HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2
redskins
Posted by: smobien ()
Date: October 03, 2005 12:18AM

How 'bout them skins?


3-0 bitches.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 03, 2005 02:42AM

portis tore it up

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Penusbutter ()
Date: October 03, 2005 01:33PM

Everybody is loving Mark Brunell, but the old bastard still keeps underthrowing Moss on the deep throw.

Why can't he get it in his thick head to either throw the ball earlier or throw the ball farther so that he can hit Moss in stride, instead of making Moss come back for the ball as it gets batted away by the DB.

Stupid Brunell and his weak ass arm.
Brunell is only good at throwing hook and comeback routes.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUP ()
Date: October 03, 2005 02:29PM

Ok Man , Brunell has to get used to the quickness of Moss and Patten
They are the fastest WR hes ever throw to, But you have to say hes alot better than Ramsey. He knows what to do with the ball. JUst give him a few more games and I think well be scoring some big points

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: darbrewe ()
Date: October 03, 2005 03:38PM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2015 05:01AM by darbrewe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Nik ()
Date: October 03, 2005 04:30PM

Eh, I'm thinking 9-7.

And I like burgers.

----------------
WHERE'S THE BEEF

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Bballr ()
Date: October 03, 2005 05:57PM

Brunell consisently underthrows Moss, and his mid-range passes are just rifled in there most of the time, he has no touch, just like Vick. A 9-7 victory over the Bears, a lucky win over the Cowboys, and a three point win over a pathetic Seattle defense. Don't get too high on the DEADSKINS.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 03, 2005 06:49PM

You dont need John Elway with a defense like that

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: smobien ()
Date: October 04, 2005 07:43PM

Its true Brunell isnt the best in the business. But hes a proven veteran, hes tough, he never gives up, and he can make plays when he needs to (like his 3rd down rush).

I like him, and I have faith that Gibbs made the right decision to put him in. Gibbs knows more about football than we all ever will.


With that said, Denver will be tough. They absolutely grilled the Chiefs and their supposed 'high powered offense'..


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 05, 2005 02:07AM

seahawks were a bigger challenge, only thing against us is the road game

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 05, 2005 02:40PM

I don't think the Seahawks were that big of a challenge. They are terrible on the road, especially on the east coast. We should have won that game by more than 3 if it wasn't for that blocked FG on our opening drive.

Denver seems to win the tough ones when they are at home. They edged out San Diego and blew out KC. Their run defense is awesome. Only 316 yds allowed in four games against good rushing teams.

We have to put up great rushing numbers against them this week in order to win. It shouldn't be too hard if both of their starting corners are out which will leave their safeties in coverage instead of crowding the line. Their front seven is pretty impressive though, and I think their linebackers are just as good as ours.

Whichever team's defense can stop the run and contain the bootleg will be the team that ends up winning.

As for Brunell, I'd rather have him right now than Ramsey no matter how poorly you think he is throwing to Moss. Our team isn't at the stage where we can win games with a QB who can't read coverages and doesn't seem to have the confidence of the other 10 guys around him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Bballr ()
Date: October 05, 2005 06:29PM

I think Portis is overrated. I was a big fan of his when he was with Denver, but now I think he was just a product of the system. His Yards Per Carry are horrible ever since he came to Washington. Betts seems to be just as effective, if not more effective than Portis.
This all could have been avoided if Spurrier was never hired, they got rid of Stephan Davis, who would be thriving in Joe Gibbs offense. Spurrier's idle back was Trung Candidate...great hire Synder!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 05, 2005 10:16PM

Denver's running system is great. I think that is pretty self evident. Portis benefitted from it, but he's also got natural ability that helps him find holes and get the extra yards.

I can see why you think he is overrated by looking at his stats from last season, but he was learning a wholly different running scheme in an offense that performed absolutely terrible all-around.

I think it's unprecedented in the NFL to have a RB go over 1500 yards in his first two seasons and then get traded away. That must have had a negative impact in his performance last season.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Dracolich ()
Date: October 07, 2005 03:57AM

Redskins Pwn, superbowl baby haha

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: asnpcwiz ()
Date: October 07, 2005 10:37AM

Way too early to think Superbowl right now, I'll be happy if we go .500. Come on baby, gotta beat Denver, it's a crucial momentum builder.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 09, 2005 08:26AM

I would just be happy if the Skins made it to the Wild Card this year. However, I have a hard time believing they will be ahead of both the Giants and the Eagles by the end of the season, just because McNabb and T.O., despite injuries and issues, are among the best in the business and because Eli Manning appears to be the real deal.

As for Brunell and Portis, if you look at Brunell's record, he is one of the top-tier passers in the history of the game. If he hits his stride with the Redskins and can stay in there for three years, he could be HOF bound.

Portis is another story, though. The guy's biggest strength at this point is serving as an extra receiver. Now that Brunell is hitting Moss deep, the mid-field game should open up for Cooley and Portis. Betts is a good downhill runner, which Portis can't manage. However, paying Portis mondo bucks to serve as an optional receiver probably doesn't make much sense.

