On the Blog: The "Handcuffs" Aren’t Off, They’re Playing QB

[BurgundyNGold]

Read it. Live it. Love it.

http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=327

Then come back here and tell me why I suck, lol.

[shally]

Read it. Live it. Love it.

http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=327

Then come back here and tell me why I suck, lol.

you won't make yourself popular around here with quite a few posters..

but i agree with your assessment.

on the other hand, i also think a lot of the blame has to go to saunders as DOC pointed out in his article. what was he watching during the OTA's and training camp? what brunell is or is not capable of should be of no surprise
to him.

and finally, it is ridiculous and disgusting that the o line is performing the way it is. we are paying 3 players "tackle" money. we are paying rabach well and dockery will likely be asking for the moon after this year. none of them should be able to look at themselves in the mirror comfortably

[BurgundyNGold]

you won't make yourself popular around here with quite a few posters..

but i agree with your assessment.

on the other hand, i also think a lot of the blame has to go to saunders as DOC pointed out in his article. what was he watching during the OTA's and training camp? what brunell is or is not capable of should be of no surprise
to him.

and finally, it is ridiculous and disgusting that the o line is performing the way it is. we are paying 3 players "tackle" money. we are paying rabach well and dockery will likely be asking for the moon after this year. none of them should be able to look at themselves in the mirror comfortably
More reason to feed the rock to Portis and Duckett 30+ times a game. If given the choice, an OL would much rather run block. I think we need to rededicate to the running game to emerge from this malaise. But, that is a different blog. ;)

[dj_stouty]

I think you have a fairly accurate assessment. Brunell isn't getting any younger, and his legs are far from the ones who ran him to 3 pro bowls. He is the type of QB at his age, who will need help from those around him...and that shouldn't be a surprise to ANY of the coaches associated with the offense.

By help, I mean...a solid protection, and a solid running game. Both of which have been lacking from this offense.

Week 3 will be a nice litmus test for Mark. He is facing the worst pass defense in the league and he will have his stud RB back in action.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think you have a fairly accurate assessment. Brunell isn't getting any younger, and his legs are far from the ones who ran him to 3 pro bowls. He is the type of QB at his age, who will need help from those around him...and that shouldn't be a surprise to ANY of the coaches associated with the offense.

By help, I mean...a solid protection, and a solid running game. Both of which have been lacking from this offense.

Week 3 will be a nice litmus test for Mark. He is facing the worst pass defense in the league and he will have his stud RB back in action.
The point isn't so much that Brunell cannot lead the offense, only that he's got glaring deficiencies that are becoming increasingly difficult to plaster over. I think, as you do, if he gets the running game going and some adequate blocking up front he can take us into the playoffs.

Even after the assessment I gave him, I maintain that Brunell should be the starting QB.

[shally]

More reason to feed the rock to Portis and Duckett 30+ times a game. If given the choice, an OL would much rather run block. I think we need to rededicate to the running game to emerge from this malaise. But, that is a different blog. ;)

that is exactly what i said in my posting "redskin football"
run the ball 30 times.. commit to it.... totally...

[shally]

I think you have a fairly accurate assessment. Brunell isn't getting any younger, and his legs are far from the ones who ran him to 3 pro bowls. He is the type of QB at his age, who will need help from those around him...and that shouldn't be a surprise to ANY of the coaches associated with the offense.

By help, I mean...a solid protection, and a solid running game. Both of which have been lacking from this offense.

Week 3 will be a nice litmus test for Mark. He is facing the worst pass defense in the league and he will have his stud RB back in action.

a blow out win, or a disheartening loss would likely settle the issue..

my concern is that we win in a sloppy and indecisive manner. that leads to brunell qb'ing the team through 2 successive ugly losses to jax and new york.. and then the decision before the tenn game is to continue to try and hope that brunell turns things around like the final 6 games last year, or
we move on to campbell in essence, laying the groundwork for next year

[dj_stouty]

The point isn't so much that Brunell cannot lead the offense, only that he's got glaring deficiencies that are becoming increasingly difficult to plaster over. I think, as you do, if he gets the running game going and some adequate blocking up front he can take us into the playoffs.

Even after the assessment I gave him, I maintain that Brunell should be the starting QB.

Great wording. Plaster! Yes...Mark Brunell will never play like a 25 year old. BUT, rarely will you find a 25 year old with Mark's leadership qualities. I guess that is the tradeoff this coaching staff has resigned itself to for '06.

Mark's mechanics may seem lacking...but he I truly think he hasn't had the protection to show off what he can do. I'm not talking about the full protection every QB dreams about..i'm talking about a relative amount of protection. AS I've said before, I'm crossing my fingers that the presence of Portis and a less-than-stellar passing defense will help the cause of the B&G offense. Oh yeah...and the O-line better come prepared to play....

