DVD Talk
Mark Brunell to the Redskins? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Mark Brunell to the Redskins?


Red Dog
02-07-04, 01:54 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1729627

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com

The Redskins are closing in on a trade to acquire Jaguars quarterback Mark Brunell, several team and NFL sources told ESPN.com.

A deal for Brunell could be completed in the coming week if all the components fall into line.

Parties to the negotiations were working this weekend to arrange a Monday meeting between Brunell and new Redskins coach Joe Gibbs.

Sources said that many of the principal parameters of the trade, which would officially end Brunell's very productive nine-year tenure with the Jaguars, have been completed. They cautioned, however, there are some details on which the teams are still working. One league source termed the swap "an almost-done deal" but one "that's still in the oven."

None of the sources would say what Jacksonville will receive as the compensation for parting with a player who defined the quick success of the one-time expansion franchise. Jaguars officials acknowleged privately last week that they have been offered a second-round draft pick for Brunell by an unspecified team.

If the deal is completed, it would leave in question the future of Redskins incumbent starter Patrick Ramsey, the two-year veteran who finished the 2003 season on injured reserve with a broken foot.

That the 33-year-old Brunell would not return to the Jaguars in 2004 has been essentially known for more than a year. The 11-year veteran, who led Jacksonville to a pair of AFC championship game appearances, sports a salary cap charge of $10.5 million for 2004. That includes a base salary of $6.5 million but, more important, a $2 million roster bonus due on March 1.

It has long been a given that the Jaguars would either trade or release Brunell before that signing bonus was due. By dealing Brunell, the team will absorb just a $2 million salary cap charge, for a prorated signing bonus share, and will recoup $8.5 million of cap room.

If the deal is completed, Brunell almost certainly will sign a new, multi-year contract with the Redskins. Trade negotiations between the Redskins and Jaguars were accelerated in recent days. It will be left for agent Leigh Steinberg, who represents Brunell, to strike a contract accord with Redskins officials.

There were reports during Super Bowl week that the Dolphins would ardently pursue Brunell, either via trade or after he was released, but Redskins officials have been working with great stealth to complete his acquisition.

Brunell originally entered the NFL as a fifth-round choice of the Packers in the 1993 draft. After two seasons in Green Bay, where he appeared in just two games and logged only 27 pass attempts, Brunell was traded to Jacksonville in 1995 for third- and fifth-round draft choices. He assumed the Jaguars' starting job shortly into his tenure in Jacksonville and held that spot for eight seasons.

In the third game of the 2003 campaign, Brunell suffered an elbow injury, opening the door for rookie Byon Leftwich, the club's first-round draft pick, to supplant him. Brunell never played another snap in a Jags uniform.

For his NFL career, he has completed 2,196 of 3,643 passes for 25,793 yards, with 144 touchdown passes, 86 interceptions and an 85.2 efficiency rating. In his three starts last season, he threw for 484 yards and had two touchdown passes and no interceptions.

He has started in 117 of his 122 appearances and was named to the AFC Pro Bowl team on three occasions. The former University of Washington standout, of course, holds all of the Jacksonville franchise passing records. Under his stewardship, the Jaguars advanced to the conference title game in 1996 and 1999 but lost both times.

Washington had not been mentioned as a potential suitor for Brunell's services but Gibbs might be seeking a more veteran quarterback.

Should the Redskins land Brunell, it will be interesting to see what the team does with Ramsey, its first-round choice in the 2002 draft. The former Tulane standout started 11 games in 2003, completing 179 of 337 passes for 2,166 yards. He had 14 touchdown throws, nine interceptions and a passer rating of 75.8. Among the league's most sacked quarterbacks last season, Ramsey earned respect around the NFL for his toughness and grit and his potential is highly-regarded.

Ramsey, 24, is under contract through the 2006 season and his salaries and cap charges are not exorbitant, meaning Washington could retain him and allow Brunell, in part, to serve as his mentor.

It is difficult to imagine Brunell agreeing to any deal to a team where he did not have assurances of at least competing for the starting job. Steinberg reiterated last week at the Super Bowl that Brunell still believes he can be a starter for several more seasons.




Well the Redskins continue to be the most exciting offseason team in the NFL. I wonder how Patrick Ramsey feels about this.

Jericho
02-07-04, 02:37 PM
Acquiring Burnell is fine, but at what price? I wonder what contract Brunell has and I certainly hope they won't offer a 2nd round pick for him (which would be a horrible deal, IMO). I'll wait to see what comes of this, but it's not terribly exciting as a Redskins fan at this point.

wildcatlh
02-07-04, 03:12 PM
A 2nd round pick is way too high a price to be giving up. Even if that means the Dolphins not getting him... I'd rather have the 2nd round pick. And why WOULD they do this with Ramsey looking good?

Red Dog
02-07-04, 03:26 PM
The other thing is that I don't think the Skins have many draft picks next year.

TopHatCat64
02-07-04, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by WildcatLH
And why WOULD they do this with Ramsey looking good?

And with their offensive line struggling to keep him upright. Brunell was fun to watch early on in his career when he scrambled but I can't see things going well at this point his career. At least Ramsey has his youth going for him...

Tommy_Harn
02-08-04, 07:45 AM
This is so stupid! How about using these resources to acquire Offensive Line help to protect the quarterback you have? How about getting a defensive lineman that can stop the run?

Patrick Ramsey may be a GREAT quarterback. He might also be just a GOOD quarterback. But how the hell would you know if you don't give him a chance to play behind an offensive line that can give him time to work?