I predict 10-6 for the season.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 09, 2005 07:01PM

its not looking too good

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: mad max, JD ()
Date: October 09, 2005 07:15PM

It wasn't looking good late in the Dallas game either. Come on Moss.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: mad max, JD ()
Date: October 09, 2005 07:44PM

Shit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 09, 2005 07:55PM

The Skins gave it the ol' college try. I think the biggest problem with the game was the officiating (against both teams, actually). The lack of a call on that blatant pass-interference against Cooley on the final drive was total B.S.

I still believe the Skins are capable of going 10-6, especially with the apparent collapose of the Eagles now underway. All we need is the NY Giants to start sputtering and we will be gold!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 09, 2005 08:11PM

that should have been a safety, and patten shoulda gotten that touchdown..

and BRUNELL SHOULDA RAN THT 2 POINTER IN@@@@@@

oh well i give the team props they played a hell of a game

and the refs sucked big time

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 09, 2005 08:48PM

MrDoctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that should have been a safety, and patten shoulda
> gotten that touchdown..
>
> and BRUNELL SHOULDA RAN THT 2 POINTER IN@@@@@@
>
> oh well i give the team props they played a hell
> of a game
>
> and the refs sucked big time


Refs sucked major dick.

As for Brunell running it in, there was a spy on him, so he would've been nailed anyway.

I agree on the safety. The "tuck rule" is the biggest fraud in NFL history. If the QB pump fakes and brings it down to run with it and gets hit, it's a fumble. Isn't that essentially what Plummer did? He didn't throw it, so it wasn't an incomplete pass.

I didn't see the Patten thing or the off-sides on the kick attempt. However, most of the penalties called were just ridiculous (like the holding call against the Redskins when it was obviously offensive pass interference on the Broncos). Even toward the end the FOX commentators were talking about the Refs needing to give the Redskins a break on the ridiculous penalty calls.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: from the 757 ()
Date: October 09, 2005 11:05PM

Better Red than Deadskin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...if you look at Brunell's record, he is one of the top-tier passers in the history of the game...

Woah, woah...what numbers lead to this conclusion?

Watching Redskins fans talk about playoffs is like watching a bunch of monkeys have a circle jerk.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MarkBrunell King of Throwing it out o ()
Date: October 09, 2005 11:51PM

Brunell sucks.
I don't think the staticians keep this statistic, but if they did, Brunell has to lead the league in "Most Balls Thrown Away/Out of Bounds"

I understand that many times, when there is absolutely no one to throw to and you're about to get sacked, the "smart" "veteran" thing to do is to throw the ball away out of bounds... BUt I think Brunell over-does it.

I think there are guys open that other QB's would hit, but Brunell doesn't see them, and instead throws it out-of-bounds, leaving everyone to ASSUME that he had no where to go.

But c'mon, Moss is beast, we all know that now.
David Patten got open like it was a bad habit in New England.
Thrash has been the underestimated workhorse receiver for years now.
Cooley is the blackest white guy in the league.

I think Brunell is holding onto the ball because he's overly cautious about throwing INTs. But I'd rather have a QB that throws TD's and gets an INT every now and then (like Brett Favre), rather than a guy that never throws an INT and at the same time never throws a TD (like Mark Brunell).




Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 10, 2005 08:41AM

There are times when Brunell has people open and he throws it away. However, if you have noticed, most points scored against the Redskins this season have been on turnovers. The two field goals in Dallas, the bulk of the points yesterday in Denver, the Chicago touchdown. The Redskins defense sucks in the Red Zone. The only way most teams have gotten it into the Redskin Red Zone (or close to it, anyway) has been from Redskins turnovers. It makes sense at this stage of the team's rejuvination that Brunell would play it safe. It's similar to the approach Dilfer used in Baltimore and they won a Superbowl because of it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 10, 2005 02:01PM

they need to work on their special teams. those blocked field goals have fucked the skins two weeks in a row

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: darbrewe ()
Date: October 10, 2005 02:59PM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2015 04:56AM by darbrewe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Bballr ()
Date: October 10, 2005 06:42PM

Poertis is overrated his YPC has been horrible in DC.

Brunell has no touch on his passes (give Jason Campbell a chance).

Defense is alright, but not what it is advertised to be (what happened to Arrington...too many eastern motors commercials).

Moss is a beast, but Patten and other WRs aren't producing very much.

NFC East is looking really good. Face it Washington will lose to Dallas, lose both to Philly, and split with NY. I don't think they have a chance in the divison.

Brunell should have ran, the spy backed up into the end zone. If he ran, the defense would have reacted and a reciever would have found a bigger hole in the zone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: STupid Brunell Bum ()
Date: October 11, 2005 02:56PM

Brunell has a horrible habit of clapping the with his free hand right before he throws.

This gives the defenders the chance to jump the throw, when they see him clap the ball before he throws it.

