jbooma Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 That we are the only team offering a high second round pick for Brunell and we could basically get him as a free agent if we waited. San Diego, Dallas and Miami are not offering that much. He did say if we had Brunell then next year we would be fighting for the division title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 You gotta love it. They're offering too much! But they may well win the division. I get whiplash reading stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Who knows what San Diego and those guys are offering? To Jax.....at lower pick and a player might be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 So he thinks we should keep all of our draft picks and not be in contention next year? That’s solid reasoning. If reports are true there are several teams interested in Brunell. If that is the case does anyone think he is simply going to be released? Regardless of how I feel about this potential move a statement like that makes no sense. If a move clearly makes you better you do it, he seem to think it will. Would you rather spend a 2nd rounder and be sure or offer a 3rd and have Mark go to Dallas? Again you don’t even have to debate the wisdom of the move. If it’s decided that that’s the move we need to make then do it. Don’t screw around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Hog Fever Regardless of how I feel about this potential move a statement like that makes no sense. If a move clearly makes you better you do it, he seem to think it will. Would you rather spend a 2nd rounder and be sure or offer a 3rd and have Mark go to Dallas? He is saying we are offering too much, Miami doesn't have a second, Dallas refused to offer picks, and San Diego will not give up their #2. Jacksonville is basically trying to screw us when we need help at multiple positions. If we wait a couple of months Brunell won't be traded anywhere and will basically be a free agent so instead of giving up the #2 keep it and then get Brunell on our terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panthro Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 There's an excellent article in the WP (online) today about the issue. Skins won't be stupid about the deal, but they also would rather that Dallas does not end up with Brunnell. They're attacking Brunnell with two motivations: need a vet QB and keep Dallas from improving if at all possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma He is saying we are offering too much, Miami doesn't have a second, Dallas refused to offer picks, and San Diego will not give up their #2. Jacksonville is basically trying to screw us when we need help at multiple positions. If we wait a couple of months Brunell won't be traded anywhere and will basically be a free agent so instead of giving up the #2 keep it and then get Brunell on our terms. I understand your point and it would be nice if we were sure that he would be released and not moved to another team but clearly that’s not the case. Yes, all things being perfect we could keep our pick and get Brunell for nothing after he is released but clearly the management thought that wasn’t going to happen. It seems they are right. There are 3 or 4 other teams who are willing to put together some form of compensation for his rights. What we have offered for sure and what the other teams are willing to offer is just speculation right now. My point was simply that if this is the path we are choosing to take then we better make sure it happens. All things considered a #2 pick would not be that much compensation for a starting QB. Remember what we gave up for brad Johnson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Hog Fever My point was simply that if this is the path we are choosing to take then we better make sure it happens. All things considered a #2 pick would not be that much compensation for a starting QB. Remember what we gave up for brad Johnson? Good point but wasn't Johnson a lot younger? If we do give up a high #2 then Brunell will be the starter and am curious what Patrick thinks of it :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Om You gotta love it. They're offering too much! But they may well win the division. I get whiplash reading stuff like this. No doubt.. What a moron to write something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Good point but wasn't Johnson a lot younger? If we do give up a high #2 then Brunell will be the starter and am curious what Patrick thinks of it :paranoid: Younger, yes. More talented, no. At least IMO. If I had to imagine what Patrick was thinking right now I’d guess he feels a little hurt that there is even speculation about this. His immediate thoughts might be that the staff doesn’t have confidence in him. These are all thoughts that he will have to overcome. Competition is good. It makes good players great. I think that in the end if it happens he will understand that the coach feels that it is in the best interest of the team and he will be a good soldier and do whatever is asked of him. Without this move we once again put all of our eggs in one basket. As Patrick goes so does the team. That’s an awful lot to ask of a guy with such limited time as a starter. I love Patrick but ultimately I want what is best for the team. I see the logic behind this potential move. Is it the right thing? No one can say yet. Even if Patrick has to wait a little while longer to get his shot it will come. I just hope it’s here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 No sir, I don't like it, not one bit. Yes, you have to keep an eye on what the teams in your division are doing, but going after Brunnell largely to keep him out of Dallas strikes me as well, A BAD IDEA! This team has plenty of holes and only four draft picks. After last year, the Redskins need a strong influx of cheap depth and I am not in favor of trading any of the four picks for a player, no matter who it is, and especially not Brunnell when there are clearly more pressing areas of concern like DL, RB, TE, S and DEPTH! Also, maybe I'm missing something, but I see no reason to think that given a solid running game, Ramsey couldn't