Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Injuries/Campbell Redux

Santana was not on the field at all; everyone else was but we have no idea how much work they took. Won't know till Coach Joe talks to us.
As for JC, those wondering about his ability to enter in the 4th of a blowout - BOOYAKAHOT - you nailed it. That was kind of the point of posting that rule.
He could have played in Indy late with no real implications on the roster.
While he is inactive as the third QB, that distinction does not prevent him playing, albeit with the stipulations noted in the previous post.

By Jason La Canfora  |  November 1, 2006; 3:36 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Third QB Dissertation
Next: New Orleans Update

Comments

Blogalious info..Gracias Wow wo we wa

Posted by: OC Paul | November 1, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

No Santana = No Chance. Now Brunell can comfortably drop back and immediately look to dump the ball off or throw it right out of bounds!

Posted by: Groin Strain | November 1, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"No Santana = No Chance"

I said the same thing to a buddy. His reponse...

"maybe that will make Mark open his field of vision and look for other options"

One can hope.

Posted by: Skinz | November 1, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Lloyd will catch more than two passes in this game. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Mike Sellers is the leading receiver.

John from Herndon's heart is going to be in bad shape after this one.

Posted by: P Diddy | November 1, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Nah, Betts will be the leading receiver.

Posted by: Rich from salisbury | November 1, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

That is (obviously) not good news re:Santana. I'd rather rest him/Portis, and give time to Lloyd/ARE/Patten/Thrash, and Betts/Duckett. We've got good depth at WR, and RB, lets actually put it to use.

Posted by: Greg(boston) | November 1, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Even if JC couldn't have played against Indy, why not remove Brunell if only to prevent injury? I mean NBA coaches routinely yank their starters in the 4th quarters of blowout losses. Would it have killed Joe Gibbs to give Todd Collins a couple of snaps to end that game?

Posted by: Bart | November 1, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Jason,

Now, I'm going to cry...no Santana? Say it ain't so! Any chance we have involves our little "miracle Santana Man".....

Guess Brunell will be throwing to Cooley....

Posted by: Lisa | November 1, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm hoping "Santana was not on the field at all" means he was in the training room getting worked on.

I don't think being "questionable" on Wednesday is a reason to panic just yet.

Posted by: Ali Haji Shank | November 1, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Did JC get any reps witht he first team or did Brunell get them all.

Posted by: Doug | November 1, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I also noticed Campbell's wrist taped up at practice- could be from charting all those plays on the clipboard.

I just hope they play their guts out this sunday.

Posted by: Richard Cranium | November 1, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Rich from Salisbury,

Betts is a good call. Especially with C port still banged up. Can you say RB circle x's 20? Total yards offense sans Santa = 234. Now I have to try and ignore ALL IN CAPS shennanigans for 5 days next week. And all this after a bye week....what are they going to look like week 12? Like Smack after hanging out in the mens room of the Golden Corral with Leon Lett and Terlysa Glenn.

Thanks for the word JLC.

Posted by: Pub Golf | November 1, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Even if JC couldn't have played against Indy, why not remove Brunell if only to prevent injury?"

Maybe even Gibbs was looking for that injury. It would make his decision a lot easier.

Here's to Lloyd and ARE showing up to play on Sunday.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | November 1, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Moss and Patten sat out practice, everyone else participated. Patten has a high hamstring issue, and Moss the hamstring, as well.
Could be a whole lotta work for Lloyd and ARE Sunday.

Posted by: Jason La Canfora | November 1, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Sunday Receiving:

Betts 6-22
Cooley 5-31
Sellers 7-17
ARE 3-29
Lloyd 1-6
Patten 2-17

Posted by: Groin Strain | November 1, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Could be a whole lotta work for Lloyd and ARE Sunday."

We are going to miss you next week JM....

Posted by: Skinz | November 1, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

To recap, Brunell 24-32, 122 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT.

Coach: "Well, Mark competed out there. He fought his guts out. We're all in this together. This is a great bunch of guys."

Posted by: Groin Strain | November 1, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

How did Patten get a hamstring injury?! Certainly not from playing football. Was this trick-or-treat related? Did he trip over a bugga bugga and strain his hammy?

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 1, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"These guys fought there guts out out there tonight. I have to tell you. No one wants the other team to score more points than you have offensive yards. But since it happened, I wouldn't want it to happen with another group of players."

Posted by: Coach Gibbs | November 1, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"How did Patten get a hamstring injury?!"

Locker room shenanigans, involving a carefully rolled towel and someone's bare bottom.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | November 1, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse


The sidelines are his home
From his clipboard, he'd not roam.
JC is not far
As the first on IR
For carpal tunnel syndrome.

Posted by: HaikuMan/LimerickMan | November 1, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Uh oh, Patten sat out. We're done for.

Posted by: Ali Haji Shank | November 1, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Did Moss and Patten sit their guts out then?

Posted by: Ali Haji Shank | November 1, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Locker room shenanigans, involving a carefully rolled towel and someone's bare bottom.

I'll bet that was Brunell missing with a receiver, yet agian.

Posted by: FlimFlam | November 1, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys, listen. You could be down here where I am in the land of sun & tropical storms every two minutes. I'm surrounded by the Bucs (Gradkowski, Rattay anyone?) & THE bottom of the barrel Dolphins.

I'll give you a scoop. The 'Skins will open a can of whoop on the 'boys. But then it'll be back to business as usual. So as soon as my old team is REALLY out of contention Brunell sits and the Campbell era begins.

JG really likes the kid but he doesn't want him battered because of the lousy protection.
BKilmer

Posted by: BKilmer | November 1, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Coach Joe, bench Mark; you must
In Campbell your fans trust
The 'boys play their rooks
(Hey Vinnie AC and Archibingus are crooks)
A Win and the Playoffs Fans lust


Posted by: bringbacktheposse89854726 | November 1, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Firstly:
Great, smart, thorough, well-written article on the Redskins this past weekend (sorry I didn't post some kudos before). Though I will say it almost brought be back to the lows I felt after the OBC left town and I was fearful no decent coach in his right mind would ever coach this team under The Danny's stewardship.
Secondly:
I am no Brunell apologist. I don't particularly care for the cut of his jib, the rumors that he said the Jaguars won certain games because they had more Christians on their team, nor the seemingly hundreds of dump-offs to LaBetts in the flat. I moaned when I saw the Redskins were interested in him, I booed him in 2004, and I called for his head for 3 1/2 quarters in Dallas last year. THAT BEING SAID...
Look at this.

Brunell is ranked 9th in the NFL in quarterback rating, and last year should have been the 3rd Pro Bowl quarterback in the NFC. He is a smart, capable dude, though he has never been nor will he ever be this town's quarterback.

Would I prefer Tom Brady be quarterbacking the Redskins? Yes. However, I feel like the people that are calling for Jason Campbell can't see the forest for the trees. We've got one thing that is working fairly well (the passing game) and a myriad of things that are not working at all. So the rationale to change the passer for the sake of change makes little to no sense to me. Jason Campbell had one good year at Auburn, did not differentiate himself in the preseason, and his own players say it would be unfair to play him at this point. I'll go out on a limb and say Campbell will never be any good, and I'd certainly bet he'd be no better than Brunell at this point.

If I weren't a Redskins fan, I'd like to see the reaction when all the JC fans get what they've been asking for.

Posted by: DCLance | November 1, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Great 9th rated passer.

Those stats are inflated. Thats like Cheering for Frank Gore cuz of all his rushing yards.

The Skins are winning, aren't scoring, and can't stop anybody. Our QB has done nothing to change this.

We don't expect JC to be the savior this season, but why not see if he's worth it sooner than later. In this NFL, recent years have shown, QBs need to take their lumps (Unless the rest of their teams are fairly flawless - Steelers, later extent Chargers). Why not let him take his lumps now.

If you read this blog, you'd know this.

Not a sermon, just a thought.

Posted by: bbtp89854726 | November 1, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"aren't winning" *

*I apologize for the egregious error.

Posted by: bbtp89854726 | November 1, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

DCLance eloquently points out the reason why the QB rating stat is one of the most useless in sports.

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"However, I feel like the people that are calling for Jason Campbell can't see the forest for the trees."

Whether Brunell is the forest or the trees, I'm not sure. But it's safe to say that forest won't be standing much longer. The reason I support JC is because I think it's time to start watering the sapling to see if it grows. It may, it may not, but at least I can see if I need to get another sapling to start a new forest.