That's what happened on that last 2-pt conversion throw.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 12, 2005 02:05PM

When it comes to the QB position Gibbs is known for taking mediocre talent and getting incredible results (Theismann, Williams, Rypien). Honestly, Brunell doesn't see the field that well, and isn't good at letting routes develop. He's the type of QB that needs a good running game and recievers that create seperation, and that's what the Skins have.

In the past (in Jacksonville) what covered up Brunell's lack of field vision was his ability to get out of the pocket and create something. When you get a guy like Brunell (and Plummer in Denver) rolling out to one side of the field that effectively cuts the field in half for the defense. That's why you need a respectable running game in order for guys like that to succeed.

When you see Brunell throw the ball out of bounds that is because of coaching. Gibbs wants his QB to understand that a loss of down is more acceptable than a loss of yards or a turnover. The reason it looks like he throws away so often is because, like I mentioned, he doesn't have the field vision of someone like Peyton or Brady. In fact, he probably doesn't even know every reciever's route on every play. I think this is why early on in the season, and sometimes later in the games these past few weeks, he routinely checks down to Portis or Betts.

But, in the end, I'd rather have him in the huddle because he is a leader. That's something that can't be coached.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 12, 2005 03:24PM

your baseing this "doesnt see the field that well" on the denver game when their qb couldnt even see the field. it was foggy raining and probly some snow too. theismann a mediocre talent? lol k

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: smobien ()
Date: October 12, 2005 10:45PM

So yea, that saftey call was bullshit, but hey...thats the way it goes sometimes.

Im looking forward to the Chiefs game. I have a lot of respect for the Chiefs, and it will be another tough game (Arrowhead is a LOUD place to play).



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: mad max, JD ()
Date: October 12, 2005 11:04PM

smobien, is your name steve? If so, I know you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 13, 2005 03:02AM

MrDoctor, I'm not basing my opinion that Brunell doesn't see the field that well on just the last game. I've watched every game he's played in since he put on the burgundy and gold. Don't think I'm bashing him by saying that. He's smart, he's a veteran, but his field vision isn't one of his top attributes.

As for Theismann, he didn't come to his full potential until Gibbs became head coach. I shouldn't have really mentioned his name along with Williams and Rypien, he is definately better than mediocre. But I can't say that he was spectacular in any way other than the fact that he won a superbowl. Hell, even Brunell has better numbers than him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 13, 2005 01:56PM

fair enough

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Centreville of the World ()
Date: October 14, 2005 12:23PM

kurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When it comes to the QB position Gibbs is known
> for taking mediocre talent and getting incredible
> results (Theismann, Williams, Rypien). Honestly,
> Brunell doesn't see the field that well, and isn't
> good at letting routes develop. He's the type of
> QB that needs a good running game and recievers
> that create seperation, and that's what the Skins
> have.
>
> In the past (in Jacksonville) what covered up
> Brunell's lack of field vision was his ability to
> get out of the pocket and create something. When
> you get a guy like Brunell (and Plummer in Denver)
> rolling out to one side of the field that
> effectively cuts the field in half for the
> defense. That's why you need a respectable
> running game in order for guys like that to
> succeed.
>
> When you see Brunell throw the ball out of bounds
> that is because of coaching. Gibbs wants his QB
> to understand that a loss of down is more
> acceptable than a loss of yards or a turnover.
> The reason it looks like he throws away so often
> is because, like I mentioned, he doesn't have the
> field vision of someone like Peyton or Brady. In
> fact, he probably doesn't even know every
> reciever's route on every play. I think this is
> why early on in the season, and sometimes later in
> the games these past few weeks, he routinely
> checks down to Portis or Betts.
>
> But, in the end, I'd rather have him in the huddle
> because he is a leader. That's something that
> can't be coached.



I don't think Brunell is mediocre. Past his prime, maybe. But I don't think he is mediocre. Look at guys like David Carr, Kyle Boller and Joey Harrington - THOSE guys are mediocre.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 14, 2005 01:32PM

I agree. Brunell has had a really good career so far and he is a lot better than mediocre. I just wanted to prove that Gibbs has a history of getting the most out of the QB position. I should have worded that a bit differently, my mistake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: dude ()
Date: October 14, 2005 03:04PM

The Redskins are like the greatest team every in the history of forever, and stuff.

And Redskins fans are by far the most knowledgeable in all of sport.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 14, 2005 04:28PM

pretty much

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 16, 2005 01:38AM

expecting to see lavar have a big game tomorrow

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: smobien ()
Date: October 16, 2005 02:00AM

I'm pumped !!!

GO SKINS!









And no Mad Max, my name is not steve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 16, 2005 10:35AM

This is a big one. If the Skins can't get through the Chiefs, not sure they can make it to the playoffs. Last week's fiasco with the bad weather and crappy officiating should be seen as a fluke.

Now in KC with decent weather, the Skins should be able to have a more balanced approach. Gibbs record with the AFC this time out has not been good (not sure he has beaten any AFC teams since coming back). If he can do it in KC, then I think the Skins are for real.

