Anyone watching Romo?

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:48 am

1niksder wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
air_hog wrote:Yeah, and then throw 3 INTS, 2 in the Red Zone.

:roll:


what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).


How can one not be desperate at 2-5? Unless you're suggesting Gibbs just doesn't care anymore, and he's just here to collect a very fat Snyder paycheck (he wouldn't be the first guy to come to town just to get paid). At least Parcells is trying to fix a problem (poor QB play) while he's still got some hope for his season. Gibbs is just watching the season come to an end and fixing nothing.

Mmmm...donuts
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: How much text will they let me fit in this 'Location' space? I mean, can I just keep writing and wr

Postby joebagadonuts » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:54 am

Mursilis wrote:
1niksder wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
air_hog wrote:Yeah, and then throw 3 INTS, 2 in the Red Zone.

:roll:


what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).


How can one not be desperate at 2-5? Unless you're suggesting Gibbs just doesn't care anymore, and he's just here to collect a very fat Snyder paycheck (he wouldn't be the first guy to come to town just to get paid). At least Parcells is trying to fix a problem (poor QB play) while he's still got some hope for his season. Gibbs is just watching the season come to an end and fixing nothing.


But Brunell is supersmart, and he plays his guts out. Bledsoe, on the other hand, just gets his guts KNOCKED out.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:29 am

die cowboys die wrote:if anyone disagrees with this, i would like to hear one remotely plausible, non-laughable defense of the decision to stick with mark brunell at this point. the only possible one is that campbell is so utterly, unimaginably bad that they don't even want to embarass themselves by putting him on the field. i find this hard to believe, especially since they personally moved up to draft him.

so go ahead. conjure up some defense.
oh, and, "this team still has a shot at the playoffs" isn't even close.


You want to play a guy that no one on the staff says is ready unless he gets a full week of practice with the 1st team. At the same time you want him in there with a turnstile of a offensive line. If you didn't notice Portis and Moss sat out the latter part of the game, I guess that was the perfect time to put him in.

I could go on but you'll never get, I know this because your last comment tells it all. 7 weeks in your "team" is twoand a half games out of 1st in there division and you can't even see a wildcard in the future.

This isn't a defense, because I never stated a opinion other than yours was incorrect, take it for what you want.

If Jacksonville, Carolina and Tampa all win the week the Skins will get a game closer on each team in the Div. and back to back division games after our bye.

With half the starters on defense in the training room, slowly being joined by the starters on offense. What will Jason take from this type of experince? I don't know but if you have Patrick Ramsey's phone number he can give you some insight.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

FanFromAnnapolis
Online
Posts: 11119
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:32 am

die cowboys die wrote:when he came back, gibbs himself insisted on being judged by how he does now, and not what he did then. so anyone who claims any devotion to gibbs at this point is nothing but a hypocrite. if you have faith in him, you must do as he says and forget about the past. when you assess his current performance (specifically the continued devotion to brunell), it is so unconscionably horiffic and shockingly out of touch with reality, that a reasonable person can only conclude that any other coach doing this would have been fired already. gibbs should not be absolved just because he is gibbs- he has said so himself!

if anyone disagrees with this, i would like to hear one remotely plausible, non-laughable defense of the decision to stick with mark brunell at this point. the only possible one is that campbell is so utterly, unimaginably bad that they don't even want to embarass themselves by putting him on the field. i find this hard to believe, especially since they personally moved up to draft him.


Here's a defense that fits your criteria, but I don't think that you're going to like it:

(a) Gibbs would not have been fired by now if he was any other coach. (Although under Snyder this is a possibility). He's only in his 3rd season and he made the playoffs just last year. This season isn't out of reach and his track record indicates that it's worthwhile to have some patience with him.

(b) Your only evidence that Gibbs is out of touch reality seems to be adjectives. I agree with you that Brunell's play has been bad but not to the degree that you seem convinced.

(c) The decision to stick with Mark Brunell at this point is a decision made based on winning next week. Not at the end of this year, not next year, not in the next 3 years. . .next week. In all likelihood (though not certain), Campbell will be doing more learning on the field than winning. The balance between the options is what Gibbs is navigating, and Brunell is his choice. If we played next week's game 10 times with each QB, I'd bet that Mark Brunell has more victories than Campbell.