If this strategy of the Redskins continues, they will remain a bad team with a few good/great players and numerous holes for their opponents to pick apart.

kantonburg
02-08-04, 06:20 PM
Yea I was kinda miffed when I heard about this. I think Patrick has a lot of potential. He really didn't even have a chance last year. Not until Hasselbeck got in is when they figured out how to halfway protect the QB. Ramsey deserves a straight up chance without having to look over his shoulder. I know Gibbs wants a veteran QB but I have to frown upon this decision. Then again I guess thats why they pay him 5.3 MEEEELION dollars a year and not me.

Jericho
02-08-04, 08:14 PM
Well, I'm not sure if they actually want Brunell to start, or just as an experienced back-up. Although Brunell can still be good in this league, I'm hoping they give Ramsey the chance.

Mursilis
02-08-04, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by TopHatCat64
And with their offensive line struggling to keep him upright. Brunell was fun to watch early on in his career when he scrambled but I can't see things going well at this point his career. At least Ramsey has his youth going for him...

After having watched a number of 'Skins games this year, I'd say the o-line deserves only half the blame for Ramsey's sacks - he also holds the ball too darn long (and he's admitted as such on numerous occasions in the Wash. Post). When Hasselbeck was in there, I don't think he took as many sacks, because of his quicker release.

NCMojo
02-08-04, 10:03 PM
I don't get this deal. Brunell is clearly not an improvement over Ramsey; hell, I don't think Brunell is an improvement over Hasselback.

~~ PAL ~~
02-09-04, 11:48 AM
Brunell is not better than Ramsey at present time, but to say that Brunell is worse than Tim Hasselback is a bit of a stretch. At least Brunell doesn't have any "ZERO" QB rating games when he's under center...

Josh H
02-09-04, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
The other thing is that I don't think the Skins have many draft picks next year.

I believe they have only 4.

LurkerDan
02-09-04, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by NCMojo
I don't get this deal. Brunell is clearly not an improvement over Ramsey; hell, I don't think Brunell is an improvement over Hasselback. Man, you and others love ripping on him, and I'm not sure why. The guy was injured for most of this year, but he's been a top notch QB for years. If you want to criticize him for being injury prone, or you think he won't come back strong, fine, but to say he sucks or is worse than Ramsey??? :hscratch:

FYI, here's some stats, 2003 excluded:
Year G Comp Att %age Yds TD Int Rtg RushYds
1996 16 353 557 63.4 4367 19 20 84.0 396
1997 14 264 435 60.7 3281 18 7 91.2 257
1998 13 208 354 58.8 2601 20 9 89.9 192
1999 15 259 441 58.7 3060 14 9 82.0 208
2000 16 311 512 60.7 3640 20 14 84.0 236
2001 15 289 473 61.1 3309 19 13 84.1 224
2002 15 245 416 58.9 2788 17 7 85.7 207

That looks like a pretty damn good QB to me.

Red Dog
02-10-04, 09:13 AM
Fortunately, the Bolts have entered the Brunell Derby. They have a higher draft slot than the Skins so they could easily top the Redskins offer if they choose to. Brunell to the Chargers makes some sense. I think Schotty would prefer a veteran QB and it would allow them to pick Fitz at #1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27140-2004Feb9.html

~~ PAL ~~
02-10-04, 12:28 PM
Isn't there like four teams in the Brunell Derby now?

Red Dog
02-10-04, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ~~ PAL ~~
Isn't there like four teams in the Brunell Derby now?


I think there are 2 known (Wash & SD) and 2 'unknown' (Tampa & Dallas).

~~ PAL ~~
02-10-04, 12:37 PM
Yes, that's what I thought. At very least, that's the rumor that's floating aournd.

POWERBOMB
02-10-04, 07:09 PM
But at least Dallas has some kind of O-line, we just need a running back. But back to Washington. In the two games we played against them it was obvious they need more than a running back, they need some help up front and at wide receiver. I'm amazed Ramsey survived this season. He should get the purple heart.

Plus I hope the Redskins sign Mark. They will overpay him and he will be injured by the third game he plays.

Dah-Dee
02-10-04, 08:29 PM
washingtonpost.com

Acquiring Brunell Would Be A Veteran Move

By Michael Wilbon
Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page D01

Of course the Washington Redskins should try to get Mark Brunell. Only a handful of teams are lucky enough to find one young quarterback, put him on the field to take every snap, and have it work out.

The Patriots have Tom Brady, the Colts have Peyton Manning and the Packers still have Brett Favre. But way more often than not, a team needs two quarterbacks, both of whom can be starters, both of whom a team can depend on in the playoffs. The Rams have needed three: Trent Green, Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger. Look at the Eagles of 2002, who needed not only Donovan McNabb but also Koy Detmer and A.J. Feeley, and made it to the playoffs. Jeff Garcia was a Pro Bowl quarterback but the 49ers still needed Tim Rattay. Michael Vick and Chad Pennington couldn't play the whole season, and as a result their teams missed the playoffs.

Since 1995, only two NFL quarterbacks have won more games than Brunell, who barely played last season, and that would be Favre and Steve McNair. Yes, Brunell is past his prime; he'll turn 34 in September and he missed 14 starts in his eight-year run with Jacksonville from '95 to 2002. In fact, you don't even get Brunell with the idea that he's going to start all 16 games because he's done that only twice in his career.