What say you?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 16, 2005 11:59AM

Arrington isn't going to see the field, except maybe on special teams or 3rd and long situations. We'll see...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 16, 2005 12:22PM

kurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arrington isn't going to see the field, except
> maybe on special teams or 3rd and long situations.
> We'll see...


Arrington is a tool. It is time for Mr. Baby to go to Arizona or some other loser team that needs his talent and his tantrums. I used to be a big LeVar fan, but his constant drama and the T.O. type B.S. he pulled with his contract has put him in the doghouse, as far as I am concerned. The guy thought he was invaluable to the Skins defense. Apparently Greg Williams can take any rookie, burned out veteran or 2nd rate back and turn him into Pro Bowl material, so who needs Arrington?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 16, 2005 04:15PM

MrDoctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> expecting to see lavar have a big game tomorrow


okay guess not

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 16, 2005 04:24PM

argh!

thankfully we have san fran at home next week. guaranteed win.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 16, 2005 10:34PM

they played well considering it was in kc

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: October 17, 2005 02:21AM

anything short of total victory is total failure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: kurt ()
Date: October 18, 2005 12:12AM

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anything short of total victory is total failure.


what about marginal victory?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: October 18, 2005 08:03AM

marginal victory is still total victory.

victory is total victory.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Centreville of the World ()
Date: October 18, 2005 09:05AM

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marginal victory is still total victory.
>
> victory is total victory.


I agree. Close only counts in horse shoes and bukkake.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: asnpcwiz ()
Date: October 18, 2005 11:59AM

Centreville of the World Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree. Close only counts in horse shoes and
> bukkake.
>
>

Hahaha, that is hilarious...Close only counts in horse shoes and bukkake...I'm going to use that.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: darbrewe ()
Date: October 19, 2005 08:30PM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2015 04:54AM by darbrewe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Norv Turner ()
Date: October 20, 2005 11:25PM

darbrewe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arrington will be this yrs Keyshawn Johnson. They
> will send his sorry ass home.


LeVar is a big baby. At the same time, the Redskins don't have a pass rush. Arrington apparently wants to stay in DC. The Redskins will take a hit on the salary cap if they try to get rid of him. I say let the big baby play and try to earn back the respect of his peers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: October 21, 2005 09:28AM

Centreville of the World Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. Close only counts in horse shoes and
> bukkake.

you forgot nuclear weapons. so, close only counts with nukes and bukkake.


RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marginal victory is still total victory.
>
> victory is total victory.

no, victory is VICTOLY!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 21, 2005 01:38PM

they should answer back this sunday against the niners

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Put the Brew in Brunell ()
Date: October 21, 2005 03:45PM

MrDoctor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they should answer back this sunday against the
> niners


They SHOULD. No guarantee they WILL. Everyone is predicting blow-out. I bet it is another close game (3 pointer).


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegapingvag ()
Date: October 21, 2005 05:31PM

Redskins overrated. Defense overrated. Offense overrated.
Joe Gibbs overated.

Final score: 27-20, 49ers.



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 21, 2005 07:20PM

hugegapingvag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Redskins overrated. Defense overrated. Offense
> overrated.
> Joe Gibbs overated.
>
> Final score: 27-20, 49ers.
>
>
>


Redskins overrated - I'll give you that.

Defense over-rated - With Shawn Springs injured and Arrington on the bench, yeah. With all cylanders clicking, no.

Offense over-rated - Brunell threw for over 300 yards in KC. Three turnovers did them in, not the offense. I think the offense is decent, though the running game needs help. No one is accusing the Redskins of being the Colts, so I don't think the offense is over-rated.

Joe Gibbs over-rated - When YOU get in to two professional sports Halls of Fame, you come back and tell me about how over-rated Joe Gibbs is. The problems with the Redskins have more to do with Snyder and the Front Office than anything Gibbs is or isn't doing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: October 21, 2005 08:30PM

AAAAh gimme the Boston Braves football squadron any day, or the Redskins of Slingin' Sammy Baugh... this current bunch couldn't last two downs against those great teams of old.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: October 21, 2005 10:57PM

> Redskins overrated - I'll give you that.
>
> Defense over-rated - With Shawn Springs injured
> and Arrington on the bench, yeah. With all
> cylanders clicking, no.
>
> Offense over-rated - Brunell threw for over 300
> yards in KC. Three turnovers did them in, not the
> offense. I think the offense is decent, though the
> running game needs help. No one is accusing the
> Redskins of being the Colts, so I don't think the
> offense is over-rated.
>
> Joe Gibbs over-rated - When YOU get in to two
> professional sports Halls of Fame, you come back
> and tell me about how over-rated Joe Gibbs is. The
> problems with the Redskins have more to do with
> Snyder and the Front Office than anything Gibbs is
> or isn't doing.

"...and Arrington on the bench..." -- Who's keeping him on the bench? Joe Gibbs.
Even Joe Gibbs said that his past doesn't mean anything, so why are you bringing up Hall of fames, in terms of his coaching performance of late?

