explain something to me brunell bledsoe

[Disco Dave]

Only if he is hurt. Too hurt to play.

[Gamebreaker]

Do you suppose Brunell will get the hook if he turns the ball over in the first quarter monday?

He could turn the ball over 5 times and still get the thumbs up from Gibbs.

[GoCommiesGo]

It's because in one of his three "scoring drives" against the Bears, Brunell contributed absolutely nothing to it...he didn't complete a single pass...

It's because in three quarters of play he only got the Skins inside the red zone once...and the Skins needed to go for it on 4th down to do it. If you're scoring from 30 yards out that's fine...but the Skins weren't doing that.

It's because he only generated 70 yards of passing offense in three quarters...and we're already having to break out the excuses for that fact ("we didn't have to score a lot to beat the Bears"...)

And it's because his play last season was nothing short of abysmal...and it was abysmal on a consistent basis, not just a game here or there. It takes a LOT to wash that taste out of your mouth as a Skins fan. Preseason success against back ups and 3 quarters of 70 yards passing and no TDs isn't enough.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

[Vman2k6]

He could turn the ball over 5 times and still get the thumbs up from Gibbs.

So true

[LiveStrongSkins]

It's because in one of his three "scoring drives" against the Bears, Brunell contributed absolutely nothing to it...he didn't complete a single pass...

It's because in three quarters of play he only got the Skins inside the red zone once...and the Skins needed to go for it on 4th down to do it. If you're scoring from 30 yards out that's fine...but the Skins weren't doing that.

It's because he only generated 70 yards of passing offense in three quarters...and we're already having to break out the excuses for that fact ("we didn't have to score a lot to beat the Bears"...)

And it's because his play last season was nothing short of abysmal...and it was abysmal on a consistent basis, not just a game here or there. It takes a LOT to wash that taste out of your mouth as a Skins fan. Preseason success against back ups and 3 quarters of 70 yards passing and no TDs isn't enough.

Cali, I can understand your frustration because alot of people really wanted to see Ramsey succeed. However, I know you also saw some of the good things Brunell did as well. For instance, when there was a jailbreak blitz in his face and before it got there he slung it to Thrash for a first down to keep a drive alive. He also hit Cooley right as he passed the second level of defenders for a big gain. In the 4th quarter he completed the biggest pass of the game. He handled a very low snap and hit Moss with a perfect pass for a 15 yard gain at mid field. That was the drive that broke Chicagos back. So Mark Brunell didnt have a game that would please people stat wise, but he did some good things as well. He also didnt turn the ball over which is big for Gibbs. You can really only judge Brunell fairly after this game. Ramsey was in at the start of the game when the defense was really loose not knowing what to expect. Thats when you take your shots downfield. As the Bears defense tightened up, Gibbs had to take what the defense gave him. Which was shorter intermediate routes set up from pounding the ball. The bears were intent that they were not going to give up the big play.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Cali, I can understand your frustration because alot of people really wanted to see Ramsey succeed. However, I know you also saw some of the good things Brunell did as well. For instance, when there was a jailbreak blitz in his face and before it got there he slung it to Thrash for a first down to keep a drive alive. He also hit Cooley right as he passed the second level of defenders for a big gain. In the 4th quarter he completed the biggest pass of the game. He handled a very low snap and hit Moss with a perfect pass for a 15 yard gain at mid field. That was the drive that broke Chicagos back. So Mark Brunell didnt have a game that would please people stat wise, but he did some good things as well. He also didnt turn the ball over which is big for Gibbs. You can really only judge Brunell fairly after this game. Ramsey was in at the start of the game when the defense was really loose not knowing what to expect. Thats when you take your shots downfield. As the Bears defense tightened up, Gibbs had to take what the defense gave him. Which was shorter intermediate routes set up from pounding the ball. The bears were intent that they were not going to give up the big play.

I understand what you're saying, and I do give Brunell credit for those good throws and decisions...but then again, I give the same type of credit to Ramsey for his good throws on pressured 3rd downs, including one from deep inside his own end zone. Both QBs did things worthy of praising in that regard.

