Brunell is NOT done

[TWINSKINS]

like many i'm waiting for Campbell to get his chance, but being curious i've looked at the last 10 superbowl winners and there weren't many young QB playing-tom Brady qualifies as a old head on youg shoulders!

aikman

favre

elway

warner

dilfer

brady

roth

and err...some fella by the name of brad johnson.

[dockeryfan]

And are you honestly blaming Brunell for the Portis injury? :doh: Portis can only blame one person for that, and that is himself. But, whatever you do, don't let Brunell's numbers from last year dissuade you from your argument that he's a bad QB. Would I love a Peyton, Brady, or Palmer on this team? Hell yes! But there's only a small percentage of teams in this league with top-tier QB's. I'd say we have an above average one, and one that Gibbs is comfortable with, and that has been the recipe for success in 2 of our 3 SuperBowl Championships.

Where, exactly, do I say Brunell is a bad QB? Don't paraphrase me incorrectly,

I said I have concerns about Brunell.

If you didn't notice his play change at the end of the last two seasons in a row, then we really are watching two different games.

I would watch Brunell before the games warming up on the sideline, and in Dec he was just floating the ball while Ramsey was firing it. In Sept, they were both throwing the ball with velocity.

But, hey, you can bring up Brunell's numbers and stuff.

That's why I said bullcarp. Just questioning the ability of a player does not make you a fair weather fan.

[bulldog]

DockeryFan, if you can't admit that Brunell's performance dip was timed almost exactly with the hit he sustained on the knee by Nick Griesen in the second Giants game then I don't think you are coming to the discussion with a perspective that is fair.

Brunell threw 4 touchdowns the week before against Dallas and the Redskins were in the process of beating the Giants and moving the ball on offense when Brunell was injured.

From that point forward his performance was suspect because he was hurt

That is no different from what happens to any NFL quarterback that takes that kind of hit. If Brunell was 26 instead of 35 that knee would still have affected him.

So, the Brunell against the Eagles and against the Bucs and Seahawks was not the same player we saw earlier in the season.

He didn't simply got up one morning and find he couldn't play quarterback anymore or because he hit an artificial wall in Game 14. It was a legitimate injury, one no doubt that would have kept him out of a game or two if the Redskins had had a lead in the NFC East coming down the stretch, a luxury no one had in 2005.

McNabb missed most of the season with a hernia and he is 29. Culpepper missed most of the season and he is 30. Palmer got hurt in the playoffs and is 24. Drew Brees is only 27.

Some injuries have less to do with age than with circumstances.

the Redskins played the Eagles, Bucs and Seahawks each twice in 2005.

the clear difference in the SECOND series of those games was Brunell's injury.

He lead the team to 35 points against Tampa the first time. The Skins beat the Eagles with McNabb and the Seahawks in the first meeting as well.

[SkinFanRoanoke]

If this exact situation were happening in the REGULAR Season, and the Skins were 2-3 then I would be on board with the Brunell is done part of this thread. IF he was playing poorly like he is now in PRE-Season. Lets look at the word Pre-season, as in BEFORE THE SEASON.

Everyone needs to relax.

You are all basing your Anti-Brunell hatred off of 3 pre-season games. Some of you are basing it off the 2nd half of last year. Let it go man, you'll feel better. Food will taste better, the sun will be brighter... etc.

Brunell in the playoffs had 2 options. Moss, and Cooley. The Bucs KNEW it and did a good job shutting it down and Seattle knew it and still had trouble shutting it down. The Skins were One interception by Carlos Rogers away from making that game VERY interesting. Yet you want to bash Brunell for having no one to throw the football to? Portis was shut down in both playoff games my friends. He didn't have a good game against the bucs or the hawks and that wasn't his fault either. It was the offensive line's fault - due to injuries. They were shredded and playing guys like Raymer who looked like he didn't even want to be in the game. If you want to blame ANYONE for the way Brunell played last season, you can look at the O-Line.

I agree. Brunell may have a BETTER year despite his age so long as he stays healthy, considering the multiple options he will have in the passing game compared to last season. He should be able to get the ball out more quickly, hopefully take less hits which will keep him fresh longer into the season.