A lot of brunells yards come from Moss, getting mad Yards After Catch. Such as the screen pass that he took to the house. I can throw that screen pass while drunk.
That last play heave against the chiefs to Moss was LATE and UNDERTHROWN...
Moss was barely jogging when the ball came down. IF Brunell had thrown it 1/10 of a second earlier, and 2 or 3 yards farther, MOss could've dove in-stride for the TD catch.
I've counted 10+ Underthrown/late Long balls that Brunell has thrown to Moss since preseason.

Moss is our entire offense. If Moss gets injured (which is 75% certain), or if teams start double teaming him and respecting Moss more, then you'll see how overrated Brunell is.

Darnerian McCants, (released by skins, playing for eagles now) was asked how he feels the skins are doing and he said something like, "Coach Gibbs has finally realized that he needs to go deep more than once each half. I wish he realized it earlier while I was still there."

This is not the first time a player has criticised Gibbs coaching. Portis has, the Center has, tons of people have, and rightly so I believe.

THere's my evidence on Coach Gibbs suckiness.
Show me some evidence of Snyder's front office suckiness. What, you think his charging $ for parking is making the skins lose games? Please... It's all about the coaches and the players. Don't talk about Front office. idiot...

to summerize... skins overrated...

They are about to be 3-3.
Finish the season 8-8.
IF they get lucky and Moss doesn't get injured, then 9-7.




Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SuP ()
Date: October 21, 2005 11:47PM

OK Well if you havent noticed there getting better and better each week and if the other team double teams Moss then the skins got 3 other people to go to so I dont think that will be a problem, the problem has been the D not the O so you should get your shit right before you complain, you must be a cowboys fan

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SuP is an idiot ()
Date: October 22, 2005 01:58PM

THere getting better?
They're getting better?

you should you get your shit right, you must be an idiot.

In case you haven't noticed. Brunell sucks, he doesn't have field vision to find the other open receivers. Whenever he sees Moss covered, you know what he does? He throws that shit out of bounds. Brunell leads the league in throwing the ball away out of bounds. It's not because he's a "smart veteran quarterback". It's because he sucks at finding 2nd, 3rd option receivers.

Getting better each week?
They lost the last 2 games. You are an idiot. Next time, give some evidence to your idiotic thoughts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: October 22, 2005 03:52PM

yeah, seriously, I am a homer to the max but this team is not as good as a 3-2 record would make it seem, they barely won in the victories and laid down like sheep in the losses.

If by "getting better each week" you mean "getting closer and closer to canning Arrington", then I concur.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SuP Bitch ()
Date: October 22, 2005 08:39PM

Ok, I mean every week they make more plays and get more yards, there alot better than last year, and dont fuck with me bitch

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 23, 2005 03:59PM

SuP is an idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THere getting better?
> They're getting better?
>
> you should you get your shit right, you must be an
> idiot.
>
> In case you haven't noticed. Brunell sucks, he
> doesn't have field vision to find the other open
> receivers. Whenever he sees Moss covered, you know
> what he does? He throws that shit out of bounds.
> Brunell leads the league in throwing the ball away
> out of bounds. It's not because he's a "smart
> veteran quarterback". It's because he sucks at
> finding 2nd, 3rd option receivers.
>
> Getting better each week?
> They lost the last 2 games. You are an idiot. Next
> time, give some evidence to your idiotic thoughts.

Well, the Redskins just handed the 49ers their worst loss in 25 years. It was the Redskin's best performance in six years. You are wrong about Brunell. You are an ass.

Which NFC East team is going to keep the Redskins out of the playoffs? Philly - McNabb hurt, T.O. drama, no running game? NY Giants - Eli is good, but the team is old. Dallas? Bledsoe is a good addition, but the team remains incredibly uneven.

I'm the biggest Redskins cynic there is, but I think they can go 10-6 for a Wildcard birth.




Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUp ()
Date: October 26, 2005 07:13PM

Hey I was playn with ya man so chill out but you have to say even though it was SF , they should what they can do, cause nobody else scored that many points against SF and weve got the #2 Off, and #3 Def and I think the best receiver in tha NFL, I mean you cant mess with that, Peace

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: October 27, 2005 03:45PM

not too sure about best receiever in the nfl

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: WTF????? ()
Date: October 30, 2005 04:00PM

WTF happened????

What an embarrassment. A complete collapse. Oy! Brunell "Comeback Player of the Year?" Not anymore. What a mess! Feels like the Redskins are starting back at square one.

As for NY Giants - Eli Manning may end up being better than Peyton. As for Tiki Barber, the guy normally can't hold onto a ball. Where the f-k was the Redskins defense????

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: pgens ()
Date: October 30, 2005 05:06PM

The ghost of Well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Ted Schlamme ()
Date: October 30, 2005 06:38PM

I feel vindicated in my assumptions... this team can only beat the hacks of the NFL, they can't compete with the teams that will do something.

So I hate to see what happens to the skins if they take their relatively weak sched this year and do well... next year they'll get a harder sched and will be doomed. Joe Gibbs will be flogged, raped, drawn, and quartered... and with sexy results

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: October 30, 2005 08:17PM

Ted Schlamme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gibbs will be flogged, raped,
> drawn, and quartered... and with sexy results


Will Snyder be doing the raping? Not so sexy, then.

