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

[Gregpeck99]

Putting the young boy in there like that is the only way for him to grow up.

[Bryan81]

If Romo sits to pee is so great how come Washington didn't give up a bunch of draft picks for him?

[jmcardle1982]

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!

We need a spark. Campbell for QB.

[Veretax]

it is quite simple... You play to win.... no iffs ands or butts!

[Spizzunk]

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.

Trust me, it was thrilling. But really watching the game, it was so tight til the special teams and the incomparable Roy WIlliams stepped up. :laugh:

Then the run game took over, and Barber punished the Panthers.

His third down conversions were awesome, as well as his ability to evade and get it to the playmakers. He palyed a role in the game, but the whole team won that one. Those numbers by themselves aren't winning many games. Do you think the Skins team overall has shown themselves capable of wresting the game from a good team like that on the road?

[AsburySkinsFan]

So are you saying that he hasn't done anything to lose it?

Oh no, I think he's done plenty to lose it, unfortunately he's done just enough to hang on to it. It's amazing what a couple of wins will do for his security, the problem is that there is only a "couple" of wins!

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

Now, go back and look at those scores and find out how many points were put on the board by the defense or because of key interception and fumbles. It wasn't that Mark did any thing great, it was simply that the Defense helped him out SO much. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury this year. So what would you propose? Replace 11 young defensive players and rebuild the defense or replace the 1 aging QB with a young QB and see what this boys potential really is? The status quo is certainly not working, and its obvious where the problem is.

[Oxtalls]

Wow, I guess the Tony Romo sits to pee experiment is not working out so well in 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.

Nothing could have been more predicatable than Campbell's Boyfriends foaming at the mouth watching last night and drawing inaccurate comparisons.

People just don't know football.

I don't think that score would have been any different if Bledsoe started. But more importantly, the situations between the Cowboys and Redskins are different thus they will not be compared.

You want to bench Brunell because in your eyes you're tired of what you believe is a sagging offense, predicatable and safe passing attempts, and you want a change.

The Cowboys changed QB's because Parcells was tired of Bledsoe throwing the ball around when he gets pressured. It is a different situation than the Redskins.

Brunell is more protective of the football and Gibbs is comfortable with that. You are not drawing comparisions based on apples to apples.

In addition, Bledsoe can move and Brunell can, a little bit.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Brunell is more protective of the football and Gibbs is comfortable with that. You are not drawing comparisions based on apples to apples.

In addition, Bledsoe can move and Brunell can, a little bit.

2-5, I am not comfortable with that. I have not argued for Mark's benching for the same reasons that Bledsoe got benched, I argue for Mark's benching because he has a whole other set of problems.

[AUskins]

Nothing could have been more predicatable than Campbell's Boyfriends foaming at the mouth watching last night and drawing inaccurate comparisons.

People just don't know football.

And you do....

What NFL team did you play for? Coach?

I think most fans here are somewhat knowledgeable about football. Some of us played some in HS, some maybe even in college. You can claim to know more about football but I see nothing to back it up.

[Sekhmet187]

Nothing could have been more predicatable than Campbell's Boyfriends foaming at the mouth watching last night and drawing inaccurate comparisons.

People just don't know football.

I don't think that score would have been any different if Bledsoe started. But more importantly, the situations between the Cowboys and Redskins are different thus they will not be compared.

You want to bench Brunell because in your eyes you're tired of what you believe is a sagging offense, predicatable and safe passing attempts, and you want a change.

The Cowboys changed QB's because Parcells was tired of Bledsoe throwing the ball around when he gets pressured. It is a different situation than the Redskins.

Brunell is more protective of the football and Gibbs is comfortable with that. You are not drawing comparisions based on apples to apples.

In addition, Bledsoe can move and Brunell can, a little bit.

You want to know who doesn't know football? The people clinging to Mark Brunell who couldn't even LEAD a team in his prime, let alone when he is 36 years old. Even when he was good in Jax, he wasn't someone who fired up his teammates or was known for leadership skills. And even though he did well, he never made it to the big game. Not to mention the fact that he has even less leadership skills than he does now.

