macnoke03 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=11242 JC DC: Rick, How do you think the NFC East shakes out this year? Are you part of the ludicrous TO was a good move camp and the Cowboys will be a superbowl contender? The MSM of the sports media is so funny. The Cowboys were ok last yr but got crushed a few times towards the end of the season. They will not be much better this year. thanks. Rick Spielman: (4:06 PM ET ) I am not a T. O. fan. I think he will bring down the Cowboys eventually. If he had issues with McNabb, he have plenty more with Bledsoe. They still have offensive line issues. Drew caqn't move in the pocket and if he spends most of the game on his back it won't matter if they have TO or not. I think the team to beat at this time is the Wash Redskins. With the addition of Saunders as OC and the playmakers they addedat wr they should be a much more explosive offense Harry(baltimore): Hey Rick! I was wondering why the media loves to bash the Redskins when they overspend but when a team like seattle overspends for a #2 wide receiver nothing is said. Rick Spielman: (4:38 PM ET ) Wash has spent big in the past and the results were poor. Seattle just made it to the Super Bowl. Wash will continue to be questioned until the money spent shows results, which I think it will this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinclair Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 lets hope that it is true..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOfLamontHollinquest Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Saunders is the gun. Randle-El and Lloyd are just additional ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactitle Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 At least he gave us some love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Saunders is the gun.Randle-El and Lloyd are just additional ammo. If Saunders is the gun, how does Brunell & Cambell factor in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOfLamontHollinquest Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 If Saunders is the gun, how does Brunell & Cambell factor in? Umm, by this analogy Brunell would be the hammer and the barrell, I guess. Campbell would be the schematics and blueprints for a newer and better gun. How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Finally some friggin objectivity...a playoff team, which added key players to positions which needed help (and a top OC)...IS GOING TO BE A BETTER TEAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewU Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 how about Saunders is the never-miss assassin holding the gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewU Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 just like Brunell and the Redskins, as Bledsoe goes, the Cowboys will go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burger13 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 This is all from the guy who traded a 2nd round pick for AJ F'n Feeley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FS36 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Umm, by this analogy Brunell would be the hammer and the barrell, I guess.Campbell would be the schematics and blueprints for a newer and better gun. How's that? LOL good one. How about: Saunders is the hand that fires the gun, Brunell is the actual gun, and Moss, Lloyd, Patten, and R El are the high powered, armor piercing, FMJ rounds shot out of that gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 i really think saunders is going to be the man who elevates us. to have him and gibbs creating offensive gameplans every week is just unreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newera Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 We have the two of the best cords in the game right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCnDaHouse Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 wouldn't the WRs be the targets? The ball is the bullet... MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 wouldn't the WRs be the targets? The ball is the bullet...MC yeah but that would make it seem like we are trying to shoot our WRs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Gee, yet another former GM applauding our moves. It's too bad nimrods like Peter King and Fatty have more of an audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Umm, by this analogy Brunell would be the hammer and the barrell, I guess.Campbell would be the schematics and blueprints for a newer and better gun. How's that? That's a good answer. I would say that Brunnell and Campbell (whoever is on the field) will be the trigger. You have to squeeze them at times (figuratively speaking) in order for it all to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 wouldn't the WRs be the targets? The ball is the bullet...MC I would have to disagree. The receivers are making the impact in the game not the ball. The ball is no good if no one carries it. The target is the end zone. By the way, I'm not trying to start an argument over semantics (sp?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Isn't Sean Taylor the GUN? sorry but had too even though i love that cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 hahahaha good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomadicSkinFan Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I would have to disagree. The receivers are making the impact in the game not the ball. The ball is no good if no one carries it. The target is the end zone. By the way, I'm not trying to start an argument over semantics (sp?). I'm thinking that the target is the opposing team. One by one we'll gun them down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateSkins Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'd love to see this guy talk football with some of the the SI mediots and Pastabelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Good, reasoned commentary. This guy needs to be more prominent in ESPNs NFL discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Umm, by this analogy Brunell would be the hammer and the barrell, I guess.Campbell would be the schematics and blueprints for a newer and better gun. How's that? Not bad. :applause: Way to think fast... Hopefully this will prove to be true. GO Saunders and GO whoever our quarterback is next season. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaK9Trainer Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If Saunders is the gun, how does Brunell & Cambell factor in? Heat seeking missiles? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.