Truthfully, when Brunell entered the game for Ramsey after he got injured, I really wanted to see Brunell succeed...after hearing so much about his vast improvement, I wanted to see it for real, in live action against starters in a game that counts. I was cautiously optimistic that I would indeed see just that...lengthy drives with passes that had a bit more touch than what Ramsey would have given...a TD or two...I would see a Skins offense that looked more than merely "good enough", it would look potentially dangerous. I wanted to see Brunell bring that element to life when he entered, because I had heard for so long that Brunell seems to be more capable of doing that this year than Ramsey.

I didn't see it, at all.

Of the three scoring drives Brunell is credited to "leading", the first one consisted of 3 incomplete passes by Brunell and 43 yards total of offense--and 36 of those 43 yards comprised of a pass interference call on the Bears. The only play in that drive that resulted in yardage was a 7 yard run by Portis. That's it. Yet we're championing that drive as somehow worthy of being considered evidence that Brunell "managed" the game well enough to be named starter. Hell, the entire drive should be seen as an embarassment, field goal or not. Seven yards of offense, a pass interference call and a field goal is not Redskins football OR Gibbs football. I don't care who's QB, that was a pathetic drive...and the fact that we needed that pathetic drive to help win the game is a little disconcerting.

[fansince62]

I agree...I'ld much prefer one INT and 2 fumbles every quarter.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I agree...I'ld much prefer one INT and 2 fumbles every quarter.

If that's your best retort, it just shows you're out of ammo...

[Burger35]

First of all INT's are a part of the game. If Mark doesn't throw any it will be because all he is throwing is 5 yard outs. That won't be good.

This is a what have you done for me lately league, so unless Brunell does something to quite the critics (start with actually throwing for over 200 yards) they will have the same perception. :2cents:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Do you suppose Brunell will get the hook if he turns the ball over in the first quarter monday?

Nope, because it will be his first turnover in competition this season (including the preseason). In 5 games (and that's generous given he didn't play the entire game in any of them) Ramsey has 6 or 7 turnovers. Brunell has 0.

So if something happens Monday night, it's much easier for Gibbs to assume it's an anomaly and not a trend.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If that's your best retort, it just shows you're out of ammo...

How??

That's the reason the move was made. Therefore most of us who agree with the move are going to prefer less turnovers.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Nope, because it will be his first turnover in competition this season (including the preseason). In 5 games (and that's generous given he didn't play the entire game in any of them) Ramsey has 6 or 7 turnovers. Brunell has 0.

So if something happens Monday night, it's much easier for Gibbs to assume it's an anomaly and not a trend.

That part I agree with...although I believe it also has to do with him having far more patience with Brunell than he's ever had with Ramsey.

[TheShredder]

Brunell's arm isn"t stronger, his legs are under him. The guy has alot of integrity and won"t admit that he couldn't physically play his best game last year. He can throw the ball down field, as Jimmy Smith.

:dallasuck

[Califan007 The Constipated]

How??

That's the reason the move was made. Therefore most of us who agree with the move are going to prefer less turnovers.

Yes, and it's completely logical to assume that every quarter would consist of three TO's by Ramsey...I guess by that logic we should assume that every quarter would consist of at least one lengthy intereference call on a turnover for Brunell...and that the Skins will never score a single TD the entire season, since they didn't score one against the Bears with Brunell.

So I'll respond as you did...

Here's looking forward to scoring 4 field goals a game and Brunell tossing up floaters in hopes of pass interference calls.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, and it's completely logical to assume that every quarter would consist of three TO's by Ramsey...I guess by that logic we should assume that every quarter would consist of at least one lengthy intereference call on a turnover for Brunell...and that the Skins will never score a single TD the entire season, since they didn't score one against the Bears with Brunell.

So I'll respond as you did...

Here's looking forward to scoring 4 field goals a game and Brunell tossing up floaters in hopes of pass interference calls.

:laugh:

Touche. However I was staking my claim to the trend Patrick seemed to be falling into with TOs...not that he committed two in the first quarter last Sunday. I didn't realize that was what the other post implied...my bad!

[AlexRS]

It's because in one of his three "scoring drives" against the Bears, Brunell contributed absolutely nothing to it...he didn't complete a single pass...

It's because in three quarters of play he only got the Skins inside the red zone once...and the Skins needed to go for it on 4th down to do it. If you're scoring from 30 yards out that's fine...but the Skins weren't doing that.

It's because he only generated 70 yards of passing offense in three quarters...and we're already having to break out the excuses for that fact ("we didn't have to score a lot to beat the Bears"...)