Of course, Vinnybingus is piloting a plane just overhead full of Agent Orange that will assure my sapling will suffer some unspeakable torture along the way. But at least it's worth a chance.

Where's Barno been lately? I'm struggling for material without a Big Media sighting....

Posted by: Ali Haji Shank | November 1, 2006 4:57 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS TO ALL WHO GET SOME KIND OF SATISFACTION OUT OF BUSTING PERSONALY ON PLAYERS.THERE IS NOTHING LOWER THEN SPITTING ON ANOTHER PLAYER AND THEN LIEING TO HIS COACH WHO DEFENDED HIM LIKE AN IDIOT.TAYLOR IS A SISSY DIRTY PLAYER AND HE FITS WELL WITH ALL THE SISSY COACHES(FIGHT YOUR GUTS OUT)SISSY PLAYERS (WHERES POOPIS PORTIS DRAG QUEEN NO COSTUMES ONLY WHEN THEY WIN)JM220 WHY YOU DONT CALL OUT POOPIS PORTIS FOR ONLY COMING WHEN THEY WIN? HYPOCRIT!!!hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 1, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse


Just threw up in mouth!
"Start watering the sapling"
Offical ban sought!

Posted by: HaikuMan | November 1, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh...Boofer's Mommy let him play on the computer today. Hi little boofer...such a cute little boofy boofy boof

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Bunch of guys in green jumpsuits planting trees outside my office today. Had to go with what was available.

Don't worry, Vinny.com has been deadly accurate with the Agent Orange these past few years. I'm sure he won't miss.

Posted by: Ali Haji Shank | November 1, 2006 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Boofer, I guess you must not have been a cowboys fan, and perhaps you don't remember when TO played for the San Francisco 49ers and took a dump on that midfield dallas star. Then you go and sign the same guy and pay him more than anybody else on the team. You and the cowgirls lack the kind of pride that make this Redskins organization great. We will never sacrafice our pride. Nobody who disrespects this Redskins team, field, coaches, and fans will ever put on a Redskins jersey. Too bad you can't say that about the cowgirls, who go out there on their hands and knees and beg the guy who once disrespected their entire organization to be there franchise player. That's sad, and you should be ASHAMED BOOFER.

Posted by: Max | November 1, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Did someone just say that the passing game is working fairly well? Or did I just imagine that?

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 1, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

It's the cowgirls that I truly do hate
So much I'm willing to mandate
That if the Campbell gets in
And our Skinnies do win
That Monday we all show up late

Posted by: bbtp89854726 | November 1, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

So does that apply to blowout as in 34-14 cowboys ahead, or 34-14 skins ahead (I wish) ;-)

Posted by: Daddy-O | November 1, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow. While I read the blog entries religiously (since it was Training Camp Insider), I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of comments posted on each one. I'll read a little Megskin, a little Diddy, a little HaikuMan now and again, but for the most part, I stick to the entries. No offense, I just don't have time to read them all.

While quarterback rating is not the best barometer for quality quarterback play, are touchdowns and interceptions acceptable? Last year Brunell had 23 touchdowns (one less than Hasslebeck) and 10 interceptions (one more than Hasslebeck). Couple those stats with 3000+ yards, and it would be pretty hard to argue Brunell had a bad year last year. This year, admittedly those numbers are not as good (7 touchdowns and 3 interceptions), but they still aren't HORRIBLE.
Again, I don't care for Brunell, and I wish they had never traded for him. I just feel like the players would let it be known if they were not happy or comfortable with Brunell or would prefer Campbell over him, and so far that does not seem to be the case. I'd trust their opinion over the average Redskins fan.

If there is going to be a change at quarterback, let's start with the history buff, and go from there. A change to protecting for a right-handed quarterback may help the offensive line as well.

Posted by: DCLance | November 1, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

DCLane-

Re: the QB rating.

A few points of contention. One is that it is inflated. 58% of the Washington Redskin's passing yards are YACs, more than any other team in the league. As the QB Rating formula makes no distinction between yards acquired after a catch or while the ball is in the air, I think QBs who benefit from having great YAC receivers have higher QB ratings than their talent would indicate.

Two, the mean QB Rating (which is what Brunell is 9th at) does not accurately portray his performance this season because of the large derivations in his QB Ratings. His average is 90.4, yet he hasn't actually had a 90-100 or 80-90 QB rating. In three games he had over a 105 QB rating, and in 4 games he had below a 77 QB rating. The mean is a good 16 points off his closest ACTUAL performance.

The median performance is 76.9, and this is considerably closer than the mean to an actual performance: merely 7-8 points away as opposed to 16. I think it more adequately measures the play of Mark Brunell than the mean does especially when considering the following. Of the three games where Mark Brunell had over 100 ratings, there were individual reasons why these were inflated. Houston is a horrible defense. Against Jacksonville Brunell benefitted from Superman Santana Moss. And against Indy Brunell benefitted from a prevent defense late in the game that actually encourages receptions (as that burns time).

Finally the QB rating is weighted towards completion percentage, and given the type of throws that Brunell is making he benefits more from this than other QBs. Of the 8 QBs rated higher than Brunell, 7 of them throw down the field more often than Mark Brunell -- Brunell throws behind the line of scrimmage or within 10 yards of it 72% of the time, the 7 other QBs in question range from 60-70%, most of them in the 60s. David Carr is the only exception, and he's good enough to get benched.

Now consider Brunell's completion percentage, which is also inflated. Given that he makes a larger percentage of his throws to receivers on short routes (and these are easier passes), this number is higher than it should. This is best illustrated when we examine the DRASTIC drop off in completion percentage of passes thrown by Mark Brunell once they pass 10 yards down the field:

Pass Thrown Behind Line of Scrimmage 41 of 54 75.9%
Pass Thrown 1-10 yds 71 of 96 74.0%

Now watch:
Pass Thrown 11-20 yds 10 of 31 32.3%
Pass Thrown 21-30 yds 8 of 18 44.4%
Pass Thrown 31-40 yds 1 of 6 16.7%

It's not uncommon for completion percentage to drop off, but this is far more drastic than most other Qbs and suggests that Brunell lacks the arm strength to throw it accurately at distances.

Remember too that the QB formula does not account for bad decision making, which for many Redskins fans has been the most agonizing failure of Mark Brunell. His cowardly check-downs on 3rd and long to running backs and receivers on or near the line of scrimmage kill drives just as any costly interception would. It happened three times while playing from behind against Indy.

Furthermore consider his interceptions. Of the 3, one came against the Cowboys where he turned our only possible touchdown drive into a Roy Williams interception on the 1 yard line. Another was against Tennessee to seal the game. These were not good decisions.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 1, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I see your logic DCLance, but my point is that Brunell's history has been written. He's not going to get better, and is showing signs of getting worse (i.e., he has not shown the ability to scramble for first downs this year like he did last year). He is one of the shortest QBs in the league 6'0, so he has a tough time seeing over our 6'6 linemen and doesn't have the speed to get out of the pocket and make plays anymore. He is resigned to being a pocket passer, which was never his strong suit. QB ratings don't reflect these intangibles. Campbell on the other hand is tall, quick, athletic and energetic and his NFL story hasn't been written yet. And how inflated do you think Brunell's QB rating is? Take away all the completions given to him by opposing defenses on 3rd and long when he threw the ball short of the 1st down marker, and take away all his 4th quarter stat padding at the end of games when defenses are playing soft and you have yourself a less than average QB. Megskin could back me up with stats on that. And don't knock Campbell until he plays some NFL games, that's just not fair, and I think you know that DCLance.

Posted by: Max | November 1, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Snyder doesn't have a good track record with trees.

Posted by: skinswest | November 1, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"I just feel like the players would let it be known if they were not happy or comfortable with Brunell or would prefer Campbell over him, and so far that does not seem to be the case." -DCLance

No, sorry. As we hear constantly, the 'Skins are full of "character" guys. They'd never publicly say they want one person playing instead of another. (unlike that punk TO in dallas)

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Remember also that the Redskins have the 21st rated passing offense in the league. This is not "good" by any means.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 1, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Did Moss and Patten sit their guts out then?

AHS, hilarious.

