AFskinsfan Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I was just thinking of this and thought I would post it and see what you guys thought. Everyone keeps bagging on Brunell and saying he won't last the year or he cannot produce like he used to. OK fine, lets play this game... What if Eli Manning goes down with an injury? The only legitimate back up for the Giants is Tim Hassellback (Spelling?). What if the blue and white statue, Bledsoe, goes down with an injury? Who do they have, Drew Hensen? Didn't he get benched over there in Europe or is he injured? The ONLY team in the NFC east that has a legitimate proven back up is Philly with Garcia. Don't get me wrong, I believe JC is ready to go, but he isn't a proven NFL quarterback yet. Despite all that I have said the media still picks the Cowgirls or Giants to win the division? Am I living in bizarro world or does simple logic seem to elude the media? I know my spelling is horrible tonight, it's been a long day and I'm running on fumes right now. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I was just thinking of this and thought I would post it and see what you guys thought. Everyone keeps bagging on Brunell and saying he won't last the year or he cannot produce like he used to. OK fine, lets play this game... What if Eli Manning goes down with an injury? The only legitimate back up for the Giants is Tim Hassellback (Spelling?). What if the blue and white statue, Bledsoe, goes down with an injury? Who do they have, Drew Hensen? Didn't he get benched over there in Europe or is he injured? The ONLY team in the NFC east that has a legitimate proven back up is Philly with Garcia. Don't get me wrong, I believe JC is ready to go, but he isn't a proven NFL quarterback yet. Despite all that I have said the media still picks the Cowgirls or Giants to win the division? Am I living in bizarro world or does simple logic seem to elude the media? I know my spelling is horrible tonight, it's been a long day and I'm running on fumes right now. Sorry I don't really have a problem with the pundits picking the Giants to win the division. They're the favorites right now, and probably deserve the benefit of the doubt after winning it last year. Of course, predictions are worthless. What I don't understand is the cowboys love. Have they improved one bit, besides adding T.O.? Is he really an improvement? His anti-social personality won't spontaneously disappear. Its not question of whether he'll cause trouble, its how much and when. I'm actually looking forward to watching that circus act in the coming season. But remember, it's nothing but a circus. Can't wait to see the wheels fall off that train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Can't argue with that. If Eli goes down for the season the Giants are definitely in trouble, the same for the Cowboys if Bledsoe goes down. I didn't know Philly got Jeff Garcia, but I think that if McNabb goes out with a season ending injury two years in a row, the Eagles will have a very tough time getting back into playoff form. I say this because I think that a lot of players would become fed up and try and get out if it happens again this year. As for us, I'm not sure what to think, because we haven't seen Campbell in true NFL action yet. I have every hope that he'll step up and be another Ben Roethlisberger if it comes down to it, but I really hope that Campbell gets to start on his own terms, not because Brunell goes down with an injury. If I had to pick any of the NFC East backups for my team I'd take Campbell first, then Garcia. Campbell, based on his age and college performance....not to mention his year of studying the game from the sidelines, and Garcia because he's probably the most proven NFC East backup out of the other guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I personally think we are the team that would be best off after losing their starting QB. Not so much Campbell but the weapons around him on Offense, plus a Defense that should be Top 10/Top 5 again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 That's what I always thought about too though, Eli as a starter sucks, IMO I can't believe that there are actually back-ups behind him, I think it should be the other way around, even though being realistic, he isn't the sorriest QB on that team. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 most teams would be screwed if their starting QB got hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllAboutSkins08 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 you have a point, and i've heard a lot of people say that. i think a lot of the media hates on brunell because of his performance at the end of the season. but i honestly think that brunell is more injury prone simply because of his past injuries to his leg and his age. i mean, i love brunell but he is old. the media figures that because of that brunell won't last as long as the other QBs in regular situations. i think he'll last a lot longer than the media gives him credit for, but logic (and the usual doubt in the redskins) is what drives people to come up with this conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 most teams would be screwed if their starting QB got hurt That's exactly right. There are probably less than about 10 bona fide really good much less great qb's in the NFL. Of those, McNabb, Culpepper, Brees, Palmer all got hurt last year. Who are the "good" backups? Griese in Chicago, Schaub in Atlanta, the guy in Jacksonville (can't think of his name - Guarard?). Lose your qb and basically you're out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 That's exactly right. There are probably