gibo Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I recently heard a so called sports expert say something to the effect that Drew Bledsoe is a better QB than Mark Brunell, can you comment on this. Personally I think both our QB’s are better than Drew Bledsoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 really is just a matter of opinion. personally, i think they are very similar, both with some glaring problems--- brunell's being the long ball and fumbling, bledsoe's being poor decision making and interceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yazzmode621 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I think he was smoking crack when he said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 They were discussing this yesterday on Sirius. A Redskins fan called in speaking of Brunell's stats and said he was the 2nd best QB in the NFC last season (behing Hassleback). Then the announcers named like 5 or 6 QBs who they said were better, including Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Chris Simms, Eil Manning. I was astonished and I was kinda hoping that somebody else call in and correct them on that. But it was all null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Most media-types are short-sighted. They saw the injured Brunell (from the second Giants game) and qualified that as his overall ability. Not quite the case, as we saw a completely different Brunell who was playing above average football prior to the injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllAboutSkins08 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 i wouldn't call brunell the second best QB in the NFC, but his performance last year was great and he deserves a lot of credit for it. but so do the o-line, recievers, and running backs because how they perform effect how the defense of the other team reacts and can make it easier or harder for the QB to perform. bledsoe is a good QB and so is brunell, they've both had their ups and downs so i can't really comment on which is better cause i think it's all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseGoForTheWin Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Bledsoe hasn't looked very good in recent years, and even during his prime he had a problem with interceptions. Neither guy is an all-star anymore, but given a choice between the two I'd take Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 i wouldn't call brunell the second best QB in the NFC, but his performance last year was great and he deserves a lot of credit for it. but so do the o-line, recievers, and running backs because how they perform effect how the defense of the other team reacts and can make it easier or harder for the QB to perform. bledsoe is a good QB and so is brunell, they've both had their ups and downs so i can't really comment on which is better cause i think it's all relative. The main reason I don't like this comment is that it is kinda assuming that Brunell cound't do it without these things. I think that this comment itself is the SOLE reason why we don't have too many players over in Canton. Because the media says that this player himself wasn't that important; it was because he had everybody around him. From now on, I'm calling that BS. Yeah, everybody was around him, but he still needed to do his job. People don't say that Emmit Smith is a crappy back because he had one of the most dominant lines in front of him. So don't say that about Brunell, or the Redskins in general. Don't shortchange the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Bledsoe hasn't looked very good in recent years, and even during his prime he had a problem with interceptions. Neither guy is an all-star anymore, but given a choice between the two I'd take Brunell. See the thing I think about with these two guys is the interceptions. Brunell takes careful attention not to throw them. Bledsoe doesn't. And hence Bledsoe throws more interceptions. I think that will again be a deciding factor between these two QB's since I doubt Brunell's numbers are much worse than last year (actually, I think much MUCH better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 really is just a matter of opinion. personally, i think they are very similar, both with some glaring problems--- brunell's being the long ball and fumbling, bledsoe's being poor decision making and interceptions. I think Bledsoe has a bigger fumbling problem than Brunell, actually...and Bledsoe's other problem is his immobility. The guy's a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwdj75 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 I recently heard a so called sports expert say something to the effect that Drew Bledsoe is a better QB than Mark Brunell, can you comment on this. Personally I think both our QB’s are better than Drew Bledsoe How in the world can you say a QB that hasn't taken one snap in the NFL be better than a two time AFC championship winner ? Bledsoe and Brunnell ? Can go either way, but c'mon man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 The main reason I don't like this comment is that it is kinda assuming that Brunell cound't do it without these things. So you think if we had kept Coles last year, and had a completely different H-back, that brunell would have put up the same numbers? Lol, I forget the %, but someone figured out that a huge chunk of his yardage was actually YAC by the recievers, namely Cooley and Moss. Not the majority of it, but as high as 40% of it. I think that this comment itself is the SOLE reason why we don't have too many players over in Canton. Because the media says that this player himself wasn't that important; it was because he had everybody around him. Our players from the 80's aren't getting in because people hate on those teams. If they use that logic, it's not because it's legit, it's because that voter uses it to justify his vote to other people when they ask him WTF he was thinking. From now on, I'm calling that BS. Yeah, everybody was around him, but he still needed to do his job. People don't say that Emmit Smith is a crappy back because he had one of the most dominant lines in front of him. So don't say that about Brunell, or the Redskins in general. Actually, yeah, I have heard that. Especially in the Barry/smith arguements. Don't shortchange the Skins. And don't act like brunell is all world, all by himself. He's most definitely NOT the 2nd best qb in the NFC, and probably not the NFC