Posted by: Lavar Walt Clark | November 1, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

MAX YOUR AN IDIOT(SORRY) BUT IF DANNY BOY AND(HAS BEEN) GIBBY COULD OF GOT OWENS THEY WOULD HAVE SOLD THEYRE SOULS.ALL THE EX COWBOYS WHO DANNYBOY SIGNED (LIST TO LONG)YOUR COMMENT IS RETARDED AND AS LONG AS HE SCORES FOR US NOT AGAINST US IM COOL WITH IT.hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 1, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

DCLane-

"Last year Brunell had 23 touchdowns (one less than Hasslebeck) and 10 interceptions (one more than Hasslebeck). Couple those stats with 3000+ yards, and it would be pretty hard to argue Brunell had a bad year last year. This year, admittedly those numbers are not as good (7 touchdowns and 3 interceptions), but they still aren't HORRIBLE."

So you're using one misleading metric for another? 23 TDs on 10 picks is *great* but if it isn't resulting in yards and scores it isn't worthwhile. The Redskins were the 21st ranked Passing Offense in the league in 2005, which isn't good at all.

From last year here are some telling stats: YPA 6.72 (18th). Completion % 57.7 (25th).

Remember to view statistics holistically. With the defense we had last year, Mark Brunell was a great qb to have around. He minimizes mistakes which plays to our strengths. With this defense he's an utter disaster (as most QBs would be).

He was ok when he was 36. He's awful at 37 and he won't get any better. Give the kid a chance.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 1, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

No, Skin Patrol, that's a lot more than 2 cents. That's the whole dollar right there. There is no recovering from the knowledge hammer that you just dropped.

Dallas sucks. Brunell will put together one more good game before riding off into the sunset and it will come at the expense of the sorry Cowboys. Roy Williams will be exposed like Cindy outside the cafeteria of the Yonagamchi media village.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 1, 2006 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Brunell turned 36 this September

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

But otherwise Skin Patrol's assessment is spot on

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

BOOFER, get your facts straight, the 'skins certainly could have grabbed owens if they wanted to, but Gibbs said from the start that he wasn't a player they were even considering bringing here. We bring in character guys BOOFER, you of all people should know that - Go back to Michael Irvin tell him you've been a bad little cowgirl fan and beg him for some more crack.

Posted by: Max | November 1, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

1) I've never been to the Olympics.
2) I don't go near cafeterias.

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 1, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

snicker

Yes, the Redskin front office has such moral clarity that they would never sign someone to a huge dollar, multi-year deal to someone nicknamed "Past His Prime Time".

Posted by: Harvey Martin's Funeral Wreath | November 1, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

HOW HAS THE 2 60 MILL WR WORKED OUT(RANDLE EL & LOYD)BOTH SUCK! WILL TAKE OWENS ANYTIME OVER THOSE SUCKY WRS.AND SO WOULD YOU BOZO SKINY FANS.YOUR JEALOUSY OF THE BOYS IS SO OBVIOUS AND MAKES ME FEEL GOOD.ON THAT NOTE ILL SAY GOOD LUCK.ENJOY THE GAME AND GET PLENTY OF BOOHOO BOXES BEFORE THEY SELL OUT!!!hehehe PEACE OUT!

Posted by: BOOFER | November 1, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

boofer go bye bye. bye bye boofer. don't forget to brush your teeth and kiss mommy good night

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Another way of making DCLance's point without even using QB statistics:

Replacing Brunell with Campbell won't do anything to improve the defense. The offense isn't anything to write home about, but think about what the record would be with a defense that kept teams below, say 21 points a game (sort of an "eyeball average" for NFL games).

Sure, it's a team and offense gives the D time to rest, but still.

Posted by: NewGuy | November 1, 2006 5:49 PM | Report abuse

NewGuy-

"Replacing Brunell with Campbell won't do anything to improve the defense. The offense isn't anything to write home about, but think about what the record would be with a defense that kept teams below, say 21 points a game (sort of an "eyeball average" for NFL games)."

It's easy to bash the defense, because they're so ineffectual this year, but no point glossing over our deficiencies on offense to do so.

The fact is a 21 point defense is just 4 points away from where the Redskins are now. Holding opposing offenses to 21 points or under would change the outcome of *literally* one game (against Tennessee) making us a 3-4 team. We scored late against Indy on a garbage touchdown and I don't think we were legitimately in that game without it. They'd have won whether they scored 21 points or 2,000.

We held Minnesota and the Giants to under 20 points yet couldn't find the offense to win either of those games. Even if we somehow held the Giants and Cowboys to 6 points a piece, we'd still lose with our offense given that it scored 3 points in each contest.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 1, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

If nothing else can't wait to see alligator arms-Owens and she-Glenn curl up in the fetal position when "sissy" Sean Taylor jacks them up. He'll send them crying to their mommas. Again.

Posted by: skinswest | November 1, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Thanks NewGuy! Again, it hardens my heart to stand up at all for Brunell when I wish he never had taken a snap for the Redskins, but I suppose NewGuy makes my point more succinctly (or at the very least with less rabble-rousing).

There is a LOT to be fixed in Ashburn aside from the quarterbacking.

Posted by: DCLance | November 1, 2006 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else think the best QB the 'Skins have might be Randle El?

Posted by: al | November 1, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"There is a LOT to be fixed in Ashburn aside from the quarterbacking." -DCLance

DING. We have a winner!!

Posted by: 48-3 | November 1, 2006 6:10 PM | Report abuse

WE WANT DALLAS!!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I emerge from the Kool-Aid high for a moment.

We're 2-5 and I know our Nov/Dec records are solid over time especially under JG BUT our schedule is completely against us. TB is the only team we play that is as out of it as we are. Everyone else is in the mix and is probably looking at the game with us as a must win/can win.

With that said why not play JC - is he so unprepared that we have NO chance of winning with him? We shouldn't look at his taking the helm as a science experiment that will inevitably go wrong - we don't know that - although admittedly our QB experiments of the last 10 years have been throw up on your shoes while you bash your head into a wall moments.
Let's play JC and see if he can win us games. Right now MB isn't doing it and hasn't all season except for Houston.

Yeah we have a lousy D but our O isn't giving them anything to hang their hats or even giving them enough breathing time on the sidelines.

Okay now back to Dallas Week - Cowpaddies suck and we're going to fertilize FedEx field with the poop that comes out from the smack down.

Posted by: sfskin | November 1, 2006 6:18 PM | Report abuse


No cafs for Cindy?
Yet blog is like buffet line
Pick and choose your posts.

Posted by: HaikuMan | November 1, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

You cannot streak through this blog, although some people try.

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 1, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

More bad news - as Jason reported earlier.....I was just watching Comcast Sports Nite and it was stated that Santana is FAR from playing anytime SOON. We are sooo sunk.

Posted by: Lisa | November 1, 2006 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Damn Gov and JLC. You guys know how to mess up a good workout at the gym. Where do I start.

Santana was not on the field at all. Thanks alot for that information JLC. I will miss you guys next week.

Gov. Brother I am single not married. My comments about Cindy, Megskins, and Lisa is just the way I clown around. There is no problem attracting women on this side son.

Boofer you remind me off a paper cut. I know it going to hurt to touch it but I do it anyway.(yeah I know something is wrong with me lol) There is really no reason to respond to you but I. You always want to talk about facts. You stated that we are "YOUR JEALOUSY OF THE BOYS IS SO OBVIOUS AND MAKES ME FEEL GOOD". The fact is you and smack are jealous of Skins fans and wish you were us. That would explain why you are on our blog and not a Cowgirl blog.

Posted by: jm220 | November 1, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

One more downer - sorry :-(

On the Comcast show, Brunell was asked about the absence of Santana on Sunday....he did not want to talk about it...he said "I don't even want to think about life without Santana."

Posted by: Lisa | November 1, 2006 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"I don't even want to think about life without Santana."

Cindy should I start taking up drinking now? Man this really going down hill fast.

Posted by: jm220 | November 1, 2006 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"I don't even want to think about life without Santana."

guys, read between the lines.

no moss, no brunell. :)
WOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 7:38 PM | Report abuse

JM220, BOY FANS COME TO THIS BLOG TO RUB IT IN JUST LIKE YOU GUYS DID LAST YR.YOU SISSY FANS CAN DISH IT OUT BUT YOU SURE AS HELL CANT TAKE IT!!!YOU LIKE TO THINK THAT WHEN BOYS LOSE TO OTHER TEAMS YOU CAN SAY SOMTHING,YOUR A BOZO SKINY FAN NOT JAGS,EAGLES OR GIANTS,SO SAYING BOOFER DIDNT COME AROUND DURING LOSSES SAYS YOUR DESPERATE! YOUR TEAM SUCKS STICK TO YOUR TEAM DONT BE A CROSS DRESSER,IF YOU ARE THEN RUN ALONG PUT YOUR DRESS ON AND DO A CHEER FOR US!!HEAD TO HEAD WE OWN YOU BI**HS.NOW GO GET ME A DRINK!!!CAPS IS FOR COWBOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: REDSKINS SUCK | November 1, 2006 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Once again Boofer. Why would any real Skins fans visit Cowgirl blog? Even went we laid the smack down last year I didn't visit a Cowgirl site and never will!! What's up with the cross dress comments every post? If that's what you into then keep it to yourself don't try to push it someone else. You was called out because just like now you are talking smack. More power to you. But if you going to talk smack when you team win. Then be a man and show up when they lose. Oh I forgot you like to cross dress. So you don't think of yourself as a man.