You get Brunell because he's well-rested (only three starts in 2003, after Byron Leftwich arrived), because he probably has a couple of really good seasons in him, because he's played in and won big playoff games, including one when he got the best of John Elway in Denver. He led the Jaguars to the AFC championship game following the 1996 and 1999 seasons. You get Brunell because, while Patrick Ramsey looks promising, he's only 24, he's started just 16 NFL games, and he has yet to demonstrate (even if it's not his fault) that he can take a team into the playoffs. You also get Brunell because Joe Gibbs likes veteran quarterbacks.

Just look it up. Joe Theismann was 33, then 34, when the Redskins went to back-to-back Super Bowls following the 1982 and 1983 seasons. Jay Schroeder was in his mid-20s when he started for the Redskins, but Gibbs had (and used) the security blanket of Doug Williams, who was 32 when the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1987 season. Even Mark Rypien was 29 years old when he led the Redskins to the Super Bowl following the 1991 season. Clearly, Gibbs is most comfortable when he has a veteran quarterback and when his young quarterbacks (remember Rypien and Stan Humphries) have had long apprenticeships. And you don't bring Gibbs back to coach and have him uncomfortable with his triggerman.

Is this going to retard the growth of Ramsey? Probably not. What quarterback who played for Gibbs had his growth retarded? Not Rypien. Not Humphries, who led the Chargers to a Super Bowl. First of all, if Ramsey's as good as many of us think, maybe he beats out Brunell for the starting job. And if not, he sits and learns for another year or two. Brunell wouldn't come for the long haul. With his mileage, the future is this minute. If Brunell comes to Washington and starts for two full seasons, Ramsey would still have a chance to reclaim the starting job by the time he turns 27. And if he does come, he doesn't come in as a locker room-dividing lightning rod. He's not Jeff George.

My reservation about getting Brunell is this: The price seems fairly steep. You don't just throw away second-round draft picks in the NFL, which reportedly is what it's going to take to complete this trade with Jacksonville to get him. A second-round choice ought to become a starter in the NFL, and fairly quickly at that. The Redskins need a defensive tackle, a pass rusher, a safety and, one would think, a running back. Some of the shopping can be done through free agency, but not all of it. A second-round pick ought to be a five-year starter at the very least. Brunell isn't going to be a five-year starter, so there is the issue of value.

But there's also the issue of competition. Is it worth a second-round pick to the Redskins to get Brunell and keep him away from the Dallas Cowboys? Does the deal become sweeter when you strengthen your own team while hurting your primary rival?

This isn't just about whether the Redskins want Brunell; there's also the matter of how badly Brunell wants to be a starter. There's every chance he could come here and be beaten out by Ramsey. There's a much better chance, should he go to Dallas, that Brunell will be the starter, maybe go unchallenged for a spell. I like Quincy Carter and it appears he made major strides last year under Bill Parcells. But only a fool would think the Cowboys aren't going to upgrade at the quarterback position and Brunell is an upgrade.

What's missing from Brunell's résumé is a trip to the Super Bowl. He's been to the Pro Bowl three times. He's proven he could evolve from an ath-a-lete to a passer, reducing his rushing attempts from 80 (for 396 yards and three touchdowns in '96) to 39 (for 224 yards) in 2001. Maybe he looks at Gibbs and sees a devout man, as he is, and a coach whose philosophy begins with protecting the quarterback, and figures he wants to play for this particular team and for this particular coach. From what I know of Brunell and Gibbs, they seem like quite the match.

It would be an interesting first recruit for Gibbs. He didn't do much of this kind of thing, if any at all, in his first go-round as an NFL coach. My bet is his recruiting skills are as sharp as anybody's. Sit with Gibbs for an hour and you have zero chance of telling him no. Now, whether he has a good GM's eye for talent only time will tell. But these sets of circumstances are what test the men who try to both acquire the talent and coach it. Can Brunell still bring it like he did in '99? If not, is he willing to accept demotion and be an able backup and tutor to Ramsey? And is a second-round draft pick too much to give up, even if it hurts Dallas, too?

What's not in question is whether Brunell somehow clutters the backfield. You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many quarterbacks who can play.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27043-2004Feb9?language=printer

Dah-Dee
02-10-04, 08:33 PM
Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Skins' spin doesn't fly with Ramsey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com

Perhaps hoping to ratchet up the Mark Brunell trade talks to a new and more urgent level, the Redskins dispatched chief negotiator and salary cap manager Eric Schaffer to Los Angeles to meet with agent Leigh Steinberg, ESPN.com has learned.

But while the Redskins attempt to heat up the trade discussions, they may also be stoking the flames of discord, with incumbent quarterback Patrick Ramsey apparently miffed by the possibility of being nudged from the top perch on the depth chart. The Redskins' first-round choice in the 2002 draft, Ramsey huddled with some Washington assistant coaches Monday and refused to be appeased by rationalizations on the potential Brunell addition.

The organization apparently is attempting spin control with Ramsey, especially since the Redskins were trying to fly under the radar on a proposed Brunell deal with Jacksonville. The young quarterback, though, is having none of it.

Coach Joe Gibbs met with Ramsey last Friday to apprise him of the team's interest in an unnamed veteran quarterback. But as framed by Gibbs to Ramsey, the unnamed veteran would probably be a backup-type player who might compete for the starting job.

Given that Ramsey is well regarded around the league, and was presumed to be the Redskins' quarterback of not only the present but the future, his disillusionment hardly is surprising. Neither will it come as a shock if Ramsey requests a trade should the Redskins acquire Brunell. After all, that move likely would make the third-year veteran a backup in Washington.

