Al Saunders: A Statistical Comparison.

[illone]

I wanted to dig up some recent history on QB's under Al Saunders in their first couple seasons, and further, in their initial games under him. Now, this is not another bash Brunell thread, so please keep that to a minimum.

What I'm doing in this thread is comparing Saunders previous QB's in their first few games under him to each other. Brunell is included.

Clearly these stats don't provide any information on the defense of those respective games, or teams. Most of us know that KC hasn't been world beaters on defense anyways, so that even strengthens this information because we currently have a solid defense, certainly better than the KC defenses of the early 2000's. Point being, this isn't about overall team play, simply comparing QB's in a new offense under Al Saunders. What I think I've proven here is that we might need to be a little more patient with the new offense, but that we also may need a change at QB if we want to be a Superbowl team next season.

Kurt Warner, 1999, St Louis, Game one.

The Rams played Atlanta in their first try with Al Saunders. Here is what happened:

17/25 for 275 Yards (65%), 3TDs, 0 Ints, for a 144 rate. He also rushed for 1 TD. That's an 11 yard per attempt average.

Now, let's take a look at game two @ the Bengals:

17/21 for 310 yards(81%), 3 TDs, 0 Ints, and a 158.3 rating and 14 ypa.

The Rams were 2-0 at this point and Kurt Warner went on to become the league MVP. They won the SB that year.

Incredible stats for a modest, veteran QB in a totally new offense with a 700 page playbook. Looks like Warner didn't need much time to get comfortable. He had comparable playmakers to the 2006 skins, too.

Now, on to Trent Green:

Game one in 2001 under Saunders, KC played Oakland:

16/37 for 222 yards (43%), 1 TD, and 1 Int. 6 yards per attempt. KC lost.

Game two in 2001 KC lost again.

17/34 for 184 yards(50%), 0 TDs and 1 Int. 5 yards per attempt.

Green had his ups and downs in 2001, finishing with a 71 rating, and throwing for over 3700 yards. KC finished 6-10. The overall offense really took off the following year, in 2002, rising from the 15th ranked, up to the #1 ranked offense in the league.

We all know Brunell has looked less than solid these first two weeks. Comparing him to last year at this time, he just had a different pep in his step to start out. I'm not sure if that was due to losing his job to Ramsey and he tried his butt off to earn it back, or what, but he does look more like Brunell of 2004 now.

The main difference here is that Green was 30-31 years old and looking up to some of his greatest years in the league. At this point it's safe to say that Brunell's best years are behind him, and at 37 it may be time for him to either play like he wants to win the SuperBowl this year, or we cut our losses and let the team grow with Jason Campbell at the helm.

My main concern is that we're wasting time growing with Mark Brunell. He's not the QB for our future. We know it, Mark knows it, Gibbs has said it. That said, if Mark stays under center this year are we to have the same growth pains when Campbell takes over?

I really think it's time to insert Campbell now. Clearly we're not a Superbowl team this year. If we wait too long with Brunell, we're not going to be a Superbowl team next year. Let the team learn with Campbell this season so next year we can compete in the NFC.

Like the sig says, the future is now.

[SC3]

I'm glad someone did some research on Saunders instead of being quick to denounce him.

[illone]

I'm glad someone did some research on Saunders instead of being quick to denounce him.

Well, it was more about the QB's under him and how they played in their new offense.

[SC3]

It's too early to tell if Brunell will pan out or not. Many of us don't really want to wait to find out, but try out Campbell is indeed the future.

Green was older QB and he looked absolutely horrible for the 1st half of 2001 under Saunders as offensive coordinator. Dick Vermeil was patient and the offense began to show in the 2nd half of 2001.

[Ghost of]

Ill,

I appreciate the research. I'd also point out that while we have no regular season games to go on, Trent Green was looking like Johnny U during the Rams preseason and was really humming in that offense. It's why Vermeil was sobbing in his press conference and the world thought the Rams were doomed until Warner stepped in. Though Warner played better than Green was likely to have played, there is a chance that Green's mobility (he was nice before that knee injury) would have added a dimension to that attack. Also, the Rams were more talented in 99 than the Chiefs were in 2001.

