bulldog Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 OM, if this had been one game in isolation you could spin it. however when you see the same results over and over again you have to be blind to keep finding excuses. The redskins are 2-5 and Brunell is dead last in passer ratings. Those two circumstances are not coincidences. My gentleman's wager to you my friend is that Brunell is a one year starter for the Redskins. Based on what everyone has seen, including the coaches you won't see him back there again in 2005. His butt will be seated on the bench as the backup and holder for kicks. Gibbs won't admit it during the season to embarrass the player but Brunell is done and I think most people looking at the numbers and the age of the player in question would agree that this guy is more past than future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 No bet, sir. I'd be surprised, based on what I've seen to date, if Brunell is the presumptive starter heading into next year. Only disagreement we might have is over the reasons Brunell is continuing to start at this point in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think the point some people are trying to make is all teams get questionable calls at some point in their season (see Dawkins "roughing the passer" that had a DIRECT impact on the game because it gave Cleveland a first down on 4th down and allowed them to score). The good teams still find a way to persevere however, and overcome such terrible calls. It was a bad call this weekend though, I think everyone admits that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 If the offense had done anything at all during the first half, we wouldn't have been in the situation of hoping the refs made the right call. Joe even said as much during his press conference yesterday. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 If the offense had done anything at all during the first half, we wouldn't have been in the situation of hoping the refs made the right call. Joe even said as much during his press conference yesterday. :2cents: correct me if I'm wrong but the game is 60 inutes long, and points count the same no matter which half they are scored? Is there a new rule that you only get tne W if you out play your opponent in the first half? why even play the second half then? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 correct me if I'm wrong but the game is 60 inutes long, and points count the same no matter which half they are scored? Is there a new rule that you only get tne W if you out play your opponent in the first half? why even play the second half then? :laugh: Bubba...the game is 60 minutes long...why should the offense only show up for 7 minutes? That's the point. Even Joe made mention of this yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 If the offense had done anything at all during the first half, we wouldn't have been in the situation of hoping the refs made the right call. Joe even said as much during his press conference yesterday. :2cents: That's why they have two halves. It's about who plays best overall, regardless when the plays are made. The D allowed 17 points in the first half and three pretty big plays. Are you gonna' criticize them for that while you're at it? They stop one TD and we might win the game. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 In fairness, the offense didn't do anything in the 2nd Half either. Why do people keep promoting this blatant fallacy? Discounting the mopup plays in the last minute+, Brunell was 9 of 21 for 95 Yards a TD/INT in the second half. The Redskins managed only 1 drive which lasted more than 5 plays or 14 yards in the entire second half (and that drive ended with no points, after 3 consecutive Brunell incompletions). The DEFENSE gave our offense 2 possessions on the Packers, 24 and 12 yard lines.... otherwise, we don't score this game. The idea that we somehow came at with great adjustments and really picked it up on offense in the 2nd half is blatantly false. Yes, the Defense made great 2nd Half adjustments... but certainly not the offense, it was the definition of putrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 Bubba...the game is 60 minutes long...why should the offense only show up for 7 minutes? That's the point. Even Joe made mention of this yesterday. didn't we score a TD in the first half? in a perfect world you dominate start to finish, and no bad calls, but that isn't realistic. it took time to make djustments to stop GB and come from behnd to what should have been a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 correct me if I'm wrong but the game is 60 inutes long, and points count the same no matter which half they are scored? You're wrong. The game is 60 minutes long. I don't know what kind of wacky metric time inutes are in. But we don't use those here. Is there a new rule that you only get tne W if you out play your opponent in the first half? why even play the second half then? :laugh: The point remains that the offense has underperformed and that Gibbs is ultimately responsible. While I may disagree with some of his decisions as head coach and offensive coordinator, he is in charge and is accountable for those decisions. So far, his decisions have amounted to failure. EDIT: You can speculate all you want about what "should have been" a win, even though Favre would have gotten the ball back with timeouts in his pocket and 2.5 minutes on the clock. Gibbs' offense is ranked next to last by scoring only 14 ppg. Only the lowly dolphins have scored less. Meanwhile the defense has only given up 9 TD's, tied for the NFL lead. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the offense has been a major disappointment and the primary reason for this team's record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by ntotoro That's why they have two halves. It's about who plays best overall, regardless when the plays are made. The D allowed 17 points in the first half and three pretty big plays. Are you gonna' criticize them for that while you're at it? They stop one TD and we might win the game. Nick How many teams have winning seasons when the offense is productive for only 5-7 minutes each game? You can't have one unit take off for 3/4 of the game and expect to be competitive in this league. The defense did make adjustments at halftime and for the most part,controlled GB the second half. Tell me, just what adjustments were made by the offense? Some of you people are really reaching here............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 Bubba...the game is 60 minutes long...why should the offense only show up for 7 minutes? That's the point. Even Joe made mention of this yesterday. I know we are on the same side here, but *when* did they show up? They didn't play anything close to 7 minutes of offense in the 2nd half. They had 4 of 5 drives last less than 5 plays and 14 yards (3 punts, an INT, and a missed FG). The only other 2nd Half "Drive" lasted 12 yards, thanks to Springs. There was NO 2nd Half offense at all... there was one decent blitz-beating lob thrown 10 yards, turned 40 yard scamper, that was called back by a penalty. Otherwise there were no 2nd Half offensive consistency or fireworks. Coach Gibbs has people believing revisionist history already with his comments about 2nd half heroics. It's not accurate, not matter how GREAT a guy Coach Gibbs is (and he's the best ever in my book). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 The Packers also won virtually every single statistical battle BUT turnovers (which usually determines the winner but didn't work out here). The other stat that kind of caught me off guard was 3rd down conversions. The Skins were 1/10 on third down. Without having seen how that happened, it looks brutal on paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 How many teams have winning seasons when the offense is productive for only 5-7 minutes each game? You can't have one unit take off for 3/4 of the game and expect to be competitive in this league. The defense did make adjustments at halftime and for the most part,controlled GB the second half. Tell me, just what adjustments were made by the offense? Some of you people are really reaching here............... No one's talking about winning seasons, trends or whatever. We're talking about bad calls in one game. I know the offense is sputtering, but that's not the intention of this thread. This thread is talking about one game and one particular call. The Defense made the biggest changes in the game, yes, but the Offense did score three TD's and that would have been enough to win. GB took the second half off, so are they given a pass? Did they deserve to win the game more for some reason? The bottom line was that, at the end of the day, we had a great opportunity to win and one very, very, very sketchy call ended that. That's the whole point. This team did do enough to win, but had it taken away. Sure, they score 10 TD's in the first half and the call may become moot, but you could just as easily say the NFL's #1 Defense could have not allowed 17 points scored against them. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 didn't we score a TD in the first half? in a perfect world you dominate start to finish, and no bad calls, but that isn't realistic. it took time to make djustments to stop GB and come from behnd to what should have been a win. I don't expect us to score everytime we have the ball on offense. But is it too much to ask for our offense not to go 3 and out on ALMOST every possesion of the first half? 1/10 on 3rd downs? I guess I'm expecting the moon from our offense huh? You can actually be productive on offense without scoring. You know that don't you?? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Chokingdogs my thought on the bad call, and it was a bad call, is that had the offense managed to score a td, or at least a fg, in the first four drives of the game that all ended in punts or an int, that may have been just another bad call. in essence, that call didnt cost them the game, the play of the offense for 55 minutes prior, did. Imagine what the football lore would be if Elway had many of his great comebacks called back because of bogus non-existing penalties. How about if "The Catch" (Montana to Clark) were called back for some phantom call? The game is measure by the totality of 60 minutes not just the first 55 or the last 5; they all matter. If in the final 5 minutes you are able to do enough to offset what happened in the first 55 then you deserve to win. It just sucks when the deciding moment in the game is a blown call from the refs not the action by the players. (Note: this would be VERY different if the call had some basis in reality or was at least "close" but this one fails on all counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz I think the point some people are trying to make is all teams get questionable calls at some point in their season (see Dawkins "roughing the passer" that had a DIRECT impact on the game because it gave Cleveland a first down on 4th down and allowed them to score). The good teams still find a way to persevere however, and overcome such terrible calls. It was a bad call this weekend though, I think everyone admits that. You just made the exact stupid remark that Art was talking about. You dullard. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 When it comes down to it the call was BS in my opinion. I've never heard of a call like that in my life. Tired of seeing 80 year old blind zebras making ridiculous calls. It ruined the game right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 It just sucks when the deciding moment in the game is a blown call from the refs not the action by the players. (Note: this would be VERY different if the call had some basis in reality or was at least "close" but this one fails on all counts. I agree with the sentiment (ie- if you can make up 55 minutes in the last 5, you've earned it), but this falls under a little different category. For whatever reason, they threw the flag (and long before it was a TD). Even if they didn't, Favre/Packers still had 2 minutes- what if the Packers would have went down and scored again, as Favre did 1,000 times before? The game was not over, the clock had not expired, and it wasn't sudden death. It was a penalty that was called as the ref saw it, and by the result of the play and ticky-tack nature of the call, It's sounding like he would probably rather have that one back. He didn't iknow what the outcome of the play was going to be, though- he wasn't trying to "change the outcome of the game". That play did not win or lose the game for the Skins- it didn't even take the ball out of the offense's hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by f_dallas I agree with the sentiment (ie- if you can make up 55 minutes in the last 5, you've earned it), but this falls under a little different category. For whatever reason, they threw the flag (and long before it was a TD). Even if they didn't, Favre/Packers still had 2 minutes- what if the Packers would have went down and scored again, as Favre did 1,000 times before? The game was not over, the clock had not expired, and it wasn't sudden death. It was a penalty that was called as the ref saw it, and by the result of the play and ticky-tack nature of the call, It's sounding like he would probably rather have that one back. He didn't iknow what the outcome of the play was going to be, though- he wasn't trying to "change the outcome of the game". That play did not win or lose the game for the Skins- it didn't even take the ball out of the offense's hands... Since you are playing what ifs... What if they let the proper TD stand and then Farve drives the Pack in position to win and the refs hit Farve with an intentional grounding call on a touchdown pass (if this sounds stupid then so is calling illegal motion when the guy is not committing a penalty). Still unfair and all of Wisconsin would be PO'ed at the injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I can't believe so many folks are more concerned about playing what-if about past games instead of admitting that Joe Gibbs has been a failure to date. A dullard isn't the one who says the Redskins should have overcome the penalties, the dullard is the one who continues to focus on uncontrollable variables that occurred in the past instead of looking to controllable variables that will affect the future. So ***** about the penalties all you want, it doesn't change the fact that until Gibbs gets his act together, this team is going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Mister Happy You just made the exact stupid remark that Art was talking about. You dullard. :laugh: Actually, instead of attemping to be Art, how about you learn to read and then interpret what I stated. I disagree with the sentiment that most teams don't experience some sort of call like the Redskins did this past weekend. Hell, White's crew made a equally terrible gaffe against the Eagles. My point is, people don't realize it as much when it happens to other, good teams, because those teams still find a way to persevere and win the game. Dullard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Since you are playing what ifs... Keep in mind, I'm not- you guys are What "what if" scenario is "what if" that TD would have counted. I was just pointing out that even if that TD did count, that STILL wasn't the end of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Stormy The idea that we somehow came at with great adjustments and really picked it up on offense in the 2nd half is blatantly false. Yes, the Defense made great 2nd Half adjustments... but certainly not the offense, it was the definition of putrid. This is a good point... If our defense hadn't been aggressive, opportunistic, and constantly adjusting to the opposing offenses, Brunell would be even more exposed than he is now. This was much like the Ravens game - we could only score off turnovers. Turnovers we took into opponents' territory. If there was no penalty, then we would have scored on that drive with the offense actually putting together a drive, but Brunell threw the INT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskn4eva Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Fred Jones The biggest thing that bothers me about officiating is consistency. I still play competitive sports and get tired of many refs inability to call plays consistently. Thrash has been going in motion all season, including in that game, and the Refs have not flagged him. I don't have a problem if the Refs decide to start flagging a particular penalty as long as they consistently call the penalty against both teams. You just adapt your play to the way the refs are officiating the game. If you get flagged, it is your fault for not adapting. I also agree, that the Refs should not make a call that decides the outcome of a game. I tivod the game and watched it again. In the first half the redskins ran that same exact play, Thrash made the same exact motion and guess what, the refs didnt call nothing. Why they called him in the fourth quarter is still beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.