I don't know. The Redskins nearly beat the Broncos, who royally bitch-slapped the Eagles today. I chalk today up to a really bad day. I think the play calling had more to do with it than anything. For whatever reason, Greg Williams wasn't trying to stop the run early on. I guess they forgot the Giants had Tiki Barber. Maybe it was the spirit of Well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUP ()
Date: October 30, 2005 09:41PM

I agree, they stopped going to the run when it was still 6-0 , it was the worst game I have ever seen

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: darbrewe ()
Date: October 30, 2005 09:52PM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2015 02:17PM by darbrewe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Bballr ()
Date: October 30, 2005 11:08PM

It seems as though every week in the NFC East a couple teams are rising and a couple are falling hard.

Last week everyone was saying the Cowboys can't finish anyone. I know it was only the Cardinals, but they ran over them with a back-up rookie running back.

The Eagles who were the favorites in the whole constant seem to be the worst in the divison, Owens is the only thing on that team that is stable.

The Giants are on the rise lately, Eli...Eli...Eli, thats all I'm hearing about.

The Redskins have been passing well of late, until the Giants game, but the run game hasn't been that good. Portis' YPC and TDs haven't been good since his arrival in DC.

The Cowboys and Giants seem to be equal. They both are overall good teams, I would have to give the edge to the Cowboys because their defense is better.

The Redskins would fall in behind them and the Eagles would be bringing up the rear.

Anyways, thats my take on this divison.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Portis Wagner ()
Date: October 31, 2005 10:20AM


> The Cowboys and Giants seem to be equal. They
> both are overall good teams, I would have to give
> the edge to the Cowboys because their defense is
> better.
>
> The Redskins would fall in behind them and the
> Eagles would be bringing up the rear.
>
> Anyways, thats my take on this divison.


Portis has been a bust. He doesn't have a running style that complements Gibbs's offensive line. Gibbs needs someone like a Stephen Davis or Jerome Bettis in there. Portis tries to dance his way around the defense but never seems to find a seam, or at least can't bust the seam open when he does.

As for the rest of the team, I think Greg Williams failed to shift his defensive strategy mid-game. Maybe that is a problem with the way he sets up a defense. You have to give credit to Manning, though. He knew had to avoid the pass rush and dump off to a hot receiver. Every time Brunell did it, Patten or Portis would drop the damn ball. It didn't help that Cooley got busted up, either.

In the end, I think the Giants just out-gamed and out-played the Skins. I think the Skins probably believed their own press a little too much. I also think the total destruction of the 49ers the week before gave them a false sense of superiority. They probably would have done better against the Giants if they played them coming off of Denver or KC.

It is still early in the season. The Skins could still come back.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: October 31, 2005 04:32PM

haha I told you all! Mark BRUNELL is OVERRATED! Moss was the only reason Brunell was getting such crazy stats.

The Giants focused on Moss, and BRunell had no where to go, and the result was 36-0.

10-6? you all said?
hahah!!!

7-9 is more likely.
Brunell - Used to be overrated, now is back to being a known-bum
Gibbs - overrated
Defense - overrated

SKINS SUCK! STUPID BRUNELL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Joe Gibbs Enlarged Pancreas ()
Date: November 01, 2005 10:21AM

hugegaping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> haha I told you all! Mark BRUNELL is OVERRATED!
> Moss was the only reason Brunell was getting such
> crazy stats.
>
> The Giants focused on Moss, and BRunell had no
> where to go, and the result was 36-0.
>
> 10-6? you all said?
> hahah!!!
>
> 7-9 is more likely.
> Brunell - Used to be overrated, now is back to
> being a known-bum
> Gibbs - overrated
> Defense - overrated
>
> SKINS SUCK! STUPID BRUNELL.



What is it? 4 - 3?

Let's look at the schedule

Eagles - Win
Bucs - Loss
Raiders - Win
Chargers - Loss
Rams - Win
Cardinals - Win
Cowboys -Win
Giants - Loss
Eagles - Win

Result 10-6.

Eagles suck this year. Cowboys are uneven. Rams suck, Cards suck, Raiders suck. The Skins could also surprise on the Bucs or Chargers and could handle a loss to the Eagles or Cowboys. Seems doable to me. I certainly don't see 7-9 out of this. Maybe 9-7.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SRE ()
Date: November 01, 2005 11:10AM

A loss to the Bucs????

After their loss to SF?

I know that *anything* can happen on *any given Sunday*, but based upon the bucks' performance this past weekend, I think the Skins will be to favored team next week.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Joe Gibbs Enlarged Pancreas ()
Date: November 01, 2005 01:52PM

SRE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A loss to the Bucs????
>
> After their loss to SF?
>
> I know that *anything* can happen on *any given
> Sunday*, but based upon the bucks' performance
> this past weekend, I think the Skins will be to
> favored team next week.