But you are correct...if the plaster isn't there to help our QB, he won't play well. It goes both ways, actually...

[shally]

Great wording. Plaster! Yes...Mark Brunell will never play like a 25 year old. BUT, rarely will you find a 25 year old with Mark's leadership qualities. I guess that is the tradeoff this coaching staff has resigned itself to for '06.

Mark's mechanics may seem lacking...but he I truly think he hasn't had the protection to show off what he can do. I'm not talking about the full protection every QB dreams about..i'm talking about a relative amount of protection. AS I've said before, I'm crossing my fingers that the presence of Portis and a less-than-stellar passing defense will help the cause of the B&G offense. Oh yeah...and the O-line better come prepared to play....

But you are correct...if the plaster isn't there to help our QB, he won't play well. It goes both ways, actually...

is it just me, or is he rolling to his left far more this year than at any time since he has been the skins qb? granted the o line play has been pathetic, but brunell seems to be in perpetual roll mode.

[dj_stouty]

is it just me, or is he rolling to his left far more this year than at any time since he has been the skins qb? granted the o line play has been pathetic, but brunell seems to be in perpetual roll mode.

Eh...I'm pretty sure he rolled left a gazillion times last season.

[OCSKINSFAN]

The point isn't so much that Brunell cannot lead the offense, only that he's got glaring deficiencies that are becoming increasingly difficult to plaster over. I think, as you do, if he gets the running game going and some adequate blocking up front he can take us into the playoffs.

Even after the assessment I gave him, I maintain that Brunell should be the starting QB.

From what I have seen so far, I don't know if the blocking, better running, etc. will improve MB's performance. He will still have the same arm. However, I think the Houston game is a good test - weak pass defense, Portis back, and the team highly motivated. If MB doesn't perform under these conditions, it's time for a qb change.

[shally]

Eh...I'm pretty sure he rolled left a gazillion times last season.

that is where he goes to escape pressure as a default setting.. but it just seems as though it is happening with greater frequency this year.. could be the o line has a lot to do with it also.. jansen, in particular, seems to be getting torched and rolling left would be the way to avoid his man..

[dj_stouty]

that is where he goes to escape pressure as a default setting.. but it just seems as though it is happening with greater frequency this year.. could be the o line has a lot to do with it also.. jansen, in particular, seems to be getting torched and rolling left would be the way to avoid his man..

Are you talking about designed plays where Brunell rolls left....or a busted play where Brunell escapes left?

In the past two games, he hasn't had been given many opportunities to run around with the pass rush in his backfield.

[BurgundyNGold]

From what I have seen so far, I don't know if the blocking, better running, etc. will improve MB's performance. He will still have the same arm. However, I think the Houston game is a good test - weak pass defense, Portis back, and the team highly motivated. If MB doesn't perform under these conditions, it's time for a qb change.
If the Redskins can find a running game then more defenses will have to respect the run. If the team runs well, opposing teams will have to walk up an 8th defender to try and stop it and will not have the numbers in the defensive backfield to play many umbrella coverages like Cover 2. That should open up more play action opportunities. The only questions then is if the OL can provide the time for the 7 step drop and if Brunell can get the ball downfield.

[CNYSkinFan]

excellent blog BnG. I, like you, believe that Brunell should remain the starter but that is an assessment of our current QB situation more then my love for Brunell. If he does not have a great game against Houston then we could easily end up 3-5 (with a win over Houston & Tennesee but losses to Jacks, Indy, & Giants) by the break. If that is the case I can not see how the coaching staff can not turn to Campbell and try and spark the team in the second half.

[RoanokeSkin]

excellent blog BnG. I, like you, believe that Brunell should remain the starter but that is an assessment of our current QB situation more then my love for Brunell. If he does not have a great game against Houston then we could easily end up 3-5 (with a win over Houston & Tennesee but losses to Jacks, Indy, & Giants) by the break. If that is the case I can not see how the coaching staff can not turn to Campbell and try and spark the team in the second half.

I just dont understand the wait. If you see that Brunell is old and cant move right and If you see that he has no zip on the ball and If you see that he cannot get the ball downfield, then can our coaching staff be ignorant enough to believe that opposing defensive coordinators dont see it. I certainly know what I would do, load 8 men in the box and blitz all night. I think the most frustrated person in the NFL right now is Al Saunders, because Brunell has not thrown to the ball to a primary receiver all season. He checks down on every play, or he turtles up and takes a sack, or he uses his limp noodle of a right arm to thrown it to the ball boy on the sideline.

I honestly put NONE of the blame on Saunders or the skill players. I know the calls are there, the bottom line is the O-Line has played TERRIBLE and even when they have given Brunell time, he has been awful. There comes a time when you have to admit that you dont have what it takes anymore, and that day came the day that Brunell became a Redskin.