less than about 10 bona fide really good much less great qb's in the NFL. Of those, McNabb, Culpepper, Brees, Palmer all got hurt last year. Who are the "good" backups? Griese in Chicago, Schaub in Atlanta, the guy in Jacksonville (can't think of his name - Guarard?). Lose your qb and basically you're out. Bottom line is, QB's go down all the time. Who thought of Volek as a viable starter until he had to play? What about Schaub? No one really knows what might happen in the instance a QB goes down, sometimes a player steps up who you never thought could win. Ever think Tom Brady would take the Pats to the SB before Bledsoe went down? Most people I'm sure thought they were done. Its really a matter of what kind of support that back up will have. Teams with good running games, good D and solid outlet receivers do better when they lose a skill player like a QB. I like the Skins chances because of that fact. Cooley, Portis and a solid D would help a JC play up to acceptable levels. After that, its really a matter of whether a team believes in its back ups and what kind of leadership skills they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Well Manning is young and hasn't been injured in the last 6 years from what I can remember. Bledsoe is old but has played in every game for his team in the last 4 years. He has played all 16 games in a season 10 out of 14 years. He doesn't really have an injury history. As for Brunell. Has been injured in each of the last 3 years. Obviously struggles when there is any kind of injury no matter how minor. Has only played all 16 games 3 times in 12 seasons. One of which was last year and most of the people around here thought perhaps he shouldn't have played all 16. He has an obvious injury history and is known for being brittle. So in the end the injury concerns are greater with Brunell because of his history. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is really important to the team because as others aid, any team that loses it's starter certainly has big issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I know alot of you are gonna laugh when I say this, but Eli will be a thorn in our side for quite some time. That's why I can't wait for Jason to start this dual. :laugh: back at ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinInExile Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 i think a lot of the media hates on brunell because of his performance at the end of the season. but i honestly think that brunell is more injury prone simply because of his past injuries to his leg and his age. i mean, i love brunell but he is old. the media figures that because of that brunell won't last as long as the other QBs in regular situations. i think he'll last a lot longer than the media gives him credit for, but logic (and the usual doubt in the redskins) is what drives people to come up with this conclusion. I completely agree. The man has a lot left in his tank and is a good QB, but a few solid hits will knock him right into retirement. I'm happy JC got a year to sit and learn Gibbs' system, and now has Saunders as an offensive mentor, but he is untested. But all media doubt aside, Brunell is a tough son of a *****-- he'll be more durable than most think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 you have a point, and i've heard a lot of people say that. i think a lot of the media hates on brunell because of his performance at the end of the season. but i honestly think that brunell is more injury prone simply because of his past injuries to his leg and his age. i mean, i love brunell but he is old. the media figures that because of that brunell won't last as long as the other QBs in regular situations. i think he'll last a lot longer than the media gives him credit for, but logic (and the usual doubt in the redskins) is what drives people to come up with this conclusion. Brunell has been injury prone from the get go. That's why injury is such a big concern with him. He's had an injury that has affected his performance in each of the last 3 seasons. I mentioned it above, he's only played all 16 games for his team 3 times in 12 seasons. And one of those 3 includes last year which he had an injury that severely affected his performance. So that's at maximum 2 out of 12 seasons where he didn't have to sit for some reason. We are talking 83% chance he doesn't play all 16 games, and considering the last 3 it is pretty much 100% we will see Brunell come up lame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Brunell has been injury prone from the get go. That's why injury is such a big concern with him. He's had an injury that has affected his performance in each of the last 3 seasons. I mentioned it above, he's only played all 16 games for his team 3 times in 12 seasons. And one of those 3 includes last year which he had an injury that severely affected his performance. So that's at maximum 2 out of 12 seasons where he didn't have to sit for some reason. We are talking 83% chance he doesn't play all 16 games, and considering the last 3 it is pretty much 100% we will see Brunell come up lame... So true. There's a lot of discussion back and forth on this board about whether or not Brunell should be the starter next season and it's mainly based on his age/injury concerns, and I think we all know Brunell WILL be the starter next season, atleast it seems 99.8% definitive it will be that way, but you can count me in for the group that thinks we'll have a very tough time making the Super Bowl as long as he's leading the way. Healthy Brunell is dangerous- he's got an accurate arm, can still run for a good 15-20 yards if need be, and can gun