OL not blocking Alex Brown

joecrisp:

My comment was addressed to you but indeed included commentary on some thoughts of others. It was not intended to be a rebuke; it was intended to be a rebuttal. There is a serious difference between those two things and if what I said came across as a rebuke then it was faulty expression on my part.

You said that it would have been in the best interest of the team if Brunell had taken himself out for a few weeks. My point is that a top-shelf NFL QB has an ego that will not allow him to "take himself out" for an injury that is not nearly debillitating. That ego got him where he has been and is now; it is not likely that he is going to have a complete psychological restructuring in a short period of time.

I belileve that in the depths of Brunell's mind (and the mionds of just about every starting QB in the NFL) there is a real sense that the ONLY way for the team to succeed is for them to be on the field as the leader. That may or may not be factually correct in the football sense, but I think they all believe that. So, for him to go to the coaches and "take himself out" would be a form of "checking his ego at the door".

I'm also pretty confident that if Brunell went to Gibbs/Bugel/Breaux and company and told them that his leg just will not make it through the week, the staff would decide to sit him down. I cannot see this coaching staff putting a player on the field who is too injured to play. The fact that he is playing tells me that the coaching staff is convinced that playing Brunell in whatever state of injury he exists at the moment is a better option than playing anyone else on the roster at QB. The coaches can only evaluate performance and project it to the next game; they cannot know the extent of Brunell's injury because there is no outward manifestiation of it; it's not like he's in a cast with his hamstring tug...

Another reason Brunell would be unmotivated to sit himself down is the stigma that brings to him. Last year, the Dolphins WR, Orande Gasden (sp?), opted for wrist surgery and the end to his season because he felt that playing with an injury would hurt his stats and reduce his bargaining power in his upcoming free agency. That decision turned around and bit him on the butt. He got labeled as a self-centered, me-first, greedy, undedicated player and he was not a "hot property" from that moment on. Other players have been called "soft" because of their propensity to miss games and that has cost some of them some contract money and some years of service in the league. So, there is no economic benefit to Brunell to offer to sit down. He can look around and see lots of examples where that kind of behavior has been less than fully productive for other NFL players.

I don't know if Ramsey would have been a better chioce for a starting QB than an injured Brunell in the recent weeks. But I'm not the least bit surprised that Brunell did not go to the staff and say that he could not play and that in the best interests of the Redskins, it was time to "put the kid in". That happens in movies and novels; I doubt it happens much on the sidelines.

Truth in Labeling Statement !!

Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots

Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots

Yes, but how many carbs?

Yes, but how many carbs?
LOL

just remember, carbs - fiber = net carbs

smootsmack:

NO carbs, man. This is all meat!

Thanks for clarifying, SC. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with your assessment that the ego reigns supreme among NFL quarterbacks, and most NFL players, for that matter. I guess we just disagree where it pertains to how both Brunell and the coaching staff should have handled his injury.

When I say Brunell should have "taken himself out," I'm not suggesting that he make some altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of his young backup. I'm just saying that, as a veteran, he should have recognized that the injury has been affecting his ability to throw the ball effectively, and as a leader, he should have recognized that it would be in the best interests of himself and the team-- both in the short-term and the long-term-- to acknowledge the significance of the injury and rest himself until the injury healed completely.

Everybody knows hamstring and other muscle injuries tend to linger much longer, and are more susceptible to frequent aggravation, if that tissue isn't given the proper rest to completely mend. Time and again over the past few weeks, I've seen Brunell get knocked out of bounds, and he comes up limping. He's been trying to disquise the injury as much as possible, but it's clear that hamstring is giving him a little more than a tug. You can see it in the way he runs on rollouts and scrambles, and how he walks. I'm saying that as a former athlete and certified personal trainer. I've tried competing with those kinds of injuries, and I've worked with lots of injured athletes, so I have a pretty good eye for the way certain injuries affect a person's gait, body language, and physical performance. So I disagree that there is no outward manifestation of Brunell's injury. There's no cast or sling, but the injury is apparent, nonetheless.

From a financial and career standpoint, I really don't see taking 2-3 weeks off to heal a hamstring as having a detrimental effect for him and his career. Gibbs has repeatedly expressed his unwavering confidence in Brunell, and his intent to continue playing Brunell as the starter-- win, lose or draw. Brunell just signed a huge contract that, due to cap implications, will keep him a Redskin for at least three years-- which is all any player can really hope for at any given time. Plus, at this point in his career, Washington is likely to be his final stop, unless he decides to play through age 38. If Brunell sat and got healthy, Gibbs would put him right back in as soon as the injury was healed.

I think this whole thing has a lot more to do with Gibbs trying to avoid a quarterback controversy, and trying to be too protective of his quarterbacks (both Brunell and Ramsey), rather than doing what is ultimately the best thing for the team to win games now. Of course, playing Ramsey would entail certain risks, and Joe Gibbs is not a gambler-- at least not in football terms-- regardless of what the payout might have been. What I think he refuses to acknowledge (I think he knows it, but just isn't saying it-- at least not to the public) is that allowing Brunell to play injured may have been the biggest risk of all. It's clearly a risk that hasn't paid off-- at least, not yet.