If the Redskins ever put Ramsey on the trade market, they would certainly find buyers, and could possibly recoup any draft choices expended on the Brunell acquisition.

The Redskins, or any other team that deals for Brunell, almost certainly will expect him to agree to a new, multiyear contract before consummating a trade. But even with the Redskins continuing to set the pace in pursuit of Brunell -- Gibbs huddled with the veteran quarterback on Monday evening in advance of Schaffer's visit with Steinberg -- a trade does not appear imminent.

That is largely because the Jaguars, in no hurry and confident now they will be able to deal Brunell and not have to release him with no compensation, are trying to raise the ante and cut the best deal possible. The basic rationale of the Jaguars is that with more suitors, Jacksonville can play one off against the other.

While there have been various reports that there are four teams interested in Brunell -- San Diego, Dallas and Miami, in addition to the Redskins -- that might be a bit inflated. Team sources said Miami, which doesn't own the second-round choice the Jags seem to want in return for Brunell, are not a major player in the bidding. And Dallas only is interested in Brunell if he is released.

Jacksonville officials, though, have done a superb job of embellishing the level of interest in the 11-year veteran quarterback and that has helped raise his price tag.

Washington officials could suffer further ramifications, beyond Ramsey's ire, if they add Brunell via trade. In an effort to create salary cap room, the Redskins have been trying for some time to rework the contract of left offensive tackle Chris Samuels, who carries cap charges of $8.749 million in 2004 and $9.642 million for 2005.

The connection between the Ramsey and Samuels situations: Both are represented by the same agent, Jimmy Sexton, whose clients have provided cap relief for the Redskins the last couple of seasons. The club's desire to restructure the Samuels deal may mean leverage for Sexton if Ramsey demands a trade.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1732172&type=story

Red Dog
02-12-04, 09:46 AM
Acc'd to today's Post:

Now the Dolphins are offering their 1st round pick (20th overall) for Ramsey.

The Skins are only willing to part with a 3rd rounder for Brunell. Brunell is seeking a 3-year $20M contract with a $8M signing bonus.

Re: Samuels, that situation is a mess. I said a few months ago that given his poor play this season, I would not be surprised if they release him given his cap number. They also don't have the luxury of using the franchise tag on him because you have to figure that Bailey will get franchised. Also, if they pull the trade for the lefty Brunell, Jon Jansen becomes the blindside tackle, so losing Samuels would have less meaning.

sn9ke_eyes
02-12-04, 10:11 AM
as a Dolphins fan, I would give up a first for Ramsey, but I would try to make it next years instead if the 'skins would go for it. Miami doesn't have a 2nd round pick this year and we haven't had a first the past 2 years because of the Ricky trade, so I think holding onto the first this year is important.

Jericho
02-12-04, 12:31 PM
Well I'm glad that they won't give up a 2nd rounder for Brunell. A third seems okay. It's decent value, although I do worry how healthy Brunell can remain. But any QB can get hurt, and some QBs get better with age (see Rich Gannon).

I've seen a lot of stuff about teams needing two QBs. I wouldn't go that far, but QBs are very likely to get hurt, and you'd want two good ones if you can. But salary cap issues are big. And often times the good QBs are unproven cheap players (i.e. Warner, Brady won super bowls starting as back-ups and being paid nothing). If the team does indeed keep Ramsey, it will be fairly interesting to see how it works out.

Re: Samuels, I see no reason why he can't stay. The team doesn't need salary cap space, although it could use it. But Samuels is still young and talented. A new offensive scheme should help him play better, and LT is very important

Red Dog
02-12-04, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Jericho

Re: Samuels, I see no reason why he can't stay. The team doesn't need salary cap space, although it could use it. But Samuels is still young and talented. A new offensive scheme should help him play better, and LT is very important


You cannot afford to have one guy, except maybe a franchise QB or RB, count $9+M against your cap in a given season. Yeah, they could possibly squeeze him in at $9M, but that is a ludicrous amount for Samuels. If he is not willing to re-do the contract, then I would definitely cut him.

Jericho
02-12-04, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
You cannot afford to have one guy, except maybe a franchise QB or RB, count $9+M against your cap in a given season. Yeah, they could possibly squeeze him in at $9M, but that is a ludicrous amount for Samuels. If he is not willing to re-do the contract, then I would definitely cut him.

The problems is, if you cut him, he will till count against your cap at least some, and now you have a huge hole on your OL. Is it really worth it? I'm not sure the ramifications of cutting Samuels, but I suspect it would be costly since he probably got a big signing bonus

Red Dog
02-12-04, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Jericho
The problems is, if you cut him, he will till count against your cap at least some, and now you have a huge hole on your OL. Is it really worth it? I'm not sure the ramifications of cutting Samuels, but I suspect it would be costly since he probably got a big signing bonus


He signed a 6-year contract with a $10M signing bonus before 2000. That means if he is cut, the remainder of the prorated bonus accelerates against the 2004, so cutting him would count $3.3M against the cap. I rather suck up the $3.3M than pay him $9M. He is not even close to being worth $9M.

As for there being a huge hole the OL, let's just say that I can't count the number of times I said 'Ole' last year watching him play.

Mad Dawg
02-12-04, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
As for there being a huge hole the OL, let's just say that I can't count the number of times I said 'Ole' last year watching him play.

