Dr. Z Speaks

[pjfootballer]

We won the game cripes!!!

Brunell had a good day, yay!

I don't get some of the posters here sometimes.....we win the game and Brunell finally plays decent in a game (cause he looked lackluster in the first 2 weeks) and yet:

"So he completed 22 passes in a row but they were dump passes and we played the horrible Texans"

So what. So ******* what!

We won the game, partially in thanks to 22 dump passes (not all were dump off, but you get the point) in a row.

And yes, we beat a poor Texans team. Hey, flashback early in the 1st Qtr.

They were beating us and we could have lost to this team....go back and read the game threads people were freaking out when we were down 7-0 early. Guess everybody has already forgotten

It seems like there are some people who would rather see Brunell play bad and us lose just to prove their points and say "See I told you so you Brunell lovers!!" than have us win.

Frankly the 22 for 22 IS a big deal, b/c he actually made his passes and the WR/TE/RB group caught the balls.

Look back at weeks 1 and 2 and the preseason. Either Mark couldn't hit the broad side of a barn or the guy he was throwing to dropped the ball.

There was execution there and that is key to Saunders O (and some guys like Patten in particular made great plays catching balls). We eliminate all the penalties and this O will be much better and we can go down field.

Everybody talks about "we can't throw downfield beacuse Brunell sucks". Well it takes 3 things to get downfield passes to work in general. QB has to get the ball to the WR, WR has to get open and catch the ball, O-line has to block for QB so 1&2 can happen. Clearly (per last year) we know Brunell can still throw.....the WR corp can get open and the O-line can block, however they weren't doing it at the same time. We start executing and balls will go downfield for big plays.

As for Dr. Zzzzzzzzzzzz, yeah he's a reliable source. Another one of the keep Art Monk out of the HOF but put Mike Irvin in b/c he's flashy posse of SI writers. Let's see what we do to the Jags. Hopefully Mark has another good day and we win.....although I know some here would be pretty miserable after having 2 wins in a row and not getting a chance to go after Gibbs or Brunell.

I wish everyone could see this post, because I've been trying to get the words out. But you my man have accomplished this. :applause:

[pjfootballer]

Dr. Z can have his opinion, and I and most true Redskins fans, frankly don't give a them. Did this fool ever even play? Serious question.

I don't know if he played pro ball, but I think he played College ball.

[desertfox59]

what did the skins do that SI hates them? SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH??????

The skins didn't bow down before the alter of librialism and change their names to something more PC like the Washington Native Americans.

SI is super liberal. Some liberals have issues when Their beliefs are not inforced on others...It's called intolerence.

So we'll continue to see the Skins dissed in SI. Just get used to it.

[diesel22]

Who is this Z guy anyways and how did he get my name? Idiot. :mad:

Yours,

Z

Let me see if I can help.....

Once upon a time in 1983..........Jim Kelly (14), Tony Eason (15), John Elway (1), Todd Blackledge (7), and Ken Obrien (24) were all drafted before Marino (who incidentally went right before Darrell Green at 27). Did the Great Dr Z chastise all the other teams in the first rd for passing up the most gifted passer in the draft? Nope. He ridiculed the Dolphins saying that Marino did not deserve to be a first rounder at all.....

Also used to be considered the "authority" on preseason Super Bowl picks (which is a curiousity considering I believe he has yet to get a single one correct).....

In closing, to borrow a phrase from Tom Jackson, "He's retarded".

[scruffylookin]

The skins didn't bow down before the alter of librialism and change their names to something more PC like the Washington Native Americans.

SI is super liberal. Some liberals have issues when Their beliefs are not inforced on others...It's called intolerence.

So we'll continue to see the Skins dissed in SI. Just get used to it.

:doh:

[portis&taylor]

that was stupid Dr z is such a hater

[diesel22]

The skins didn't bow down before the alter of librialism and change their names to something more PC like the Washington Native Americans.

SI is super liberal. Some liberals have issues when Their beliefs are not inforced on others...It's called intolerence.

So we'll continue to see the Skins dissed in SI. Just get used to it.

:applause: :applause:

I read an SI article (I believe it was Rick Reilly) in HS that included a fictitous NFL playoffs in which the Redskins played the "darkies", and most other ethnicities were represented in an obvious exaggeration of our Mascot and it's effect (of lack thereof) on society.