Posted by: jm220 | November 1, 2006 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Once again Boofer. Why would any real Skins fans visit Cowgirl blog? Even went we laid the smack down last year I didn't visit a Cowgirl site and never will!! What's up with the cross dress comments every post? If that's what you into then keep it to yourself don't try to push it someone else. You was called out because just like now you are talking smack. More power to you. But if you going to talk smack when you team win. Then be a man and show up when they lose. Oh I forgot you like to cross dress. So you don't think of yourself as a man.

Posted by: jm220 | November 1, 2006 7:47 PM | Report abuse

boof, sorry i can't read all caps. i guess if i had an evil twin you might be it.

but what's going on with you and your buddy smack?

that boy needs help. i thought he worked at a dryclean depot but then he pretended to have a butler?? what kinda fans do the (cow)girls have? he seems like some skins fan really F-ed him up as a kid. and he just talks. he doesn't listen. like my 2 year old when throwing a tantrum. gajeebus!


i mean you're okay and all eventhough i've never read a whole comment by you.

smack, baby if you ever want to talk you know where to find me. game time right here. ohh wait u gonna be at the game right? at club level? yeah...too bad. i need someone like either sitting right by me or on this blog. gawd! i can't wait! mmm mmm mmm. be here smacky! skins will even spot you 7 points! just so you can show up here.

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 7:55 PM | Report abuse

...i need someone like YOU...

sorry...i get excited about the possibility of having the opportunity to "chat" with someone like you. REAL TIME! YUMMMMMMMMM!!! i'm droooooooooooolin over here! it's been way way too long.

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 7:58 PM | Report abuse

JM220, NONE OF OUR LOSSES CAME AGAINST YOUR SORRY TEAM SO WHAT COULD A SORE LOSER FAN LIKE YOU HAVE SAID? BEEN HERE EVERY WEEK YOUR SORRY TEAM HAS LOST MORE,YOU SON ARE BEETING A DEAD HORSE.BOY FANS OWN YOUR ASS!! BEND OVER BI**H!!LUV THE DRESS YOUR WEARING!!!!hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 1, 2006 7:59 PM | Report abuse

actually i'm all talk...i probly won't even show up.

jason, just for this week and i speak for all of the skins fans out there. we don't care who's under center. we just want to beat the crap out of dallas.

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 8:11 PM | Report abuse

A DEAD HORSE.BOY FANS OWN YOUR ASS!! BEND OVER BI**H!!LUV THE DRESS YOUR WEARING!!!!

First of all Boofer. Check youself dawg!! I am not a child no have I spoken to in a disrespectful manner. Therefore don't use such childish language with me. And don't ever disrespect me. There is another side to my joking side. So I am just going to end my responding to you before it gets out of hand. The bet is still on and that is the last communication with you. I hope you have a good night.

Posted by: jm220 | November 1, 2006 8:13 PM | Report abuse

boofer, be nice. know your audience.

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 8:17 PM | Report abuse

>>> "Snyder doesn't have a good track record with trees."

Brilliant! Easily the best comment of the day :-)

Posted by: P Diddy | November 1, 2006 8:20 PM | Report abuse

diddy, i disagree. haiku's haiku was better. jc on ir with carpal tunnel? lol!

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Alright, let's call it a draw :-)

Posted by: P Diddy | November 1, 2006 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Did Moss and Patten sit their guts out then?

Locker room shenanigans, involving a carefully rolled towel and someone's bare bottom.

I'll bet that was Brunell missing with a receiver, yet agian.

Funniest lines ever written!!!!

Posted by: OC Paul | November 1, 2006 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey Boofer...FU loser..go die

Just wanted to post what everyone else is thinking

Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Sit their guts out. That fricking kills me.
Line 'O The Day.

Posted by: Jason La Canfora | November 1, 2006 9:12 PM | Report abuse

we got some funny peeps on this blog.

and guys, please be civil. you can talk trash and still be civil about it. pretend you're face to face and not use this medium to hide behind the computer to say crap that you'd never say in person.

full disclosure: my best friend is a (cow)girls fan and i still think there's no way to explain girls fans in dc other than the contrarian attitude and being abused by a skins fan when growing up. really why else would you want to be hated by 5-7 mil people?

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 9:34 PM | Report abuse

la c, what's the attitude with the players at the park this week? fed up? mad? blaze?

and i heard el presidente make it clear that "[ray brown] is not another coach..."...quote of the day from him.

Posted by: dealer | November 1, 2006 9:39 PM | Report abuse

I concur, "sit their guts out" made a horrible day somewhat salvagable. Comment of the day goes to AHS: You get a gold star!

Max and whoever: shut up. Calling out Boofer was so week 2. The more you call him names and stoop down to his level, the more irritating and hostile he becomes. Hes stayed pretty classy for the last couple of weeks for living in a trailer park (lowblow) He did fail to show up after his girls lost a big game... he can make it up next week.

PS- Is John from Herndon even alive? I think his heart exploded after the Titans game.

Posted by: Dorf | November 1, 2006 10:10 PM | Report abuse


I just caught a glimpse of Steve Czeban in a Comcast commercial. Does anyone else think he looks like something from the Mines of Moria that should be shot by an elf?

Posted by: Civility is Dead | November 1, 2006 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, it's the defense. Nothing more painful for me than watching this defense. Possibly the offensive line's work this year, but I have to say, the defense is the big winner on this side of the equator. Replacing Brunell is far from the solution.

And, while someone rated QB Rating to be useless, I find gross punting average to be less useful. But, hey, we can have differences of opinion, I suppose.

Posted by: ECMark | November 1, 2006 11:08 PM | Report abuse

I'll take a middle of the pack defense over JC this week and for the rest of the year. We can talk about JC when either someone breaks a leg or next year.

my hope is that rogers/springs makes a diffrence . . .otherwise it's going to be a really long week . . .

Posted by: skinsfan@8kaboveMSL | November 1, 2006 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Dealer, I may well be here. If I am I do not shy from your offer. Romo may come back to earth after a week of knowing he's the starter and sh*t the inevitable bricks. Theoretically, a veteran QB, playing at home, should be favored over an undrafted player starting his second game on the road with a mediocre team in a legendary rivalry. But what the heck, if I'm nearby it'd be fun. After living in enemy territory for so long, I don't hate you just for your B&G. I appreciate your attitude. If the skinnies pull it out I'll be here for my comeuppance. I'll be like Parcells. Fire away.

Posted by: SMACK | November 2, 2006 12:03 AM | Report abuse

oh hey...

Posted by: poop | November 2, 2006 12:16 AM | Report abuse

"I don't even want to think about life without Santana."

Brunell continued, "But luckily we've got Cooley and Ladell, so we've got some good options."

Posted by: Lavar Walt Clark | November 2, 2006 2:20 AM | Report abuse

he mentioned ladell?? and not ARE? and not the other wr that they paid big draft picks and money to?

well, if parcells doesn't defend against the dinks and dunks...he's an idiot. sometimes though these coaches over think shti. like skins offensive genious calling a pass play on 3rd and 1 on a friggin friday! WTF! i'll never get over that one!

but smack, you're right we should be favored and expected to win. veteran qb at home vs. rookie. and i just don't see double G's defense not playing great in this game. i just don't.

and like chris collinsworth(CC) said last night, romo and his team's gonna have a let down after carolina...but still they all(hbo staff) picked dallas to win.

well at least it's a 1 o'clock game.

ps...too early in the mornin to be talking trash...