And it's because his play last season was nothing short of abysmal...and it was abysmal on a consistent basis, not just a game here or there. It takes a LOT to wash that taste out of your mouth as a Skins fan. Preseason success against back ups and 3 quarters of 70 yards passing and no TDs isn't enough.

You can look just at his 70 yards passing... or you can look at him avoiding sacks and turnovers. How many times did the clock in his head go off, he left the pocket running, and threw the ball away to avoid a sack? How many of those would turn into ints sacks and fumbles if Ramsey was in?

I distinctly remember one play where Brunell stood in the pocket for those 3-4 secs, saw it was breaking down and left the collapsing pocket. I cannot even remember if he completed a pass after that or threw it away... but who cares? It's just a loss of down if he is in there vs. gray hair if Ramsey is in there.

The bottom line is Brunell is looking better than last year. He has more zip on the ball. He seems more mobile. There clearly was an injury there in 2004. He did not look nearly as good in preseason 2004 compared to preseason 2005, if you wanna compare apples to apples.

Nobody can argue that this season he can definitely complete those 10-25 yrd passes better than last year. We have also seen some deep throws from him. One long completion can change the course of the game, and I have seen enough intermediate completions from MB to know he can do that as well. That and lack of mistakes/turnovers is why he is playing and PR is sitting.

We do not NEED the PR strong arm factor to win games. What else does PR bring to the table? NADA.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

:laugh:

Touche. However I was staking my claim to the trend Patrick seemed to be falling into with TOs...not that he committed two in the first quarter last Sunday. I didn't realize that was what the other post implied...my bad!

Ah, well I do agree with that logic (unfortunately..lol)...you'd have to be blind not to see Ramsey seeming to fall into this turnover "groove" in preseason, and worrying about it continuing unabated into the regular season after seeing his INT and fumble...

[gambit187]

why is it the cowpies get bledsoe and everything is great

we have brunell and the sky is falling in

they are both old qbs with not alot left yet the tuna is god and gibbs knows nothing now, im at a lost

Did anyone ever stop to consider the fact that Parcells scouted, and drafted Bledsoe. Or the fact that they keep in contact with each other alot, when Bledsoe would have a bad game with New England and Buffalo, Parcells would call him and get in his case.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You can look just at his 70 yards passing... or you can look at him avoiding sacks and turnovers. How many times did the clock in his head go off, he left the pocket running, and threw the ball away to avoid a sack? How many of those would turn into ints sacks and fumbles if Ramsey was in?

I distinctly remember one play where Brunell stood in the pocket for those 3-4 secs, saw it was breaking down and left the collapsing pocket. I cannot even remember if he completed a pass after that or threw it away... but who cares? It's just a loss of down if he is in there vs. gray hair if Ramsey is in there.

The bottom line is Brunell is looking better than last year. He has more zip on the ball. He seems more mobile. There clearly was an injury there in 2004. He did not look nearly as good in preseason 2004 compared to preseason 2005, if you wanna compare apples to apples.

Nobody can argue that this season he can definitely complete those 10-25 yrd passes better than last year. We have also seen some deep throws from him. One long completion can change the course of the game, and I have seen enough intermediate completions from MB to know he can do that as well. That and lack of mistakes/turnovers is why he is playing and PR is sitting.

We do not NEED the PR strong arm factor to win games. What else does PR bring to the table? NADA.

Championing throwing the ball away and avoiding a sack/interception should be the icing on the cake when talking about your starting QB...not the core of your argument. And again, when Brunell was in there, I hoped to see a QB who could ignite the Skins offense...and I guess I saw more possibility in Ramsey igniting the offense than I did in Brunell. We can talk about "key" completions that each QB delivered against the Bears (and both QB's did have those types of completions)...we can talk about Brunell's leaving the collapsing pocket and Ramsey's tucking the ball away inside the Bears' 10 yard line and picking up 2 yards instead of getting sacked (or worse, throwing an INT)...but what it ultimately comes down to is who's going to make this offense be all it can be. And in my eyes, just from their performances in the Bears game, Ramsey has a slight edge on Brunell in that area, turnovers or no turnovers.

[Destino]

Let's take off the homer lenses and look at he FACTS.

