stwasm Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 and I love it!!! Our team is gawd awful. Yet, today when I was watching the game, I could care less about how bad our defense looked. All I care about is Jason Campbell now. And with our season basically over, this change couldn't have come at a better time. At a point in the season where I would usually be pissed that we are producing another underachieving team, I truley dont care. Finally, for maybe the first time this season, we have hope again. Hope that maybe for the first time in 15 years we have finally found our franchise QB. All I can say is that I am very happy about Jasons performance today, and hope that it continues. :point2sky So, I guess Brunell doesn't get the start over JC next week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuperskinz Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Bull hockey, because real hockey is played with professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Bull Hockey.Quit perpetuating lie after lie that the Anti-Brunell crowd made the claim that the defense wasn't a problem. No one here has ever said that the defense didn't suck. Matter of fact, it's the Pro-Brunell crowd who always went around crowing that Brunell's play was not a problem, when it clearly has been except for a handful of games last season. Ya you may have mentioned that the defense wasnt playing so hot in one sentence. And then you and the rest of the "future" sheep would ramble on for ten minutes about Brunell. We all knew that it was time go get JC in there but the second anyone wanted to talk about the defense they were called idiots. Because the only thing that you could talk about was Brunell. Well hes out and the team still sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuperskinz Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 It doesn't matter who plays quarterback next week. There are other players on the field that will pervent the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Ya you may have mentioned that the defense wasnt playing so hot in one sentence. And then you and the rest of the "future" sheep would ramble on for ten minutes about Brunell. We all knew that it was time go get JC in there but the second anyone wanted to talk about the defense they were called idiots. Because the only thing that you could talk about was Brunell. Well hes out and the team still sucks. Yeah, when the topic of the thread is about the QB or Brunell, why would one ramble off topic and talk about a defense that sucks? Wouldn't that belong in the "Defense sucks/performance " thread?? Get a grip.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSkins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 but campbell starting does provide a ray of hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Yeah, when the topic of the thread is about the QB or Brunell, why would one ramble off topic and talk about a defense that sucks? Wouldn't that belong in the "Defense sucks/performance " thread?? Get a grip.......... Lol thats because you guys wouldnt stop starting you "future" threads. As far as getting a grip I tried over and over again to discuss the defense with you and your fellow "future" posters. And it always resulted in you blaming Brunell. Those of us who tried to bring the problems with the defense up had a grip and a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Wouldn't that belong in the "Defense sucks/performance " thread?? Except that it would quickly turn into a "Brunell Sucks" thread. (not to mention that the Brunell sucks threads seem to outnumber the defense threads. Seriously, some argued that the solution to the defense was to get a QB that could score more points. :doh: Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGSKINS Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 This defense is a doormat. HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE! They aught to be ashamed of themselvs. I have never seen anything like it. Good day for JC. This guy is special. We have a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuperskinz Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I would agree that Cambell has more mobility & yes, even made it a bit more exciting to watch for one more week, but, there is still no protection, no tackling, & no heart. He will be traded next year for the next has-been player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydean Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 i have to be honest....i've been a diehard redskins fan since 1973......this loss didn't hurt me as bad as a couple of others did this season.....it didn't hurt, because, i saw the future of the organization today. jason campbell looked incredibly good. had some of our receivers caught his long bombs, this game would have been different. IT LOOKED LIKE IT TOOK ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT FOR HIM TO THROW THE BALL 30-40 YARDS....WHAT A REFRESHING THING TO SEE.....this season is basically salvaged....let's see what jason campbell, tj duckett, brandon lloyd and a few others can do...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Lol thats because you guys wouldnt stop starting you "future" threads. As far as getting a grip I tried over and over again to discuss the defense with you and your fellow "future" posters. And it always resulted in you blaming Brunell. Those of us who tried to bring the problems with the defense up had a grip and a clue. The defense has sucked all year. No one has said to the contrary. Reading Is Fundamental How many more defense sucks threads can there be on this board?? Just as many as the Brunell sucks threads. So explain to me again how talking about defense when the thread topic is QB play is relevant?? You want to talk about how the defense blows? I'll discuss it with you all day long in the Defense sucks thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Except that it would quickly turn into a "Brunell Sucks" thread. (not to mention that the Brunell sucks threads seem to outnumber the defense threads.Seriously, some argued that the solution to the defense was to get a QB that could score more points. :doh: Jason So time of possesion now has no bearing on any defense? gotcha............