I figured 50/50 on the Bucs. They are one of those teams that can surprise you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: November 01, 2005 07:03PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101932.html

What did I say??
"
Moss is our entire offense. If Moss gets injured (which is 75% certain), or if teams start double teaming him and respecting Moss more, then you'll see how overrated Brunell is. " -october 21

I told you all, once teams start focusing on Moss, double teaming him, keeping a deep safety zone on Moss's side, etc..., its game over. And now in that article Patton is agreeing with me. If Brunell was any good, he should have found his secondary receivers like patton, jacobs, and thrash. But BRUnell sucks and doesn't have any field vision.

Which meant even though they were basically double covering Moss, Brunell didn't know how to find Patton, jacobs or thrash.

Brunell sucks... You can count on every other team with better defense than 30th ranked Giants defense to start employing the same strategy against us to double cover moss, and take away Brunells only passing option.
First 6 games (with defenses using single-coverage on Moss): 4-2
Last 10 games (with Moss being zoned with double-coverage): 3-7
Final record: 7-9

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: November 01, 2005 07:08PM

hugegaping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> What did I say??
> "
> Moss is our entire offense. If Moss gets injured
> (which is 75% certain), or if teams start double
> teaming him and respecting Moss more, then you'll
> see how overrated Brunell is. " -october 21
>
> I told you all, once teams start focusing on Moss,
> double teaming him, keeping a deep safety zone on
> Moss's side, etc..., its game over. And now in
> that article Patton is agreeing with me. If
> Brunell was any good, he should have found his
> secondary receivers like patton, jacobs, and
> thrash. But BRUnell sucks and doesn't have any
> field vision.
>
> Which meant even though they were basically double
> covering Moss, Brunell didn't know how to find
> Patton, jacobs or thrash.
>
> Brunell sucks... You can count on every other team
> with better defense than 30th ranked Giants
> defense to start employing the same strategy
> against us to double cover moss, and take away
> Brunells only passing option.
> First 6 games (with defenses using single-coverage
> on Moss): 4-2
> Last 10 games (with Moss being zoned with
> double-coverage): 3-7
> Final record: 7-9
>

Brunell threw to Patten. He didn't catch it. Cooley catches most of Brunell's passes, as does Sellen. The problem is Patten and Portis aren't getting it done.



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: November 01, 2005 07:46PM

Better Red than Deadskin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brunell threw to Patten. He didn't catch it.
> Cooley catches most of Brunell's passes, as does
> Sellen. The problem is Patten and Portis aren't
> getting it done.
>
>


yeah, 1 single pass thrown to Patten, if he caught it, would've won the game???

Your parents must've smoked crack during your conception and your birth.

Patten as the number 2 WR should be getting at least 5,6,7 throws going to him per game.

You're an idiot.
The offensive line was able to get no running lanes for Portis. Is portis supposed to run through 9 guys?

It all starts with Brunell spreading the ball around, keeping the defense on it's heels. Since brunell can't do that, the entire defense can focus on the run, and leave 2 guys to zone cover Moss deep.

You're an idiot, Better red.



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Sup ()
Date: November 01, 2005 10:55PM

Look hugegaping , you need to stop calln people names , you really sound like the " idiot " here , this is a forum to talk about the Skins and share OPINIONS about the games , not calln people out , you just need to chill with that and Im sure tomorrow I will go on here and you will have called me some fuckn name , Peace

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Bballr ()
Date: November 01, 2005 11:32PM

Joe Gibbs Enlarged Pancreas wrote...
>
>
>
> What is it? 4 - 3?
>
> Let's look at the schedule
>
> Eagles - Win
> Bucs - Loss
> Raiders - Win
> Chargers - Loss
> Rams - Win
> Cardinals - Win
> Cowboys -Win
> Giants - Loss
> Eagles - Win
>
> Result 10-6.
>
> Eagles suck this year. Cowboys are uneven. Rams
> suck, Cards suck, Raiders suck. The Skins could
> also surprise on the Bucs or Chargers and could
> handle a loss to the Eagles or Cowboys. Seems
> doable to me. I certainly don't see 7-9 out of
> this. Maybe 9-7.


They will lose to the Cowboys, remember the Cowboys were dominating the Skins for 55+ minutes. The Eagles will win at least 1, c'mon McNabb always has a huge game against the Skins. The Skins will most likely finish 3rd in the divison, behind the Cowboys and Giants. The Cowboys uneven???
Anyways...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: November 02, 2005 12:53AM

hahaha, I need to stop calling people names??
haha, ok, I'll do that, as soon as people stop making illogical, unfounded, misguided, and pathetic arguments.

Present some good opinions with good evidence to back it up, and I won't call you an idiot.

If you come here talking like an idiot, than I will point that out. It's called freedom of speech.

But I'm a reasonable guy who can compromise... so I'll tell you what Sup, go tell your mom about me, and have her meet me in person to ask me to stop calling you names.