D. Bledsoe 18/24 75.0% 226yrd 9.42ypa 32Long 3td Rating = 143.4

M. Brunell 8/14 57.1% 70yrd 5.00ypa 23Long 0td Rating = 70.5

Bledsoe beat Brunell on every single stat by a wide margain. Three times the yardage, nearly twice the yards per attempt, 3 touchdowns compared to a goose egg, twice the QB rating, and the "mistake free" thing doesn't even help him here because Bledsoe wasn't picked off once. You can argue that we played a better d and all the other stuff, but the bottom line is when you look at the measurables Bledsoe was completely and totally in the zone, while Mark was average.

He should enjoy it while he can becasue his numbers are going to take a dive on Monday. ****.

[Chokingdogs]

well, its obvious, they both suck.

the brunell sniffers will never accept that last year wasnt an anomoly, and the chances of that kind of performance happening again, are solid.

they also will never see the, potential, upside that ramsey has.

the ramsey sniffers, myself included, will not let brunell off the hook. leopards dont change their spots. they also want to see ramsey get a fair shake, which he hasnt up to this point.

therefore, in the interest of everyones sanity, ramsey needs to be dealt. get him out of here, along with the associated distractions and his never ending turnovers. *wipes hands* there, done. no more divided lockerroom, no more qb controversy. brunell's the man the rest of the season.

brunell cannot be dumped, or traded, because the cap hit would be too severe, add to that no team in the nfl would be fool enough to trade for his deal.

after ramsey is gone im sure vinny could scrounge up some career 2nd string qb to back up mark, somebody who wont "lose" a game for you, a mark clone if you will.

all the while groom campbell to start next year, get this bus moving, then dump the golden boy next summer. alls good.

[AlexRS]

:laugh:

Championing throwing the ball away and avoiding a sack/interception should be the icing on the cake when talking about your starting QB...not the core of your argument. And again, when Brunell was in there, I hoped to see a QB who could ignite the Skins offense...and I guess I saw more possibility in Ramsey igniting the offense than I did in Brunell. We can talk about "key" completions that each QB delivered against the Bears (and both QB's did have those types of completions)...we can talk about Brunell's leaving the collapsing pocket and Ramsey's tucking the ball away inside the Bears' 10 yard line and picking up 2 yards instead of getting sacked (or worse, throwing an INT)...but what it ultimately comes down to is who's going to make this offense be all it can be. And in my eyes, just from their performances in the Bears game, Ramsey has a slight edge on Brunell in that area, turnovers or no turnovers.

As they said in WP, we do not have QB controversy - we have a QB dilema.

Icing on the cake is nice, unless you're talking about a Turnover Cake or a Sack Cake :laugh:

As much as I like to see us groom a QB of the future, we are in the business of winning football games. I would LOVE to see our offense ingited as much as any other Skins fan. But I also want us to win games, and I do not want Gibbs to have a heart attack. I believe Brunell is the QB for that.

Yes, PR has more potential upside and a stronger arm. But he still looks like a javelin thrower, not a QB. Potential aside, Brunell gives us a better chance to win games. Now, my opinion would definitely be different if our defense was not so damn good... :notworthy

[Boss_Hogg]

why is it the cowpies get bledsoe and everything is great

we have brunell and the sky is falling in

they are both old qbs with not alot left yet the tuna is god and gibbs knows nothing now, im at a lost

That's just one game for Bledsoe, we'll see how he fares against the Redskins D.

[FranklinNoble]

Bledsuck threw 3TDs and beat a playoff team on the road. We didn't score a TD againt one of the worst 4 teams in the league.

Bingo.

[AlexRS]

I supported PR big time when he was named the starter. Interceptions in pre-season where happening because Gibbs was telling him to only go long, etc.

But a big reason for my position then was knowing that PR will start. I really thought that Gibbs is not going to change QBs unless PR stinks up the joint and/or we start losing some games. I was very worried about PRs interceptions, but supported him nontheless because I did not want him to be benched AFTER we stink us several games. I hate the fact that we shafted the kid, but I applaud Gibbs for having the balls to make this decision and take all the heat for it.

Our team is not in position to overcome potential downsides of PR using his potential upsides. More potential points + more potential turnovers is not gonna work for this team at this point. Less potential points + less potential turnovers can win us games. One can be overcome with a very good O and a LOT of potential points, the other with good D. We have a very good D.