And please, no useless argument about Brunell "leading" us to the playoffs last year, because nothing could be further from the truth. Portis and the D lead us there. Brunell's stats last year were greatly padded by Santana Moss, who took a number of WR screen 70 yards downfield to the house.

[shally]

If the Redskins can find a running game then more defenses will have to respect the run. If the team runs well, opposing teams will have to walk up an 8th defender to try and stop it and will not have the numbers in the defensive backfield to play many umbrella coverages like Cover 2. That should open up more play action opportunities. The only questions then is if the OL can provide the time for the 7 step drop and if Brunell can get the ball downfield.

so, cut to the chase, how many more games does he have at this level of performance ?

[SpicyMcHaggis]

so, cut to the chase, how many more games does he have at this level of performance ?
IMO 3, just because I wouldn't put Campbell in against either Jax or the Giants..if not for that, 1.

[CNYSkinFan]

nor Indy....nor on a short week. If we lose to Houston he may not get any more games. But after the break if we are 2-5 or somewhere near there it will be Campbell time.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

nor Indy....nor on a short week. If we lose to Houston he may not get any more games. But after the break if we are 2-5 or somewhere near there it will be Campbell time.
If we are 0-5 after New York, he has to come in against the Titans. The season will be long gone at that point.

[shally]

nor Indy....nor on a short week. If we lose to Houston he may not get any more games. But after the break if we are 2-5 or somewhere near there it will be Campbell time.

where would the giants be if they had kept on playing kurt warner hoping to squeeze another winning season out of him ?
if you have the future on your bench, what does it say about him if he remains stuck there?

[SpicyMcHaggis]

where would the giants be if they had kept on playing kurt warner hoping to squeeze another winning season out of him ?
if you have the future on your bench, what does it say about him if he remains stuck there?
That he is not ready. And after 1 and a half seasons, that is VERY bad.

[Brokenstriker]

Every NFL player has weaknesses ... true some have few and are not at much risk when they are exposed ... but every one does

I think the assessment in your Blog is pretty fair. I an reminded however of three Superbowl winning QBs in relatively recent NFL history who also had long lists of weaknesses. Somehow the Rypien Skins, Johnson Bucs and Dilfer Ravens all managed to win/control games.

The Skins could win with Brunell ... if ... lots of if's ... if he got the pass protection that Mark Rypien got, if he got the clutch 4th receiver catches that Johnson got, if he had the smothering defense that Dilfer got.

It is a team competition ... If the Skins need, I mean fail with out stellar play from the QB to carry the team ... then there are an awful lot of other people, players and coaches who aren't doing their job very well at all.

[shally]

Every NFL player has weaknesses ... true some have few and are not at much risk when they are exposed ... but every one does

I think the assessment in your Blog is pretty fair. I an reminded however of three Superbowl winning QBs in relatively recent NFL history who also had long lists of weaknesses. Somehow the Rypien Skins, Johnson Bucs and Dilfer Ravens all managed to win/control games.

The Skins could win with Brunell ... if ... lots of if's ... if he got the pass protection that Mark Rypien got, if he got the clutch 4th receiver catches that Johnson got, if he had the smothering defense that Dilfer got.

It is a team competition ... If the Skins need, I mean fail with out stellar play from the QB to carry the team ... then there are an awful lot of other people, players and coaches who aren't doing their job very well at all.

very good point.. i doubt that this same team could have won with rypien or williams transplanted as qb in 2006 (not at their current ages, of course) because both benefitted immensely from superior o line play. brunell is part of the problem, but would appear far less so if the other offensive players, particularly the line, were playing at a superior level.

[CNYSkinFan]

I am npot saying we shouldn't start Campbell till the break...just that we won't. I do think Brunell gets the opportunity now to right the ship with Portis back. If we lose to Houston....then it's game on for Campbell...esxspescially if Brunell looks particularly poor.

I just think Gibbs will go a long time until giving up. Remember how long we went in 2004 with Brunell?

[RoanokeSkin]

I think the assessment in your Blog is pretty fair. I an reminded however of three Superbowl winning QBs in relatively recent NFL history who also had long lists of weaknesses. Somehow the Rypien Skins, Johnson Bucs and Dilfer Ravens all managed to win/control games.


Two things here:

1. Is it just me or wasnt the 1991 Redskins offense one of the most prolific in NFL history. Rypien threw the ball downfield. He even took some chances. Somehow the Rypien Skins... not somehow, we went vertical back then.

2. The Johnson Bucs and The Dilfer Ravens had two of the most dominating defenses in NFL history. Not only good, but change the future of how defense is played kind of defenses. Our D is not in that class.

Bottom line is to win games you have to move the ball and score touchdowns, something I believe Mark Brunell is physically incapable of at this point.