I answered since you asked, dcd, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not so much looking for answers as you are trying to make a point that you think barely needs proving. My guess is that my argument will be met with emoticons, sarcasm, and more adjectives and absolutes to impart a sense of final judgement (or some mixture of all 3).
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

~~~~~~~~~~
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Southern California

Postby air_hog » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:40 am

unter13 wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
1niksder wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
air_hog wrote:Yeah, and then throw 3 INTS, 2 in the Red Zone.

:roll:


what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).

Romo did come out of the game with the same score as Mark finished with, and manage to throw as many Ints as Brunell has thrown all year in just one game


Romo was put into the game with his team down by multiple scores. he threw multiple INTs because he was actually attempting to win the game, which mark brunell literally did not do in the 2nd half yesterday. we were down by 3 TDs to a team with the best offense in football, and he made no legitimate effort to move the ball downfield.

brunell's only score of the 2nd half came when the game was completely over. romo at least gave his team a chance to win.

finally, 2-5 is a hundred times more desperate a situation than 3-2, but parcells still had the balls to make the switch. if gibbs isn't desperate, it means that he's clueless.



I completely agree with this man. If your someone who donesn't then your someone that doesn't know football.


ROTFALMAO

You're right man, we don't know football.

Let's just put a rookie in there who can get us to the 10 yard line, but then throw a pick when the game is on the line.
joebagadonuts on IsaneBoost's signature:
-- "I laughed. I cried. Better than Cats"

piglet
User avatar
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby nychog » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:12 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
1niksder wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
air_hog wrote:Yeah, and then throw 3 INTS, 2 in the Red Zone.

:roll:


what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).


How can one not be desperate at 2-5? Unless you're suggesting Gibbs just doesn't care anymore, and he's just here to collect a very fat Snyder paycheck (he wouldn't be the first guy to come to town just to get paid). At least Parcells is trying to fix a problem (poor QB play) while he's still got some hope for his season. Gibbs is just watching the season come to an end and fixing nothing.


But Brunell is supersmart, and he plays his guts out. Bledsoe, on the other hand, just gets his guts KNOCKED out.


I might snap if I hear that "we played our guts out" after a loss one more time.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1017
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:22 am
Location: Fort Bliss, TX

Postby xhadow » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:58 pm

Ok I think you all are taking DCD out of perspective a little bit. I like every other Redskins fan wants to see them in the superbowl this year, but at this point it doesn't seem possible. Not saying that I am giving up hope but every other team in the NFC East is .500 or better and we are 3 games away from that.

I and many other fans believe that if we are going to loose games in the fashion that we did Campbell can be getting his lumps at the same time. This is not saying that Brunell sucks but I for one feel that his time in DC has come to a close.

Once again I am not saying that I think we will start winning games because Campbell is at Quarterback... (unless he can play corner too). I just want to see the skins building for the future during the season not in the offseason. Like it or not Campbell is our future.

And 1niksder you say that the coaching staff says that Campbell needs 1 week practice before he would be ready... doesn't a bye week give you a free week to do something like that?

And Finally we are talking about the same coach that pulled a guy he promised he would start after a half of mediocre play, not bad play just mediocre play and an injury.
Well what more would you expect out of the "Worst Team" in the "Best Division"

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:37 pm

xhadow wrote:Ok I think you all are taking DCD out of perspective a little bit. I like every other Redskins fan wants to see them in the superbowl this year, but at this point it doesn't seem possible. Not saying that I am giving up hope but every other team in the NFC East is .500 or better and we are 3 games away from that.

DCD has been very unarticulate but he got his opinion across pretty well, and with a bye this week and tough games for everyone else in the East they could ALL come back a game that would leave one team in the division above .500 and we'd be facing TtiT and could draw even with them

xhadow wrote:I and many other fans believe that if we are going to loose games in the fashion that we did Campbell can be getting his lumps at the same time. This is not saying that Brunell sucks but I for one feel that his time in DC has come to a close.

