost, Antonio Brown, Jimmy Farris, and Ryan Boschett's contract aint expired? Dockery can opt out of his final year and become a restricted free agent. but the redskins will match any offer if he chooses to do that. so that means hes staying right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreek1973 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I have probably watched 95% of all Redskins games over the last 10 years. There's always a game or two where something more important is going on so I won't say I watched every game.At half time of the Seattle game I made a promise to myself that I will definitely keep. At that point I said if Brunell comes out as the QB for the Redskins I will stop watching. The game is over. Brunell could not lead that team to a victory Saturday. Why Gibbs couldn't see it I'll never understand. Could Ramsey really do any worse in that game? There's no way it's a downgrade, so you are either getting an upgrade by putting him in there, or there is no change in your offense. Don't know about you guys, but I would take a chance on something improving with a new blood... This promise continues into next year. I will not watch any game next year where Brunell is the starter by choice. If the Skins' starter is injured and Brunell is around to be the backup then that is what it is, but if Gibbs goes with him as the starter from day 1, I am done with the Joe Gibbs era Redux. I won't "enjoy" any wins, I won't be pissed at any losses, and even if the Skins somehow manage to make it to the Super Bowl, I will not only not watch, but if the Skins win I will renounce my fanaticism for the Redskins and pick up a new team. So it's really a win/win for the Redskins... There's another question I had concerning Brunell, IIRC when the Skins got Brunell and signed him to that 6 or 7 year deal for 43 million, didn't most of the reports say it was basically a 2-year deal? I'm thinking perhaps Brunell has to be cut for salary cap reasons? Boy would that be great... As far as 2006 goes, it's pretty obvious what this team needs on offense. A QB that can run a vertical offense and a receiver that can take the pressure off of Santana... I love the skins and will watch them no matter what. However I feel the same way about Brunell. The guy when he is not 100% healthy really plays 1/3 of the field. Hell even when he is on he still plays 3/4 of the field, can't run to the right and throw if his life depended on it and can't really throw the ball in tight spaces in the middle of the field. Next year he will be a year older so yea please Gibbs its time to put this puppy to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 We will also resign Albright our long snapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan09 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 jocevensen how are you findin all of this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 I have probably watched 95% of all Redskins games over the last 10 years. There's always a game or two where something more important is going on so I won't say I watched every game.At half time of the Seattle game I made a promise to myself that I will definitely keep. At that point I said if Brunell comes out as the QB for the Redskins I will stop watching. The game is over. Brunell could not lead that team to a victory Saturday. Why Gibbs couldn't see it I'll never understand. Could Ramsey really do any worse in that game? There's no way it's a downgrade, so you are either getting an upgrade by putting him in there, or there is no change in your offense. Don't know about you guys, but I would take a chance on something improving with a new blood... This promise continues into next year. I will not watch any game next year where Brunell is the starter by choice. If the Skins' starter is injured and Brunell is around to be the backup then that is what it is, but if Gibbs goes with him as the starter from day 1, I am done with the Joe Gibbs era Redux. I won't "enjoy" any wins, I won't be pissed at any losses, and even if the Skins somehow manage to make it to the Super Bowl, I will not only not watch, but if the Skins win I will renounce my fanaticism for the Redskins and pick up a new team. So it's really a win/win for the Redskins... There's another question I had concerning Brunell, IIRC when the Skins got Brunell and signed him to that 6 or 7 year deal for 43 million, didn't most of the reports say it was basically a 2-year deal? I'm thinking perhaps Brunell has to be cut for salary cap reasons? Boy would that be great... As far as 2006 goes, it's pretty obvious what this team needs on offense. A QB that can run a vertical offense and a receiver that can take the pressure off of Santana... I am a ramsey fan and think he got screwed over after the chicago game, but brunell provides something to the offense that ramsey does not. Brunell adds wisdom, maturity, and leadership. No starter other then Brunell is in his thirties. Haveing Brunell in the lineup helps the other starters mature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan09 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I am a ramsey fan and think he got screwed over after the chicago game, but brunell provides something to the offense that ramsey does not. Brunell adds wisdom, maturity, and leadership. No starter other then Brunell is in his thirties. Haveing Brunell in the lineup helps the other starters mature. i hope they dont trade ramsey unless they can get a low 2nd (wich they probably wont) and besides he should have taken over for brunell after the knee injury. i can understand Gibbs wanting to start brunell the next game to see if he'd be able to play but he should have put in ramsey cause brunell wasnt playing well. they shouldnt trade ramsey cause he is the best bet if brunell is to get hurt next year. jason cambell still isnt ready but will be in 2007. for all we know patrick ramsey will be the starter next year. they need ramsey there to go in and take over if brunell cant do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 very few mistakes? are you serious? let's see.......he could've ran the ball into the endzone in the 3rd, but threw it away instead. not to mention, i crap my pants everytime he gets hit, because he led the league in fumbles for the 4th straight year. good stat, congratulations mark. you still and always will suck. Wow, I can't believe you were dropped on your head that many times when you were young. Brunell had a solid season and was, without a doubt, the 3rd best quaterback in the NFC behind Hasselbeck and Delhomme. He'll