[skinfanjon]

I enjoyed the blog BNG, it was very well written. The one problem I have with it is in the crux of your argument. You say that we didn't take shots downfield the last 4 games of last year, as well as the 2 playoff games. This is true of the Arizona game and the playoff games, but I think you are forgetting the Dallas, NYG, and Phily games. we had several deep completions against Dallas, and we would have probably had more if we didn't have such dang good field position the entire game. Also, we burned the Giants deep about 5,603 times in the home win...and let's not forget that the Philly game featured two vitally important deep completions that pushed us into the playoffs. To say that Brunell hasn't done anything for us since mid season last year is proposterous. Furthermore, we all know he was injured against the Gints, so it is more understanable why he fizzled in the postseason.

I feel your pain in regards to the offense guys, but if we just get a flippin' running game and some pass protection, I am confident Brunell would be able to steer this ship all the way to the promised land. But, in order for that to happen, all the other facets of the game must be clicking.

[NCskinsfanatic]

That he is not ready. And after 1 and a half seasons, that is VERY bad.
Well until this year Rivers spent that much time on the bench and his play looks much better this year than it did in relief of Brees late last year. Not to mention he's spent his time learning one O and one O only. I think for many QB's waiting and learning is best. Many have turned out to be better QB's for it, Big Ben is the exception to this rule.

[NCskinsfanatic]

Two things here:

1. Is it just me or wasnt the 1991 Redskins offense one of the most prolific in NFL history. Rypien threw the ball downfield. He even took some chances. Somehow the Rypien Skins... not somehow, we went vertical back then.

2. The Johnson Bucs and The Dilfer Ravens had two of the most dominating defenses in NFL history. Not only good, but change the future of how defense is played kind of defenses. Our D is not in that class.

Bottom line is to win games you have to move the ball and score touchdowns, something I believe Mark Brunell is physically incapable of at this point.

The 1991 Redskins had the Hogs up front and they weren the difference . Rypien was not an All Pro QB in my opinion but his line made him look that way, again it all starts up front.

[HailVictory]

I am not saying we shouldn't start Campbell till the break...just that we won't. I do think Brunell gets the opportunity now to right the ship with Portis back. If we lose to Houston....then it's game on for Campbell...esxspescially if Brunell looks particularly poor.

I just think Gibbs will go a long time until giving up. Remember how long we went in 2004 with Brunell?
This is the reality of the situation. Also I've feel like I've been seeing the Brunell '04 version; might he be ailing again? They tried to keep that injury quiet so hard, we didn't find out the full extent of the knee until the off season. Possibility? Maybe I'm reaching.

[BurgundyNGold]

I just dont understand the wait. If you see that Brunell is old and cant move right and If you see that he has no zip on the ball and If you see that he cannot get the ball downfield, then can our coaching staff be ignorant enough to believe that opposing defensive coordinators dont see it. I certainly know what I would do, load 8 men in the box and blitz all night. I think the most frustrated person in the NFL right now is Al Saunders, because Brunell has not thrown to the ball to a primary receiver all season. He checks down on every play, or he turtles up and takes a sack, or he uses his limp noodle of a right arm to thrown it to the ball boy on the sideline.

I honestly put NONE of the blame on Saunders or the skill players. I know the calls are there, the bottom line is the O-Line has played TERRIBLE and even when they have given Brunell time, he has been awful. There comes a time when you have to admit that you dont have what it takes anymore, and that day came the day that Brunell became a Redskin.

And please, no useless argument about Brunell "leading" us to the playoffs last year, because nothing could be further from the truth. Portis and the D lead us there. Brunell's stats last year were greatly padded by Santana Moss, who took a number of WR screen 70 yards downfield to the house.
It's a risk/reward scenario. The risk of leaving a proven veteran in the game who has earned the respect of the offense is less than starting a kid with 0 starts and 0 pass attempts. It is a safer choice that is less likely to end in disaster. This isn't just my logic, it's that of the HOF coach too. Leaving Brunell in the game sends a message to this the team that they still have a shot and that hope is not lost. Pulling Brunell in favor of Campbell when Brunell has not lost the locker room is basically admitting to the team that you're throwing the towel in on the season and that all of their hard work in the offseason, OTA's, and preseason were for naught. For this reason alone, pulling your starting QB should not be a decision made on a whim.

[skins74]

I think they lost the keys to the handcuffs.......

[RoanokeSkin]

For this reason alone, pulling your starting QB should not be a decision made on a whim.

Three seasons of terrible quarterback play is hardly a "whim".

[BurgundyNGold]

so, cut to the chase, how many more games does he have at this level of performance ?
He could break out of it this week. It seems that the team is recommitting itself to the power game. If Houston has to walk up the safety then Brunell will get his shots downfield. My only question is whether he will be reluctant to take the shots that he is given.

[RoanokeSkin]

This is the reality of the situation. Also I've feel like I've been seeing the Brunell '04 version; might he be ailing again? They tried to keep that injury quiet so hard, we didn't find out the full extent of the knee until the off season. Possibility? Maybe I'm reaching.

