Guest Knightwchmn Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Dear David, Many of us, including myself, blamed you for the non-production on the other side of the field in the WR position last season. Let me be the first to say, "I am sorry!!" A year later, an obvious pattern has made itself painfully aware, that removes you from all blame. Follow along: In 2005, Moss was hot, and Cooley made up the slack. Conclusions were drawn you were the problem. Our first clue disputing that fact should have been your injury... when no one else could produce in that position as well - which made no sense (since Moss was so hot) the other side of the field should have been ripe for the picking. Now, in '06, positions have moved around, but the net results are the same. Team brought it two "cheetahs" in Lloyd and Randle El and Off. Coord. Saunders. Yet once again only Moss and "the dump off guy" (Cooley last year, Betts and Portis this year) are producing. Conclusion? Our current starting QB (I will not mention any names) doesn't have the cognition to scan a football field. He looks off his hot receiver, then immediately looks to his "dump off guy", then throws to the coaching staff (his own or the opponents) when all else fails. I just wanted you to know... "It wasn't your fault... or Lloyd's, or Cooley's this year (since in a Saunders offense, the tight end is not a "dump off guy" ala T. Gonzales), or Randle El's." Again, I am sorry!! -The Knigh****chman Daytona Beach, FL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Best 2nd post I've ever seen from anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeronimobrat Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Another Brunell thread?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Another Brunell thread?? Atleast this one has somewhat of a point and is significantly more rational than some of the other threads hereabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryClark4Canton Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Why is it the grass is always greener with us redskins fans? Just once I'd like to feel content with what we have. Last year I felt great for 6 games untill we played Seattle. Now, It's just the same old inconsistent skins story. And we wonder why the media gives us so much flack...grrr....:rant: GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Actually, at least in my case, the knock on Patten was not his production when he was on the field. It's that he got hurt. And then Thrash did. And then we had Jacobs and Farris running around not doing much, which was coincidentally when the passing game started to falter. ARE and Lloyd were brought in for much needed depth. ARE is on pace for 45 catches, so he's getting his opportunities. The difference is none or our WRs are hurt this year so far. This year it's in the secondary where we've been hit, and suprise suprise, our pass defense is terrible. The injury gods are a fickle bunch. Apparently we still haven't figured them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryClark4Canton Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 The injury gods are a fickle bunch. Apparently we still haven't figured them out. Would it be possible to offer the Injury Gods™ an offering? Would they take a 37 year old QB in place of a lamb? GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Would it be possible to offer the Injury Gods™ an offering? Would they take a 37 year old QB in place of a lamb?GC :laugh: You'd think they would. But like I said, they're fickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryClark4Canton Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 :laugh: You'd think they would. But like I said, they're fickle. Well heck I say lets try it...I mean what do we have to lose....*cough *cough 2-3 *cough GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightwchmn Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 OMG!!! You thought what they did in Tampa was special? Just because they won?!?! Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Skins may have bought one too many "cheetahs" despite legitimate concerns about prior WR injuries. As a NH resident, I watched David Patten earn his ring as a NE wide receiver. While he's getting a little long in the tooth, he's still a good wide receiver. Did you see his recent, over the middle, 25 yard catch a couple weeks back ? Lloyd is NOT an upgrade of Patten. And Thrash ain't chopped liver. And no, it's not Brunell's fault... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Would it be possible to offer the Injury Gods™ an offering? Would they take a 37 year old QB in place of a lamb?GC Haha, you make them sound like action figures or a TV show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Would it be possible to offer the Injury Gods™ an offering? Would they take a 37 year old QB in place of a lamb? Be careful what you wish for. Until they figure out the pass protection problems, no QB is going to have success back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 i been saying the same thing. brunell has tunnel vision and he is very lucky that moss is hard to cover. he never goes through his progressions. when he was a great athelete he could get away with it. first guys not open take off and run but at this stage in his career he cant do that. he has never been a pocket qb. sort of like if vick lost his legs(to a lesser extent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Lloyd is NOT an upgrade of Patten. And Thrash ain't chopped liver. No, but he is a young guy with lots of potential, which we probably could use. Thrash is, at best, a #3 WR. He pretty much proved that last year. He's more valuable on teams. I was a big defender of Patten last year, and even tho he wasn't getting the numbers, he was taking the heat off of Moss and helped make things work in the first half of the season. Brunell is a popular whipping boy here, but things went south in the passing game because of Patten, not because of Brunell. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Would it be possible to offer the Injury Gods™ an offering? Would they take a 37 year old QB in place of a lamb?GC Grow up!!!!:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Grow up!!!!:doh: Take a joke much? Anyway anyone happy with ARE's play so far? I'd like a little more but overall I think he's doing pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I'd love to see what NE would trade us for Patten? Think we could get a 4th rounder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Lloyd is NOT an upgrade of Patten. And Thrash ain't chopped liver. And no, it's not Brunell's fault... I wonder then, who's fault is it? There's only one guy on our offense who is supposed to be getting them the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I wonder then, who's fault is it? There's only one guy on our offense who is supposed to be getting them the ball. You'd only have to look as far as the O-line not giving Brunell time to throw. You'd also have to give defenses some credit as well. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillskinsfan Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Classic Post you must have read my mind we need a QB with vision who can work the feild.not just sustain a drive off the big play.a 16 yard pass going to the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red dot in a sea of blue Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Classic Post you must have read my mindwe need a QB with vision who can work the feild.not just sustain a drive off the big play.a 16 yard pass going to the house. Yep... and this guy is the guy mentoring out franchise QB... great.... MB: "If Moss isn't open, look for Portis" JC: "Who should I throw it to if Portis isn't open?" MB: "What do you mean?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz4evr Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 You'd only have to look as far as the O-line not giving Brunell time to throw.You'd also have to give defenses some credit as well. Jason :bsflag: I don't know if you've been watching the games but Brunell is TERRIBLE in the pocket. As soon as it's starting to break down, which it will for ANY team, he's bouncing into his lineman or running right into a Dlineman. That or tucking his head down and curling up instead of trying to get out of the pocket or just move a step or two to an open spot. And all that is after a 7 step dropback. The guy is running back so far behind the line of scrimmage sometimes that he has to throw 10 yards just to get the ball back to theLOS. NO one should need as much time to throw as Brunell seems to need almost every down. The only way he's been effective is short, fast dumpoffs to RB's because he can't be asked to find an open receiver down the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeSeanT. Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 very interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEArmchairQB Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 To the original poster. I foresee in your future a thread entitled "An apology to Mark Brunell." You will compose this thread when Mark steps up and has a good couple of weeks. You will then use that thread to point the finger at another player who is not performing up to snuff. Carlos Rogers perhaps as he drops another sure interception. You will say "All we needed was one big play on defense to help out our O (or something along those lines)" Eventually Rogers will realize his potential and you will point the finger somewhere else with another 'apology' thread. Singling out individuals as the reason for failure in the ultimate team sport... It's a team, you cannot place the blame on an individual. And in case you were interested, Brunell is not even deserving of your blame. He is not asked to be a game winner in this offense, he is asked to manage and not to lose. It is up to those around him to win the game. So far this season MB is completing 63% of his passes, averaging close to 8 yards a ball, has thrown 4tds to 2picks, and has posted a rating of 90.1. Let that last number sink in. 90. If you looked to see, you would see that MB is performing in the top ten of QBs in the league, sandwiched between guys like Drew Brees and Chad Pennington. You would also see that he is only 6-7 points off from the QB standard, Peyton Manning. My point is not that MB is good, great, or anything along those lines. Just stop pointing fingers and do your homework before you call out an obvious target like Brunell. Edit. And what do you all know about vision? This is not Madden, there is not a vision cone out on the field that exists in reality. And do you think that Campbell will have some sort of great "vision" coming off the bench in his and taking his first NFL snaps? BULL**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.