[FrFan]

Even though Texans' defense ranks last, Brunell and the team had a solid game performance. Just what we needed (confidence and momentum) before facing the Jags. Of course it is going to be a whole different "story", but a win is a win, that's bottom line.

1st We will see by the end of the season how many Qbs will be able to match this record vs the Texans.

2nd Let's notice that Brunell completed these 24 passes to 8 different receivers.

3rd I do not question coach Gibbs decisions or comments.

:dallasuck

[IrishOrange15]

Dr. Z is just trying to be funny. He's not being critical of Brunnel's record, he's just saying that it was helped out by a roughing the passer and holding call and he jokingly wondered if Brunnell thanked those guys.

Get a grip.

YAKUZA

[TD Riggo]

Just because the only talent they had when they exited college was forming complete sentences doesn't make them right. Or smart.

[PugSkin]

Wow...I don't see what's hard to get about this post. Guess I'll have to break it down for you unwavering Brunell lovers:

All week long on here, everyone has used the excuse that, "Brunell set a freakin' record for God's sakes! How could you ever even think to pull him?" The other response was, "I'll take the dink and dunk all day....I mean, he set a record for most straight completions!".

Those of us against Brunell on here saw right through his performance, and all I was saying is that what Z presented helps to further validate our opinions. Without the "streak", all Brunell had was a fairly decent game that totally consisted of b.s. screens and check downs. You could expect the same performance out of most any QB in the NFL given the same game plan, but the "streak" was what made it so special. I mean, there's a reason nobody even knew it was happening until it did...it simply wasn't all that impressive. If he had gone 24-27 without the streak then yes, I think it would be a whole different argument.

For the love of God. Have you not complained enough? Brunell is our quarterback. Gibbs is not going to pull him. Your Brunell hating threads do nothing but annoy most of the rest of us. Get over it or find a new team!

[PugSkin]

You'd have to have a pretty low IQ like the "geniuses" of this board to grasp what they are saying..

As I said on another thread, it's apparently not good enough that the Redskins win. Now they have to win a certain way. :doh:

They don't want a soild, record-breaking preformance to derail thier "Bench Brunell" agenda.

Brunell is our QB, and no amount of whining about not winning the way they want them to is going to change that.

Seems like they could better expend thier energy rallying around our starter instead of reaching for reasons to tear him down.

DUDE! No kidding, but they insist on rambling on and on about hating Brunell. Give it a break already. The other 34523457612394875 threads you all started about hating Brunell and wanting him benched got your point across!

[DoGood28]

Now you Brunell haters are stooping so low as to side with Dr. Z and SI? Get off the bandwagon NOW.

[whatmeworry]

Isn't Dr Z that Korean scientist in James Bond movies? What does he know about football?

[zt155]

I mean, there's a reason nobody even knew it was happening until it did...

Uh actually they mentioned it several times throughout the game. I remember them saying he was 9-9 in the first quarter.

Oh and his QB rating for the game was 119. A statistic that takes everything into consideration. Far from perfect (163 I think), but still extremely good.

[spm]

I don't think Dr. Z is hating on Brunell and the Redskins, I just think he doesn't care too much. He's writing about a 1-2 team that just beat the worst team in football for its first victory and is making a poor attempt at humor. He's bored at this point in the rankings and just wants to say one interesting thing about the team and move on. The record is cool but it's not that big a deal and it doesn't change the fact that Brunell is an aging QB with some holes in his game.

[PCS]

If you see anything in this article besides what is there, which is essentially nothing, then you're reaching. Taking Z seriously, whether agreeing or disagreeing, is worthless venture in my book. I mean really. Is that all he had to say right there? Think about it.

[Diver]

I don't really understand how your argument makes me not like Brunell. He had a great game. Not a good game, a great game.

Perhaps your definition of a quarterback having a great game is different than mine and most people who have posted before me. We had a dominating offensive performance. I know it was against the Texans, but it was still dominant.

What more do you need from the quarterback? What makes his performance not good enough? Once we attained a significant lead is there really a need to be throwing the ball all over the field. NO! Keep possesion of the football and don't turn it over. That's what he did. So, what's you point about the penalties and the record?

If Saunders gameplan calls for screens, intermediate and short routes and we WIN games than who really cares? Winning is what really matter most.

Does anyone remember last season the game against Denver and Kansas City? Brunell threw for over 300 yards both games and we LOST BOTH. That is not our teams identity get used to it.