Posted by: dealer | November 2, 2006 7:43 AM | Report abuse

No Moss. Brunell still the QB. I better post as much as possible the next few days. I am getting sick already.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 8:24 AM | Report abuse

JM220, HAVE SOME THICK SKIN BOY,NOTHING IS PERSONAL MY APOLOGIES IF YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!! AS FOR BET I WANT AN ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE IF YOU LOSE I WANT YOU HERE ON MONDAY,SO YOUR SUSPENSION FROM BLOG WOULD BE THE NEXT MONDAY WHETHER YOU WIN OR LOSE AGAINST PHILY.AS FOR FOOTBALL,I THINK GIBBY TRYING OLD SCHOOL TRICK REPORTING ALL THESE INJURIES,MOSS WILL PLAY AS PORTIS WILL TOO.CAMPBELL WILL SEE FIELD WHEN SKINYS ARE OUT OF IT!!!hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Boofer apology is accepted. Let me make sure I have this straight. If Skins lose I am not allowed to post from Nov. 13- Nov 17. Is that correct?

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Megskin could back me up with stats on that.

Nope, sorry. You'll have to do your own number crunching on that one.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

JM220, YOUR DATES ARE CORRECT,FYI GIBBY WAS ON DALLAS RADIO AND SAID CAMPBELL ISNT PLAYING BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE BEST QB AND HE WILL WAIT UNTIL HE IS.BUT HE IS THE FUTURE!!

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

We better win! The blog will not be the same without jm220!

Posted by: Lisa | November 2, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Boofer, I don't know how good your paraphrasing is on those 'Gibby' comments, but that isn't new news.......

Posted by: 4th Floor | November 2, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Boofersons, can you at least make an effort to show some creativity? You have been recycling the 'bozo skiny fans' line since week 2. Its tired and wants to go to bed. Want me to help you? I will.

You can refer to us as: 'anorexic fans', 'bulimic fans' or maybe just replace the word 'bozo'. No one uses 'bozo' anymore. He was a clown in the 60s man...you're hung up on some clown from the 60s man. Maybe you could rock a google search on the internet.com and look up some updated clown names?

If not, please go play in traffic.

Talk to you never.

Signed,

Everyone Ever.

Posted by: ArtMonkToTheSticks | November 2, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

OK Boofer it's on bra. And as for you Coach Joe comments. I not listening. la la la la. lol

Lisa, thanks sweetie. We better win just so we don't have to deal with Boofer talking smack all week. lol.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 9:49 AM | Report abuse

ART YOU CANT EVEN GET IN HOF!! BOZO SKINY FANS IS PERFECT, BECAUSE EACH YR IN OFF SEASON YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO SB,SINCE DANNYBOYS ARRIVAL.AND EACH YR YOU SUCK,THAT WOULD MAKE YOU GUYS CLOWNS.YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF FOOTBALL IS IN QUESTION(HOW CAN YOU BE FOOLED SO MANY TIMES)ITS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE!!hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

hey boofer are you mad because to cringes when they throw a pass his way against the Redskins. dont get mad because our secondary punishes him he has had alligator arms against us since we drafted Taylor. whats with all this bill parcells brokeback style kissing his players we see how dallas got closer this year they did it brokeback style!!!!! cant wait to see Taylor say hello to TO. how many pills will TO take this week?

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Since dannyboy's arrival, how many times has the cowgirls won a playoff game?

Posted by: Boof's got nothing | November 2, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

bill parcells brokeback style kissing his players we see how dallas got closer this year they did it brokeback style!!!!!

That's just not right. LMAO

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

hey boofer i heard after the pill popping so called accident Michael Irvin is going to take TO under his wing hes going to get him to trade the pills for the pipe im sure he could get on from u boofer why dont u just send TO your crack pipe cause youre obviously on something your name says it all boofer

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Skins need a big win
Romo-cop overrated
Big game for Fudge-Ums

Posted by: Dorf | November 2, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Is ih8dallas the bizarro world BOOFER? He's got the same excited ramblings, only he's pro-Skins and writes all lower case.

Wow JLC... your blog has produced solid character AND his polar opposite archnemesis. Kind of like Unbreakable. Which one of you is Bruce Willis and which one is SamJack?

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | November 2, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Boofer or any other dallas fan on here can you tell me how many playoff games you guys won last year. for some reason i dont remember seeing any dallas games during the playoffs oh thats right you were WATCHING them because of the Redskins LMAO

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 10:26 AM | Report abuse

im not usually like this his postings ticked me off im usually quiet and just read the posts i had no problem lowering myself to his level with the smack talking

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 10:29 AM | Report abuse

JLC did Campbell get any reps yesterday?

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

ih8dallas, you showed some human emotion there, namely regret. You just earned Bruce Willis status.

You are the hero in this little battle, and BOOFER is the villian.

Deep down, I'm glad it worked out this way. I always knew rooting for Dallas was evil. This just definitively proved it.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | November 2, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

hmm boofer got a little quiet hes probably trying to google to find who dallas played in the playoffs last year boofer im not lying to you i promise you wont find any you werent there. boofer check you tube out and type sean taylor vs to in the search bar its good

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Boofer's weaknesses: grammAr, spelling, general cohesiveness and "broken record syndrome" (BRS)

Boofer's super strengths: turning wild opinion and speculation into "facts", the ability to use the internet/computer despite his upbringing/mobile home dwelling status, CAP LOCK POWER

What a villian.

Posted by: Dorf | November 2, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Skinspatrol, I thought DCLance made some good points about brunell and his rating. You also had some good points about why that rating can be deceiving, but I would like to argue with a few of them.

First, you state that YAC are misleading and that since the skins have the most, it leads to inflated stats for Brunell. I disagree with this part more than any other. YAC DO reflect what a qb is doing b/c he can make a perfect throw where only his WR can get the ball as opposed to putting the pass in a spot where the WR catches it, but doesn't have a chance to run/make a play after the catch. Brunell puts the ball in spots that allow his WRs to make plays after tha catch, and so I don't think you can dismiss him simply b/c his WRs get more YAC that other WRs. Another point you don't take into consideration is the play calling. If you have explosive play-making WRs on your team, you'd be smart to call plays in which you give those playmakers a chance to be successful and make plays. The play calling is different when you have big, slower WRS who can't run after the catch. This leads to the next point, too. You break out the completion percentage stat within 10 yards of the LOS. Did you notice what I noticed? That the closest 2 QBs to Brunell are McNabb and Brady? McNabb was in the mvp discussion until last week, and everyone loves to su...well, let's just say most people really like Tom Brady and what he does. To discount what Brunell does while Brady and McNutts do the same exact thing is disingenuous. And, again, Brunell has WRs that are great at making plays after a catch, so why would you sit back and throw bombs all day? (Especially with the play of our line this year.)

I"m not going to argue mean vs/ median qb rating stats. Just not gonna do it. Or the completion percentage as the distance increases, but this is b/c I"m at work and don't have time to look up other qbs' stats on this. But your next point was that Brunell makes bad decisions and dumps off behind the first down marker. While I get really fed up with the dumps offs too (see indianapolis), I understand that not making a dangerous throw is NOT the same as an interception, as you say it is. Going to 4th down and punting gains field position, whereas an INT in that situation kills you. They might run it for even mroe yeards, too, or a TD. Saying an INT would be the same as punting is just not true.

The last thing I will mention are the INTs he has thrown this year. Yes, the one to roy "who is santana moss?" williams was very bad. As was the one to seal the tenn game. But, 3 INTs after almost half a season is phenominally good. Trying to spin it any other way is false. BigBM and Bulger are the only 2 starting Qbs with fewer INTs. Oh, which reminds me of one other thing. You said Brunell had the benefit of "superman santana moss" in the jags game. True. But one thing is that Brunell has shown he is much mroe willing to take chances late in close games, like the jags game. He put that ball where only moss could get it and allowed him to make a play on it, and it worked. He tried in the tenn game and got burned on it. That Ot catch wasn't ALL Moss, Brunell made the perfect throw. This is why YAC should count.

Man, I hope ya actually see this before a new entry is posted. And all this said, I can't wait to see what JC can do. I just hope it's next year b/c it's now "8-1 or no playoff fun."

Posted by: WrongDog | November 2, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

IHDALLAS, YOUR POST EXPLAINS WHY YOUR A BOZO SKINY FAN(CLOWN).IF YOUR GOING TO BRING UP LAST YR, YOU OPEN DOOR TO ALL YRS,WHICH BOYS HAVE MORE PLAYOFF VICTORIES,MORE SB VICTORIES,MORE NFC CHAMPION VICTORIES,MORE DIVISION VICTORIES AND BEST OF ALL WAY MORE HEAD TO HEAD VICTORIES. NOW TO THIS YR,WOOOPED YOU 1ST GAME YOUR 2-5 AND YOU LOST TO A SORRY TEAM AT HOME(TENN)LAST YR WAS CLEARLY SMOKE & MIRRORS FOR SKINYS PLAYOFF RUN!! LOOK AT THIS YR TO PROVE THAT POINT!!NOW RUN ALONG TO THAT BIRTHDAY YOUR PERFORMING AT(CLOWN)!!hehehe ps DONT BE AFRAID TO POST YOUR REAL BLOG NAME!!!!

