Poll: Starting QB 2006

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

That's kind of playing a game of semantics though. By those standards, then Barry Sanders should have been on the bench. Obviously, it would have been foolish to have benched Sanders.

Remember, this is a team sport. Should we bench every starter because the team doesn't make the playoffs?

I don't think so. QBs are held to different standards. Nobody talks about how many games a RB or WR has won. If we don't make the playoffs, people will look back and ask why we brought in an aging QB instead of grooming younger talent.

Certainly, a QB surrounded by ZERO talent will get some slack, but that's not the case here. We DEFINITELY need some help, but this team is not completely devoid of talent.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

People ought to realize that going out and getting a veteran guy while we had a 1st rounder entering his 3rd year in the league was a choice...rather than a necessity and in my opinion as it stand right now...it looks like we made the wrong choice.

This is where I disagree with you (at this point) and think that Matty is on point. MB has played well enough to start next year, IMO. If he doesn't make the playoffs next year, then I will most likely agree the decision was wrong. However, I'm withholding judgment until that point.

[NFLeurope]

So you would say that if before he was signed you knew that in the first 2 seasons he was here Brunell would not lead the skins to the Playoffs...you still would have signed him to that contract he has (which many people have said is essentially a 3 year contract). I definately would not have...and would have preferred to see what i had already on the roster.

Now if all your saying is that he has played relatively well this year...and given the fact that at this point he is already on the roster...you would consider starting him next year...i dont have a problem with that...i mean i dont neccessarily agree...but i think thats legit...

However, i dont think that negates the fact that signing him in the first place was a mistake. He's here now so def. do with him whats best for the team. But having a guy not win for 2 of the 3 years many have said he is signed for...without knowing what he'll do in his 3rd year....is much closer to a failed signing than a success i would say.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

I just dont understand...why a game of semantics? We signed Mark Brunell to make us win now. If we are not winning now...then the premise for signing Mark Brunell is no longer valid...and it would have been more beneficial to see whether Ramsey could play. Its not really a game of semantics...because the distinction is that we went out and signed Brunell..and gave up a lot to get him in the process...

If he was already on the roster when gibbs got here...and then was putting up good numbers this year...then i would agree with you 100%...It would not be fair to judge Brunell...say all the losing is his fault or whatever...

But based on the fact that we went out and got HIM...and gave up a ton in the process...i think it is completely legit to look at the teams results since he's been here...and say you know...if i had to give up all of that again...just to have a losing team...i wouldnt do it. If you agree with that...then signing Brunell was a mistake

We signed Mark Brunell because we felt he gave us the best chance to win. We have also signed other players to help us to win. My question to you is this: going by what you stated, should the Redskins end this season without a playoff appearance, then should we not cut every player that we have paid tons of money to? It only makes sense. Why would you only cut Brunell - who has been doing his job - and not cut Moss, Portis, Springs, Carlos Rogers, etc.....do you see my point? This is a team sport. You win as a team, you lose as a team. If Brunell was playing as bad as he did last year, I would see a reason to talk about benching him or cutting him, but that hasn't been the case.

You also have to keep in mind that this team had no veteran qbs before last year. Every good team has a good veteran quarterback either starting or as back-up. The vets are there not only to play or to be plugged in should the starter go down, but also as teachers to help further develop the younger quarterbacks. There are things that the older quarterbacks can show the younger guys that maybe the coaches can't show. That is why it is important to sign a veteran quarterback, no matter the situation. With that said, I would have rather had Mark Brunell than any other qb that was on the market at that time.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

So you would say that if before he was signed you knew that in the first 2 seasons he was here Brunell would not lead the skins to the Playoffs...you still would have signed him to that contract he has (which many people have said is essentially a 3 year contract). I definately would not have...and would have preferred to see what i had already on the roster.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of your first hypothetical. However, I don't think a 2 year turnaround is realistic for this team. We showed a lot of promise at the beginning of the season, but we have also showed that we have a lot of work left to do. So, yes, I would probably still go through with the trade knowing what I know now.

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

Now if all your saying is that he has played relatively well this year...and given the fact that at this point he is already on the roster...you would consider starting him next year...i dont have a problem with that...i mean i dont neccessarily agree...but i think thats legit...

I definitely agree with your second hypothetical - he's our only option at this point.

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

However, i dont think that negates the fact that signing him in the first place was a mistake. He's here now so def. do with him whats best for the team. But having a guy not win for 2 of the 3 years many have said he is signed for...without knowing what he'll do in his 3rd year....is much closer to a failed signing than a success i would say.

You really can't look at MB for last year - he only played half the games. This year, I look more toward him. By next year, he needs to lead this team. I think he's already doing some leading now, but, by the start of next season, there is no doubt whose team this is.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I don't think so. QBs are held to different standards. Nobody talks about how many games a RB or WR has won. If we don't make the playoffs, people will look back and ask why we brought in an aging QB instead of grooming younger talent.

Certainly, a QB surrounded by ZERO talent will get some slack, but that's not the case here. We DEFINITELY need some help, but this team is not completely devoid of talent.

So then, the question has to be asked: why should the quarterback be held at a different standard? If the quaterback is doing his job, which I believe Mark Brunell is doing, then why should the talent around him get a free get out of jail pass if the team as a whole is not winning?

