explain something to me brunell bledsoe

[cuchip703]

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. ****.

I don't mind pulling stats to prove a point but you can't do it for 2 different qbs with two different gameplans against two different defenses and in two different situations. The Redskins were controlling the ball, plain and simple...they were moving the chains (no 3 and outs) and playing conservatively.... The Cowboys needed more passing as they were behind, briefly against an offense that could do damage to them...Brunell did what was asked of him, and with the plays that were called for him (most importantly). Bottom line on both QBS, (both victories). I don't care how ugly it is as long as it is a win

One more stat...Total yards....Redskins 300+ Cowboys Less than 300...so which offense was moving the ball more..(and before you say it...yes they did not score as much..but they didn't need to)

[Destino]

I don't mind pulling stats to prove a point but you can't do it for 2 different qbs with two different gameplans against two different defenses and in two different situations. The Redskins were controlling the ball, plain and simple...they were moving the chains (no 3 and outs) and playing conservatively.... The Cowboys needed more passing as they were behind, briefly against an offense that could do damage to them...Brunell did what was asked of him, and with the plays that were called for him (most importantly). Bottom line on both QBS, (both victories). I don't care how ugly it is as long as it is a win

One more stat...Total yards....Redskins 300+ Cowboys Less than 300...so which offense was moving the ball more..(and before you say it...yes they did not score as much..but they didn't need to)

I don't buyt that. If Brunell had been able to connect downfield with his receiver Joe would have called more passing plays. You can't tell me the offensive coaches are ignoring the play on the field. Brunell was unable to find great success through the air and the coaches saw nothing to make them willing to risk it with the game on the line.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't mind pulling stats to prove a point but you can't do it for 2 different qbs with two different gameplans against two different defenses and in two different situations.

I'm a Brunell supporter, but this is precisely what people do to compare QBs. I get your point about how we had to play the game differently. But every tangible shred of evidence suggests that Bledsoe is the better QB so far.

[Oldskool]

Remember that Bledsoe is a gunslinger. He is prone to toss the rock for a TD as he is to throw INT’s. In the last 4 full seasons he has played in, he has 72TD’s and 56 Int’s. That’s 1.28 TD per Int. Sound like any other QB we know?

It again goes down to diametrically opposing philosophies of each coach. Parcells would rather start a QB that gives him a chance to win games. Gibbs would rather start a QB that gives him the best shot at not losing games.

[Destino]

I'm a Brunell supporter, but this is precisely what people do to compare QBs. I get your point about how we had to play the game differently. But every tangible shred of evidence suggests that Bledsoe is the better QB so far.

Not only is that what people do, but it is the only way to compare them. Otherwise you'd have homers from both teams arguing all sort of things, from sore wrists to weather conditions. Bottom line is QB are measured by their production and production shows up in the stat bar more times then not.

Brunell didn't lose the game and played a small role in winning the game for us against the bears. The stats show exactlty that, a fairly good completion percentage (57) and no turnovers. Bledsoe on the other hand went out there put the team on his back and picked apart San Diegos defense...and the stats show that as well.

[cuchip703]

Not only is that what people do, but it is the only way to compare them. Otherwise you'd have homers from both teams arguing all sort of things, from sore wrists to weather conditions. Bottom line is QB are measured by their production and production shows up in the stat bar more times then not.

Brunell didn't lose the game and played a small role in winning the game for us against the bears. The stats show exactlty that, a fairly good completion percentage (57) and no turnovers. Bledsoe on the other hand went out there put the team on his back and picked apart San Diegos defense...and the stats show that as well.

I can agree with that in part....but he did pick apart a Sand Diego defense that was rated 31st against the pass last year...which he won't be facing Monday night. I am no Brunell fan, believe me. There hasn't been a Redksins QB I have liked other than Trent Green in a long time. All I want fans to do this year (and I will have a short leash too) is to wait until Monday night to see how we do after gameplanning with Brunell at QB, and gameplanning for Dallas. If he blows like he did last year and we lose...Then I will join your argument.. I just have to see him play a game that was planned out for him first with the new offensive scheme.

[cuchip703]

I'm a Brunell supporter, but this is precisely what people do to compare QBs. I get your point about how we had to play the game differently. But every tangible shred of evidence suggests that Bledsoe is the better QB so far.

I agree with that...

[KingGibbs]

heres the difference..bledsoe can throw the ball 30 yards in the air..mb cant

Thanks for that in-depth analysis.

[cuchip703]

I don't buyt that. If Brunell had been able to connect downfield with his receiver Joe would have called more passing plays. You can't tell me the offensive coaches are ignoring the play on the field. Brunell was unable to find great success through the air and the coaches saw nothing to make them willing to risk it with the game on the line.

Ok...I dont' buy that...he was able to connect all preseason downfield with his WR...did he lose that ability once the regular season started. It was playcalling. Bottom line on the offense, he moved the chains. They put up more yards than the Cowboys did, just less points. In my opinion, the coaches saw nothing to risk because they had no fear of the Bears offense. They wanted to control the clock and win...which is what they did

[Destino]

Ok...I dont' buy that...he was able to connect all preseason downfield with his WR...did he lose that ability once the regular season started. It was playcalling. Bottom line on the offense, he moved the chains. They put up more yards than the Cowboys did, just less points. In my opinion, the coaches saw nothing to risk because they had no fear of the Bears offense. They wanted to control the clock and win...which is what they did

Preseason against 2nd and 3rd string defenders has absolutely nothing to do with what offensive coaches do on game day. They called passing plays for mark, several times he checked down, he hit Cooley on a medium range route, and he threw a pick when he tried to go deep....thankfully a Bears defender panicked and needlessly pulled some cloth on the play. He had plenty of chances to connect for some serious yardage and couldn't find an open man. Part of his has to do with Moss having cramped up, and part of it is Brunell never saw a check down he didn't like.

Point is, had he gone in there and lit it up the plays for more would have come tumbling in. They didn't because there was no need to force the issue. We were ahead and Gibbs clearly didn't want the game to turn on a trunover.