Your mom and I can have a nice long talk about it. She'll leave very satisfied.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUP ()
Date: November 02, 2005 10:07AM

Im sure she would and how old are you?
You didnt call me an idiot but you just need to chill, I dont see your opinions backed up with facts and all you do is bash the skins, nobody cares if you like them or not but why dont you stop tryn to fight someone and shut the fuck up

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: November 02, 2005 08:12PM

hugegaping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hahaha, I need to stop calling people names??
> haha, ok, I'll do that, as soon as people stop
> making illogical, unfounded, misguided, and
> pathetic arguments.
>
> Present some good opinions with good evidence to
> back it up, and I won't call you an idiot.
>
> If you come here talking like an idiot, than I
> will point that out. It's called freedom of
> speech.
>
> But I'm a reasonable guy who can compromise... so
> I'll tell you what Sup, go tell your mom about me,
> and have her meet me in person to ask me to stop
> calling you names.
>
> Your mom and I can have a nice long talk about it.
> She'll leave very satisfied.


Hey Moron. What's unfounded about Brunell completing an equal number of passes to Moss, Cooley and Patten (8 each) for 300 yards in the rain in Denver? There's your fucking facts. The problem is Patten is just as unreliable as Rod Gardner was and Brunell needs another decent WR out there. Now shut the fuck up. Talk about someone who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUp ()
Date: November 02, 2005 10:51PM

Thank you Better Red than Deadskin, at least someone on here other than me is gettn tired of this dude

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: gapingvag ()
Date: November 05, 2005 03:09AM

Why don't you two idiots finish your flirting, and get a hotel room together for your man-man love tryst.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: November 05, 2005 12:06PM

ummmm manwich


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: November 05, 2005 01:56PM

gapingvag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you two idiots finish your flirting, and
> get a hotel room together for your man-man love
> tryst.
>
>


Why don't you shut up and go back to licking your own balls.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUp ()
Date: November 05, 2005 02:54PM

Ha,ha,ha,ha , ya know this is gettn funny, watchn you try to make fun of someone

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Better Red than Deadskin ()
Date: November 05, 2005 05:06PM

SUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha,ha,ha,ha , ya know this is gettn funny, watchn
> you try to make fun of someone


You must not have much of a life if this passes for entertainment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: smobien ()
Date: November 06, 2005 03:59AM

No T.O.

Hurt McNabb.


Things are looking good.

I hope we can bounce back from that shutout with some intensity!


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: SUp ()
Date: November 06, 2005 01:40PM

Did you all here that T.O and McNabb got into a fight in the locker room and that was what really made them suspened him

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: MrDoctor ()
Date: November 06, 2005 02:09PM

T.O got in a fight with some manager after he claimed T>O was faking injuies. t.o threw the first punch

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Sup ()
Date: November 07, 2005 11:58AM

I dont know where you got that info but I heard it was Douglas and them the team
But I think after watching the Giants and Eagles game, even though he played better last night, Walt Harris needs to be benched and let Rodgers start, he just looks alot better and he can tackle like Taylor

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: Shut your Huge Gaping ()
Date: November 07, 2005 12:22PM

hugegaping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> to summerize... skins overrated...
>



Wrong bitch. The Skins are for real. For all you fucks out there saying all a team has to do is double-team Moss and Brunell has no options, yesterday's game was your f-ing answer.

Yes, David Patten sucks, but that's not Brunell's fault. Cooley, Portis and Sellers more than made up the difference. Brunell kicked ass! The defense was awesome! As for Philly, McNabb hurt, Westbrook ineffective, but screw it, a win is a win!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: redskins
Posted by: hugegaping ()
Date: November 07, 2005 01:06PM

Shut your Huge Gaping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hugegaping Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> > to summerize... skins overrated...
> >
>
>
>
> Wrong bitch. The Skins are for real. For all you
> fucks out there saying all a team has to do is
> double-team Moss and Brunell has no options,
> yesterday's game was your f-ing answer.
>
> Yes, David Patten sucks, but that's not Brunell's
> fault. Cooley, Portis and Sellers more than made
> up the difference. Brunell kicked ass! The defense
> was awesome! As for Philly, McNabb hurt, Westbrook
> ineffective, but screw it, a win is a win!


You Chelsea fckr! I'll tell you one thing. The only reason we won that game was because of Dockery hauling ass to recover a fumble. Mcnabb tore our defense up. Go look at his stats. AND he was playing hurt. Imagine if he was healthy and if TO wasn't suspended. Guys like Reggie Brown taking it coast to coast for a TD? Our defense is fish poop. We were very lucky Mcnabb choked on that last throw for an interception. Every "good" game for Brunell is followed by a "piss-shit concoction" game. Let's see Brunell string together at least 2 good games back to back.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **    **  **      **   *******   ********  
 ***   **  ***   **  **  **  **  **     **  **     ** 
 ****  **  ****  **  **  **  **  **     **  **     ** 
 ** ** **  ** ** **  **  **  **   ********  ********  
 **  ****  **  ****  **  **  **         **  **        
 **   ***  **   ***  **  **  **  **     **  **        
 **    **  **    **   ***  ***    *******   **        
This forum powered by Phorum.