[FirstandTen]

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

hahaha...and why oh why the Kurt Warner era????? Why not the Ramsey era??? He was a 1st Rounder...i mean did he come out of college with a sign on his back that read destined to never play. People ought to realize that going out and getting a veteran guy while we had a 1st rounder entering his 3rd year in the league was a choice...rather than a necessity and in my opinion as it stand right now...it looks like we made the wrong choice.

Because Gibbs obviously saw something in Ramsey that he did not like and felt we needed a veteran.. If you can't understand that Ramsey was not, is not and will never be an option under Gibbs then im sorry.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

We signed Mark Brunell because we felt he gave us the best chance to win. We have also signed other players to help us to win. My question to you is this: going by what you stated, should the Redskins end this season without a playoff appearance, then should we not cut every player that we have paid tons of money to? It only makes sense. Why would you only cut Brunell - who has been doing his job - and not cut Moss, Portis, Springs, Carlos Rogers, etc.....do you see my point? This is a team sport. You win as a team, you lose as a team.

I'm just curious - do you feel that QBs are held to the same standard as other skill positions?

I really don't think that's the case, but that seems to be what you are arguing. Barry Sanders didn't get benched because he produced. QBs, however, get benched or cut despite talent if they don't produce wins (Jeff George?).

Granted, I could be wrong, but I don't think this discussion is going anywhere if everyone is operating off of different assumptions.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

So then, the question has to be asked: why should the quarterback be held at a different standard? If the quaterback is doing his job, which I believe Mark Brunell is doing, then why should the talent around him get a free get out of jail pass if the team as a whole is not winning?

Sorry - I was typing when you posted this. I don't claim that it's fair, but it just seems to be the way it is. Am I wrong? Are QBs judged the same?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SallyJenkins

I don't think Heath Schuler ever got a fair shake.

Let's bring him back - I mean, what the hell!!?

Hey, Sal....please forgive me for being so rude. On the behalf of me and my colleagues, welcome to the board.

Your "hindsight" will be much appreciated.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Sorry - I was typing when you posted this. I don't claim that it's fair, but it just seems to be the way it is. Am I wrong? Are QBs judged the same?

I don't believe you're wrong. I do believe more times than not, the quarterback is held to a higher standard. Maybe I suppose the reason is that he is often compared to being in the "driver's seat." But my point is, holding a position to a higher standard shouldn't be the sole reason why a team would dump a qb who has been playing pretty good for us this year, overall. I mean, would someone be considered a bad driver, because his car's transmission goes bad or his tires go flat? There isn't a direct correlation.

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by wewhite3

Why wouldn't any skin fan, wouldn't want Campbell to start, there no reason to bring in any other QB or keep, trying to hope Ramsey will just emerge like Brady and save the day, I'm so curious to see what Campbell can do, since some people in here thinks that he's such a dummy, its hard enough being a QB in this league, but still the Black QB has to continue to prove himself........the more things change the more they stay the same

I actually voted for campbell, but I didn't realize he was black... I change my vote J/K J/K J/K :yeahright

seriously though, do we need the racial stuff... I mean I seriously don't think that we gave up 2 1st round picks and a second to get this guy just to give him crap 'cause he's black.

I do feel that he has some high expectations to live up to considering what we did to get him, and the situation he's about to be put into. I just hope whatever Gibbs and co. saw in him materializes, and that the coaching staff stays together long enough for him to benefit from it.

[FirstandTen]

Originally Posted by wewhite3

Why wouldn't any skin fan, wouldn't want Campbell to start, there no reason to bring in any other QB or keep, trying to hope Ramsey will just emerge like Brady and save the day, I'm so curious to see what Campbell can do, since some people in here thinks that he's such a dummy, its hard enough being a QB in this league, but still the Black QB has to continue to prove himself........the more things change the more they stay the same

thats the wildest thing i have read sense Question 3

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Last year was a wash for Brunell, Gibbs was trying to adjust his scheme, he didn't have the weapons he does now, he was playing hurt and it's no secret that the offense as a whole struggled.

This year we saw some flashes of what Brunell and this offense is capable of. I just think it's premature to say MB's time is over already. I don't see Ramsey getting another shot as the starter unless he really outperforms Brunell during the offseason, and I think we can forget about seeing Campbell until 2007.

I don't know about forgetting about Campbell... If brunell performs some majic, and the rest of the team syncs up to run the table and we go to the playoffs, he'll be back. Otherwise, (and I'm sure offseason performance will be a factor and we have no Idea what that's going to go like) I see campbell being there to take the call. Lets not forget what we gave up to give this guy, I can't see him sitting the bench for 2 years if he's making any progress in the offense.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I don't believe you're wrong. I do believe more times than not, the quarterback is held to a higher standard. Maybe I suppose the reason is that he is often compared to being in the "driver's seat." But my point is, holding a position to a higher standard shouldn't be the sole reason why a team would dump a qb who has been playing pretty good for us this year, overall. I mean, would someone be considered a bad driver, because his car's transmission goes bad or his tires go flat? There isn't a direct correlation.

I never meant (and I don't think I said) that we should dump him. My point was that the wisdom of the front office's decision to bring MB in will be evaluated based on whether or not we make the playoffs.