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I have created a beautiful Redskin collage from my dogs toe nails and some seeds from my garden. God has blessed us with many wonderful objects to create beautiful art with.

Posted by: SallieMae | November 2, 2006 10:53 AM | Report abuse

WrongDog you made some interesting points. However 3 INTs compared to 7 TDs is not great at all. I am not able to look up what BBM and McNabb TDs are. But I am more than sure they are more than 7.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Does SallieMae posting makes anyone else uneasy or is it just me?

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Yes, last year's playoff appearance has certainly served as a Reskin springboard for this season, what with your now being tied with Houston halfway through the season and all. Congrats! You must be very proud, especially with all those free agent signing contracts appearing to hang like a lodestone around the team's neck for years to come. Hail to the Danny!

One thing I might point out about the YAC is that it's one thing to have a alrge % of YAC coming on passes that went, say, 20 yards w/ addt'l 10 yds YAC (50% YAC). That's a big play. But if the initial pass was only, say 2 yards, with 4 yards YAC (200%), the percentage looks great, but the actual yardage was nothing special.

Posted by: Harvey Martin's Funeral Wreath | November 2, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

wrongdog,

I think you have to watch a Brady and Mcnabb in a game to see how different they are from Brunell. They make throws regularly that Brunell does not attempt. That keeps the defense honest and from crowding the line of scrimmage.
The redskins of old had a power running game AND a deep threat. You can't have a power running game and short passing threat, it just doesn't work. Brunell had two good games of focusing on the short passing game and then teams saw the film and adjusted to that. Teams are now crowding the line of scrimmage taking away the short passing game and the run. If you can't throw deep or down the middle consistentley you will get stuffed.
From watching games with my tivo and sunday ticket, it's my opinion that Brunell has one of the weakest and least accurate arms in the league. He is a huge limitation on what plays can be called. Sure he doesn't turn the ball over because he doesn't take risks but this team needs more than that to win.

Posted by: kovachs | November 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Line o' the day was definitely "sit their guts out." And the tree line was special, too.
But on a more important matter, I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that jm is thinking of taking up drinking! What is shocking is that this seems to indicate jm does not presently drink!
While I probably should not encourage alcohol consumption, I will point you to this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110101667.html
Diddy can supply a wine list for us.

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

No Cindy I don't drink. But if we lose to the girls I might start. Another week of watching Brunell and a week of Boofer talking smack will drive anyone to drinking. lol

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

If it is only 7 TD passes, then you'd expect there to be a general abundance of rushing TDs to explain the lack of scoring:

Portis: 6
Betts: 1
Duckett: 0
Sellers: 0

UF! Que lastima!

Well, if we're low on TD passes, and low on TD runs... we must be doing well racking up points with the foot:

Hall: 9/11
Novak: 0/2

Ouch. Well at least the defense is stepping up and carrying the team...

Posted by: Dorf | November 2, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

as campbell is the future it will be 2 or 3 yrs if in same system to really become somthing,while hes developing samuels & jansen are getting older, 2 positions very hard to fill.this team was built for 3 yrs it is gibbs 3rd yr and they dont have a back up plan.

Posted by: JUST A THOUGHT | November 2, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

it is my real blog name boofer ive only posted maybe once or twice before. we can go back and forth all day boofer im done im waithing till sunday we will see what happens. boofer = another dallas fan that isnt from or never been to dallas I hope Sean Taylor punishes anyone who gets near him

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse


After diss above,
No more poems for Cindy!
So unloved, I weep.

Posted by: HaikuMan | November 2, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

OK, OK

To my boss - I hear you.

I hear you in there.

I hear you farting. Shifting in your leather chair. Trying to muffle your bodily noises in your vibrating chair pad (which is creepy enough).

Worse: I smell you.

The first day you did this, I thought someone had burned a Lean Cuisine Salisbury Steak in the microwave. The second day, I stupidly asked you if you smelled "that vile odor".

You blushed and said, "I have this little problem when I am stressed, excited, or eat a lot of protein in the mornings..." and thus began the Awkward Relationship I Have With Your Bowels.

Man, I am your assistant. I can help with the stress factor, that's sort of my purpose. But listen, can't you lay off the protein bars and egg whites and ostrich sausage in the mornings? Can you eat them, say, at lunch or at night, and torture your family and pets with the resulting stench?

I am tired of burning candles in my office like I'm some kind of stressed Wiccan trying to ward off the Samhain Fart Satyr. I dread bringing you files because I don't ALWAYS hear you and sometimes am very unpleasantly surprised by the greasy cloud that surrounds your work area.

I really like you. You're a great boss. You take great care of me. But this has to stop before I burst a blood vessel in my eye from holding my breath when I come close to you. See a gastroenterological specialist already; I'll even make the appointment!

Posted by: SallieMae | November 2, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

HaikuMan you know you are the man.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

i really hope we see Campbell soon these dinks and dunks are getting old fast every defense we play against looks for them if they try it against dallas they are going to jump the routes and take it the other way they have to open up the playbook beyond the screen and quick slant section

Posted by: ih8dallas | November 2, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

WrongDog-

"YAC DO reflect what a qb is doing b/c he can make a perfect throw where only his WR can get the ball as opposed to putting the pass in a spot where the WR catches it, but doesn't have a chance to run/make a play after the catch. Brunell puts the ball in spots that allow his WRs to make plays after tha catch, and so I don't think you can dismiss him simply b/c his WRs get more YAC that other WRs."

The reason our YACs are higher than other teams has nothing to do with Brunell putting the ball in a position for players to do things with it (he does, but no more effectively than other QBs), but rather with ball placement viewed holistically. Over one in four of Mark Brunell's passes don't even pass the line of scrimmage, meaning YACs are really the only yards he'll be credited for. Whether or not a QB should be rated higher for successfully completing passes that go 2-3 yards (and his extremely talented backfield/receivers make yards on their own) is a debate worth having, though I'll side with the RBs and Receivers on that one.

Take, for instance, Ladell Betts. Despite being our backup RB, he is currently 2nd on the team in receptions with 23. He has 193 yards (3rd on the team) but 215 yards AFTER THE CATCH. That means Ladell Betts has actually received the ball more behind the line of scrimmage than in front of it, and has fought for every one of those 193 yards. Brunell should not get credit for those 193 yards as the vast majority are passes that a high school QB could make, and Ladell Betts is the one punishing defenders for those 193 yards. The same case could be made for Clinton Portis, who also has more YACs than actual yards receiving.

It isn't unusual for RBs to have more YACs than yards given the nature of the position. What *is* unusual is that Mark Brunell throws to his running backs OVER 25% OF THE TIME. To contrast, the Cowboys throw to their RBs 10% of the time.

Thus the reason Brunell's YAC percentage is so high is largely a function of decision making (in this case bad) and not because he's putting the ball in particularly opportunistic places.

"That the closest 2 QBs to Brunell are McNabb and Brady? McNabb was in the mvp discussion until last week, and everyone loves to su...well, let's just say most people really like Tom Brady and what he does. To discount what Brunell does while Brady and McNutts do the same exact thing is disingenuous."

The comparisons are ludicrous. Brady is getting it done without having nearly as much receiving talent as us, which is an enormous credit to him. The Eagles throw the ball 72% of the time, meaning they actually utilize short passes as a substitution for their running game. The fact is, the Eagles should DOMINATE everyone else in both yards after catch (which they do in total yards, but not as a percentage) and in % of throws made on or near the line of scrimmage. That's inherent in their gameplan.

Furthermore McNabb and Brady are *WINNING*. No one blames Brunell for throwing 22 dinky passes in a row against the Houston Texans because that is what the gameplan calls for. What frustrates us is when he kills 3 consecutive drives on 3rd down by throwing the ball to his RB on or near the line of scrimmage in places where he couldn't possibly get the first down. That's stupid, especially while we're playing against one of the best teams in the league, on the road, and behind by multiple posessions.

Brady wouldn't do that. You throw dink and dunks wen you have a lead because it eats clock up and forces a defense to adjust. You don't throw dink and dunks when you're trying to chase an offensive powerhouse. Brunell's inability to adjust and throw deep routes is precisely why we were *NEVER* in the Dallas or Giants games. He scored exactly 0 touchdowns in both those games combined, despite having virtually the entire game both times to play against a lead, a situation that typically leads to scoring as the defense softens up into a prevent scenario (much like the end of the Colts game).