I was reading some old stories this morning about how, at least initially, Tony Boselli's injury had an impact on him. I know Robert Porcher put a pretty rough lick on him soon after TB went down.

It's great that Brunell can scramble, but I'll never understand getting a running quarterback as a band-aid for having a decent OL. Scrambling should be a great option, not a neccessity on every play. It's the worst kind of cop-out, but I guess in the world of non-guaranteed money it makes sense to some.

Jericho
02-12-04, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
He signed a 6-year contract with a $10M signing bonus before 2000. That means if he is cut, the remainder of the prorated bonus accelerates against the 2004, so cutting him would count $3.3M against the cap. I rather suck up the $3.3M than pay him $9M. He is not even close to being worth $9M.

As for there being a huge hole the OL, let's just say that I can't count the number of times I said 'Ole' last year watching him play.

that's actually not as bad as I would have thought. But you have to figure if the team did cut Samuels, they go out and get someone to fill his spot. Maybe even draft Galley, although he's probably be gone by then. And whoever does fill that spot will likely earn several million if they have any talent.

But as bad as you think Samuels played last year, there is talent. Assuming Gibbs can have a better blocking scheme than Spurrier (not much of a stretch), its reasonable to think samuels can return or come close to the level of play that got him to a Pro Bowl. It might not happen, but it seems like a decent bet that it will.

Besides, Samuels may negotitate after all, and maybe, just maybe the Redskins won't need the extra cap space (yeah I know that's a longshot)

Dah-Dee
02-19-04, 11:57 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jacksonville quarterback Mark Brunell agreed to a seven-year, $43 million deal with the Washington Redskins late Thursday, clearing the way for a trade next month.

Brunell will receive an $8.6 million signing bonus, according to agent Leigh Steinberg, who wrapped up several weeks of negotiations with Redskins owner Dan Snyder.

Brunell is expected to displace Patrick Ramsey as the starter, giving Joe Gibbs the veteran he sought in the coach's first season back in Washington after an 11-year retirement.

``Mark and Joe Gibbs have been talking every day, sometimes multiple times,'' Steinberg said. ``Mark's comfort level and excitement level with coach Gibbs has grown every day. He became convinced throughout the process that the ability to play for a Hall of Fame-caliber coach that had been to four Super Bowls was unique and too good to pass up.''

The deal cannot become official until the offseason trading period begins March 3. The Redskins will give the Jaguars a third-round draft pick for Brunell, according to a source familiar with the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Redskins director of player personnel Vinny Cerrato declined comment.

Brunell became Jacksonville's starter in the franchise's inaugural season in 1995. He threw for 25,698 yards and 144 touchdowns over nine seasons. He became expendable when rookie Byron Leftwich emerged as the starter last season.

Brunell had one year left on his contract and was due to count $10.5 million against the salary cap this year -- including a $2 million bonus due March 3. The Jaguars were expected to cut him before paying the bonus, but the Redskins expressed interest in a trade during Super Bowl week.

The Jaguars will not have to pay the bonus because the new contract will supersede Brunell's old one, Steinberg said.

At least three other teams -- Miami, San Diego and Dallas -- also expressed interest in Brunell, but the Jaguars allowed him to negotiate only with the Redskins. Gibbs flew to Florida to meet with Brunell on Feb. 9.

Brunell wanted to go where he could start and maintained he didn't want to become part of a quarterback controversy, although that could happen in Washington. Ramsey has become a popular player in his two years with the team, and his agent recently suggested Ramsey might request a trade if Brunell were signed. Gibbs has said he has no intention to trade Ramsey.

Steinberg did not say Brunell received any guarantees from Gibbs about the starting job.

``Obviously Mark's been a starter since 1995 and is confident of his ability to lead a team,'' Steinberg said. ``But he looks forward to the ability to compete for a starting job in training camp.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-brunell&prov=ap&type=lgns

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 07:41 AM
This seems like a horrible move for the Redskins. How old is Brunell? It seems stupid to sign him to a 7 year contract.

Red Dog
02-20-04, 07:42 AM
An $8.6M signing bonus is too much for Brunell. My guess is that he will only be here 2 years which means he will represent dead cap money by the 2006 season.

Dah-Dee
02-20-04, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by chrisih8u
How old is Brunell? It seems stupid to sign him to a 7 year contract.

He's 33 (34 in September). I don't think anyone, including Brunell, expects that he'll play out that contract. 2-3 years tops.

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Dah-Dee
He's 33 (34 in September). I don't think anyone, including Brunell, expects that he'll play out that contract. 2-3 years tops.

Right. Which makes it pretty stupid, IMO. You are pretty much guaranteeing yourself dead money in the future. And do the Redskins have something against drafting? They knew Brunell was going to be cut, and I doubt any teams were going to match what the Skins offered.

Red Dog
02-20-04, 08:11 AM
The only reason they gave him 7 years instead of 3 or 4 was to spread out the signing bonus for cap purposes. It is a common practice for any player, whether 24 or 34.

Dah-Dee
02-20-04, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
The only reason they gave him 7 years instead of 3 or 4 was to spread out the signing bonus for cap purposes. It is a common practice for any player, whether 24 or 34.

:thumbsup:

Da Thrilla
02-20-04, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
The only reason they gave him 7 years instead of 3 or 4 was to spread out the signing bonus for cap purposes. It is a common practice for any player, whether 24 or 34.

I was wondering why they would do that. I guess it makes sense. I do the same thing signing players in Madden ;)

db27
02-20-04, 09:04 AM
i would have thought ten bucks, a plane ticket, and a box of chocolates could have landed Brunell!

