Tony Romo experiment not working in Dallas, let's stick with Brunell...

[nneece]

Wow, I guess the Tony Romo sits to pee experiment is not working out so well in Dallas. The Brunell supporters are right, let's stick with Brunell. Wait a sec, I fell asleep during the third quarter and Romo sits to pee bought Dallas back and won the game! I guess there is something to be said for starting a new QB. We will certainly find out next week when we play Dallas. This is a league that you sometimes have to take chances in in order to have a chance to win. The ultra conservative thinking does not always work.

I couldn't help but think as I watched the game and watched Romo sits to pee completing 20+ yard passes to Owens, etc. (or not completing them, but at least attempting them) how this was almost the exact opposite of watching Brunell and the Skins offense play.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

There is also something to be said for a defense that creates turnovers and gives you GREAT field position....

[Troy Fakeman]

I watched the game...and I was definitely impressed...and jealous.

Of course...if Romo sits to pee flopped we wouldn't be having this discussion about QB change...and how he 'sparked' the Dallas squad...and how the coach gambled and went with the younger, quicker, more agile, less experienced back-up...

...BUT THEN AGAIN...Romo sits to pee DIDN'T FLOP...AND HE PROVED HIS WORTH...

JC - please!

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Three of their last four drives they began in field goal range, because their D.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drives/NFL_20061029_DAL@CAR

[nneece]

Three of their last four drives they began in field goal range, because their D.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drives/NFL_20061029_DAL@CAR

Perhaps Romo sits to pee's play gave the defense a spark and they played better also. Dallas D certainly has not been playing lights out up to this point.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Perhaps Romo sits to pee's play gave the defense a spark and they played better also. Dallas D certainly has not been playing lights out up to this point.

Yet they gave up 24 to the Giants in the second half with Romo sits to pee IN there?

[wbar3383]

BS

Turnovers on kickoff returns. Running game stuffed.

Special teams and defense, as well as bad carolina play won that games for the Romosexuals, not Romo sits to pee. Carolina couldnt hang on to the ball.

And dont tell me your trying to compare a QB who has had to learn the same offense for 3 years, with a QB who has only had 3 months with a new offense.

Lets not forget too, this is one game.

[P007]

Perhaps Romo sits to pee's play gave the defense a spark and they played better also. Dallas D certainly has not been playing lights out up to this point.

The funny thing about watching the game was how the panthers offense looked a lot like ours. To damn conservative, not willing to throw the ball down field. I don't think Romo sits to pee is a world beater, but I also think that Dallas raised their intensity on defense, they played with urgency, something we have not done this year.

[P007]

BS

Turnovers on kickoff returns. Running game stuffed.

Special teams and defense, as well as bad carolina play won that games for the Romosexuals, not Romo sits to pee. Carolina couldnt hang on to the ball.

And dont tell me your trying to compare a QB who has had to learn the same offense for 3 years, with a QB who has only had 3 months with a new offense.

Lets not forget too, this is one game.

Yeah all of that is true, but sometimes when a team is flat, you need a spark. Carolina has the same problem we have, they don't have a consistent QB that can make plays, and he is too willing to check down or throw the ball into coverage. Romo sits to pee isn't great, but sometimes one player can spark a whole team to pick up their level of play. And this team knows that Brunell can't win a game to save his life. Campbell needs to get some playing time this week, so he can get his feet wet and used to playing.

[nneece]

BS

Turnovers on kickoff returns. Running game stuffed.

Special teams and defense, as well as bad carolina play won that games for the Romosexuals, not Romo sits to pee. Carolina couldnt hang on to the ball.

And dont tell me your trying to compare a QB who has had to learn the same offense for 3 years, with a QB who has only had 3 months with a new offense.

Lets not forget too, this is one game.

True, but I watched Romo sits to pee play and as the commentators said, his play looked impressive. He may regress, you will always have that possiblity with a rookie. New offense or not, it is so obviously apparent that Brunell can no longer make the passes necessary to be a starting QB in this league. He might make these passes in practice, but he cannot make them in a gametime situation at game speed and game decision making. If it was totally learning the offense that was the issue, I would expect Brunell to sometimes make bad passes because of miscommunication, break down of the play, etc. And I would sometimes expect Brunell to throw INT's for the same reasons. These things don't happen, nor do completions happen, because Brunell doesn't even attempt these passes which are a requirement for any NFL team with a record above .500.

[UnKle RUku$]

Enough about DALLAS...we need to kick there ***** this weekend! Mark needs to bring his "A" game. He is our QB until otherwise, Stand behind him! We need this GAME!

[jsevier]

Much has been said. Much has been written. Those who have formed the opinion that Brunell "sucks" and we should switch to Campbell are well documented. I wonder sometimes if the "bench Brunell" crowd is trying to convince themselves they are right more than they are trying to convince others. Countless threads have been started and yet they all seem to point back to one thing.... "We are right."

