Canadian Hog Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hopefully nobody interprets this thread as having anti-Gibbs sentiment. Obviously, Joe is coaching the Redskins for a reason and I am not. I have plenty of respect for what Joe has done for our organization, and had it not been for his brilliance, I would not have known what it feels like to root for a championship team. For this, I will always be grateful towards Coach Gibbs. While the backup position is very important as Coach Gibbs stresses, I would like to simply post some food for thought. Maybe in your estimation, it means absolutely nothing, who knows. Anyways, take it for what you think it's worth. 1997 Super Bowl: Broncos vs. Packers: 2nd string QBs: Bubby Brister and Doug Pederson Sacks Allowed: Denver: 35, Green Bay: 41 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: Denver: 2.18, Green Bay: 2.56 Rush Offense: Broncos: 148.6 per game, Packers: 119.3 1998 Super Bowl: Falcons vs. Broncos 2nd string QBs: Mark Rypien and Bubby Brister Sacks Allowed: Atlanta: 53, Denver: 25 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: Atlanta: 3.31, Denver: 1.56 Rush Offense: Falcons: 131 per game, Denver: 154 1999 Super Bowl: Rams vs. Titans 2nd string QBs: Joe Germaine and Neil O'Donnell Sacks Allowed: St. Louis: 33, Titans: 25 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: St. Louis: 2.06, Titans: 1.56 Rush Offense: St. Louis: 128.7 per game, Tennessee: 113.2 2000 Super Bowl: Ravens vs. Giants 2nd String QBs: Tony Banks and Jason Garrett Sacks Allowed: Baltimore: 43, Giants 28 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: Baltimore: 2.69, New York: 1.75 Rush Offense: Baltimore: 137.4 per game, New York: 125.6 2001 Super Bowl: Rams vs. Patriots 2nd String QBs: Joe Germaine and Drew Bledsoe Sacks Allowed: St. Louis: 40, New England: 46 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: St. Louis: 2.5, Pats: 2.88 Rush Offense: St. Louis: 126.7 per game, New England: 112.1 2002 Super Bowl: Bucs vs. Raiders 2nd String QBs: Shaun King and Marques Tuiasosopo Sacks Allowed: Tampa: 41, Oakland: 36 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: Tampa: 2.56, Oakland: 2.25 Rush Offense: Tampa: 97.3 per game, Oakland: 110.1 2003 Super Bowl: Patriots vs. Panthers 2nd String QBs: Damon Huard and Rodney Peete Sacks Allowed: New England: 32, Carolina: 26 Avg. Sacks Allowed Per Game: Pats: 2, Carolina: 1.63 Rush Offense: New England: 100.4, Carolina: 130.7 What is being said? With the exception of the New England Patriots in 2001, none of these Super Bowl clubs had as their backup a QB who arguably could start on other teams. And the funny thing is that in 2001 Bledsoe was initially the starter and was relegated to backup after Brady's hot streak. In actuality, coming into that season, not even New England had a proven backup commodity. Once again, don't get me wrong, I truly believe that the backup is a key position. However, in most cases, as the numbers from above point out, if you have a solid ground game that can keep opposing defenses from teeing off on your QB, and you generally do a good job of protecting your QB, you are minimizing the chances that your backup will be forced into duty. With that being said, I realize that anything is possible and that it takes only one blown assignment before your QB gets blindsided and is out for a month. In my opinion, provided you implement the right philosophy and place a premium on protecting your QB and keeping defenses off balance with an above average ground attack, the backup situation becomes less of a concern. Yes, you need a competent fill-in who can manage games, limit mistakes, and above all keep you in games and have a chance to win them late. A Mark Brunell starting caliber player in my mind isn't required at this moment in time. Personally, I'd much rather pursue a free agent RB such as Corey Dillon, before pursuing a 33 year old Brunell when discussing the offensive side of the ball. Clearly, RB is a much greater need position in my estimation. To say the least I'm surprised, but once again, I'll support the decision because Coach has a proven track record, and I'm just another armchair quarterback. As always, I'm not trying to express bitterness towards the team. I'm simply trying to approach the topic in discussion from a historical and slightly different perspective, that's all. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 However it is that other coaches formulate how they can win, Gibbs fundamentally believes HE needs two good qb's to win. He does not believe in having a season or a game turn on a freak play that can knock out any qb on any play. You should post this question on the falcons or jests boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayouBrave86 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I remember Brister kicking ass in the 98 season before Elway came back, sure kicked the Skins ass at FedEx. I remember going to that awful game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Yeah, you can win with ONE good QB if you are LUCKY and he starts 16 games and doesn't get injured. But why should you if you don't have too? Would you rather us be like the Jets last year when Pennington was lost and their season was screwed from the start? As it stood if Ramsey torn up his knee in August, we would be screwed, period. After 12 years of mediocrity I kind of like the insurance of having two good QB's on the team, and this should be given first priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I am taking a wait and see attitude. All the rumors flying around it is hard to see what is really taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 I am taking a wait and see attitude. All the rumors flying around it is hard to see what is really taking place. Its more than a rumor when both the WP and a Florida newspaper and Pastabelly report that Gibbs is meeting with Brunell personally and the Skins are "close" to a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Skins are "close" to a deal. is not a "done deal".......yet:deal: close only counts for horseshoes and hand gernades :noflame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 IMHO, Ramsay is not yet a 'proven' Qb. With that being said, I hope we have a reliable backup to work in during training camp. I'm sure Joe is watching film as we speak and will be able to determine if Patrick fits his scheme. I d@mn sure don't want to sell the farm to 'rent' Brunell for a few years. This is an instintive thing, only Joe can decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I don't think either is a frontline QB, but here is hoping one of them turns into one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 What this shows is that Gibbs is absolutely commited to getting another high quality qb on the roster. It isn't a rumor that Gibbs almost always accomplishes what he sets out to do. He may not get Brunell - but he will get another good qb. Whoever that is will compete for the starting job and get it if he out performs PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/02/08/bc.fbn.brunell.sfuture.ap/index.html "ESPN.com reported that principle parameters of a trade with the Redskins have been completed, but details are still being worked out. February is a no-trade period for the NFL, so any deal would have to be completed in March." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I'm gonna :puke: if this deal goes through and cost's us a pick in this years draft. We really don't have much to give up:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 3 of those superbowls were won by QB's that started the season as backups. Believe in the Coach guys, he knows what he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Joey T I'm gonna :puke: if this deal goes through and cost's us a pick in this years draft. We really don't have much to give up:mad: There are two ways the Skins could work this. 1- We give the Jags our 2nd round pick and then trade down from the #5 spot in the 1st round to say the #10 spot and recoup the 2nd round pick from Houston. 2- We give the Jags a conditional 3rd round pick in 2005, contingent on how many games Brunell starts, which turns into a 2nd round pick if he becomes our starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Does anyone think that this deal has been made for a second round pick because the Redskins have an unofficial agreement in place with New England swapping our #1 and #2 picks for all of their #1 and #2 picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by bnacpa Does anyone think that this deal has been made for a second round pick because the Redskins have an unofficial agreement in place with New England swapping our #1 and #2 picks for all of their #1 and #2 picks? Yes. That, or something like that is very likely IMO. If we could get the Pats to first rounders and 1 of their second rounders we'd be sitting pretty to address the teams needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey T Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Inmate. A conditional pick in NEXT years draft works for me. We cannot afford to give up anything this year unless we score BIG time in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Having trade parameters with jax in place doesn't mean much. The key element is Brunell agreeing to a contract with us. That's the complicated part - not the trade with jax. Stop with this 2nd rounder talk. Brunell doesn't have that high a trade value because - I REPEAT: - Everyone knows jax will cut him in the next couple of weeks - Brunell has a $6.5 million SALARY for 2004 and NO TEAM will trade anything significant for him without a new agreement with him already in place - Brunell is only going to agree to a deal with a team that he wants to be traded to - Brunell won't agree to a new deal for less than he would get if he just waits to get cut - That makes Brunell 95% an urfa already - That means you don't have to pay that much for him in trade (you will have to give him a good contract) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Mark Rypien Bubby Brister Neil O'Donnell Tony Banks Drew Bledsoe Shaun King and Rodney Peete That's the QB's that you mentioned, that ALL were starters in their respective careers and were somewhat expensive backups that got to the big show with their team. Not to sound like a d*ck but I think you proved the argument there.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I think that teams who want to minimize a bidding war on Brunell will try to trade for him and renegotiate his contract up front so that he does not become a cap disaster for the team. Several sources have quoted that the Redskins are pursuing him and that we may be offering a 2nd round pick to Jacksonville for MB, should Gibbs and MB work out a salary structure and playing expectations. I think Brunell is smart enough to know that Miami just lost Norv Turner and has a lot of questions regarding its receivers. San Diego is, well, San Diego .... and the Redskins appear to have the talent, coaches, and big spending owner to quickly launch a playoff run. If he wants to make it to the post season more than he wants to cash a big pay check, then he will sign here for a reduced salary and the Redskins will trade for him to keep themselves out of a bidding war that they can't possibly win while addressing key needs such as Bailey's contract, DL, TE, and RB in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by thinker Stop with this 2nd rounder talk. Brunell doesn't have that high a trade value because - I REPEAT: But you overlooked the most important thing here IMHO. And that is that Miami is very much interested in acquiring Brunell according to Miami newspapers, and more then likely have also offered their 2nd round pick. In which case the Redskins have to offer their 2nd round pick to top that, which is higher than Miami's. According to Leigh Steinberg, Brunell has previously expressed an interest in playing for Miami when or if he is cut. Now Gibbs has to sell Brunell on playing for the Skins and I guess he is meeting him personally to try and do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Only someone too young to remember 1987 would ask this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Inmate, it doesn't matter what Miami offers. If Brunell doesn't want to go to Miami, he doesn't have to agree to a restructuring and Miami is not going to make a trade and then have a $6.5 million cap number this year. With his current contract, Brunell is virtually untradable, without Brunell's agreement. And no one has said the Redskins have offered a 2nd rounder and no one has said any specific team offered a 2nd rounder. If Brunell says - I'll only renegotiate with Washington, his trade value is very small because no other team will trade for him, the Skins won't have to offer a lot, and jax HAS to move him quickly because they owe him a $2 million roster bonus on March 1st. AND Brunell is not going to make it easy for jax to get a high pick for him since he feels they scr*wed him. Once Brunell decides where he wants to go and has a deal with that team in place, he can't really be traded to someone else unless that team is willing to risk him having a $6.5 million cap hit this year for a qb that has said he doesn't want to play there anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 2001 "back up" for New England, was not Bledsoe, It was Brady, for the SB, it was Bledsoe, but nmot at the begining of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty dread Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Let's not overanalyze here, having two quality QB's is very important in the NFL. Gibbs has always placed a ton of emphasis on having depth and his second stint in the league will be no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.