Red Dog
02-20-04, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by db27
i would have thought ten bucks, a plane ticket, and a box of chocolates could have landed Brunell!


Remember we are talking about Danny Boy. The man who gave Primetime an $8M signing bonus when nobody else was interested in him. The man who gave Coles a $13M signing bonus when he said he would have jumped at $10M. There are countless other examples.

~~ PAL ~~
02-20-04, 10:29 AM
Every NFL player who clearly care nothing about winning but is all about getting paid should line up to join the Redskins ASAP...

Jericho
02-20-04, 04:00 PM
The Coles situation is a little different since he was a restricted free agent and the added bonus money was thought to discourage the Jets from matching.

But otherwise, it looks like the Redskins overpayed. Unless the base salaries for Brunell's first three years are really low I don't get why they gave him so much. Mine as well trade Ramsey, are you really going to carry him on the bench for 2-3 years?

Moefuscious
02-20-04, 04:14 PM
No you don't trade Ramsey. When was the last time a Redskin quarterback played a whole season? Probably in 2000 with Brad Johnson...I'm not sure. Anyway having Ramsey as a back-up this year would be great insurance. Remember last season? That was the stuff of nightmares.

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
The only reason they gave him 7 years instead of 3 or 4 was to spread out the signing bonus for cap purposes. It is a common practice for any player, whether 24 or 34.

But if you cut someone, doesnt that accelerate the salary cap hit?

Red Dog
02-20-04, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by chrisih8u
But if you cut someone, doesnt that accelerate the salary cap hit?


Yes, but this makes the cap numbers lower at the beginning of the contract. It is basically a trade-off.

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
Yes, but this makes the cap numbers lower at the beginning of the contract. It is basically a trade-off.

True enough, but this still seems like a crappy deal. There are some good FAs out there that could have helped alot better.

wildcatlh
02-20-04, 07:03 PM
Ramsey will be wearing aqua and orange and playing for the Miami Dolphins next year... since I think he's going to force a trade. They'll take the first rounder from Miami rather than deal with an uber-pissed off QB.

Jericho
02-20-04, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by chrisih8u
True enough, but this still seems like a crappy deal. There are some good FAs out there that could have helped alot better.

well only the unused signing bonus portion is accelerated. Most of the money is non-guaranteed and thus no cap hit. But if they do cut him in say 3 years, then they'll get a cap hit of about 4.5 million. Which isn't great, but screw the future cause 6-12 here we come!

Edit: I just realized I said salary cap instead of signing bonus, but at least I got the math right for Brunell

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Jericho
well only the unused salary cap portion is accelerated. Most of the money is non-guaranteed and thus no cap hit. But if they do cut him in say 3 years, then they'll get a cap hit of about 4.5 million. Which isn't great, but screw the future cause 6-12 here we come!

Ill take your word for it. Im never going to fully understand the salary cap. :D

wildcatlh
02-20-04, 09:58 PM
Quick Salary Cap primer for the Patriots fan:

Joe Blow signs a 7 year contract. Joe recieves a $35 million signing bonus when he signs his deal. For cap purposes, his signing bonus is pro-rated as such

Yr 1: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 2: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 3: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 4: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 5: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 6: $5M + Base Salary
Yr 7: $5M + Base Salary

Now, lets say that after Year 4, the team gets tired of Joe and decides to release him. At that point, they don't owe him the base salaries for yrs 5-7, so it doesn't count against the cap. So at this time, here's what's left.

Yr 5: $5M
Yr 6: $5M
Yr 7: $5M

But, since he was released, they can't pro-rate it anymore, as they did in Years 1-4. So what does get accellerated? Depends on when they release him.

If they release him before June 1 of Year 5, the rest of the pro-rated salary bonus all counts in Year 5:

Yr 5: $5M
Yr 6: $5M
Yr 7: $5M

So, if you accellerate that up, that's $15M against the cap in Year 5.

If they release him after June 1, only Year 5's pro-rated amount counts against the cap in Year 5:

Year 5: $5M

So in Year 6, the rest, or $10M, will count against the cap.

Year 6: $5M
Year 7: $5M
Total: $10M

chrisih8u
02-20-04, 10:05 PM
:thumbsup:

Thanks. Im going to pretend to understand so that I dont look too stupid.

Actually, I kind of get it. Thats why so many teams cut people after June 1. So $8 million over 7 years. Thats not too bad until they cut him. But who knows. Maybe he will be the MVP for the next 7 years. Just seems a bit much when you have a decent QB now and other holes.

POWERBOMB
02-22-04, 12:31 AM
But is this a coachiing decision or an owner one?

broadwayblue
02-22-04, 01:10 AM
i'm pretty upset with this move. Ramsey may not have proved he's the real deal just yet...but what has brunell done? he couldn't even win the starting job on a losing team. 43 million dollars for this guy. what a joke.

JNielsen
02-22-04, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by WildcatLH
Ramsey will be wearing aqua and orange and playing for the Miami Dolphins next year... since I think he's going to force a trade. They'll take the first rounder from Miami rather than deal with an uber-pissed off QB.
No now that AJ Feeley has been traded to Maimi for a 2005 2nd rounder. This should be announced in a couple of weeks.

Jericho
02-22-04, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by POWERBOMB
But is this a coachiing decision or an owner one?

