NEW Three Day Poll SERIES: Mark Brunell

[PennSkinsFan]

We will add the results of the two polls we do for each new Redskins Player for 2004. We will start with QB Mark Brunell.

First poll.....

[NCskinsfanatic]

I went with no.I guess we shall soon see.But IMO we paid what we needed to in order to get the guy at the top of Joes list.

[Spence]

They probably overpaid, but it is impossible to say one way or another with any assurance until we see how Brunell plays with the Redskins. If Brunell leads the Redskins to a win in January will people who think the Skins overpaid change their opinions?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I mentioned in the other Brunell thread that Dan Snyder doesn't get outbid on a player he wants, so I think that the team should have waited for Brunell to get released and bid on him then. I seriously doubt anyone was going to offer enough money in a contract, other than Dan, that would have made Mark Brunell forego the $2 million he was due from Jacksonville in the form of a roster bonus.

Then we could have paid him the $8 million on him in FA and saved the third round pick.

I just think the thing could have been handled with more reason, but I guess Dan was out to show Joe there is nothing that he wouldn't do to get the players Joe wants.

[SonnyandSam]

You might be right. But both San Diego and Miami wanted Brunell real bad. A bidding war could have developed that could have cost us even more.

Did we pay too much. I don't think anyone can say rationally at this stage even if the sports columnist want to. Did we overpay if Brunell leads the team to the Super Bowl? Did we overpay if we go 8-8? 12-4?

I'm going to abstain from these votes because I just don't think anyone can have an informed opinion until we see results.

[CarMike]

Originally posted by Spence
They probably overpaid, but it is impossible to say one way or another with any assurance until we see how Brunell plays with the Redskins. If Brunell leads the Redskins to a win in January will people who think the Skins overpaid change their opinions?

I voted yes, we overpaid. But if Brunell leads us to the playoffs I'll definately change my vote to no.

OMT, when I looked at the entire contract I think we overpaid. But, when I looked at the real contract that he'll see I don't think it was that bad....

[Patrick]

Kinda agree with CarMike on this ....... Right now it's hard to say and we don't even know (for sure) he's going to be the starting QB - WHICH if he's not then we OVERPAID regardless if we get into the playoffs or not. Bring this poll back after the season is over.

[NamVet4]

I'm confused between the real contract; the entire contract he signed and the reports in the media as to what he earns.
I said no only because I think he will be a viable and vital part of our beloved Team.

[colkurtz]

Miami, for one, wanted him very badly. Garcia played two teams against each other for a higher salary and longer contract. Garcia cost slightly more than Brunell.

We got the guy we wanted; we only overpaid if he loses the games he starts.

He is a 2-3 year addition who adds depth and experience. His numbers are better than McNabbs and he didn't coast 110 million!

[funnyperson1]

I think Mark Brunell will be very successful here, but I do think we overpaid when we could have easily picked up other veteran QB's that would have backed up and taught Ramsey for a lot cheaper.

But hey what do I know, I'm no Joe Gibbs.

[garedskin]

Compared to the other starting QBs around the NFL I had to vote no. He is about in the middle of the pack compared to what teams are paying there starters. In due time this will be a mute point. He was signed to win for us NOW and train Ramsey to lead us to victories later. Now how can you say we over paid. Gibbs sure did not and I will side with him every time. I doubted once long ago and learned my lesson well.

[BurgundyNGold]

Considering we already have Ramsey, I said yes. But, I'd rather overpay for him to be on our team rather than in Dallas ;).

[AGibbsGirl]

Yeah, me too, because we already had Ramsey I think it was too much with our pick being giving up. We need a DL too bad to give aways picks...

[Skins57]

I went with no but I believe this would have been a great question after the season as of now Mark may not even be the starter and in that case the answer would be yes we over paid but if he leads us to playoffs the answer would be no so my real answer is maybe :D

[TexSkin]

Yes because of the draft pick...we could have got him in FA.

[skinsfanincali]

A tough vote with no results.
How do ya know if ya got a good deal on a car until ya drive it?
I think Coach Gibbs has a better angle on it than I do. So, if that's what he offered...Coach seems to think he's worth it.
We'll see...

[IndianBaller27]

yes... yes they did

[Keino]

Yes. We probably could've had him as a F/A without giving up a draft pick.

[BackRow]

Yes we certainly overpaid with both the money and the Draft pick! But HOF Coach Gibbs wanted the left handed 9th rated QB of all time, and got him. So, it is a wash. HOF Coach Gibbs knows he needed depth. All of us wanted P. Ram, but Ram hasn't won a PO game for us. Nor has he won a SB ring. HOF Coach Gibbs has three rings! We can't complain, neither can Ram. Go with the flow!

There have been a number of QBs out there being dropped to FA, or being shopped around. So, we could have gotten woeful and shame II cheap and available!

[28thegreat]

Originally posted by Keino
Yes. We probably could've had him as a F/A without giving up a draft pick.

I have to disagree Keino. I think if he had lasted long in FA he might have actually cost us more money! Too many teams needing a quality quarterback.

[SkinsCT]

I said yes, even though I know that it's a back loaded contract and all. The thought of him getting injured and us eating all that cash for the next 3 years scares me off.