jsevier Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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. Well my kind sir, you just drove my point home. Thanks. And since it is up to me and Gibbs I think I will talk him into letting Brunell start the remainder of this year and all of next year to make skinz3evr happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yet they gave up 24 to the Giants in the second half with Romo sits to pee IN there? Why are you trying so hard to disprove everything? Even if we get the ball in field goal range those are field goals with us 90% of the time and thats if we make it. We have a QB who would rather hit Ladell Betts in the flats on third and 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM916 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 It was more 4th quarter turnovers rather than Romo sits to pee that won last night. It was all defense after the first quarter on both sides until Carolina destroyed itself. Yes, Romo sits to pee had some pretty good stats on the day but again I point to turnovers giving him too many oppurtunities with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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. I was saying to myself, he has thrown the ball downfield more in the second half of this game than ive seen all year from Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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: . I live in FL and I dont think Cooper City is anywhere near Jax, but are you related to Mark Brunell? You post like it. BTW I visited your website and I wasnt impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The same people who last week said "Romo sits to pee = Campbell" should, by their rationale, now say that with a positive tone. I'm not saying that Campbell would do better or worse than Romo sits to pee, I'm just saying the ones who were on this board pointing at the only half of a game that Romo sits to pee has played last week and said, "That's what's gonna happen if Campbell is in!" And now I see some of the same people, after seeing him play an ENTIRE game instead of just one half, making excuses. I see people saying, "remember, it was only one game!" after they passed judgement after he played for only 1 half last week! As Bill O'Reilly would put it, "And that's the ridiculous item of the day." Like I said, I'm not saying anything about how campbell would perform. I'm just saying I reserve my judgement before seeing the guy have a chance with the football in a regular season game, you all should too. And you can bet things are going to look pretty ungodly bad if Romo sits to pee beats us next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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: . Ummmm, as opposed to keeping what you know you "don't have"......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobigred Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 AS I said in another post the cowboys were excited and even though players said nothing in the media the team has been wanting to do this all along and they simply stepped up their game all the way around, and when we place Campbell in our team will do the same. I will say this if Campbell does not play Sunday and we loose to the Rowboys we will see him next week. I'll put money on it. Then we can talk about what he is doing instead of Burnell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radagast5 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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. I saw last week's episode of NBC's much-maligned show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. In it, a character made the old Parcells remark, "If you want me to fix the meals, let me shop for the groceries." Another character asked, "Who's Bill Parcells?" To which the first character responded, "An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine years." Parcells is all about publicly chastizing players (Terry Glenn = "she"), making grand roster moves (cutting Quincy Carter, their starting QB, a month before the season started), and yanking QBs willy-nilly. Meanwhile, Joe Gibbs is very slow to make big changes which seems to frustrate the crap out of a million Redskin couch-coaches who think they know better. Who is Joe Gibbs? An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsevier Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I saw last week's episode of NBC's much-maligned show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. In it, a character made the old Parcells remark, "If you want me to fix the meals, let me shop for the groceries." Another character asked, "Who's Bill Parcells?" To which the first character responded, "An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine years."Parcells is all about publicly chastizing players (Terry Glenn = "she"), making grand roster moves (cutting Quincy Carter, their starting QB, a month before the season started), and yanking QBs willy-nilly. Meanwhile, Joe Gibbs is very slow to make big changes which seems to frustrate the crap out of a million Redskin couch-coaches who think they know better. Who is Joe Gibbs? An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine months. Priceless.... Simply Priceless! Nice post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So which type of QB would you rather have A. 130 yards passing through the first 3 quarters, inflates stats with 95 percent passing in the fourth. B. QB rips teh ball down field you score 3 touchdowns but QB gets intercepted 3 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yeah, Brunell isn't playing good, but our D is just pissing me off. If we were playing good D like last year we would be 5-2 right now, but man our D is just herrible. I hope Gregg Willams made some moves this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "I saw last week's episode of NBC's much-maligned show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. In it, a character made the old Parcells remark, "If you want me to fix the meals, let me shop for the groceries." Another character asked, "Who's Bill Parcells?" To which the first character responded, "An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine years." Parcells is all about publicly chastizing players (Terry Glenn = "she"), making grand roster moves (cutting Quincy Carter, their starting QB, a month before the season started), and yanking QBs willy-nilly. Meanwhile, Joe Gibbs is very slow to make big changes which seems to frustrate the crap out of a million Redskin couch-coaches who think they know better. Who is Joe Gibbs? An NFL coach who hasn't won a playoff game in nine months." you mean the same coach who has a net losing record over 3 seasons? A coach who lost his last playoff game? excuses aren't very interesting. this team will continue to be abysmal until it straighterns out its personnel management processes. a credible argument can be made that JG is part of those problems - he has a limitted reagard for the draft. He has presumably weighed in on all personnel decisions made since he signed on the dotted line the second time around. e is the coach - he, afterall, is responsible for creating the "identity" everyone keeps carping about this team missing. this isn't a "fire Joe" post. but, at some point, one grows weary of the singularly mindless "it's just a matter of