I believe it's what Gibbs wants and Snyder just did the paying


As for the AJ Feeley comment, I really, really hope that the Dolphins didn't give up that for Feeley. I would feel very bad for Dolphins fans if that were true.

Red Dog
02-22-04, 10:41 AM
Yeah I have a hard time believing Danny Boy would have gone after Brunell if Gibbs wasn't there. Ramsey was his boy back when he made that deal to move down in the '02 draft. This was different than when he went after Jeff George in '00 - Danny Boy has a fascination with gunslingers.

NCMojo
02-22-04, 11:06 AM
I still say this is a horrible move. Ramsey's agent has essentially demanded a trade now, meaning that the Redskins better hope and pray that Brunell holds up.

Patrick Ramsey will be a starter for years somewhere... the Redskins will be kicking themselves for this move.

Dead
02-23-04, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by NCMojo
I still say this is a horrible move. Ramsey's agent has essentially demanded a trade now, meaning that the Redskins better hope and pray that Brunell holds up.


He can "demand" all he wants, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. And, if it does, then it will almost certainly be to bring in players needed in other positions.

It's unfortunate that Ramsey is acting immature about the situation. He has a ton of potential, and it's not like Gibbs has even indicated that Brunell would be the starter. Gibbs does want to have two good QBs available, and there's no doubt that both will want to start. In the end though, it's a team sport and one of them is going to have to adjust to a new role... and I suspect Ramsey is only hurting his chance of being the starter by his recent actions.

Jericho
02-23-04, 08:47 AM
So the new Redskins rumor has Champ Bailey going for Portis. I'm not as high on Portis as many since I believe it is difficult to determine how good he really is in the Denver offense. But is seems like a decent deal as long as the Redskins don't give up any high draft picks.

At least the Redskins keep things interesting.

Dah-Dee
02-23-04, 11:05 AM
Peter King at Sports Illustrated isn't impressed with the Brunell signing:

Bad call
Redskins will regret signing Brunell, refusing to deal Ramsey
Updated: Monday February 23, 2004 12:04PM

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Redskins are winning the offseason again. For the third straight year Washington is the team hiring the the most stunning headliners and acquiring the biggest stars.

Two years ago, the Skins made news with the hiring of Steve Spurrier -- which looked at the time like a brilliant move -- the drafting of quarterback-of-the-future Patrick Ramsey and the signing of waived middle linebacker Jeremiah Trotter from the rival Eagles. Last year, they pillaged New York, luring Laveranues Coles, Randy Thomas, John Hall and Chad Morton away from the Jets.

This is what the Redskins have done with those great expectations: they've gone 7-9 and 5-11, respectively, the past two seasons. The NFL, as you know, does not award Vince Lombardi trophies (or Richie Petitbon trophies, for that matter) for Offseason Championships. It's only February, and already the Redskins are lapping the field for another offeason title. I mean, who can beat hiring Joe Gibbs and trading for Mark Brunell? Who wouldn't want those two trophies on the mantel?

I think both are great men, in football and in life. Gibbs is a Hall of Fame coach and quite possibly a better person. I think Brunell has three strong years left, and he's a terrific guy. But if I were the Redskins, I'd never have made the trade. More about that later.

What bothers me more, I think, is that Gibbs unwittingly is trying to recreate 1992, which you just can't do in the NFL's salary cap era. He wants two high-achieving quarterbacks, so once the Redskins determined that they were going to trade for Brunell, they also decided they were NOT going to deal Ramsey. And they were sorely tested on the latter point last Friday when the Dolphins came calling for Ramsey. The conversation between front-office operatives lasted about eight seconds. Under no circumstances would Ramsey be available. Period.

Had the Redskins been interested in making the deal, they could have finagled one of two things from Miami:

1) The Dolphins' 26-year-old stud defensive end, Adewale Ogunleye, who has 22 sacks in his last 23 games.

2) Miami's first-round pick in April's draft, the 20th overall selection.

The Dolphins didn't actually make those hard-and-fast offers to Washington, but I know they would have given up either Ogunleye or their first-round pick for Ramsey.

Ogunleye just might be the best young pass-rusher in football. At 6-foot-4 and 255 pounds, he's a slithery, speedy guy who has benefited from playing opposite Jason Taylor. He's a restricted free agent. Maybe the Redskins are going to make a big-money play for him, which sure might be worth it. If they do go after him, then my aforementioned criticism would be muted. He would solve the Redskins' biggest problem right now. Washington has no current player, and no prospects, who can be counted on to sack the opposing quarterback. And if you're a Redskins fan, and you know Gibbs is going to be around for only three years, what daily double would you rather have: Brunell and the best answer for the team's pass-rush troubles, or Brunell and Ramsey?

My problem with the Brunell deal, basically, is that the Redskins have nine pretty substantial holes by my count -- running back, tight end, center (unless they re-sign free-agent Lennie Friedman), three defensive linemen, two linebackers (assuming they make Trotter and Jessie Armstead cap casualties) and safety. They didn't fill any of those when they signed Brunell to a seven-year, $43 million deal. (Which really is more like a three-year, $15.36 million deal, with a $4.9 million cap hit coming in 2007, assuming ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is right about the the numbers, and I'm sure he is. And, by the way, don't forget the cap pain the Redskins will feel down the road from signings such as Brunell and Trotter. It's all well and good to say Brunell's a pretty cheap cap buy this year, at $2 million, but remember that the cap acceleration will come when the franchise throws him on the side of the road in three or four years.)

