Scamology Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 I don't do that anymore. I did in my first post but I don't think that donkey is a bad insult but something has to be said to people who have selective sight and see no evil in stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scamology Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 If you have not realized this yet, Saunders is no longer in KC, he is in DC. Also, saunders is running the offense, but when he was hired, Gibbs made it clear that he reserves the right to make any personnel decisions. Go back and look at the thread where there is a post about when Saunders (after becoming OC) brought in collins and assured his agent he would be the #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGeorge85 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 It's a good thing the ProBowl was in Hawaii. I lost a great deal of respect for Vick when he played Chicago at Soldier Field in December on Sunday Night Football. Vick could not play in the cold at all, and that will hurt the Falcons chances every year come playoff time. He ran faster to the sidelines to get in his coat than he did in the entire game. Unless they dominate and get home field (or miraculously play in domes all the way through the playoffs) it's not going to happen for Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Forget the #'s. So let me get this straight. The general consensus here is that you guys would take Brunell over Vick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I don't do that anymore. I did in my first post but I don't think that donkey is a bad insult but something has to be said to people who have selective sight and see no evil in stupidity. the problem with this statement is that you are deciding what is and is not "stupid" and im sorry to say you have proven that you are not that qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Forget the #'s. So let me get this straight. The general consensus here is that you guys would take Brunell over Vick? on this team with this system, yes. personally im a purist regarding QB's. i simply do not think that vick would flourish in a system like the Skins offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Vinny Testerverde passed for the 2nd most yards in Cowboy history but was cut because he wasn't up to par. Don't bring #'s to me to justify Brunell. You mean the year he threw 20 INTs? (The fourth most in Cowboys history, by the way) That's a pretty horrible example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 God, some people here have so little football knowledge.Can you not realize that Joseph Gibbs has lost it when it comes to quarterbacks. He says that he trusts Brunell! And says that Campbell must fight for a backup #2 spot with Collins. Al Saunders loves Collins. I used to love Gibbs but I'm not sure now. He has snubbed our new QB for too long. Gibbs and Saunders need to go, IMO. Assclown AND troll. What a winning combination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Joey Harrington should have gone to the pro bowl over Mr. Over Rated. Mike Vick didnt deserve to go to the pro bowl at all. Atlanta will never win a champoinship with him at QB, they need to play Matt Schaub, Vick is overrated and doesnt produce. LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS.....He can't barely throw it in the ocean. Good point. Michael Vick isn't even the best quarterback on his own team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scamology Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 Assclown AND troll. What a winning combination. Wow, just because I think that Campbell is better than Brunell. Come over to school at Georgetown and we'll have a real discussion that isn't about namecalling but is rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Forget the #'s. So let me get this straight. The general consensus here is that you guys would take Brunell over Vick? No. But Brunell had a better year than Vick. So did Bledsoe. So did Manning. The Pro-bowl isn't 'who's do you want on your team' but 'who played better this year.' Vick did not play well. He didn't deserve to go over any of the players I just mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Assclown AND troll. What a winning combination. Wow, just because I think that Campbell is better than Brunell.Come over to school at Georgetown and we'll have a real discussion that isn't about namecalling but is rational. Neither of those posts fly around here, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 on this team with this system, yes. personally im a purist regarding QB's. i simply do not think that vick would flourish in a system like the Skins offense. The man (Vick) went 12-4 in the 1st year of running the West Coast offense with no bonafide #1 WR. His TE was his best option. OK they went 8-8 last year. He wins games. Brunell lost 6 fumbles 3 in the red zone. People always leave that off. Vick makes some mistakes but its not because of lack of ability. Brunell plays consertative and still makes mistakes. Once again if Gibbs let him (Brunell) play he'd be the worst QB