the deep ball when necessary, but when he sustains any kind of injury his performance drops off like a sheer 90 degree angle. Campbell WILL get playing time next season since it's not a matter of if Brunell gets hurt, more like when he gets hurt, and that thought certainly scares me a little since we have no idea what Campbell will be like. Overall though we seem to have a pretty good backup situation in place, I'll take this over whenever Brunell retires and it's likely some no-name backing up Campbell, and having an eager, young QB just waiting for his chance like we have certainly seems better than much of the rest of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Can't argue with that. If Eli goes down for the season the Giants are definitely in trouble, the same for the Cowboys if Bledsoe goes down. I didn't know Philly got Jeff Garcia, but I think that if McNabb goes out with a season ending injury two years in a row, the Eagles will have a very tough time getting back into playoff form. Yeah, we have a high margin of error at all skill positions (I have faith in Coach Gibbs and the J.Campbell draft)...We know he still has to prove it but just knowing who made the decision gives me comfort. Looks like we're going 16-0. G.Williams will come up with a scheme to work that OL Indy has out there. But just need to keep our "T"s tight, Coach Smith always does a good job of that, and make our field goals. :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpSkin Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Actually, I think you need to give the Skins more credit even than what you are giving them. Jason Campbell as backup isn't as much of an unknown as you think, because if Jason Campbell is the backup it is because he is better than Todd Collins who is a fairly known quantity as a steady though not spectacular backup in a system he is immensely comfortable in. I would say Collins is a better, more proven backup than Henson, Romo sits to pee, T.Hasslebeck, or Lorenzen. So if Campbell does indeed become the backup, we know he is even better than that, and this can be said without being a homer. As a bit of a homer, I would argue that we have a better backup situation even than Philly. I am not impressed with Garcia of late or Detmer. If you look only at his time with the Chiefs (which is all that is really pertinent in trying to figure out how he will be for us), Collins always did a pretty admirable job when called upon. The only other backup in the NFCE with nearly as much experience in the system he will be running is Detmer, who is not nearly as physically gifted as Collins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFskinsfan Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 most teams would be screwed if their starting QB got hurt Well that's a given and totally not my point. I guess the argument I was trying to make was that the only reason the mediots feel we will not be succesfull this year is because they think that the skins will only go as far as MB can take them. That can be said about anyone and if that is the only reason they can come up with to discredit us then I think we are going to surprise a lot of people this year. Any team will go down if the starting QB is taken out, Duh. So why is that news for the skins, and why is that an issue for us and no one else? The mediots are digging trying to find something. I'm comfortable with that being the ONLY reason we dont win a championship this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 i see...we are one of the few teams in a position where we have a proven vet but also have a young star in the making on the bench. arizona with warner/leinart, denver with plummer/cutler and that is really it. you cant say the titans because mcnair wont be there. so yeah i see your point. we are better off in our position because we have someone who can come in and do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gusthecat Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 you have a point, and i've heard a lot of people say that. i think a lot of the media hates on brunell because of his performance at the end of the season. but i honestly think that brunell is more injury prone simply because of his past injuries to his leg and his age. i mean, i love brunell but he is old. the media figures that because of that brunell won't last as long as the other QBs in regular situations. i think he'll last a lot longer than the media gives him credit for, but logic (and the usual doubt in the redskins) is what drives people to come up with this conclusion. Don't go sayin 37's old around me or Y.A. Tittle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I still say when it comes to experience...and you can't beat experience at the QB position, Philly is in the best shape in the NFC east because of the Garcia factor. Plain and Simple. Anyway you slice it. case closed. end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 "There will be wars and rumors of wars". I have placed my faith in Joe Gibbs and the wonderful staff of coaches that he is surrounded with. A gradual progression is being realistic, we've been given that. To expect an immediate success is idiotic, if your "target" is only about winning the SUPERBOWL in 2006. IMPROVEMENT is tantamount to any and everything that we are trying to do at this point in our "UP-GRADING" process. "Que Sera Sera"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan81 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 To soon to worry about the injuries until they actually happen. Just hope none are coming Washington's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.