Why should anyone go out there and play based on the "if we're going to lose anyway" plan of action? BTW I said when we signed him this would be his last year, win or lose that more than likely won't change and all involved are aware of this. This says the staff really believes that Mark gives us the best chance to win now. If you didn't know this upcoming game against TtiT is the midway point in JJG's contract. He came back to bring back a winner, he made progress from year one to year two. I'm willing to let him make the call (and not just because he's the one getting paid to do it) because like I've said before he plans for Nov/Dec so he'll be busy in Jan/Feb

xhadow wrote:Once again I am not saying that I think we will start winning games because Campbell is at Quarterback... (unless he can play corner too). I just want to see the skins building for the future during the season not in the offseason. Like it or not Campbell is our future.

We hope Campbell is our future, we don't know because we haven't seen him. That may be part of the push by the fans to get him in there after every bad Brunell showing (same as any lost). Yoi would have thought the Jags brought Jason back down here with them after that game because you didn't here his name in DC for two weeks. Gibbs isn't playing for the future with 2 inter-division games coming up. Split those or worse then you have a different situation.

xhadow wrote:And 1niksder you say that the coaching staff says that Campbell needs 1 week practice before he would be ready... doesn't a bye week give you a free week to do something like that?

Going into the season Gibbs said Mark was the starter and if injuried Collins would finish the game, and if Brunell couldn't go Campbell would get all the snaps with the 1st team that week and would start the next game.
That means even if Mark is pounded into the ground by whomever runs around CS, we still would see Campbell.

xhadow wrote:And Finally we are talking about the same coach that pulled a guy he promised he would start after a half of mediocre play, not bad play just mediocre play and an injury.

Yeah it's the same guy and he kept his promise. Patrick did start the game and the season as the starting QB right :hmm: What the problem is?
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

|
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Greenville, NC

Re: Anyone watching Romo?

Postby sch1977 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:44 pm

nychog wrote:I just watched him lead a touch down drive. Tuna knows when to pull the washed up veteran. Hopefully Gibbs will too.


In all fairness, Brunell is a better QB than Bledsoe. Also, Romo is Parcell's guy, just like Brunell is Gibbs' guy. Let's wait and see how Romo does before you tell Gibbs' I told you so.
Taylor and Landry will take no Prisoners!! - I just can't bring myself to delete it!

----------
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:48 am

Postby Steve Spurrier III » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm

Tony Romo also sat for his first three NFL seasons.

It's almost as if these are two different situations...
I'm bored, I'm broke, and I'm back.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:02 pm

Postby skins81 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:02 pm

Romo adds some spark, but he made some awful decisions.

His first throw got tipped and intercepted, but where was he throwing to anyway? There were about three defenders in the area. If it doesn't get tipped, it maybe gets intercepted anyway.

He tried this as the game went on as well - making throws he or any other QB clearly had no business making.

I think if that's the way he will continue to play, cowboy fans will be very disappointed.
"I DN'T ENVISION MYSELF LEAVING, BUT I CN'T STAY WHERE I'M NT WANTED AFTER ALL THESE REPORTS R COMIN OUT DAILY!" - TO

Hog
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:37 am

Re: Anyone watching Romo?

Postby forskins » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:11 pm

In all fairness, Brunell is a better QB than Bledsoe. Also, Romo is Parcell's guy, just like Brunell is Gibbs' guy. Let's wait and see how Romo does before you tell Gibbs' I told you so.[/quote]

Brunnell better then Deadslow? :hmm:

Bledslow makes bad decisions under pressure and moves in the pocket like he's 3 feet of water, but, he can throw the ball further then the 5-7 yard lobs that Brunnel has been throwing.

swine
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:15 pm

Re: Anyone watching Romo?

Postby unter13 » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:32 am

forskins wrote:In all fairness, Brunell is a better QB than Bledsoe. Also, Romo is Parcell's guy, just like Brunell is Gibbs' guy. Let's wait and see how Romo does before you tell Gibbs' I told you so.


Brunnell better then Deadslow? :hmm:

Bledslow makes bad decisions under pressure and moves in the pocket like he's 3 feet of water, but, he can throw the ball further then the 5-7 yard lobs that Brunnel has been throwing.[/quote]

True True

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football