in the league. Brunell has a losing record since being with the Skins. Also another point. No QB has gotten better after 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Scamjam after onedrop cautioned him about his consistently (so far) insulting style---"I don't do that anymore. I did in my first post but I don't think that donkey is a bad insult but something has to be said to people who have selective sight and see no evil in stupidity." That was doing it. Scamjam--This is my first post, and there will be many more. .....its the offseason and during the season ill be on more. Or maybe not. You have a short leash with me to work on your style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Gibbs stuck with him because of his contract and the team iinvestment in him not because of his current ability. If you can back up that statement in any way shape or form I'd love to hear it. I believe that's an insult to Gibbs' integrity and the way he approaches the game. To think, considering it's wholly apparent that Synder has no problem throwing money away if need be, and considering the dedication both Synder and Gibbs have to winning that Brunell was only playing because of his contract is ludicrous at best. Again, please show me anything, anything at all that would even remotely verify this statement as something more than uneducated conjecture. Somehow, I doubt you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Wow, just because I think that Campbell is better than Brunell.Come over to school at Georgetown and we'll have a real discussion that isn't about namecalling but is rational. no but probably because.... according to you we have no football knowledge you said our HOF coach is senile and should be fired you said our new offensive coordinator should be fired even before we see what he can do you started the name calling and just maybe because of this super sized man crush you have for JC. get over it. he will play, he will start, just be patient. we dont want the kid getting ramsey'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Forget the #'s. So let me get this straight. The general consensus here is that you guys would take Brunell over Vick? In a heart beat. Why do I want a less than durable RB who's not a good passer as my QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottnSharrer Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Go back and look at the thread where there is a post about when Saunders (after becoming OC) brought in collins and assured his agent he would be the #2. Go read the rumor mill link at cbssportsline.com and you will see that is where the information came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The man (Vick) went 12-4 in the 1st year of running the West Coast offense with no bonafide #1 WR. His TE was his best option. OK they went 8-8 last year. He wins games. Brunell lost 6 fumbles 3 in the red zone. People always leave that off. Vick makes some mistakes but its not because of lack of ability. Brunell plays consertative and still makes mistakes. Once again if Gibbs let him (Brunell) play he'd be the worst QB in the league. Brunell has a losing record since being with the Skins. Also another point. No QB has gotten better after 35. forgive me but i dont understand the last sentence. according to memory Gibbs did let Brunell play last year and he was far from the worst QB in the league. he had a better year (not saying he is always better) than vick did, and with one real WR threat. yes Brunell did fumble and it caused me a few gray hairs. but he also scrambled for key first downs and led us to sweep dallass. vick does what vick does whee he is. he is not the guy for us. Brunell may only be "mr right now" but for the moment he is the better fit for us than vick could hope to be. this may not be the case for another team but for our Skins vick has not much to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 If you can back up that statement in any way shape or form I'd love to hear it. I believe that's an insult to Gibbs' integrity and the way he approaches the game. To think, considering it's wholly apparent that Synder has no problem throwing money away if need be, and considering the dedication both Synder and Gibbs have to winning that Brunell was only playing because of his contract is ludicrous at best. Again, please show me anything, anything at all that would even remotely verify this statement as something more than uneducated conjecture. Somehow, I doubt you can. The bottom line is Brunell was a loser. He was the worst rated passer period that year. No coach would've stuck with him on a team that should've and could've made the playoffs in his(Gibbs') 1st season. I know he wants to win but his method and strategy isn't proven in this modern cap era. If the SKins win the Superbowl then I'd shut my mouth but the SKins way of doing it hasn't been proven yet. Last year in those last 5 games we played down the stretch we played the Cardinals,Rams and an injury depleted Eagle team. A Giant team with depleted LB's where he threw an INT off his back foot for a TD. The main reason I know that he loves Brunell