Your main point is spot on and really isn't any different than last year or even 2004. We keep waiting and waiting and hoping a veteran will help us "win now" but we don't get far enough and now we have to wait some more??! How about going with the young guy.

[illone]

It's too early to tell if Brunell will pan out or not.

That's the whole point, though. Waiting to find out is not in the best interest of the Redskins. Once we do find out, by then Brunell will retire.

Do you see Brunell playing three more years?

The logic to having Brunell in there was a veteran guy who could lead us to the playoffs this season, and potentially the NFC Champ game. If we're going to learn and grow, might as well do it with the younger QB at the helm.

[nebster21]

anybody know what the Chiefs record was in the first 6 games when Saunders took over. If you do not know than stop bashing him.

[Spizzunk]

That was a heck of a well-researched, thought-out post, illone. Too bad you don't bring that to the Zone. (i kid....i kid....)

Exhibit 2 would have to be the offensive talent. I know ya'll are enamored with the pickups, and whatnot - but the talent on this team doesn't even approach the 01 Rams. (despite what you tried to tell me in the offseason... IMO, Lloyd is really just not that good, and Randle El is a situational WR. The blame can't lay solely on Brunell - he did more with "allegedly" less last year. What happened to the WR screens, the H-back screens? Those were effective, and they seem to have been written out completely.

[illone]

Your main point is spot on and really isn't any different than last year or even 2004. We keep waiting and waiting and hoping a veteran will help us "win now" but we don't get far enough and now we have to wait some more??! How about going with the young guy.

Well, I know I've defended Mark in the past and while I think he has played well for us at times over the past few years, I really didn't expect him to struggle this much in the new offense. Vets shouldn't struggle this much. The whole idea behind being a vet is learning on the fly and providing a spark for the rest of the team to go by. When you can't be that spark, and you hinder the team then it's time to go ahead and let the team get used to our franchise QB.

Plus, I believe that inserting Campbell will cause the rest of the team to step up to make up for potential newbie mistakes from Campbell.

Hey, at least with Campbell we can use the playbook. Over the middle, and deep outs now become available where-as now it's not part of the offense.

I've mentioned this a few times, but did you see how wide open Moss was on several occasions last night? It was nuts.

[skinsfn]

Saunders was the Wide Receivers coach under Dick Vermeil for Kurt's first game in 1999. Martz was the OC. When he moved to KC is when he became the OC and playcaller.

[illone]

anybody know what the Chiefs record was in the first 6 games when Saunders took over. If you do not know than stop bashing him.

What thread are you reading?

Nobody here has bashed Saunders.

[Spizzunk]

I've mentioned this a few times, but did you see how wide open Moss was on several occasions last night? It was nuts.

What times were these? They replayed one shot of moss running with Newman down the sideline. Brunell went to turn it loose, and newman started his break, and would have almost assuredly picked that thing off. Moss continued running, but Brunell had already seen the coverage and looked away. Any other instance was lost to me.

[SC3]

anybody know what the Chiefs record was in the first 6 games when Saunders took over. If you do not know than stop bashing him.

1-5

[illone]

What times were these? They replayed one shot of moss running with Newman down the sideline. Brunell went to turn it loose, and newman started his break, and would have almost assuredly picked that thing off. Moss continued running, but Brunell had already seen the coverage and looked away. Any other instance was lost to me.

He had 5 steps on Newman at one point. With Moss' speed that's WIIDE OPEN. It's a moot point, though, because Brunell can't get ball out of his hands quick enough.

It's my thought that Campbell would have gotten Moss the ball there.

Sure, with Brunell throwing it could have been a pick. With any decent QB, that's 6 points.

[Spizzunk]

He had 5 steps on Newman at one point. With Moss' speed that's WIIDE OPEN. It's a moot point, though, because Brunell can't get ball out of his hands quick enough.

It's my thought that Campbell would have gotten Moss the ball there.

Sure, with Brunell throwing it could have been a pick. With any decent QB, that's 6 points.

You're taking one instance, and extrapolating it out to numerous times. You saw only the WR-CB isolation shot. You have no idea what Brunell was doing. Newman had Moss covered, his eyes in the backfield. Brunell did something to cause Newman to flinch to make a play, and apparently brunell went away from it. Don't underestimate Newman's speed, either - or take one camera shot and carry it through to suggest Moss was beating people all night.

