|
GTripp0012 12-13-2006, 02:48 PM I agree, and mentioned this in a previous thread. Its possible that we would be in the playoff hunt if we would have kept Brunell in there a little longer. Our running game, which had been struggling, is clicking. Our pass protection is better.
I agree w/ the benching and do think its time though to see what JC can do. We aren't a superbowl caliber team w/ either qb so it's JC's time right now.
Knowing how much Gibbs loves Portis and how he thinks of him as a core redskin, i have to disagree that the redskins will shop him. Don't see it.Yeah, I always thought that we could have collected a few more wins if we were patient with Brunell in there and allowed the rest of the team to correct itself. But at some point, simply squeezing in as a wild card in a ridiculously weak conference so you can get crushed by a good team on the road in January has to come second to getting your young gun some expierence.
Would have been nice to go to 9-7, grab the 6 seed and gotten to play Dallas in the WC round, but as long as we do well next year due to this move, I'm happy.
Bill B 12-13-2006, 02:54 PM Wouldn't the Redskins incur a large cap hit if they traded Portis? I think that if the you trade a player under contract the signing bonus accerlerates similar to when you cut him - am I right on this?
The Zimmermans 12-13-2006, 02:55 PM Our record was no better with brunell in...........plus our defense did not play well at all this game, it was our offense that stayed on the field due to Campbell's third down conversions....and the defense lost us the game in the final 5 minutes by not getting off the field. Brunell threw a game losing td pick against the eagles as well. It all goes back to our run D, without a run D, you can't win.
Portis is a BALLER................he stays
AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace 12-13-2006, 03:21 PM I may vomit if we trade Portis...team guy, "true Redskin," plays his heart out, he is a model for what you want the rest of the team to look and play like...if we trade him...well, we'd be back at square 1 with no lessons learned
GTripp0012 12-13-2006, 03:22 PM Our record was no better with brunell in...........plus our defense did not play well at all this game, it was our offense that stayed on the field due to Campbell's third down conversions....and the defense lost us the game in the final 5 minutes by not getting off the field. Brunell threw a game losing td pick against the eagles as well. It all goes back to our run D, without a run D, you can't win.Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.
Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.
The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.
Although I think the QB play would have been more consistent with MB. The D was garbage, as was the O. In the same mode we were playing, we would be much the same with MB, if he were still in. Who's to say that JC DID spark the new intensity in the D, and the O line???? Effectively, the season was lost before the change (athough not mathematically). I enjoy the O play far more with JC, not to mention the value of honing the future Redskin Montana!!!
The Zimmermans 12-13-2006, 03:29 PM Actually, our record was better with Brunell in (3-6=33%, 1-3=25%), but I think that's completely irrelivant to Tony's point that if we had consistent QB play, that we might have turned this thing around behind our defense and this running game thats all of a sudden one of the leagues best.
Our D certainly didn't help us down the stretch, but they outplayed the offense, at least this week. We were 7 for 17 on third downs, and if you look at the play by play breakdown, we were at our best when we stayed out of third down situations, so I don't know why you are crediting our third downs for anything.
The difference between Brunell's INT vs. Philly and Campbell's INT vs. Philly is that we got badly outplayed by the Eagles in the game at the Linc, where we actually outplayed the Eagles this game. Had Brunell not thrown that inexcusible INT, we still would have lost. Had Campbell not thrown that slant, we most likely would have won. That's the difference.
would brunell have made that throw to Randel El for the TD????
hail_2_da_skins 12-13-2006, 03:32 PM Hello Everyone!
Well, once again this was a ridiculous game to lose. That is really just the theme of the season at this point. It was a game that was completely dominated by the Washington Redskins, and they still lost. If the defense and rushing game had played like this when Brunell was the Quarterback, the Redskins would be in the playoffs right now. I think they should have kept him in, which I said back then and I do now. You can’t make roster changes because of pressure from the fans.
I don’t think Campbell is necessarily playing poorly, he is making the type of mistakes that you would expect a rookie to make. However, if they were serious about making the
playoffs they should have stuck with Brunell. I said it at the time and I stick by that.
As far as the Ladell Betts re-signing, it was a good re-singing by the Redskins and a guy who should bring a lot to the table next year. Do I think he was crazy to resign with the Redskins and not test the market? I do not. Honestly, I think if Clinton Portis was running behind these holes, he would have broke a few of them in that Eagles game for another 50 yards and a TD. I don’t think that Betts could have gotten a lot more in the free agent waters, but I’m glad the Redskins kept I am also not completely sold on Portis staying in Washington. The Redskins may see an opportunity with Ladell Betts to try to shop Portis and see if there is a good market for him where they can sure up some other areas of the team.
Looking at the rest of the season, Joe Gibbs just needs to tell the guys that they are going to get cut if they don’t play their hearts out and he must mean it. This team needs some sort of re-charge and guys need to know that if they aren’t playing hard they will be gone for the team. Period, cut and dry.
Thanks again guys. It’s been a rough year….
Tony.
Are you nuts! With Brunell, instead of losing close games, the Skins would have gotten blown out of all these contests. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not throw the ball fifteen yards downfield. Have you forgotten how Brunell could not avoid the rush. At least with Campbell, the Redskin offense is starting to look like a professional football offense, not a high school three yards and a cloud of dust. Boy...people forget how bad it was.
backrow 12-13-2006, 03:35 PM I say we shop players A l p h a b e t i c a l l y. A-As go first!
|