If Brunell is "ailing" then at this point he needs to own it, and he needs to be listed on the injury report. Any teammate who is hurting and hurting the team in the process needs to own up to that injury...if it is the case.

[BurgundyNGold]

Three seasons of terrible quarterback play is hardly a "whim".
In all truthfulness, that's not exactly a fair assessment. Really, we're talking about two games as far as the team is concerned. Brunell has the respect and the backing of his teammates. You don't get that by being a total bum. Also, Brunell is a known commodity. If Campbell was lighting it up in practice or games perhaps the coaches might feel differently. As it is, we can only surmise by what they say and what we see that he is inconsistent and therefore, not ready.

Part of being a coach in leadership. Leadership is easiest wielded through loyalty. There are 51 other guys on that squad who are not named Campbell or Brunell. If you expect to get the same level of offseason participation next year, you had better make the players believe it was worth it. You can't do that when it's perceived by the players that you are sweeping the legs out from underneath your starting QB.

[BurgundyNGold]

That he is not ready. And after 1 and a half seasons, that is VERY bad.
I believe that we are about 14 months from absolutely loving the Jason Campbell decision or absolutely hating it. That will be coming to a head real soon.

[BurgundyNGold]

I enjoyed the blog BNG, it was very well written. The one problem I have with it is in the crux of your argument. You say that we didn't take shots downfield the last 4 games of last year, as well as the 2 playoff games. This is true of the Arizona game and the playoff games, but I think you are forgetting the Dallas, NYG, and Phily games. we had several deep completions against Dallas, and we would have probably had more if we didn't have such dang good field position the entire game. Also, we burned the Giants deep about 5,603 times in the home win...and let's not forget that the Philly game featured two vitally important deep completions that pushed us into the playoffs. To say that Brunell hasn't done anything for us since mid season last year is proposterous. Furthermore, we all know he was injured against the Gints, so it is more understanable why he fizzled in the postseason.

I feel your pain in regards to the offense guys, but if we just get a flippin' running game and some pass protection, I am confident Brunell would be able to steer this ship all the way to the promised land. But, in order for that to happen, all the other facets of the game must be clicking.
That is true, we did take a few shots downfield in the Giants game. One of the long TDs was by Ramsey to Moss. As I recall Brunell underthrew Moss on one long TD who made an adjustment which worked out well. In the Dallass game, 21 of the 35 points were scored by Cooley and most of the longer plays were the result of YAC.

I'm not saying that Brunell didn't go downfield in 2005, I think he generally didn't do so. For the most part, I get the impression that he does not have confidence in his arm -- or perhaps more accurately his legs -- to make many of those throws anymore.

[RoanokeSkin]

In all truthfulness, that's not exactly a fair assessment. Really, we're talking about two games as far as the team is concerned. Brunell has the respect and the backing of his teammates. You don't get that by being a total bum. Also, Brunell is a known commodity. If Campbell was lighting it up in practice or games perhaps the coaches might feel differently. As it is, we can only surmise by what they say and what we see that he is inconsistent and therefore, not ready.

Part of being a coach in leadership. Leadership is easiest wielded through loyalty. There are 51 other guys on that squad who are not named Campbell or Brunell. If you expect to get the same level of offseason participation next year, you had better make the players believe it was worth it. You can't do that when it's perceived by the players that you are sweeping the legs out from underneath your starting QB.

BNG,

No doubt we are on opposite sides of the fence on this one. For the sake of the 2006 Washington Redskins I hope you and Gibbs are right. If we lose to Houston this weekend and there is no improvement in quarterback play, I promise I will be right back here on Sunday afternoon to debate it all again. It just seems to me that the rest of the world has seen since 04 that Brunell was more than just "past his prime". He is done. He shortens the amount of field that opposing defenses have to cover.

Also, I still refuse to believe that by putting Campbell in that we would be throwing away the season. I also refuse to believe that Moss, Randle El, Lloyd, and especially Cooley are not immensely frustrated with Mark right now. They would just never admit it to the media because Joe Gibbs only has class acts on his football team. I love Joe, I love the Skins, but his undying loyalty to Brunell concerns me.

[Brokenstriker]

Two things here:

1. Is it just me or wasnt the 1991 Redskins offense one of the most prolific in NFL history. Rypien threw the ball downfield. He even took some chances. Somehow the Rypien Skins... not somehow, we went vertical back then.

2. The Johnson Bucs and The Dilfer Ravens had two of the most dominating defenses in NFL history. Not only good, but change the future of how defense is played kind of defenses. Our D is not in that class.

Bottom line is to win games you have to move the ball and score touchdowns, something I believe Mark Brunell is physically incapable of at this point.