I will say that Romo sits to pee looked good last night and maybe a switch may be what the team needs but please don't give me the argument that because it worked for Dallas then it will work for us. This is a complex and ever changing league. Something that works for one team may not work for another. When Gibbs is ready he will make the switch. That's all one really needs to know.

I appreciate opinions and I have my own too but constantly beating this with yet another reason why switching QB's will help us be who we want to be really changes nothing. I am sure there are just as many reasons that Campbell has not played yet as there are reasons for why he should play. Their are two sides to this and I don't think many have the ability to see that. My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins!

P.S. One of these is enough. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177822

[DieHard86]

That's nice about Romo sits to pee. Dallas has a defense too.

[no1fanofno21]

Yet they gave up 24 to the Giants in the second half with Romo sits to pee IN there?

There is also something to be said for a defense that creates turnovers and gives you GREAT field position....

Three of their last four drives they began in field goal range, because their D.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drives/NFL_20061029_DAL@CAR

BS

Turnovers on kickoff returns. Running game stuffed.

Special teams and defense, as well as bad carolina play won that games for the Romosexuals, not Romo sits to pee. Carolina couldnt hang on to the ball.

And dont tell me your trying to compare a QB who has had to learn the same offense for 3 years, with a QB who has only had 3 months with a new offense.

Lets not forget too, this is one game.

I love the brunell supporters, ****ing idiots/ or you guys cant stand the sight of Dallas doing something good.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is also something to be said for a defense that creates turnovers and gives you GREAT field position....

Right, but when you don't have a defense OR a QB, it is much easier to replace 1 player than 11.

OH, my goodness I can't believe I responded to another one of these posts.:doh:

shame on me, bad boy! grrrr

[jsevier]

I love the brunell supporters, ****ing idiots/ or you guys cant stand the sight of Dallas doing something good.

What? How did making a point about why the switch hasn't been made turn into not being able to stand the sight of Dallas doing something good? And just for the record, I would prefer not to be called a ****ing idiot because I don't agree with your point of view.

[TC]

True, but I watched Romo sits to pee play and as the commentators said, his play looked impressive. He may regress, you will always have that possiblity with a rookie.

I'm on your side as far as who needs to be playing for the Skins (Campbell, obviously). However, quoting you simply because you said something I just don't understand that many other posters on here also say frequently. What is it with calling anyone who hasn't started a "rookie"? Romo sits to pee has been in the league for 3.5 years and Campbell a year and a half. Regardless of whether or not they've played, they're not rookies.

[nneece]

Much has been said. Much has been written. Those who have formed the opinion that Brunell "sucks" and we should switch to Campbell are well documented. I wonder sometimes if the "bench Brunell" crowd is trying to convince themselves they are right more than they are trying to convince others. Countless threads have been started and yet they all seem to point back to one thing.... "We are right."

I will say that Romo sits to pee looked good last night and maybe a switch may be what the team needs but please don't give me the argument that because it worked for Dallas then it will work for us. This is a complex and ever changing league. Something that works for one team may not work for another. When Gibbs is ready he will make the switch. That's all one really needs to know.

I appreciate opinions and I have my own too but constantly beating this with yet another reason why switching QB's will help us be who we want to be really changes nothing. I am sure there are just as many reasons that Campbell has not played yet as there are reasons for why he should play. Their are two sides to this and I don't think many have the ability to see that. My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins!

The people who are screaming to bench Brunell are doing so because we don't see any other possible outcome with Brunell as the starting QB, which is to say no other outcome but a loss. Further, we have to find out what we have in Jason Campbell. If he is not 'the man' at QB, then we have to do something to find another starting QB this offseason, a scary proposition given our salary cap and all of the roster moves we have made. We can't find out what JC is made of if he doesn't start. There is no way we enter next season with Brunell as a starting QB, we will be the laughing stock of the league. Let's not forget, JC was hand picked by Gibbs and the front office. If JC isn't starting QB material then we only have current management to blame.

"Something that works for one team may not work for another. " The Redskins don't know until they try, just like Dallas.

"My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins!" We are the 2-5 Washington Redskins. Let's maintain the status quo and not try anything different. It's working out perfectly.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

I love the brunell supporters, ****ing idiots/ or you guys cant stand the sight of Dallas doing something good.

1. Good, factual response : "****ing idiots" . Is that all you can respond with? Show me I was wrong in my statements. Did the Dallas D not give up 24 in the second half of the Giant game? Did not the Cowboy offense have 3 of the last 4 drives in field goal range because of turnovers?

2. I will never stomach the sight of Dallas win a game, but that has NOTHING to do with my responses.

The irony here is YOU calling someone a ****ing idiot...