You may disagree with my estimation that Washington has nine positions to fill. Let's say you think the Redskins have only six remaining needs. They just committed $5 million cap dollars a year, on average, for the next three seasons, and they didn't solve a single one of those problems. Washington could have dealt with one of them -- and perhaps could have come close to solving two issues with that kind of dough -- but chose not to when it decided not to trade Ramsey.

Ramsey is ticked off right now. He might get over it. But if Brunell gets the majority of the playing time the next three years, by the time Ramsey hits free agency, he won't want to stay. Gibbs could have gone with Ramsey and, say, Jeff Blake to back him up. But the coach said Saturday, "You can't afford to go into a season and say if we have one guy get hurt, we're up a creek. To me, that would pretty much destroy a football team.'' In other words, Gibbs thinks a team needs 23 starters -- 22 regular ones and a second quarterback.

Gibbs told me that the Redskins would probably spend less this year on their quarterbacks than almost every other team does. He's right. Assuming he stays around, Ramsey will count $1.65 million against the Redskins' cap. Add Brunell's $2 million and the $380,000 of projected third-stringer Tim Hasselbeck, and the Washington signal-caller budget will add up to a tidy sum -- $4 million. When your quarterback allotment is only five percent of your $80.5 million total payroll, it appears to be smart cap management ... unless you consider the fact that you still have those nine holes unfilled.

No one in the current Washington organization can tell Gibbs, "Joe, that's dumb. Don't do it ..." -- as Bobby Beathard did in the old days. Gibbs is the guru now. He's going to get everything he wants. I'll be curious to see if Gibbs is happy with his decision in Week 7, when his defense gets strafed for 34 points because there's no one to rush the passer and the run defense is crumbling.

Gibbs is going to learn some harsh lessons the second time around. I said it before and I'll say it again: I think he's going to be successful in Washington. This will be no Steve Spurrier replay. But I also think Gibbs is going to look back at this dual decision about the quarterbacks -- signing Brunell, refusing to deal Ramsey when the time was golden -- with regret in a few months. He said something ominously prescient Saturday at the Scouting Combine: "I think pro sports change about 30 percent a year. So if you're away from it for three or four years, you pretty have to learn it again. The big question obviously is, Can I adjust?''

A very big question.

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/peter_king/02/23/mmqb/index.html

Red Dog
02-23-04, 11:08 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with Peter, but keep in mind that this is the same guy who thought Danny Wuerrfel would throw for 4,000 yds for the Redskins in 2002.

chrisih8u
02-23-04, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Had the Redskins been interested in making the deal, they could have finagled one of two things from Miami:

1) The Dolphins' 26-year-old stud defensive end, Adewale Ogunleye, who has 22 sacks in his last 23 games.

2) Miami's first-round pick in April's draft, the 20th overall selection.

The Dolphins didn't actually make those hard-and-fast offers to Washington, but I know they would have given up either Ogunleye or their first-round pick for Ramsey.



Wow, that's a stupid decision by Washington. The 20th overall pick for a guy who will probably spend most of the time on the bench? Not to mention, Ogunleye would greatly improve the defense. I dont know what they're thinking.

Dah-Dee
02-23-04, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
I don't necessarily disagree with Peter, but keep in mind that this is the same guy who thought Danny Wuerrfel would throw for 4,000 yds for the Redskins in 2002.

:lol:

~~ PAL ~~
02-23-04, 12:06 PM
The other question that begged to be asked would be if Gibbs have so little confidence that Brunell would play a full season, why did he get a 7-year $43 million dollar contract? So that he could play 8-10 games per season? :confused:

Dah-Dee
02-23-04, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by ~~ PAL ~~
The other question that begged to be asked would be if Gibbs have so little confidence that Brunell would play a full season, why did he get a 7-year $43 million dollar contract? So that he could play 8-10 games per season? :confused:

Well, as WildcatLH, Red Dog and others have discussed, the 7 years and $43 million is a bit misleading. Notwithstanding the lower "real" numbers perhaps involved, though, does seem like Gibbs is anticipating the more-experienced Brunell will be his starter this year and maybe next year as well. I really am hoping, though, that Ramsey (1) comes into camp, (2) fully healed [foot], and (3) blows everybody away with his skills and how prepared he is; because I still think he's a string of Pro Bowls waiting to happen and can lead this team to the playoffs and beyond. It would be nice if that happened and Brunell were just happy to be along for the ride to a ring. We'll just have to wait and see. So far, Brunell is saying all the right things, while Ramsey lately isn't saying anything, which is probably the best thing he can do under the circumstances.

Red Dog
02-23-04, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Dead

It's unfortunate that Ramsey is acting immature about the situation.


I wouldn't call him immature. I would be seriously pissed if I was him too. Unless you are a high-mid 1st rounder, your 1st contract is not a blockbuster. It is the 2nd contract where you can really cash in. Plus Ramsey's contract has a lot of performance incentives. If he does not start, and I would say given the money situation (despite what Coach Gibbs says), that is likely, he stands to lose a lot of money in the present and future.

Dead
02-23-04, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog
I wouldn't call him immature. I would be seriously pissed if I was him too.


It's one thing to be unhappy, it's another to try and threaten the team with your agent, which appear to be what he did. IMO, that can only be defined as immature. He's not a proven leader yet and has plenty of time to learn from a more experienced QB. Accepting that he will have to fight for the starting position and might not win it for next year would be the mature way of handling the situation. It's not like Brunell is another young stud that's going to be "in the way" for a long time.