"And, again, Brunell has WRs that are great at making plays after a catch, so why would you sit back and throw bombs all day? (Especially with the play of our line this year.)"

Because you want to win? We're 2-5 by the way.

"While I get really fed up with the dumps offs too (see indianapolis), I understand that not making a dangerous throw is NOT the same as an interception, as you say it is. Going to 4th down and punting gains field position, whereas an INT in that situation kills you."

Yes and no. Derrick Frost is currently the 26th ranked punter in the league with a horrid 42.7 average. His Net Return average is just 36.2 yards of field position on any given punt, which is very mediocre. Mark Brunell can throw farther than 36 yards (or can he???) so airing the ball out and throwing a pick really isn't giving up that much field position, if any. Realistically you have to think that with amazing receivers like Lloyd, ARE, and Moss these guys will catch a 1 on 1 disputed pass 36 yards down the field over 40% of the time. With that percentage, it's just stupid to drop the ball off for a 3 yard gain to bring up 4th down. What a faustian bargain it is to sacrifice posession for 37 measly yards of field. I'd rather he throw a deep interception, honestly, as with a deep attempt comes the possibility of a first down.

"They might run it for even mroe yeards, too, or a TD. Saying an INT would be the same as punting is just not true."

Average return on the 3 interceptions is about 13 yards. That's just arond 5 higher than the average return on punts, not a significant amount.

Furthermore since we're calling for more downfield passes, the types of returns aren't going to be deep. Pick sixes usually occur when a defender reads a short out or a screen pass or some variation thereof. Returning a 30-40 yards interception for a touchdown is a very difficult thing to do, especially with speedy WRs and RBs on the field to stop you. Remember how CP hurt his shoulder?

"But, 3 INTs after almost half a season is phenominally good. Trying to spin it any other way is false. BigBM and Bulger are the only 2 starting Qbs with fewer INTs."

It's very good, but not phenomenal. Mark Brunell is 6th currently in INT % with only Manning, Bulger, Rivers, Gradkowski, and Huard in front of him. The fact is though, that his Int % is lower because of the types of throws he makes. Passes to your RBs aren't typically going to get intercepted as they don't travel far and the RBs are frequently either uncovered or covered by linebackers/lineman. Over 1 in 4 MB passes are thrown to RBs, meaning about 1 in 4 are virtually uninterceptible.

"That Ot catch wasn't ALL Moss, Brunell made the perfect throw. This is why YAC should count."

And Brunell should be credited with the 15-20 yards that the ball traveled. The fact is, Santana Moss' amazing body control and speed resulted in the remaining 50 someodd yards and touchdown on that pass.

The better example is to remember the first touchdown pass, which Moss caught wide open 12 yards in the middle of the field and then broke it for a touchdown with a combination of great speed, incredible down field blocking, and a broken tackle on the 15 yard line. Should Brunell be credited with the blocking? Moss' speed? The broken tackle? Because his QB Rating benefits from all these things.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 2, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Because his QB Rating benefits from all these things.

Ratings and statistics never tell the true story.

There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

That's the whole point, Meg. I don't think Mark Brunell's 9th QB rating accurately reflects what the rest of us are all seeing on the field which is largely an ineffectual QB who refuses to throw the ball down the field and kills drives with dink and dunks on 3rd down.

If there exists a statistic that better tells the story of the Washington Redskins passing offense under Brunell, I think it is our 21st ranked passing offense in the league despite playing 6 of 7 games from behind (a situation that lends itself to more passing yards than rushing).

We suck.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 2, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics."

Not only that but 86.7% of all Statistics are made up on the spot.


Posted by: Skinz | November 2, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

What is the deal with these 2 page long posts? Concision, people, concision. Brevity is the soul of wit, and women's lingerie.

>>> "Diddy can supply a wine list for us."

Give me a week. I head to Barcelona tonight for a few weeks and to (hopefully) kick start the creative process on this next book. And, by "kick start" I mean drink heavily. And, by "drink" I mean lots and lots of Rioja and possibly some Cava.

After that, I'm pondering heading down to Buenos Aires instead of Sydney this year. I like the girls, beaches, and girls in Sydney, but I'm curious about Buenos Aires. Don't cry for me!

Posted by: P Diddy | November 2, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"Samhain Fart Satyr"

OUTSTANDING

Posted by: Harvey Martin's Funeral Wreath | November 2, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

'Ku Man, you know you rule!!!!!! You are the Sandburg of Skins fanz, the Byron of this blog, the Frost of football!!!!

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

ALL THE CALLS FOR CAMPBELL,AND THE DEBATE ABOUT BRUNELL ARE AMUSING.WHAT OPENS PASSING GAME IS RUNNING.REMIND ME OF HOW MANY 100 YD GAMES POOPIS PORTIS HAS.AND A D THAT LEAKS WORSE THEN AN 80 YR OLD IN DEPENDS!!BRUNELL IS LEAST OF PROBLEMS AND THAT IS VERY BAD NEWS FOR ALL THE BOZO SKINY FANS STILL THINKING THEY CAN TURN IT AROUND!!!hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse


Say more with three lines
And seventeen syllables
Than Roget on crack

Posted by: HaikuMan | November 2, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Depends jokes... HA! I love it! I can tell this day is headed in the right direction.

"Hey, how do you know so much about Oops I crapped my pants?"

"Well I'm wearing them, and I just did."

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | November 2, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Boofer it pains me to say this. THAT LEAKS WORSE THEN AN 80 YR OLD IN DEPENDS!! That one made me laugh. Yeah I am sick now after giving Boofer a credit for something.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Cindy forgiven,
Cyberlove abounds again.
All right with the world!

Posted by: HaikuMan | November 2, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Wuv, twoo wuv, is what bwings us togethah today.

Posted by: P Diddy | November 2, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Yesssss! 'Ku da man!
At first I feared you'd think I was calling you the Derrick Frost of football....

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I think Boofer should changed his screen name to Frau Farbissina. The woman that yelled all the time in the Austin Powers movies. It will go very well with your CAPS postings. lol

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Newsbreak:
Just so you know when to anticipate news, the lads are watching practice until 12:30; then there's an open locker room from 2-2:45.
More importantly, though, I was in the blogging application and discovered that Jason has made 140 posts and you guys are at 8,417!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet this group gets us to 10,000 by the end of Sunday. It's going to be one of those games and we'll need one another to pull us through. We'll have to blog our guts out. Up here, anyone can out-blog anyone else.

Posted by: P Diddy | November 2, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

hat Jason has made 140 posts and you guys are at 8,417!!!!!!!!!!

What's that in quarterback rating?

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Diddy,

Stop in Portugal and get us some Fonseca while you are at it. Sydney isn't all that great. Head north to the gold coast or Knobby's beach near Newcastle in NSW.

Posted by: Skinz | November 2, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

10,000 by Monday or bust!!!!

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Sallie Mae's postings freak me out also....they are insane....no meaning and nothing about the Skins. Think he/she wandered in here by mistake.

Posted by: Lisa | November 2, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Sydney isn't all that great.

Sydney, Australia? Try Perth, much better.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I think we're at about a 148.7 passer rating, Megskin.
A coupla years ago, in our preview section, we asked a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist to parse the passer rating for us. They were baffled.
My favorite line in the NFL's explanation of it is: "In order to make the rating more understandable, the point rationg is then converted into a scale of 100...."

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark Brunell can throw farther than 36 yards (or can he???)

I would seriously doubt that; maybe once every two games perhaps. He won't stay in the pocket long enough for them to run that far, anyways.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

>>> "Sydney isn't all that great"

Huh??? While it's true that the Northern Beaches are God's Country, and while it's also true that Australia is a large country filled with tremendous natural beauty, there is nothing that warms my cold, wet December heart like the, uh, natural beauty on display at Manly or Bondi.

Sadly, no Portugal on this trip. We're going to try and do a road trip to Monaco in a rented Aston Martin, though. We're having trouble finding a vintage Aston at a reasonable price.

Posted by: P Diddy | November 2, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"In order to make the rating more understandable, the point rationg is then converted into a scale of 100...."

I think copious amounts of fortified liquid was quaffed in the writing of that most dubious of all ratings.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

>>> "Try Perth, much better"

What!?!?

Alright, I'm too disturbed to blog anymore today.