If you don't get that, read my two points above. :2cents:

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Right, but when you don't have a defense OR a QB, it is much easier to replace 1 player than 11.

OH, my goodness I can't believe I responded to another one of these posts.:doh:

shame on me, bad boy! grrrr

So you replace the QB, you get something that you aren't sure what it will be, and your D still isn't playing well :doh: .

[nneece]

I'm on your side as far as who needs to be playing for the Skins (Campbell, obviously). However, quoting you simply because you said something I just don't understand that many other posters on here also say frequently. What is it with calling anyone who hasn't started a "rookie"? Romo sits to pee has been in the league for 3.5 years and Campbell a year and a half. Regardless of whether or not they've played, they're not rookies.

I guess I should say Rookie at starting QB. I use the term loosely.

[jsevier]

The people who are screaming to bench Brunell are doing so because we don't see any other possible outcome with Brunell as the starting QB, which is to say no other outcome but a loss. Further, we have to find out what we have in Jason Campbell. If he is not 'the man' at QB, then we have to do something to find another starting QB this offseason, a scary proposition given our salary cap and all of the roster moves we have made. We can't find out what JC is made of if he doesn't start. There is no way we enter next season with Brunell as a starting QB, we will be the laughing stock of the league. Let's not forget, JC was hand picked by Gibbs and the front office. If JC isn't starting QB material then we only have current management to blame.

"Something that works for one team may not work for another. " The Redskins don't know until they try, just like Dallas.

"My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins!" We are the 2-5 Washington Redskins. Let's maintain the status quo and not try anything differently. It's working out perfectly.

Okay, let me try this again. My point is simply that there is enough ammunition on this board for the people who want change to discuss this. I see no need to continue to attempt to make your point (in a new thread) of why things should change everytime another team does something you want to see done here.

Me personally, I want to see Gibbs do what he feels is right for THIS football team. Let Parcells and others worry about their team. We may be 2-5 and need improvement in lots of areas but I still wouldn't want any other team. I chose to believe in Gibbs and his decision making, you don't. Certainly our rights to feel how we want but I remain firm that enough has been made of the situation.

[skinz4evr]

Much has been said. Much has been written. Those who have formed the opinion that Brunell "sucks" and we should switch to Campbell are well documented. I wonder sometimes if the "bench Brunell" crowd is trying to convince themselves they are right more than they are trying to convince others. Countless threads have been started and yet they all seem to point back to one thing.... "We are right."

I will say that Romo sits to pee looked good last night and maybe a switch may be what the team needs but please don't give me the argument that because it worked for Dallas then it will work for us. This is a complex and ever changing league. Something that works for one team may not work for another. When Gibbs is ready he will make the switch. That's all one really needs to know.

I appreciate opinions and I have my own too but constantly beating this with yet another reason why switching QB's will help us be who we want to be really changes nothing. I am sure there are just as many reasons that Campbell has not played yet as there are reasons for why he should play. Their are two sides to this and I don't think many have the ability to see that. My last statement on this is we are NOT Dallas or any other team, we are the Washington Redskins!

P.S. One of these is enough. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177822

constanly beating this with yet another reason why switching QB's will help us be the team we want to be.....I want us to be the team that throws the ball more than 2-4 yards on most passes. Isn't THAT enough???Can changing Defensive players do that? Do the RB's throw the ball? Nope guess that won't help. And as for the O-line, I watched Eli win a game where he was sacked 8 times and every QB that has impressed has done so under immense pressure, making reads and throws under a heavy blitz. Our QB can't do that. 1.Can't make reads.2. Can't throw downfield.3.Can't escape any blitz. There are three reasons for you. They should be enough for you and Gibbs.

[H-O-G]

Its hard watching Tony Romo sits to pee succeed when we have Jason Campbell on the bench.

[Spizzunk]

As a Cowboys fan, I couldn't be more thrilled with Romo sits to pee. The guy showed poise, composure, clutch, everything. Who consistently converts third and long like that, and all of a sudden, our TEs are in the game, since they aren't needed as blockers.

But just because it works one place, doesn't mean it will work in another. The team has been high on Romo sits to pee especially since the beginning of last year. He's performed well consistently in the preseason in two straight years. He's been in the offense for four, and preparing weekly.

In the Redskins situation, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the coaches don't even like Campbell, having him run the scout team. He hasn't shown anything (IIRC) in the preseason.

It is probably the standard thing we fans do - anyone but who's there currently, because this is not working. But sometimes, you need to be careful of what you want, you just might get it. Dallas' defense, special teams and run game was way more responsible for that victory than Romo sits to pee. Do the Redskins have the kind of team that can do that and take the pressure off the young fella? They can't stop anyone, and the coaching staff inexplicably won't run the ball. That's a bad situation for a young QB. Before Romo sits to pee came in, we were top 5 in rushing and stopping the run. That's a good situation for a young QB.