Also if the offense as a hole adapts quickly to Saunders scheme they should get the ball downfield more earlier in the game. If we can get some early leads with all the HBs we have we can take alot of wear and tear away from Brunell by running the ball.

I haven't been as impressed with this team as I was last year since 1991, give Brunell a break, and a chance:dallasuck

[Smurf85]

Oh well I guess that settles it.

I cant WAIT untill September 11th. All this "prognosticating" is killing me.

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: BRUNELL SUCKS!:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

[skinny21]

the Redskins played the Eagles, Bucs and Seahawks each twice in 2005.

the clear difference in the SECOND series of those games was Brunell's injury.

He lead the team to 35 points against Tampa the first time. The Skins beat the Eagles with McNabb and the Seahawks in the first meeting as well.

Wow, call me an idiot, but I never even considered this point (I wasn't on the board "back then"). Certainly I knew he was injured, but thanks for this. I never really doubted MB but this sure made me smile!

[Jumbo]

So, let me get this straight. When we do well, when the passing game makes plays, Brunell did it by accident and the player's around him were responsible. When we don't do well, Mark failed, should've thrown the ball and got open for the receiver. Excellent. I've learned something about football today. Apparently (and I never knew this before), the play of the rest of the offense has no bearing on wether or not a QB succeeds. No mention of Santana dropping a pass or the O-line whiffing completely on blocks, that's not a factor, Brunell should just stiff arm DEs to the ground and find a way to achieve preseason glory. Thanks for the lesson on football, I really feel as though I've grown today.

While some of the more articulate die-hard Brunell-dislikers have some quite reasonable points, the position you reference was also a familiar mantra among many. But, IMO, it does reflect a strong, negatively slanted bias.

It's a difficult to point to debate with great clarity of outcome, given its nature as stated. It is even more perspective and bias-based than most positions semi-objectively dissectible by fans. We'd need more than watching games and tapes, except for the most arrogant among us. We'd need the honest testimony of all the coaches and ball-catchers and blockers to really get a clear answer.

Of course, for me, what I would call "common sense" works. The team didn't set two franchise passing records "in spite of lousy QB play."

[VegunN]

At least I'm not the only one who subscribes to this.

I think, right now, he will lead us to where we have to be.

He's better than anyone I feel really gives him credit for. He may not have been EVERYTHING in our turnaround, but he sure did help.

[dockeryfan]

DockeryFan, if you can't admit that Brunell's performance dip was timed almost exactly with the hit he sustained on the knee by Nick Griesen in the second Giants game then I don't think you are coming to the discussion with a perspective that is fair.

Yes, but 2004? What was his excuse then? Hamstring?

And if he really was hurt that bad, that says even less about Ramsey, that Gibbs was more comfortable with a 60% Brunell than a 100% Ramsey.

[s0crates]

Hands down, that was the best post I've read since camp opened. :1stplace:

[RedskinsRoll05]

Brunell is done, he sucks

[kreitmaster]

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: PRESEASON DOES NOT MEAN SQUAT:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

I disagree. When the first team is out there, it is nice to see them succeed ONCE in awhile. Even if we are only using a small percentage of our playbook, it doesn't mean we should look this bad. I'm a supporter of Brunell over Campbell at this point, but Brunell has not looked good. Preseason does mean something because you can see if at least the basic fundamentals are there. I'm not going to let preseason change my belief that the skins are a playoff team, but if nothing else the preseason has shown that this team is by no means perfect and will have to step it up every game.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Brunell is done, he sucks

Your post sucks.

Please back your consistent bashing of Brunell up with some stats that do not involve a MEANINGLESS PRESEASON....