[Ghost of]

You're taking one instance, and extrapolating it out to numerous times. You saw only the WR-CB isolation shot. You have no idea what Brunell was doing. Newman had Moss covered, his eyes in the backfield. Brunell did something to cause Newman to flinch to make a play, and apparently brunell went away from it. Don't underestimate Newman's speed, either - or take one camera shot and carry it through to suggest Moss was beating people all night.

What about the throws Brunell made in the dirt or floated?

I mean, you're trying to distract from the main point, which is that Brunell isn't throwing balls that other QBs do and do well.

But keep hope alive, I guess. Don't like that you decide to try to nitpick one part of Ill's argument so you can pretend reality is what it isn't. :doh:

[natem985]

Green's stats that first season

74 QB rating, 17 TDs, 24 INTs

[nebster21]

your correct no one was bashing him but I figured people were bashing him in other threads and this one seemed to be looking at his past. So I brought it up in this thread. What i was getting at is give it them some time to get this thing up and working before you go looking to fire AS. these first few games are going to blow our minds but once we get on track I say watch out.

[illone]

You're taking one instance, and extrapolating it out to numerous times. You saw only the WR-CB isolation shot. You have no idea what Brunell was doing. Newman had Moss covered, his eyes in the backfield. Brunell did something to cause Newman to flinch to make a play, and apparently brunell went away from it. Don't underestimate Newman's speed, either - or take one camera shot and carry it through to suggest Moss was beating people all night.

Maybe you missed the point here. This thread isn't about Newman, or Moss being open. It's about what the Redskins need to do in order to win for the future. With a QB who can't see the open guy then you are arguing a moot point. It doens't matter how wide open Moss was. It doesn't matter how fast Newman is. You can't assume it would have been a pick. THE QB DIDN'T SEE THE OPPORTUNITY.

Stop making side arguments that have nothing to do with the topic. If you want to debate Moss vs. Newman then start a thread. This thread is not about that.

[Spizzunk]

Maybe you missed the point here. This thread isn't about Newman, or Moss being open. It's about what the Redskins need to do in order to win for the future. With a QB who can't see the open guy then you are arguing a moot point. It doens't matter how wide open Moss was. It doesn't matter how fast Newman is. You can't assume it would have been a pick. THE QB DIDN'T SEE THE OPPORTUNITY.

Stop making side arguments that have nothing to do with the topic. If you want to debate Moss vs. Newman then start a thread. This thread is not about that.

Sorry it's difficult for you to follow, but the point is that you are assuming opportunities were present, when it is entirely possible that there were no opportunities, and Brunell did the best he could with what was available.

[Ghost of]

Sorry it's difficult for you to follow, but the point is that you are assuming opportunities were present, when it is entirely possible that there were no opportunities, and Brunell did the best he could with what was available.

Such an argument would be absurd to advance when we all saw balls bounce or head away from open receivers.

Stay out of the thread if you're going to revise history to fit some pathetic agenda.

[illone]

Sorry it's difficult for you to follow, but the point is that you are assuming opportunities were present, when it is entirely possible that there were no opportunities, and Brunell did the best he could with what was available.

You're the only one here having difficulties. Read the thread again, I'm sure you can find out where you screwed up. If not, maybe you are in the wrong place.

See ya.

[cphil006]

the INT at the 1-yardline really hurt us...killed a golden opportunity...

[dadirtbags]

I would love to see Campbell as the starter....I also think it will happen sooner than later..... I think you guys have some valid great points....about MB.... Mark is getting older and has lost a step...the game appears to have sped up on him.....his decision making seems to have slowed down...I'd much rather have a young mobile QB learn the ins and outs of this system ...I think MB would be best suited as a backup and a mentor for Jason.

[Supreme Wu]

You're the only one here having difficulties. Read the thread again, I'm sure you can find out where you screwed up. If not, maybe you are in the wrong place.

See ya.

He's not having difficulties, his point is clear and VERY SIMPLE

Don't say that MOSS was open several times without being able to back it up. Throwing out statements like that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Other posters read it, assume its true, and then it spreads across the board. The thread can be about whatever, but we should keep the debate honest and truthful.