Posted by: P Diddy | November 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

We're having trouble finding a vintage Aston at a reasonable price.

I hear Daniel Craig is looking to get rid of a stick shift version.

Posted by: Megskin | November 2, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"It is important to remember that the system is used to rate passers, not quarterbacks. Statistics do not reflect leadership, play-calling and other intangible factors that go into making a successful professional quarterback."

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Skin Patrol, I'm gonna try and keep this much, much shorter this time.

My point in comparing Brady/Mcnabb and Brunell was that percentage chart you referred to. Brunell's percentage was 71 and Mcnabb's 68 and Brady's 72. That was my only point. You are rght that they are winning and Brunell isn't, but there are other factors, too, like defense, obviously. Also, Brunell throws to his RBs 25% of the time. Ok, maybe O line play comes into the equation here? BRady had all night to sit back and dissect the Vikes on MNF this last week. Brunell doesn't get that kind of time, or maybe he COULD look down the field more. Where do you go with the ball when you have no time? To the RB, of course. And this offense tried to go deep repeatedly in the tenn game and you saw where that got us. All we had to do was run, but we threw deep all day and it didn't work. MB doens't have time to do that.

Saying that a deep INT is almost the same as a punt is ridiculous. why don't ANY teams just throw bombs instead of punting, if your point is true? B/c teams would rather have their punt coverage teams on the field for that, not the offense. Saying speedy WRs and RBs will tackle the INT-er doesn't make sense--see CP's injury you referenced yourself. Punting is MUCH safer than a deep bomb, every day of the week.

My last point will be about YAC. We may have tpo agree to disagree about this. The qb should get all those ayrds every time, IMO. And here is why: does Portis only get the yards after he makes the first guy miss? NO, he gets all the yards, no matter how well/poorly the other team is blocked. You refrence Moss' 1st Td from JAX game, but did santana do allthe blocking, spinning and running? NO. CP made some key blocks to help him out. It's a TEAM game and saying the qb shouldn't get the YAC is like saying a RB shouldn't get all the yards on a carry. It just doesn't make sense.

"Faustian bargain." Nice.

Posted by: WrongDog | November 2, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I hope we get an update before I leave work today.

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I alternate between pondering the rating until my hair hurts and considering it so much hooey. There's no in-between. If I were the Pound of the passer rating, I'd write a poem about it.

Posted by: Jason's editor | November 2, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

">>> "Try Perth, much better"

What!?!?

Alright, I'm too disturbed to blog anymore today."

I have never done it but I heard the train from Sydney to Perth through the bush is an incredible experience.

Posted by: Skinz | November 2, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

JM22O, I DONT WANT YOU TO THINK IM YELLING,JUST TALKING A LITTLE LOUDER! WHEN I DID MY FIRST BLOG HERE(CAPS) IT SEEMED TO GET AND STILL DOES ALOT OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK SO OF COURSE I CONTINUED AND IT SETS ME FOR OBVIOUS REASONS APART FROM REST OF BLOGGERS!!!AS FOR FOOTBALL,JASONS LATEST STORY IS HIS BEST READ AND WEEP!! IM GOING TO START SELLING BOOHOO BOXES SO POST YOUR ORDERS TODAY SO YOU CAN HAVE THEM FOR SUN.hehehe

Posted by: BOOFER | November 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

This is too easy Skinz,

but if you're gonna take that train through the bush, just be sure to wear a raincoat. Trust me, weather is NASTY down under.

PG

Posted by: Pub Golf | November 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

but if you're gonna take that train through the bush, just be sure to wear a raincoat. Trust me, weather is NASTY down under. PG right. (LMAO)

Boofer as you typing that. Make sure you tell Dr. Evil I said hey. lol

Posted by: jm220 | November 2, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

All CAPS posting? Cute idiosyncrosy? Or more like the old timer on the freeway with his turn signal left on?

Good "Depends" line though.

Posted by: skinswest | November 2, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

""It is important to remember that the system is used to rate passers, not quarterbacks. Statistics do not reflect leadership, play-calling and other intangible factors that go into making a successful professional quarterback."

Wait, you mean it doesn't meaure if you're "Super-smart", or "fight your guts out"?

Posted by: Kovachs | November 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

WrongDog-

Blaming it on the offensive line is a red herring. The line play has been adequate, though nothing outstanding. Brunell passes to his RBs over twice as often as Dallas (as an example) and the Cowboys offensive line has been much, much worse. Whether you want to admit it or not, checking down to a RB is frequently a decision made under no outstanding durress. Brunell does it more often because he isn't making the right decisions, particularly on third down.

"why don't ANY teams just throw bombs instead of punting, if your point is true?"

Because the defense would opt to bat the ball down on 4th down instead of trying to intercept it, as this would give them better field position.

We're not talking about deep throws on 4th down, but on 3rd. And as a matter of fact, teams go deep on 3rd down all the time *especially when the circumstance warants it*. Brunell, on the other hand, completes short passes to people who couldn't possibly get a first down.

And his noodle arm effects the entire offense because he shrinks the field. He's thrown fewer 41+ passes than virtually any other QB in the league, effectively eliminating an entire section of the field that the opposing defense has to seriously defend against. That puts more defenders in the box and hurts our running game.

"Saying speedy WRs and RBs will tackle the INT-er doesn't make sense--see CP's injury you referenced yourself. Punting is MUCH safer than a deep bomb, every day of the week."

First off, CPs injury proves that he's great at stopping opposing defenders from scoring touchdowns.

Second, of course punting is safer than a deep bomb on 4th down, for reasons explained above. We're not talking about 4th though, we're talking about 3rd. Would I rather have Brunell dink and dump a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 8 so we have to punt OR would I rather Brunell take a shot down field at either ARE, Lloyd, or Moss one of whom BY DESIGN must necessarily be in single coverage. I would unflinchingly choose the latter as it gives us a much better chance of winning. The only sacrifice is a potential interception which I graciously allowed for 60% of the time. Even at that number it's hard to imagine we'd be better off with a dink and dunk.

"The qb should get all those ayrds every time, IMO. And here is why: does Portis only get the yards after he makes the first guy miss? NO, he gets all the yards, no matter how well/poorly the other team is blocked. You refrence Moss' 1st Td from JAX game, but did santana do allthe blocking, spinning and running? NO. CP made some key blocks to help him out. It's a TEAM game and saying the qb shouldn't get the YAC is like saying a RB shouldn't get all the yards on a carry. It just doesn't make sense."

First, the QB *DOES* get all those yards. I've explained why possibly he shouldn't.

Second, do not confuse me saying that Brunell does not deserve credit for *ALL* the WR yards with me equivocating and saying that the receiver does. This isn't a discussion about how good Santana Moss or Clinton Portis is, it's a discussion about how MB isn't as good as his stats.

I don't care functionally one way or the other whether YACs are included in the QB Rating. It's just a statistic, a cold, uncaring, unemotional number that is calculated from accumulated data. What I want you to understand is that interpreting the story data/stats tell is as important as accumulating that data. If Mark Brunell throws a lame duck behind the line of scrimmage and Betts dives to catch it, gets up, dekes 2 defenders and carries the other 9 70+ yards for a touchdown, then Mark Brunell would be credited with a 70 yard touchdown reception.

Where and how far and to who Mark Brunell throws the football is an important consideration when asking the question: Is Mark Brunell a great QB? Merely repeating ad nauseum "Well he's 9th in QB rating and only has 3 interceptions" isn't an intellectually serious way of approaching that question. He MIGHT be a great QB, but if he is it won't be because his QB Rating is 9th or that he's only thrown 3 picks.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | November 2, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

OK,OK Help me please.

I nee a " " key for my keyboar please...if you have an extra key laying aroun , please sen it to me. Not having it is riving me absolutely crazy. I woul be willing to pay up to 5 ollars for it.

I nee to write an email soon to this HR la y I went on an interview with last weeken and I'm afrai I woul look like a complete i iot sen ing her an email that looks like this post. I on't care if I look like an i iot to you, my Insi er Re skin blog frien s, because i on't know any of you, but I woul appreciate your help for sure.

Posted by: SallieMae | November 2, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I partied with a ton of Aussies in Germany this summer at the World Cup, and one dude from Sydney, Ben, ended up becoming a close friend. Met on a crowded-butt local train after the Aussie-Italy game going from Frankfurt to somewhere, can't remember. Definitely had some long nights drinking in Berlin. Great dude.

Posted by: Jason La Canfora | November 2, 2006 10:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company