time" pollyanna posts that refer religiously to the past as though that were prologue. it obviously hasn't been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trez Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 They employed a clever play known as a "forward pass" that the Redskins have yet to discover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Ummmm, as opposed to keeping what you know you "don't have"......... Brunell proved last year that he is a solid QB, and he has pretty much been that way for his career. I am not saying he is great, but he is solid. I know there are better, but he can get the job done. I would love to see what we have in JC, but that needs to wait til our season is mathematically over. We are 2 games back in the wild-card, 3 in the division - that can be overcome. Why are you trying so hard to disprove everything? Even if we get the ball in field goal range those are field goals with us 90% of the time and thats if we make it. We have a QB who would rather hit Ladell Betts in the flats on third and 8. I am not trying hard at all, the stuff that is said on here is easily challenged. 90% of the time? Where'd you find that? Oh I forgot, we don't make many 3rd downs :doh: . We are 14th in the league in conversions. While that isn't anything to write home about, it is a drastic contrast than your thought on our team's ability. I live in FL and I dont think Cooper City is anywhere near Jax, but are you related to Mark Brunell? You post like it.BTW I visited your website and I wasnt impressed. Related to Mark? Because my posts actually contain thought and facts, not sad attempts to ridicule someone? Sure. You visited my site and you weren't impressed?! Ow! Wait, who are you and why should I care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cakmoney61 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 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. Great post!!!...But I still want JC to start. Like Brunell, he can throw the 3- to 5-yard dumpoff, but he can also escape the pass rush better than Brunell. If he can't do what Brunell is doing right now, the Redskins made a big mistake moving up to draft him. He will probably throw more interceptions, but the Redskins need to know if JC has the physical talent to play in the NFL. We know Brunell doesn't have it and hasn't had it for at least the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Brunell proved last year that he is a solid QB, and he has pretty much been that way for his career. I am not saying he is great, but he is solid. I know there are better, but he can get the job done.I would love to see what we have in JC, but that needs to wait til our season is mathematically over. We are 2 games back in the wild-card, 3 in the division - that can be overcome. Brunell proved nothing last year, the defense stepped up last year and that's why we won 5 in a row. The offense couldn't get out of its own way, hence the Tampa game. Brunell has done just enough to hang on to his job. Good is the enemy of greatness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Brunell proved nothing last year, the defense stepped up last year and that's why we won 5 in a row. The offense couldn't get out of its own way, hence the Tampa game. Brunell has done just enough to hang on to his job.Good is the enemy of greatness. Brunell has proved nothing since hes been here. He is not solid, hes not good. He was once pretty good. Now all he brings is experience. I see him like Dan Marino, Steve Young, Joe Theismann, Troy Aikmann and others but they are wearing a suit on Sunday not a helmet and thats what Mark needs to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Romo sits to pee replaced a QB that was throwing INTs like they were going out of style. He merely has to play mistake-free, conservative ball and his defense/running game will do the rest. Brunell, for all his faults, is not an INT machine. In fact, he's one of the best there is at protecting the ball. I'm not saying we should keep starting Brunell, but when Campbell comes in he'll need to DO something. He'll need to LEAD, not just play competantly and avoid mistakes. Brunell already does that. Putting the offense on his shoulders is something Romo sits to pee won't have to do as long as his defense is getting turnovers and his running game is competant. It's something Campbell WILL have to do when he steps in, if we want this team to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Brunell has done just enough to hang on to his job. So are you saying that he hasn't done anything to lose it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Brunell proved nothing last year, the defense stepped up last year and that's why we won 5 in a row. The offense couldn't get out of its own way, hence the Tampa game. Brunell has done just enough to hang on to his job.Good is the enemy of greatness. We won 5 in a row to end the year, yes. What were the scores? 24 vs the Rams. 17 vs. the Cardinals. 35 vs. Dallas. 35 vs. the Giants. 31 in Philly. The defense helped with turnovers, and our offense produced. Both sides help each other, and when there is nothing on D, the offense struggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "The defense helped with turnovers, and our offense produced. Both sides help each other, and when there is nothing on D, the offense struggles." You mean like in Indy?????? get over it. this offense stinks also. it's mediocre on its good days. quit passing all the blame onto the defense - it's not very graceful of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 "The defense helped with turnovers, and our offense produced. Both sides help each other, and when there is nothing on D, the offense struggles."You mean like in Indy?????? get over it. this offense stinks also. it's mediocre on its good days. quit passing all the blame onto the defense - it's not very graceful of you! Indy's offense is in a league of its own. Noone can or should be compared to them. Mediocre on good days? So that 36-30 win vs. Jax was just mediocre? I am not placing all the blame on the D, I was just saying that there is fault across the board and all this bull**** that Brunell is our issue and once that spot is fixed we are contenders against is stupid. Our whole team has issues, not any single area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spizzunk Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Good post Henry. The Cowboys team was good enough that Romo sits to pee just needs to come in and not blow it. So far, the Skins as a team (save for against Jax) haven't even come close to being perceived that way. There's alot more wrong than just the QB, and putting the young guy in a situation like that might not be best for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Good post Henry. The Cowboys team was good enough that Romo sits to pee just needs to come in and not blow it. So far, the Skins as a team (save for against Jax) haven't even come close to being perceived that way. There's alot more wrong than just the QB, and putting the young guy in a situation like that might not be best for him. 24/36 for 270 yards 1 TD, 1 Int and some nice mobility in the pocket seems like more than game mgmt and playing it safe to me. 270 /24 = 11.25 yds per completion if my math is right. I would love to have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.