Rypien's weakness was the intermediate and short routes. He had a freakish talent for the long routes ... hit the receiver in stride over the shoulder ... like a GPS guided smart-bomb. But the dump routes, flat patterns, crossing routes ... they weren't gimme's for him. When you put his long ball talent behind a 6 (or so) sacks surrendered in the entire season O-Line ... its magical. When you put him on other teams ... he is and was a back-up QB.

In some regard ... Brunell had one of the most dominating defenses certainly in the league last season ... probably one of the many things that helped the offense have enough chances to score to win with less than overwhelming scoring.

Brunell behind the original Hogs ... is 10X better and perhaps even shockingly good ... like Rypien. Different talents ... but enough talent when wearing a spotless jersey for 4 quarters every game.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG,

No doubt we are on opposite sides of the fence on this one. For the sake of the 2006 Washington Redskins I hope you and Gibbs are right. If we lose to Houston this weekend and there is no improvement in quarterback play, I promise I will be right back here on Sunday afternoon to debate it all again. It just seems to me that the rest of the world has seen since 04 that Brunell was more than just "past his prime". He is done. He shortens the amount of field that opposing defenses have to cover.
I don't disagree with you out of hand. Brunell is an old QB who is playing like an old QB. You may well be right about Campbell. Make no mistake, the gap in comfort levels between starting an aging, proven vet in Brunell and bringing in a physically gifted but green kid in Campbell is certainly narrowing. It just hasn't gotten to the point where starting Brunell is less attractive a prospect than starting Campbell as it relates to the best interests of the team as a whole for 2006.

Also, I still refuse to believe that by putting Campbell in that we would be throwing away the season. I also refuse to believe that Moss, Randle El, Lloyd, and especially Cooley are not immensely frustrated with Mark right now. They would just never admit it to the media because Joe Gibbs only has class acts on his football team. I love Joe, I love the Skins, but his undying loyalty to Brunell concerns me.
Straight from dj_stouty's sig...

Mark is that dude, he knows how to win games. So regardless of what someone has to say about him, I'm always going to back him because when it all falls apart, I've seen him win games for us. That's what he's been showing. For anyone else to not see that, they haven't been watching the games we've been watching or playing in. That's our dude. I'm riding with him till his wheels fall off." ~ Santana Moss 9/21/06
I'm thinking that after that quote that you're wrong about the players wanting to ditch Brunell for Campbell. You might want to but that is hardly the same thing.

[RoanokeSkin]

I'm thinking that after that quote that you're wrong about the players wanting to ditch Brunell for Campbell. You might want to but that is hardly the same thing.

Hang on there bro, not saying they want to "ditch" him, but I still believe they are frustrated by his play. Take a look at the reactions of the receiver when (not if) Brunell throws a ball in the ground when they are wide open.

[BurgundyNGold]

Hang on there bro, not saying they want to "ditch" him, but I still believe they are frustrated by his play. Take a look at the reactions of the receiver when (not if) Brunell throws a ball in the ground when they are wide open.
Every receiver thinks they were are on every play. Look at nearly any receiver these days when they don't get the ball thrown to them. They pout and are visibly upset. That proves nothing.

Given the choice, I would put more stock into an undeniable testament like what Santana said over some half baked notion about receiver body language on the field.

[RoanokeSkin]

Every receiver thinks they were are on every play. Look at nearly any receiver these days when they don't get the ball thrown to them. They pout and are visibly upset. That proves nothing.

Given the choice, I would put more stock into an undeniable testament like what Santana said over some half baked notion about receiver body language on the field.

Do you think that if Mark Brunell was not our starting quarterback in week 4, that Santana Moss would not say something positive about Jason Campbell in the media?

[BurgundyNGold]

Do you think that if Mark Brunell was not our starting quarterback in week 4, that Santana Moss would not say something positive about Jason Campbell in the media?
I'm not following you down into that speculative rabbit hole. You hear what the coaches and players are saying. Make up your own mind, but try to keep it open long enough to take in what they're saying.

[Axegrinder]

I think that you make a lot of valid points in your assessments,and thus make a strong arguement.

I'm still on the fence about our offense though.

It's only been 2 games and Brunell is on the hotseat.I think that he played ok in the 1st contest by managing the game well.The 2nd game,however,was a total debacle,and there is ample blame to go around,right Jansen?

I'm going to remain neutral on Brunell at this time.
It wasn't that long ago that many were writing off Chris Samuels as a has been,meanwhile he ended up going to the Pro Bowl.
I'm not claiming that the results will be the same,but I will give Mark the benefit of the doubt.

I'll lay the blame on the coaches for not giving him an opportunity to succeed by playing to the team's strengths and avoiding his weaknesses.
We can play smashmouth football if we have to.

Good write up,BnG! :awesomewo

[BurgundyNGold]

I think that you make a lot of valid points in your assessments,and thus make a strong arguement.

I'm still on the fence about our offense though.

