Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Should Mark Brunell have gone to the Pro Bowl over Michael Vick?

Scamology

By Scamology
in The Stadium

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

DCMONEY

DCMONEY

Posted
Posted

I can remember Randall Cunningham back in the day getting bashed for running too much. Yada Yada Yada. He never really had exceptional WR's to throw to in Philly. Well when Randall Got to Minnesota people notice his style of play was different. He ran when he needed to as opposed to when he had to. There's a difference when the supporting cast is around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tuna_h8r

tuna_h8r

Posted
Posted
That said, I really don't get the way some on here are skewing numbers to make Brunell's season look worse than it was. He's not Marino or Favre, but he's an ok QB who had a decent season. Why is that so hard to say?

from a redskins fans' perspective i think brunell had an awesome season. truthfully, the entire team blew my expectations way of the water. i didn't think they had a shot at the playoffs before the season started; i was hoping for 8-8 and 4-2 in the division and a good showing in the last 3 weeks as a point of momentum into 2006- and expecting, honestly, to be disappointed.

but you said right there he's an ok qb who had a decent season, and as the thread is about brunell being a probowler, didn't you just answer the original question in the negative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
I can remember Randall Cunningham back in the day getting bashed for running too much. Yada Yada Yada. He never really had exceptional WR's to throw to in Philly. Well when Randall Got to Minnesota people notice his style of play was different. He ran when he needed to as opposed to when he had to. There's a difference when the supporting cast is around you.

That's a terrible example for your purposes.

Cunningham suceeded because he couldn't run like he used to, so he started throwing like a pocket passer, and it turns out he was pretty good when he did that.

Imagine that, a QB having a career year at the age of 36. :)

Steve Young won a superbowl during his 6th best rushing season at the age of 33.

John Elway got older, stopped running, and won back to back superbowls during his 12th and 13th best rushing seasons, at the age of 37 and 38.

Warren Moon had a career year during his 10th best rushing season, throwing 33 TDs and making the pro bowl at the age of 39. He made another pro bowl at 41.

Fran Tarkenton had a career season at the age of 35, when he had the lowest single-season rushing total of his career. He went tot he pro bowl that year, and again the next year when he was 36.

More recently, McNabb finally got to the superbowl in 2004, threw for the most yards, most TDs and highest yards per pass of his career, while rushing for the fewest yards of his career.

Fact is, QBs that run around early on in their careers inevitably fare better when they get older, settle into the pocket, and play the position the way it was meant to be played. Last season Brunell had his lowest rushing total as a full time starter ... and the most passing TDs. It isn't necessarily a sign that he's slowing down, but rather that he's maturing, and found a coach that knows how to properly play to his strengths.

Vick, for all his flash, isn't there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
but you said right there he's an ok qb who had a decent season, and as the thread is about brunell being a probowler, didn't you just answer the original question in the negative?

The thread is about if I think Brunell should have gone to the pro bowl over Vick in 2005. The answer is yes. I also would say the same if it were Manning or Bledsoe vs. Vick. Vick just wasn't that good this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tuna_h8r

tuna_h8r

Posted
Posted
The thread is about if I think Brunell should have gone to the pro bowl over Vick in 2005. The answer is yes. I also would say the same if it were Manning or Bledsoe vs. Vick. Vick just wasn't that good this year.

you and your damn reason. fine. you win. :notworthy

I would just say that being the best-of-the-rest shouldn't necessarily make you a probowler. And for me, for last season, after hasselbeck, the rest weren't probowl caliber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCMONEY

DCMONEY

Posted
Posted
That's a terrible example for your purposes.

Cunningham suceeded because he couldn't run like he used to, so he started throwing like a pocket passer, and it turns out he was pretty good when he did that.

Imagine that, a QB having a career year at the age of 36. :)

Steve Young won a superbowl during his 6th best rushing season at the age of 33.

John Elway got older, stopped running, and won back to back superbowls during his 12th and 13th best rushing seasons, at the age of 37 and 38.

Warren Moon had a career year during his 10th best rushing season, throwing 33 TDs and making the pro bowl at the age of 39. He made another pro bowl at 41.

Fran Tarkenton had a career season at the age of 35, when he had the lowest single-season rushing total of his career. He went tot he pro bowl that year, and again the next year when he was 36.

More recently, McNabb finally got to the superbowl in 2004, threw for the most yards, most TDs and highest yards per pass of his career, while rushing for the fewest yards of his career.