east either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZFAN4EVER Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 They were discussing this yesterday on Sirius. A Redskins fan called in speaking of Brunell's stats and said he was the 2nd best QB in the NFC last season (behing Hassleback). Then the announcers named like 5 or 6 QBs who they said were better, including Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Chris Simms, Eil Manning. I was astonished and I was kinda hoping that somebody else call in and correct them on that. But it was all null and void. JUST more redskins "HATERS" or do called experts just like to get their name out there. Brunnel had his best year as a pro after the REDSKINS team had JOE GIBBS STAMP(all gibbs team; unlike year 1 having inherited a mediocre squad) :helmet: :point2sky :logo: :point2sky BLEDSOE cannot handle our defense, Brad has no mobility(as our d will get him) and ELI is overrated; what has Simms done lately??? UNTIL Brunnell got hurt he was leading NFC & RUNNING THINGS!! ***DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE*** REDSKINS ARE COMING..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RammsteinSkins Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 I recently heard a so called sports expert say something to the effect that Drew Bledsoe is a better QB than Mark Brunell, can you comment on this. Personally I think both our QB’s are better than Drew Bledsoe He isn't a expert if he says Bledsoe is better than Brunell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Brunells performance last year was good, not great. He was one of the worst in the leage in turning the ball over(interceptions + fumbles), and was near the bottom in yards per attempt, a couple of his weaknesses. So to argue he was the 2nd best would really be a waste of time. Is he better than Bledsoe? All depends on your defintion of better. Some people see other stats, or traits as more important. Suffice to say, its irrelevent, since the only thing we care about is the Redskins having a good season and making the playoffs, regardless of who is QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Brunell and Bledsoe are pretty equal IMO. Different styles, but I'm not sure which one I would rather have on my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaz1 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Because we have Brunell ,I would have to go with Brunell. It's a toss up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 How in the world can you say a QB that hasn't taken one snap in the NFL be better than a two time AFC championship winner ? 2 times? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUGator19 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 huh? this is an easy answer... Brunell is by far better than Bledsoe. What's Brunell's weakness? his fumbling on the run? fair enough... but bledsoe throws INTs... so they are even on that, in every other catagory, Brunell is way better. Think of it this way, who would you pick to win a superbowl for you?:dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysForLife Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 edit// formatting didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwdj75 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 2 times? :whoknows: Yes, 1996 and 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhutanibeast Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 They were discussing this yesterday on Sirius. A Redskins fan called in speaking of Brunell's stats and said he was the 2nd best QB in the NFC last season (behing Hassleback). Then the announcers named like 5 or 6 QBs who they said were better, including Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Chris Simms, Eil Manning. I was astonished and I was kinda hoping that somebody else call in and correct them on that. But it was all null and void. Whoever said that must be a complete idiot cause Simms had one good game last year (unfortunately, against us) Manning is overrated at this point in his career, and what the hell did Brad Johnson do statistically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Brunell Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 one of the posters said that he couldn't compare Mark and Bledsoe because it was relative....I think so true I think there are and have been many QB's who have succeded or failed because of many factors, some of which were not all of their own control. Sure a QB must possess intelligence, toughness, arm strength and at least some mobility. Four factors of what I think are very very important to a QBs success 1) the system/offensive Philosphy that a QB is in 2) The skill of those around him (OL, RB, TE and obviously the WRs) 3) the injury status of the whole offence 4) and the overall strength of the team (defense, special teams, etc) You look at any QBs carreer and you can track them though the years. Some have been fortunate to be at the right place at the right time, others may have been forced in to bad situations too soon or be part of a bad team or franchise. Mark absoulutely could have not been in a better situations in his career. The down times were almost always due to injuries. After playing at Washinton in a pass offense, he spent two years in Green Bay behind Brett. His head coach was Mike Holmgren, QB coach Steve Mariucci, WR coach Jon Gruden and Line coach was Andy Reid, the next 9 years in a new franchise with Tom Coughlin, Jimmy Smith and Kennen McCardell in Jax and finally with Joe Gibbs and the Redskins. The point I'm trying to make is that Mark never was forced in too soon, had great teachers and was in great situations with outstanding people/players around him. How fortunate to be where he is.... How do you get rid of these icons? :2cents: :logo: :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janky Spanky Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Yes, 1996 and 2001. He was sitting on the bench in 2001, remember, Tom Brady...tuck rule, Adam Vinateri's field goal in the snow, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revallenjr Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Does it really matter? One of the things that Gibbs is known for is winning Super Bowls with different Quarterbacks. IMO Theisman was the best of the three QBs that Gibbs had, but none of them was the greatest in the leauge at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.