look even better next year IF the pass protection continues to improve with the continuity and experience of the O-line (I thought the protection, as much as anything else, was what was lacking for the last 3 games) and we have a second reciever who can actually get open and make a catch. Here's to ANOTHER good year from Brunell in 06-07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Yeah, I know he left the Giants game :doh:, I was there. I thought he sprained his knee...I'm pretty sure he didn't tear it. You don't contemplate coming back into the game on a torn MCL. A tear is much worse than a sprain...and I didn't read anything about a tear. :whoknows: Actually, the definition of a sprain is the fraying or partial tearing of a ligament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Dockery played well down the stretch when we needed it. Maybe its because we rededicated the offense to running the ball but he came through in the clutch. I did not hear his name yesterday which for a G is a good thing I agree, I thought after a few early season penalties he settled down and had a good year. Actually, I though the least consistent O-line player was our Pro Bowler Chris Samuels. All in all, our interior line was solid this year and most of the pressure/sacks came from the outside, namely from Samuels. The one thing that concerns me about our O-line (besides depth, which I assume will be addressed in the offseason) is the type of linemen we have. We don't have consistency in their style of play. Dockery and Jansen are road graders, Samuels and Thomas are more athletic and Rabach is kind of in between but a solid technician. The problem is it may not allow everybody to be playing to their strengths. Dockery and Jansen aren't quite athletic enough to maximize the stretch play (Portis' best running play). Samuels and Thomas struggle at time to drive block man on man. Rabach is solid at everything but dominating at nothing. I think it points our line in a postion where, no matter what we run, somebody on the line is not playing to their strength. Most of the succesful running teams out there kind of go one way or the other. It's almost like we're a mix between Denver and Baltimore's O-lines. I'm not saying it can't work and maybe they'll blow us away next just due to the time together and continuity but it's just an observation I made. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 i wouldnt put the skins past drafting a WR but not after looking at other issuse (dline/oline) maybe in the 3rd/4th round they should look to get a young receiver. a veteran would be nice butif they cant find the right guy (wich they probably wont) i think a rookie with potential would be great.preferrd a rookie about 6'1-6'3 that can "go up and get it." cause lets face it..... !!OUR RECEIVERS ARE SHORT!! The problem with that is reciever is one of the most difficult positions to project from college to the NFL and rookie WR rarely make significant contributions. O-line, on the other hand, is probably the easiest to project so I think we'll probably go after a veteran WR. Besides, we need starter at WR, depth at O-line so I think it makes a lot more sense to go after a WR in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 WR Taylor Jacobs 2005 In practice Jacobs was playing like Jerry Rice but that Jacobs was not showing up on Sundays. Jacobs got his first extensive action in the NFL as the Redskins #2 receiver midway through 2005 but only caught 11 passes. 2006 Jacobs contract expires after 2006 and if he wants to get an opportunity he needs to work on his catching (he dropped an easy ball in the first quarter of the Seattle playoff game that would have been a first down) and getting open. Jacobs has potential but he needs to realize in 2006. It’s do or die time for Jacobs. I disagree here. I think it was do or die time for Jacobs in 2005. He died. After Patten went down (and even before realy, as Patten wasn't doing anything) we needed a 2nd WR to step up more than anything. Jacobs had every oppotunity to prove all his doubters wrong, and he fell on his face. He was whined about not getting picked in the 1st round, and players have praised him for great practices, but he has never shown up on the field. If we are in a position to give Jacobs another chance net year, we are in trouble. Brunell will need to restructure to stick around, which he will do (and better do if you ask me. It should even be his idea). Santana acualy has a big cap number too doesn't he? I though I remember when we extended him that it was structued as almost a year-to-year deal so if he didn't pan out we could cut him easily. We need to sign him to a 57 year cap-friendly deal right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 well done, good analysisi disagree with what you said about patten though - i think he was a disappointment Personally, I get the feeling that Patten pulled a "Brunell" and was injured for the bulk of the season, but didn't say anything and played through it. Next year we'll know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawboy_2000 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I didn't see any mention of the former USC fullback we drafted, Manuel White... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I didn't see any mention of the former USC fullback we drafted, Manuel White... He is now an H-Back. That leaves him as Cooley's backup. I could see Cooley bein used more as a traditional TE while White lines up as an H. Could be the answer to losing Royal, or pushing Royal for playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan09 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 i cant wait for manuel and nemo to get some playing time. i can only see manuel white being like mike sellers mostly a blocking back with some TE mixed in. Nehemiah will be a good 3rd and short back and used in goaline situations kinda like Bettis. considering that they make it through training camp....do you think that nemo and white will get some desent playing time next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 RT Jon Jansen 2005 Unfortunately, Jansen was once again snubbed for the Pro Bowl despite the many knowledgeable Redskins fans who believe he is a better player then Samuels. Spare me the drama. Why is it that whenever a Jansen apologist defends their guy, they always, without fail, feel the need to take a shot at Chris Samuels. Samuels has been from the moment he got here the better player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan09 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Spare