is because he benched Ramsey after a quarter and a half but stuck with Brunell for nine games of inept play killing the teams playoff hopes. Now Gibbs when he 1st arrived gave up a 3rd rounder almost a 9 million dollar sigining bonus for Brunell. He had to save face because he was the main one who wanted Brunell. Trust me if Brunell was making league minimun he would've been gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The man (Vick) went 12-4 in the 1st year of running the West Coast offense with no bonafide #1 WR. His TE was his best option. OK they went 8-8 last year. He wins games. He won 8 this past year. Brunell won 10. Brunell lost 6 fumbles 3 in the red zone. People always leave that off. Vick lost 5 and fumbled three more times than Brunell did. You think one less fumble lost makes up for 2 wins, 638 passing yards, 8 passing TDs and 3 INTs? Yeesh. Vick makes some mistakes but its not because of lack of ability. Brunell plays consertative and still makes mistakes. Once again if Gibbs let him (Brunell) play he'd be the worst QB in the league. Brunell has a losing record since being with the Skins. In 2005, Brunell gained more combined yards, scored more combined TDs, had fewer combined turnovers and won more games than Vick. In every measurable way Brunell had a better season. Also another point. No QB has gotten better after 35. Tell that to John Elway, Rich Gannon, Brad Johson, Warren Moon and Doug Flutie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 forgive me but i dont understand the last sentence. according to memory Gibbs did let Brunell play last year and he was far from the worst QB in the league. he had a better year (not saying he is always better) than vick did, and with one real WR threat.yes Brunell did fumble and it caused me a few gray hairs. but he also scrambled for key first downs and led us to sweep dallass. vick does what vick does whee he is. he is not the guy for us. Brunell may only be "mr right now" but for the moment he is the better fit for us than vick could hope to be. this may not be the case for another team but for our Skins vick has not much to offer. I'm referring to his (Brunell's) 1st year here. Also man if you're telling me that Brunell is currently better than Vick in ANY offense thats absurd in my opinion. You have to be kidding. This is laughable. We're talking about Brunell. Come on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottnSharrer Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The man (Vick) went 12-4 in the 1st year of running the West Coast offense with no bonafide #1 WR. His TE was his best option. OK they went 8-8 last year. He wins games. Brunell lost 6 fumbles 3 in the red zone. People always leave that off. Vick makes some mistakes but its not because of lack of ability. Brunell plays consertative and still makes mistakes. Once again if Gibbs let him (Brunell) play he'd be the worst QB in the league. Brunell has a losing record since being with the Skins. Also another point. No QB has gotten better after 35. You make valid points, but here is another side. While hurt, Brunnell lead the skins to a 5 game winning streak (including Dallas and Philly - won't count NYG cause Ramsey did play half that game) and into the playoffs. Vick when hurt, rode the bench, and Schwab looked better then Vick. Brunnell, true, won't "get better" at 35+, but no one said he needs to get better, just stay healthy and play like he does healthy. Until he first got hurt, he was in top 3 in the league in Yds, TDs, and rating. He also was in the top 5 of least INTs. So, fact of the matter is, if the O-line can protect him, he will do just fine in leading us into and through the Playoffs. Especially with the addition of the new WR's. What is going to be funny is come mid season when the skins are on a roll, all of you who are bashing Brunnell will turn around and say that you are glad he is our QB this year. And yes I can say that because I was skeptical when Gibbs first brought in Brunnell, but I know regret having even an ounce of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 He won 8 this past year. Brunell won 10.Vick lost 5 and fumbled three more times than Brunell did. You think one less fumble lost makes up for 2 wins, 638 passing yards, 8 passing TDs and 3 INTs? Yeesh. In 2005, Brunell gained more combined yards, scored more combined TDs, had fewer combined turnovers and won more games than Vick. In every measurable way Brunell had a better season. Tell that to John Elway, Rich Gannon, Brad Johson, Warren Moon and Doug Flutie. In the last 2 seasons whats their records as starters? And like I said, I don't need #'s to know that Vick is better than Brunell. Vick is agressive but a coach will never not run a certain play because of what Vick can't do. Gibbs once again calls conservative playcalling for Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RYANJOHNXI Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Face it, donkeys, Brunell stinks. I love Campbell, but Vick is better than Campbell and Brunell is not better than both. "hu-Whaaaat"? -dave chappelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.