A QB is the most important position on the team. He has to command the offense, lead the players on the offense, and find ways to motivate them. When things are going rough, good QB's find a way to pull it together. QB's like Manning will even get in player's faces to motivate them to tell them "hey dont get down, we'll do better next time!". Does Brunell do that?

I ask you, does Brunell even TALK with the rest of the players on offense? Everytime I see him after the offense leaves the field, he is on his own, talking to Gibbs or associating with some assistant coaches. I don't think the players respect him as much as they should respect a starting QB, and that is Brunell's fault. He doesn't put in effort, he doesn't put in passion.

I question his passion for the game. I question whether or not he wants to lead a team, or just lead himself and root for the team. Its fine if he can't. Hes a great guy who had a good career. But a team needs a leader at QB, or at least someone who can spark the team when they're down. A team should NOT have to rely on WR's or RB's to spark a team.

[Henry]

You want to know who doesn't know football? The people clinging to Mark Brunell who couldn't even LEAD a team in his prime, let alone when he is 36 years old. Even when he was good in Jax, he wasn't someone who fired up his teammates or was known for leadership skills. And even though he did well, he never made it to the big game. Not to mention the fact that he has even less leadership skills than he does now.

A QB is the most important position on the team. He has to command the offense, lead the players on the offense, and find ways to motivate them. When things are going rough, good QB's find a way to pull it together. QB's like Manning will even get in player's faces to motivate them to tell them "hey dont get down, we'll do better next time!". Does Brunell do that?

Kind of an ironic example for you to choose.

[Sekhmet187]

Should I have used Tom Brady so you understood the example?

[Destino]

Mark's leadership skills are questionable IMO. I see QB's all over the league marching up and down the sidelines when the game is close firing up their offenses. Mark? He never seems to do much more then chit chat with one player on the sideline. I never see him get fired up - let alone try to fire up others. After the game is lost i don't see him seem to even care, even after he threw a game ending pick against the Titans.

I don't see evidence that his heart is in it and i certainly don't see signs that he is trying to get a consistently FLAT offense motivated.

[fansince62]

"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."

ok. so we get to pick and chose which evidence we feel comfortable with. cool! guess we are ALL free then to selectively believe what we want. no one can or should be compared - I get it! please don't burden you with contrarian thinking. no problem! ummmmmmm.....Indy's offense was built...it didn't just happen.it wasn't just delivered like so much mana from heaven. we,on the other hand, apparenelty have little interst in building a viable offense. we like to patch holes every off-season - better....we like to pass money around to indigent players on their way to other teams or retirement. ok by me!

[fansince62]

"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."

you're implicitly reaffirming what many of us have been saying all along: this team hasn't been built well, isn't playing well, and is in rebuild mode. so why not bring in JC? Mark is part of the past. BTW...MB has thrown inopportune picks...but more to point...if the strongest argument you can make on his behalf is that he makes weekly quotas for smartly tossing the ball ob instead of offering up picks...rather than HE LEADS THE OFFENSE TO SCORES....then we are lost and this is gonna be a long, long, long test of patience.

[The Sisko]

Scott Brunell=Cyclone Hart

[Oxtalls]

And you do....

What NFL team did you play for? Coach?

I think most fans here are somewhat knowledgeable about football. Some of us played some in HS, some maybe even in college. You can claim to know more about football but I see nothing to back it up.

Because I'm not the one starting the ****y threads by insinuating the Redskin Coaches are essentially idiots for not starting the player the fans are whining about.

[ceviker]

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 guarantee you about 70% of this board watched the game yesterday and started cursing "SEE SEE SEE SEE!!" F'n a, put the kid in!

[Henry]

you're implicitly reaffirming what many of us have been saying all along: this team hasn't been built well, isn't playing well, and is in rebuild mode. so why not bring in JC? Mark is part of the past. BTW...MB has thrown inopportune picks...but more to point...if the strongest argument you can make on his behalf is that he makes weekly quotas for smartly tossing the ball ob instead of offering up picks...rather than HE LEADS THE OFFENSE TO SCORES....then we are lost and this is gonna be a long, long, long test of patience.

I agree. I want Campbell in there. I've said it many times over the past week.