have success in a Gibbs offense. Is Brunnell really that big of a potential imrpovement? I don't see it. And another thing... Every team works under the cap. The good ones draft well year in and year out and keep their rosters stocked with cheap, young players. The really good ones coach up these later round picks to be capable starters. You can't fill every hole with veteran talent; it's just too expensive. So this year, especially with Gibbs on board, I thought there would be a strong emphasis on building through the draft; but if this Brunnell garbage is true, well nothing's changed, we're still dealing with the same old Redskins where the emphasis is always on the now, to hell with the future. I understand and appreciate the merits of aggresiveness, but it seems the Redskins would benefit from placing more stock in the adage: Good things come to those who wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 "Good things come to those who wait." Just for the sake of argument ... I see your adage and raise you a couple of bromides: "The early bird gets the worm." "He who hesitates is lost." :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yes OM, and for the last few years, the Redskins have been that early bird, every year, and look at what it's gotten us. My point is that after years of aggresiveness, this team could benefit from a good dose of patience. We've tried the 'let's sign lots of high priced talent' approach and the 'let's fill out the roster with veteran free agents instead of draft picks' too. If just for one year, let's stop being the first pig in line at the trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citigent Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 i doubt the skins get brunell if he goes to free agency, the post said that either brunell or his agent said(?) that if he become a FA that his top choice is miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 MAP, over the "last few years," the Redskins' brain trust has been a mish-mash combination of Norv Turner, Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato. Now it's headed by a guy who has won multiple Super Bowls, and is universally recognized as one of the great football minds in the history of the game. Is it possible that not all offseasons are created equal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yes, it is not only possible, it's true OM. But the fact remains that they did occur and no matter who was directing them, you still have to pay for the sins of previous offseasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Om Is it possible that not all offseasons are created equal? Well the fabulous duo of Snyder and Vinny are still here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Om Just for the sake of argument ... I see your adage and raise you a couple of bromides: :cool: :lol: Classic Om!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 If Brunell is brought in, Ramsey is just going to have to hunker down and deal with it. If he can't handle it, he probably isn't the long-term solution, anyway. A QB named Joe Montana had won two Super Bowls and then had a back injury. He came back OK, but Walsh still went out and got a guy named Steve Young to groom as his replacement. If Walsh can bring a guy in to compete with Montana, I don't see that Ramsey is untouchable. I think most, if not all, want Ramsey to be the guy. But, he's going to have to earn his stripes with Gibbs, apparently. As much as I like Ramsey, I'll trust Gibbs on this decision. It's not like Brunell is a scrub - he's a damn good QB. At 33, on a good team with good protection and a running game, he has 5 years left. QBs can play well into their 30s as long as their bodies are sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma He did say if we had Brunell then next year we would be fighting for the division title. So with that logic, and everything else being equal, last season was all Ramsey's fault and Prisco doesn't see alot in the near future with him at QB. Redskins with Ramsey at QB and Spurrier = 5-11 Redskins with Ramsey at QB and Gibbs = 7-9 wins Redskins with Brunell at QB and Gibbs = 11-12 wins This assumes that the NFC East division winner will have 11-12 wins - a safe assumption considering past performance since 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by MAPTASTIC Yes, it is not only possible, it's true OM. But the fact remains that they did occur and no matter who was directing them, you still have to pay for the sins of previous offseasons. I'll grant you that, MAP, but I'd suggest that maybe we ought to let this offseason play out just a bit longer before we begin to pass judgment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Om You gotta love it. They're offering too much! But they may well win the division. I get whiplash reading stuff like this. Both statemenst make sense though, don't they? Why would we give up a 2nd rounder, which we could obviously draft an impact defensive player with, when we could get Brunell without giving up anything? He just saying that if the move did go through, we could challenge for a division championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 You don't see how saying the latter makes the former seem kinda silly, rellim? Is a second round pick too high a price to pay for a division championship? Obviously it's not as simple as that, but that's what I was alluding to in making fun of how Prisco's take was presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I have no problem with bringing in Brunell as a temp starter or backup, but I *hate* the idea of giving up a draft pick for a guy who is a short timer. However, if we get rid of Ramsey for Brunell, I will not be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Om I'll grant you that, MAP, but I'd suggest that maybe we ought to let this offseason play out just a bit longer before we begin to pass judgment on it. I'm nowhere near passing judgment on this offseason. Christ, it's only Feb. 9. All I'm saying is that giving up our second round pick to bring in Mark Brunnell is a BAD idea and will not serve the best interests of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.