[LoudMouth12thMan]

My wife doesn't believe in Brunell. You saying she's not a true Redskin's fan? Good luck telling her that. I agree with you [original thread starter], but that doesn't mean that eveyone is sold on him. He doesn't look that sharp and last year he did enough in the last 5 or 6 games to help [and I stress the word "HELP"] us win. I would like to see him have command of a game, but I fear that he will be playing the role that he played last year. That means that he has to be the consummate game manager and let the guys around him make plays. His arm strength is okay, his accuracy is above average as a general rule, and his decision making is that of a true veteran for the most part. We've got to play the hand we're dealt. We don't have a Palmer, Manning [the good one], or a Brady. We have Mark and I'm okay with that. As a matter of fact I'm proud of him and the fact that he is our general. But he needs to realize he has something to prove. He doesn't have to prove anything to us, but he needs to prove to himself and his team/the organization that he knows how to win. He did that last year, and I hope he can do it better this year. I'm not buying into the mediots, but I think that our success hinges on his ability to manage the offense well. NO TURNOVERS. That's what got us to the playoffs last year and it will be what gets us in this year if he can minimize them.

HTTR!

[TheU2689]

he'll be fine, seriously. after what he did for us last season, the last thing that all of us need to do is get all worried about Brunell. Do you think anyone else on this planet could have thrown the ball to Moss those 2 plays in Dallas the way he did NO, i dont care if you are Peyton Manning, it wouldnt of happened!!! he may be old, but he runs, and he has a report and a chemistry with our playmakers, you know he has chemistry with the O-line, Moss, Cooley, and Portis. You think he wont have one with Randle El and Lloyd, HA. he will be fine, and i hope he lights up the field this year and makes everyone doubting him look stupid HTTR

[redskins55]

Why do people think that a QB can make or break a team?? All a QB has to do is make good decisions by not turning the ball over and get the ball in the hands of playmakers . Look at the last few Super Bowl Quaterbacks, only one of them is HOF material.

Brady*

Johnson

Dilfer

Rothlesburger

Warner

Brunell will do fine!

[Shadowplay]

Oh well I guess that settles it.

I cant WAIT untill September 11th. All this "prognosticating" is killing me.

Ok, try this on then.

I can only call it like I see it, and so far Brunell has looked every bit the old man that people worried he'd become. Heck, Dontrelle Willis winds up less to throw! His touch, arm strength and accuracy are ALL in question at this point. And if you want to talk about last year, make sure you talk about last year's preseason. Brunell looked good then from day one. The same can't be said now.

Paging Todd Husak, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

[wpenn1]

he didnt look good most of last year

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

he didnt look good most of last year

Please give us some stats or something, because the stats I am seeing say he played damned good and deserved a 4th Pro Bowl appearance.

[P007]

So, let me get this straight. When we do well, when the passing game makes plays, Brunell did it by accident and the player's around him were responsible. When we don't do well, Mark failed, should've thrown the ball and got open for the receiver. Excellent. I've learned something about football today. Apparently (and I never knew this before), the play of the rest of the offense has no bearing on wether or not a QB succeeds. No mention of Santana dropping a pass or the O-line whiffing completely on blocks, that's not a factor, Brunell should just stiff arm DEs to the ground and find a way to achieve preseason glory. Thanks for the lesson on football, I really feel as though I've grown today.

Look, the fact is that Brunell has made a number of questionable plays. The problem with Brunell is his happy feet. And he always have a big turn over at the worst times. His pocket presence isn't the best. How many times did he roll into a blitz and left his protection, and got blind sided and fumbled? How many times did he make bone headed plays that a rookie would make? Remember the Tampa playoff game? What the hell was he thinking with that throw? I mean he cost us at least 3-4 games last year with bad play and desicion making. The thing with Brunell is that when he plays good, he plays real good, but when he is bad, man he is really bad. As long as he doesn't put us in bad spots we will win at leat 10-11 games this year, and I think that is good enough to win the division, and get us a home playoff game.

[NoDQForums]

The modern day fan has definately become too obsessed with the quarterback position...

Honestly, I'm a major fan of Mark, always have been since his Jag days therefor I've seen his ups, and I've seen his downs. Brunelle is a bit shakier this year then last, because people seem to forget things are different. The offense play calling is completely different & you got new guys. To top that off this preseason they have been doing all kinds of experiments to both sides of the field that has scared the bejesus out of people on this forum, but it's nothing more then an experiment.