I'm simply saying when Campbell does get in, the change in our offense may not be as pronounced as it was with Romo sits to pee in Dallas this week, which was the point of this thread.

[Oxtalls]

You want to know who doesn't know football? The people clinging to Mark Brunell who couldn't even LEAD a team in his prime, let alone when he is 36 years old.

Those that are are not "clinging" to him. Those that are realize he is the QB that should be starting right now. I think my position is once they are eliminated, they can look at Campbell.

I don't think these coaches feel like their eliminated from playoff contention. I admit that's conjuecture on my part but since they've been down before and worked it out there's some evidence to support that claim that they feel their season is still competitive. That's why i believe he's still playing. And obviously I fee it's right.

Even when he was good in Jax, he wasn't someone who fired up his teammates or was known for leadership skills. And even though he did well, he never made it to the big game. Not to mention the fact that he has even less leadership skills than he does now.

I dont even know what the heck this means or what you're even getting at. This is just blah blah unimportant conjecturing on your part.

QB's like Manning will even get in player's faces to motivate them to tell them "hey dont get down, we'll do better next time!". Does Brunell do that?

Hey everyone. This is why the Redskins are losing. Brunell doesn't tell the players to do better next time. You guys are all reaching for garbage.

I ask you, does Brunell even TALK with the rest of the players on offense?

I don't know - who FLIPPIN' Cares who he talks to. Or who Brad Johnson talks to. Or Troy Aikman.

You know what I would love to see - Mark Brunell talking with other QB's in the league - reading this and lauging out how stupid it is.

[Henry]

Should I have used Tom Brady so you understood the example?

If you are going to bash Brunell for never being any good simply because he didn't win the big one in his prime, then yeah, it would have been a good idea to use an example of a QB that HAS won the big one in his prime. Not that it really matters, but it gave me a chuckle.

[Sekhmet187]

Those that are are not "clinging" to him. Those that are realize he is the QB that should be starting right now. I think my position is once they are eliminated, they can look at Campbell.

I don't think these coaches feel like their eliminated from playoff contention. I admit that's conjuecture on my part but since they've been down before and worked it out there's some evidence to support that claim that they feel their season is still competitive. That's why i believe he's still playing. And obviously I fee it's right.

I dont even know what the heck this means or what you're even getting at. This is just blah blah unimportant conjecturing on your part.

Hey everyone. This is why the Redskins are losing. Brunell doesn't tell the players to do better next time. You guys are all reaching for garbage.

I don't know - who FLIPPIN' Cares who he talks to. Or who Brad Johnson talks to. Or Troy Aikman.

You know what I would love to see - Mark Brunell talking with other QB's in the league - reading this and lauging out how stupid it is.

Yes, because its stupid to point out all of the flaws in Brunell's game. Conjecture? Then you tell me how a team can go 2-5, and as the game is being lost, the QB isn't anywhere near the team and smiling. Why is it, that after a key mistake by the QB, he isn't going over with the coach what he did wrong for more than 2 seconds?

What I'm getting at is pretty simple, its the QB's job to lead the team. If thats too hard for you to comprehend, no wonder people in D.C. aren't used to having good QB's.

[Sekhmet187]

If you are going to bash Brunell for never being any good simply because he didn't win the big one in his prime, then yeah, it would have been a good idea to use an example of a QB that HAS won the big one in his prime. Not that it really matters, but it gave me a chuckle.

Let me clarify. My point was that Brunell has no leadership skills. I used his example as not winning the big game because in my eyes, the only reason you stick with a QB that isn't doing anything for a bad, losing team, is if the QB has won the big game before. If you have a championship QB that a team and fans should have confidence in.

I used Manning as example of a QB with good leadership skills. I could have easily used many other QB's, but I just stuck with Manning because he was the most recent QB to shred a team in front of all of Redskins fans' eyes.

[Mister Happy]

He's only played 1 game. Shane Matthews looked awesome in his first game for us, too.

People said the exact same thing about Matt Leinart a couple of weeks ago, after he had a good game. Since then he stunk it up in blow out losses to Oakland and Green Bay.

I'm sure you can find a better example than Tony Romo sits to pee. Maybe you can find a guy that had success for an entire season.