It's only been 2 games and Brunell is on the hotseat.I think that he played ok in the 1st contest by managing the game well.The 2nd game,however,was a total debacle,and there is ample blame to go around,right Jansen?

I'm going to remain neutral on Brunell at this time.
It wasn't that long ago that many were writing off Chris Samuels as a has been,meanwhile he ended up going to the Pro Bowl.
I'm not claiming that the results will be the same,but I will give Mark the benefit of the doubt.
I
'll lay the blame on the coaches for not giving him an opportunity to succeed by playing to the team's strengths and avoiding his weaknesses.
We can play smashmouth football if we have to.

Good write up,BnG! :awesomewo
Thanks, Axe. I agree somewhat about not playing to our strengths.

As for Samuels, don't get me started. He Yankeed ( sorry RD :D ) his way into the pro bowl last season. I'm still don't think that he's a dominant OT. I think he's a shade above serviceable.

[RoanokeSkin]

I'm not following you down into that speculative rabbit hole. You hear what the coaches and players are saying. Make up your own mind, but try to keep it open long enough to take in what they're saying.

I hear what they are saying, unfortunately I am seeing the finished product on the field. Which by your own admission, is a OLD quarterback.

[BurgundyNGold]

I hear what they are saying, unfortunately I am seeing the finished product on the field. Which by your own admission, is a OLD quarterback.
I guess this is where we differ. While I think that Brunell has glaring deficiencies, I see the offense as a work in progress. So, really, it remains to be seen if his deficiencies are insurmountable.

[colkurtz]

BNG - excellent blog. The pressure is on Brunell this upcoming game. Portis will be back so there will be a very good running game. If we go 0-3 or 0-4 then there will be enormous pressure to put Campbell in - ready or not.

Personally I don't think Brunell will survive this season as the starter. Hope I'm wrong. I saw him in the pre-season - he worked out and is in great shape. Just wonder if his confidence has slipped. He has not had a really good quarter this pre-season or in these games. UNLIKE LAST SEASON when he did well in competition with Ramsey.

[silverspring]

I think if you are considering a qb change to cambell then as a coach you would prefer to wait for the o-line to get their act together first. This would have 2 advantages.
The first is that it would put things in context. It would allow you to truly see how much of the problem is brunell and how much of the problem is the rest of the offense or scheme related. Secondly, I would rather not throw cambell in there when the whole offense is a mess. Let the offense gel just a little and if brunell still looks like crapola then its Cambell time.
If on tape brunell seems to have adequate time and there are open men all over the field we got to sit him down. Now if the offense doesn't look any better by the buy week you might as well put cambell in anyways cause he might as well make his rookie mistakes this year rather then next.
Either way I think if the o-line doesn't provide better protection and brunell can't figure out how to get rid of the ball and get the pressure off him there is a good chance it will be cambell time by default of injury. How many more 6 sac games can he take?

[danny's stogie]

Do you think that if Mark Brunell was not our starting quarterback in week 4, that Santana Moss would not say something positive about Jason Campbell in the media?

I think the details in Santana's statement are telling of how much faith they have in him. And Santana's right to say Brunell has won ballgames for the Skins. Everyone attributes the playoff run last season to Portis's streak at the end of the year, but Brunell held things together early in the season when Portis had yet to get going, the Dallas, Seattle, Philly and KC games as prime examples.

In general though, I'm really suprised by the lack of patience amongst the fans. I don't know why anyone would have expected the offense to click instantaneously. There's a reason why new coaches struggle off the bat and Al Saunders' offense is no exception. I would wait till midseason to fully critique the offense; my hope was that the defense would win games up till that point.

[danny's stogie]

I think if you are considering a qb change to cambell then as a coach you would prefer to wait for the o-line to get their act together first. This would have 2 advantages.
The first is that it would put things in context. It would allow you to truly see how much of the problem is brunell and how much of the problem is the rest of the offense or scheme related. Secondly, I would rather not throw cambell in there when the whole offense is a mess. Let the offense gel just a little and if brunell still looks like crapola then its Cambell time.
If on tape brunell seems to have adequate time and there are open men all over the field we got to sit him down. Now if the offense doesn't look any better by the buy week you might as well put cambell in anyways cause he might as well make his rookie mistakes this year rather then next.
Either way I think if the o-line doesn't provide better protection and brunell can't figure out how to get rid of the ball and get the pressure off him there is a good chance it will be cambell time by default of injury. How many more 6 sac games can he take?


You're spot on. There are so many problems on offense right now it's impossible for me to put the blame solely on Brunell. No running game, Cooley isn't getting open, Jansen looks miserable, no chemistry with Lloyd, teams shading towards Moss, shall I continue? He needs more time to prove himself, but for right now he's just an unpopular face to pin the Skins' struggles on.