I honestly think how Mark performs is going to depend on our running game & not on his arm strength. I have 0 doubt that there will be times where Mark will play to his full potential, particular in touch pass type situations, and I also think there will be times where he will be less then his or our standards. Overall, if our running game is in the top 12 in the NFL, I think Mark will rank himself among the quarterbacks in the league slightly better then average, if we have to rely on Mark alone without a running game then I honestly don't know what to think.

I do want to remind you that while we do have a tough season schedule, the redskins as a whole became better as the year progressed and some of our losses such as to the Bucs... probably should of been W's instead of L's. This year I honestly am hoping we can stay competitive in the beginning and I'm expecting our offense to appear "shaky" as a whole in the first few games because of the new offensive changes, yet I expect IF mark can stay healthy and play at least average during the first 5 games then a 3-2 start would be perfectly fine & then I expect Mark to greatly improve towards the middle and second half of the season as well as the offense as a whole.

Bottom line... Mark is not my concern & I don't feel he is done, but everyone has to remember how well Mark does isn't souly dependant on Mark but there are other variables such as CP in the mix that will determine his and the offensive's overall performance.

[Redskinaholic]

I just want to chime in on the "true" Redskin fan comments made here. While I believe everyone here is entitled to there individual opinions I always loose sight when those same individuals start calling for a starter to be replaced. I'm not saying this isn't an honest debate and quite proper for the preseason, I imagine. However, with that said, I do believe that once the season begins a "true" fan will back the starters on the field. I hope this remains true this season. I was disgruntled last year when so many were torn over the Ramsey / Brunell debate during the coarse of a playoff run. :doh: Whoever the coaches ultimately decide to put on the field for us are the ones that will have my cheers / backing / "true" fanship(if that's a word,haha) for as long as they are on the field. Throughout the years of being a fan of this team I found myself cheering for far worse than any player we currently have on our starting roster. If I can endure that, I can certainly endure a season where we have higher hopes than last! :applause:

HTTR! :point2sky

Good call!!

[misterfan]

Well, despite I have the led charge in critizing Mark, it would still be nice if Saunders has something up his sleeve that will allow Brunell, who is not a 60 percent passer, to be more successful. Time will tell and that time will not be tomorrow. If anything I expect another dismal performance Thursday night since they have shown nothing for THREE games it stands to reason they will not unveil the new baby tomorrow night either.

[Redskinaholic]

No matter what, Brunell still has a lot to prove and will have alot of pressure on him as well. Our offense is upgraded and his stats will be expected to be upgraded as well and how far the Skins go have to be improved. If not, he will not get the respect people want him to so badly have. I was really down on Brunell this preseason, but I have backed off a bit. I just think it is a toss up this year on whether or not he will be good. Good or bad depending on how you look at it. No matter what, I will be rooting hardcore for him all year!

[CGSKINS]

My wife doesn't believe in Brunell. You saying she's not a true Redskin's fan? Good luck telling her that. I agree with you [original thread starter], but that doesn't mean that eveyone is sold on him. He doesn't look that sharp and last year he did enough in the last 5 or 6 games to help [and I stress the word "HELP"] us win. I would like to see him have command of a game, but I fear that he will be playing the role that he played last year. That means that he has to be the consummate game manager and let the guys around him make plays. His arm strength is okay, his accuracy is above average as a general rule, and his decision making is that of a true veteran for the most part. We've got to play the hand we're dealt. We don't have a Palmer, Manning [the good one], or a Brady. We have Mark and I'm okay with that. As a matter of fact I'm proud of him and the fact that he is our general. But he needs to realize he has something to prove. He doesn't have to prove anything to us, but he needs to prove to himself and his team/the organization that he knows how to win. He did that last year, and I hope he can do it better this year. I'm not buying into the mediots, but I think that our success hinges on his ability to manage the offense well. NO TURNOVERS. That's what got us to the playoffs last year and it will be what gets us in this year if he can minimize them.

HTTR!

I have to agree with you. As long as he helps us win, I'm fine.