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuperskinz Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Interesting that you chose Aurebach for an icon. The Celtics have pretty mush floundered since he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 The defense has sucked all year. No one has said to the contrary.Reading Is Fundamental How many more defense sucks threads can there be on this board?? Just as many as the Brunell sucks threads. So explain to me again how talking about defense when the thread topic is QB play is relevant?? You want to talk about how the defense blows? I'll discuss it with you all day long in the Defense sucks thread. Your reading is fundamental insult is old. Its what you bring out everytime your called on your BS. You guys hijacked EVERY thread and turned it into a Brunell thread. And the topic of this thread was hoe JC diverted the attention away from the other problems on this team. Reading is fundamental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Your reading is fundamental insult is old. Its what you bring out everytime your called on your BS. You guys hijacked EVERY thread and turned it into a Brunell thread. And the topic of this thread was hoe JC diverted the attention away from the other problems on this team. Reading is fundamental. I never brought Brunell into the thread. You and your crowd did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Believe what you want, but after the Titans game, It seems most people believed that Brunell was a bigger problem than the defense, even tho the Brunell-let offense produced 22 points.Fact is, from early on, people wanted to lynch Brunell. So, we change QBs, and guess what? Not much of a difference. Jason I would say that there is a difference. You are still bitter because you backed Brunell and he was benched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I would say that there is a difference. You are still bitter because you backed Brunell and he was benched. I dont think anyone wanted Brunell out there this week. JC looked pretty good. Thats why Im glad that Gibbs didnt have the knee jerk reaction that many on this board had. He waited until JC was ready instead of rushing him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUskins Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Ok Brunell lovers...we all know the defense is bad and Brunell being benched did not impact that. However, do you not beleive that a more potent offense, one that can score more than 3 points gives a better shot at winning games given the poor defense? We cant fix the defense but maybe we have a better shot at outscoring our opponent? Despite all that we get Campbell some playing time, evaluate him. No one said benching Brunell means we win out. Awaits a bitter and Brunell biased response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Ok Brunell lovers...we all know the defense is bad and Brunell being benched did not impact that. However, do you not beleive that a more potent offense, one that can score more than 3 points gives a better shot at winning games given the poor defense?We cant fix the defense but maybe we have a better shot at outscoring our opponent? Despite all that we get Campbell some playing time, evaluate him. No one said benching Brunell means we win out. Awaits a bitter and Brunell biased response. How was I bitter or biased? I was all for benching Brunell. JC looked really good today. Im not sure that I would call our offense potent. 17 points isnt exactly lighting it up. That last drive was very smooth. I was impressed at how calm JC was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wamo Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Just as I thought, JC doesn't make this team instantly better. No, but he makes the ouarterback position instantly better. He did a great job today. No, it does not fix our defense but Campbell does not play defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 So time of possesion now has no bearing on any defense?gotcha............ Funny, but TOP situation hasn't changed with the change of QB. Gee, I wonder if that means that there are other problems... Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 This is all so very simple. Earlier in the season when the defense struggled, we were coming off of back to back fine seasons with the D, it makes sense that one explaination for their poor play was that our offense (led by Brunell) was not possessing the ball and not scoring points. Now, as the season has worn on and also now that we have all our "projected" preseason starters in the lineup and we still are horrible, that there is indeed a problem with this defense and Mark Brunell and the offensive woes of this team should not be held accountable for the ills of the defense. That said, Brunell has been a weak link on this offense from his first snap in 2004 through his last snap (hopefully) last week in Philly. When the Skins began to lose this season, it became more and more clear that there was no reason for Brunell to continue to be playing when you had a player sitting on the bench that you've invested so much in. What I find funny is that the people who defended Brunell by posting his numbers and saying he was having a good season and should get pro bowl consideration are now running away from that position. Why do you now agree that Jason should be playing if you still insist that Brunell was not only not a problem, but was in fact having a pro bowl season? Brunell has been a problem since 2004. The defense has been a problem since 2006. Simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Gee, I wonder if that means that there are other problems... Jason Yep, and no one here ever said there weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 This is all so very simple.Earlier in the season when the defense struggled, we were coming off of back to back fine seasons with the D, it makes sense that one explaination for their poor play was that our offense (led by Brunell) was not possessing the ball and not scoring points. Now, as the season has worn on and also now that we have all our "projected" preseason starters in the lineup and we still are horrible, that there is indeed a problem with this defense and Mark Brunell and the offensive woes of this team should not be held accountable for the ills of the defense. That said, Brunell has been a weak link on this offense from his first snap in 2004 through his last snap (hopefully) last week in Philly. When the Skins began to lose this season, it became more and more clear that there was no reason for Brunell to continue to be playing when you had a player sitting on the bench that you've invested so much in. What I find funny is that the people who defended Brunell by posting his numbers and saying he was having a good season and should get pro bowl consideration are now running away from that position. Why do you now agree that Jason should be playing if you still insist that Brunell was not only not a problem, but was in fact having a pro bowl season? Brunell has been a problem since 2004. The defense has been a problem since 2006. Simple I agree. I never suggested that Brunell was a pro bowler. But a problem is a problem an we have a big one on the defensive side of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.