[skins74]

I watched the game again and there were break downs and errors by just about every player on both sides. On top of that I think the coaches made some bad calls as well. I also have the feeling Gibb's and Saunder's are not yet on the same page. Clinton coming back will help alot and not only in running but in pass blocking. I noticed Betts and TJ allowing a rusher to sack Brunell and I don't think CP would have allowed those. I have a feeling this week will be different.

[Syllable]

Read it. Live it. Love it.

http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=327

Then come back here and tell me why I suck, lol.
Lol you make the handcuffs sound like they are Brunell.

[CowboyKilla]

I like it! Thanks dude. I still gotta hope lefty does well, I want us to BE somebody in this league again. The playoff taste is too sweet, I want more.
Go Brunell!!!!, and if not Go Campbell!!! Thats all we got, So.

[jtovb2005]

Without looking at any statistics I think Brunell is pretty much playing they way he did in the ealry part of last season. Things turned around for a couple of reasons if you ask me, fire in the bellies of the players, running game took off, and ofensive line kicked in (due to running game maybe?). I seem to remember feeling a little more less fearfull at the begining of a pass play last year when Brunell did roll out. I have cringed for about 3 years now when our QG's go back in the "pocket". Another thing that makes me tighten up when we go back to pass is the old look around when Brunell does get time then he just throws it away. This year we have too many big time players going out for passes. Hope Brunell takes a few chances at this point and wings it in there.

All will start with the O line doing some blocking. With the skill and star power we have there they simply need to play as advertised on a more regular basis. When they are on they are on, that is how they all get their reputation but we need more games with that type of play. That is what the good playoff teams do, play more games "on" than they do "off" :)

[Brokenstriker]

I watched the game again and ...

you have stronger intestinal fortitude than most humans ... I'm impressed you survived seeing it twice

[BestTravel]

That is true, we did take a few shots downfield in the Giants game. One of the long TDs was by Ramsey to Moss. As I recall Brunell underthrew Moss on one long TD who made an adjustment which worked out well. In the Dallass game, 21 of the 35 points were scored by Cooley and most of the longer plays were the result of YAC.

I'm not saying that Brunell didn't go downfield in 2005, I think he generally didn't do so. For the most part, I get the impression that he does not have confidence in his arm -- or perhaps more accurately his legs -- to make many of those throws anymore.

Mark Brunell's "reluctance" to "get ALL his receivers involved in games" is absolutely detrimental to our Team!

If Mark (himself) has NO confidence in his own ability to distribute the ball (downfield, medium-range, and/or short-range), then he NEEDS to place The REDSKINS above his own ego - as should Coach Gibbs! Period.

Coach Gibbs should be acutely aware of such things - particularly, in light of the fact that he owns NASCAR Teams; wherein, if one has a "Precision Race Car" (metaphorically: "The WASHINGTON REDSKINS"), wouldn't it, therefore, be quite LOGICAL to place said "vehicle" in the most capable hands (i.e.: the "BEST-SUITED Driver")?!? In essence: QB JASON CAMPBELL (who possesses the "SIZE, STRENGTH, POCKET PRESENCE, ARM, MOBILITY, COOL, and CHAMPIONSHIP PEDIGREE", albeit at the NCAA Division I-A level - read: 13-0, at Auburn University, in the RUGGED South Eastern Football Conference / SEC)...as OPPOSED to the "Fantastic Football Mind, Super-Smart, Doesn't Make Mistakes (because he WON'T put ANY pressure on opposing defenses in ATTEMPTING to make 'BIG PLAYS' DOWNFIELD), Mark's MY (read: Coach Gibbs') Guy, 'Cadaver' of an Athlete (who has 'HANDCUFFED the REDSKINS' Offense for 3-STRAIGHT YEARS)?!?

[redskinz#1fan]

is it just me, or is he rolling to his left far more this year than at any time since he has been the skins qb? granted the o line play has been pathetic, but brunell seems to be in perpetual roll mode.


Maybe his left analog stick is stuck to the left?! :whoknows:

[Keino]

Every receiver thinks they were are on every play. Look at nearly any receiver these days when they don't get the ball thrown to them. They pout and are visibly upset. That proves nothing.

Given the choice, I would put more stock into an undeniable testament like what Santana said over some half baked notion about receiver body language on the field.

OK, while I agree with not only the assessment on your blog but also your position in general, Body language on the field is hardly some "half baked notion". Santana said what he is supposed to say, which is to support and boost your teamate and QB, but rest assured, there was some frustration in his body language on a few plays. Yes, all WR's think they are open all the time, (See Gary Clark) but I also noticed Sanata get visibly pissed becase his QB couldn't get him the ball. And it was a "Frustrated at the ineptitude" type of pissed, not the "why didn't you throw to me" type of pissed.

[Fathead]

All Santana needed to say was "I'm behind Mark 100%". Not "I'm riding with him till his wheels fall off". That's above and beyond.