me the drama.Why is it that whenever a Jansen apologist defends their guy, they always, without fail, feel the need to take a shot at Chris Samuels. Samuels has been from the moment he got here the better player. AGREED! though you can clearly see the difference in our line when Jansen, Samuels, and Thomas are all in it i think that Chris Samuels and Randy Thomas are our best linemen i just knew that they would make the probowl together and i would have been right.... jansen is good but not up to that lvl. i beleive we have one of the top 7 olines in the league....better than seattles. not just jansen but Portis, Cooley, Washington, Taylor, and even Springs where snubbed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4Ever51 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I do agree with much of that, but... Always a but... Earnest Byner said in his interview on Extreme, that Rock would probably not be back, so we have to consider that done. Mark Brunell, although a veteran, and we all know how much Gibbs loves veterans, made non veteran mistakes. He put his receivers out there in some very vulnerable positions to get the life smacked outa them. Being a QB is so much more than just throwing a ball to someone, it's where ya throw it, how you throw it, being smart when you do, and he is starting to make some major mental errors in that area. I am sure he will be the starter next year, and I am ok with that, but only if they really take a conserted effort to getting campbell ready to step in. Other than that, I agree. I would like to add my own, Demetric Evans, he will be a free agent yet I am hoping they keep him. He showed much promise as a backup to Renaldo Wynn, and I think should get some consideration. Ok, done... Go SKINS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 I agree, I thought after a few early season penalties he settled down and had a good year. Actually, I though the least consistent O-line player was our Pro Bowler Chris Samuels. All in all, our interior line was solid this year and most of the pressure/sacks came from the outside, namely from Samuels. The one thing that concerns me about our O-line (besides depth, which I assume will be addressed in the offseason) is the type of linemen we have. We don't have consistency in their style of play. Dockery and Jansen are road graders, Samuels and Thomas are more athletic and Rabach is kind of in between but a solid technician. The problem is it may not allow everybody to be playing to their strengths. Dockery and Jansen aren't quite athletic enough to maximize the stretch play (Portis' best running play). Samuels and Thomas struggle at time to drive block man on man. Rabach is solid at everything but dominating at nothing. I think it points our line in a postion where, no matter what we run, somebody on the line is not playing to their strength. Most of the succesful running teams out there kind of go one way or the other. It's almost like we're a mix between Denver and Baltimore's O-lines. I'm not saying it can't work and maybe they'll blow us away next just due to the time together and continuity but it's just an observation I made. What do you guys think? OUR o line is only a problem when we do not utilize its strengths. Look where all of the starters come from, texas, michigan, alabama, wisconsin, mississippi state, all running schools. When we pass more then we run we basically are asking for Brunell to get sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottnSharrer Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The comments that were made about Patten, I totally agree that he could be productive, but there is one other aspect to look at. Patten is not young any more, and he has suffered injuries frequently in the last few years. There are younger veteran WR's out there who could perform at the same level as Patten. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and team member, but knowing someone's past when it comes to injuries has to be taken into consideration when making a decision as to who will fill a vital role on the offense. Other then that, I think all the original comments made on here were very accurate. Campbell I don't think is ready to start next year, but after one more year of learning the system and developing, he will come out in 2007 as a top QB in the league. Just don't throw him in too soon, that is why I hope they give him one more year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Spare me the drama.Why is it that whenever a Jansen apologist defends their guy, they always, without fail, feel the need to take a shot at Chris Samuels. Samuels has been from the moment he got here the better player. I may have exaggeratted, but look how much jansen improved the offense entirely this year after we didnt have him last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 i cant wait for manuel and nemo to get some playing time. i can only see manuel white being like mike sellers mostly a blocking back with some TE mixed in.Nehemiah will be a good 3rd and short back and used in goaline situations kinda like Bettis. considering that they make it through training camp....do you think that nemo and white will get some desent playing time next year? manuel may find himself the odd man out next training camp, if it were not for his high draft status and his injury he may not have even made it out of the first round of cuts. hopefully he has studied the H Back position more and is prepared to be the second H-Back next season. Nemo will get time, but much of that playing time is dependent upon what happens with Rock in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Santana acualy has a big cap number too doesn't he? I though I remember when we extended him that it was structued as almost a year-to-year deal so if he didn't pan out we could cut him easily. We need to sign him to a 57 year cap-friendly deal right now. Santana Moss cap hit is only around 4.25 million for 2006, which is very cheap for an elite receiver in this league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 We def need a deeper WR corps. Thrash and Jacobs are no better than #4 WRs..We need some playmakers and large targets with surehands and route running ability. We need someone similar to Henry Ellard taht will compliment Moss. What if Moss got injured? We would have been D-O-N-E. We need to add at least one good WR this offseason. Patten returning will help a lot. We could actually go to three receiver sets and scare some teams/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.