Fact is, QBs that run around early on in their careers inevitably fare better when they get older, settle into the pocket, and play the position the way it was meant to be played. Last season Brunell had his lowest rushing total as a full time starter ... and the most passing TDs. It isn't necessarily a sign that he's slowing down, but rather that he's maturing, and found a coach that knows how to properly play to his strengths.

Vick, for all his flash, isn't there yet.

Main man Cunningham was older but having Robert Smith at RB, Randy Moss, and Chris Carter at the WR's gave Cunningham targets to throw to. Are you suggesting that Randall would've took off running in his early days if he had these targets to throw to early in his career? Not as much I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Animal Trainer

The Animal Trainer

Posted
Posted
you and your damn reason. fine. you win. :notworthy

I would just say that being the best-of-the-rest shouldn't necessarily make you a probowler. And for me, for last season, after hasselbeck, the rest weren't probowl caliber.

Thank God this debate is over. I agree with Henry, it could have been a toss up between Bledsoe, Manning, Brunell...Vick was the worst passer in the league, that's not pro-bowl caliber play. Not that the other 3 NFC East QB's were the 2nd coming of Montana...the NFC just isnt really a QB league. Donavon usually has that spot sewn up, without him they gave it to Vick. Pretty bad if you ask me...anyone want to insert a Rush Limbaugh comment here? I'm not going to touch it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
terpfan

terpfan

Posted
Posted
you and your damn reason. fine. you win. :notworthy

I would just say that being the best-of-the-rest shouldn't necessarily make you a probowler. And for me, for last season, after hasselbeck, the rest weren't probowl caliber.

I dont think Hass would have wanted to play the whole game for the NFC. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dana87

Dana87

Posted
Posted
Well, is he? Should he have gone to the Pro Bowl over Vick?

Me no thinkee so....

What do you mean "Me no thinkee so..." Compare their seasons. Anyone that thinks Vick had a better year, and that's supposed to be what it's based on, votes on popularity not production. :nutkick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dana87

Dana87

Posted
Posted
Al Saunders loves Collins. I used to love Gibbs but I'm not sure now. He has snubbed our new QB for too long. Gibbs and Saunders need to go, IMO.

Wow... "Saunders and Gibbs have to go."

Give me a minute so I can see this from your point of view...

:jerk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
Main man Cunningham was older but having Robert Smith at RB, Randy Moss, and Chris Carter at the WR's gave Cunningham targets to throw to. Are you suggesting that Randall would've took off running in his early days if he had these targets to throw to early in his career? Not as much I doubt it.

Are you suggesting he enjoyed his best year as a pro because he had a good team around him? That a 36 year old has-been could be transformed into a pro-bowler and a league MVP candidate simply because he had a great supporting cast and a scheme that didn't require the athleticism of a younger player?

... are you sure that's a point you want to make? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rvan1

rvan1

Posted
Posted

he should have, yes, but pro bowls ARE NOT A GOOD THING for players.... they only bump up contracts come time to extend. and while brunell isnt necessarily going to get an extension before he retires, if he made the pro bowl, you can forget about restructuring...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSchwartz

TheSchwartz

Posted
Posted

Gee the results are real shocking here guys...

It's a close call so I expect everyone here to vote for Brunell but just for argument's sake how about some stats to digest...

Brunell had 3,161 yards of total offense, averaging 6.37 yards per play, 23 TD, 16 turnovers

Vick had 3,009 yards of total offense, averaging 6.15 yards per play, 21 TD, 18 turnovers

Eli Manning had 3,842 yards of total offense, averaging 6.56 yards per play, 25 TD, 19 turnovers.

You could also make arguments for Bulger and or Brad Johnson who had excellent years but didn't play inevery game for the team. You can also make arguments for Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, Drew Bledsoe and Chris Simms. But the fact remains, who would you rather have in the all-star game. A QB that needs his team to make plays for him or a QB that can make a highlight reel all by himself? I would choose the latter if you want an interesting game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSchwartz

TheSchwartz

Posted
Posted
Are you suggesting he enjoyed his best year as a pro because he had a good team around him? That a 36 year old has-been could be transformed into a pro-bowler and a league MVP candidate simply because he had a great supporting cast and a scheme that didn't require the athleticism of a younger player?

... are you sure that's a point you want to make? :)

I've tried to make the argument repeatedly and been blasted time and again for it, does this mean some people are gonna acquiesce to the fact that Brunell didn't get better over night but in fact was helped out this year by the fact that the team was just much better around him? And he is in fact pretty much the same bum everyone wanted benched in 2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...