Destino Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I keep hearing people in the media and reading people here saying the same despressing statement. Mark Brunell isn't that problem. Isn't the problem?! How low do you have to be as a team when a guy is kept because he isn't the problem? Screw the problem, how about we just demand that the friggin QB be *GOOD*!!! OMG GOOD what a friggin concept!! We demand the running back get near 1500 yards, that the wide outs make big plays, but the QB? Oh he isn't the problem - nevermind that he isn't good, that's asking way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I think Destino has watched a few too many 3 yard outs on 3rd and long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 It's funny because Pittsburgh couldn't stop Atlanta AND gave up three fumbles to them and they still took ATL to OT. Yet we need a lights-out (EVERY WEEK) defense, Portis getting 50 carries and Moss breaking 10 tackles on the way to a 5 catch 250 yard performance for this bum to look good. Also, look at what other QBs face (hint: more pressure, more sacks, sometimes non-existent running games) and they still get the job done. If Brunell is the 'best option' then that's on Gibbs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I agree totally with the O.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Don't talk to us, ask Gibbs:laugh: Saint Joe is the one commending Brunell week in, week out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 D-day...maybe the real problem isn't so much that Brunell isn't "that good" according to your evaluation... ...maybe the real problem is that every other QB we face isn't "way, way, worse"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 lol... I think we all did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 What's also amazing is some peoples penchant to continue to blame the QB when we our oline isn't giving him any time to throw the ball. Now, this isn't a anti-anti-Brunell statement. Just pointint out the obvious. I'd bet money that if our oline was giving Brunell more time (he needs it) he'd be able to find guys down the field. They aren't and he isn't. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Actually I think we have high standards. Brunell isn't by any means a BAD quarterback, he's mediocre. But mediocrity isn't good enough for us skins fans, we need the best there is. I think our standards are very high, but they should be with the money snyder is taking from us and spending on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 What's also amazing is some peoples penchant to continue to blame the QB when we our oline isn't giving him any time to throw the ball.Now, this isn't a anti-anti-Brunell statement. Just pointint out the obvious. I'd bet money that if our oline was giving Brunell more time (he needs it) he'd be able to find guys down the field. They aren't and he isn't. Simple as that. Huh? In two wins he's been sacked ZERO times. In 5 losses, he's been sacked a TOTAL of 11 times. In comparison--- McNabb Sacked 16 Bulger 19 (in six games) Manning 7 (six games) Delhomme 15 Palmer 19 in SIX games Rivers 9 in 6 Pennington 18 E. Manning 11 in 5 games Carr 16 (six games) Brad 11 in 6 games ( a very similar type QB except Brad knows how to USe a pocket) Blaming the O-line is a cop-out. And also, Pitts and the Falcons main runners didn't meet with much running success and the passers (Batch, at least for Pitt) found ways to lift their teams. Neither D played well either. Yet somehow the QBs found a way to make an impact on the game. And both QBs faced pressure at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 He has had decent protection, good receivers, a running game, great coaches. What else can he possibly ask for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz_4_life Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 burnell sucks his stats look good because all he does is throw it to the checkdown or throws it away...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Gibbs is a great coach but his lovefest with Brunell makes him look a little foolish in my opinion. It's probably why he is under 500 in his second stint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 All you have to do is watch an NFL game not involving the Redskins and you will see passing plays completed on a regular basis that Washington has been unable to connect on for 7 weeks. Even the Saints who have a new QB, RB and WR are able to work together and put up productive numbers on offense. Brees throws the ball short and down the field and his receivers get open and catch the ball. If Peyton could do this much with a new group in New Orleans in the offseason, why is it so difficult for Saunders and the Redskins to make any plays at all? Joe Gibbs has not held players accountable. He alibis them in public and evidently is willing to write off the 15 yard penalties like the one to Randle El and not consider them significant, hence the fact players keep making these mistakes. Both Brian Mitchell and Doc Walker have said they really don't recognize this version of Joe Gibbs the coach. He is curiously detached from the action and doesn't seem as if he is really in this 100% at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Blaming the O-line is a cop-out. I'm not placing all the blame on the oline. Just pointing out the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Huh?In two wins he's been sacked ZERO times. In 5 losses, he's been sacked a TOTAL of 11 times. In comparison--- McNabb Sacked 16 Bulger 19 (in six games) Manning 7 (six games) Delhomme 15 Palmer 19 in SIX games Rivers 9 in 6 Pennington 18 E. Manning 11 in 5 games Carr 16 (six games) Brad 11 in 6 games ( a very similar type QB except Brad knows how to USe a pocket) Blaming the O-line is a cop-out. And also, Pitts and the Falcons main runners didn't meet with much running success and the passers (Batch, at least for Pitt) found ways to lift their teams. Neither D played well either. Yet somehow the QBs found a way to make an impact on the game. And both QBs faced pressure at times. I saw you make this point before. And like some others, I take a lot of my views from watching and re-watching the games. Ghost, this is where your own double-standard vision (in my analysis) comes into play, not atypically--maybe from your having had such a deeply devout anti-Brunell stance fo-evah. You imply that the lack of sacks indicates adequate O-line protection. Yet it would be fairly argued that Brunell’s oft-criticized habits of quickly throwing away the ball or making the quick short gain and behind the LOS pass under pressure (or even the backward-peddle throw) has a lot to do with the low sack number. It seems to me you do this sort of thing a lot and in a variety of ways, and you're hardly the only one…though it doesn't change my POV that Brunell is a (has) real problem(s). Of course, I am long on record that saying our O-line has been inconsistent for years in both run and pass blocking, and in getting a good burst off the ball in short yardage, and that’s maybe become a bias of mine: thinking the O-line is worse at times than they are—but that’s another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I keep hearing people in the media and reading people here saying the same despressing statement. Mark Brunell isn't that problem. Isn't the problem?! How low do you have to be as a team when a guy is kept because he isn't the problem? Screw the problem, how about we just demand that the friggin QB be *GOOD*!!! OMG GOOD what a friggin concept!! We demand the running back get near 1500 yards, that the wide outs make big plays, but the QB? Oh he isn't the problem - nevermind that he isn't good, that's asking way too much. Ain't that the truth. I find it even more amazing when I read that he shouldn't be replaced because he isn't the ONLY problem. If you follow that logic we should keep starting Wright, Holdman, etc because they aren't, individually, the only problem. A qb that can actually stretch the length of the field, instead of the width of the sidelines, would help the offensive line AND the running game to be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcamino Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 All you have to do is watch an NFL game not involving the Redskins and you will see passing plays completed on a regular basis that Washington has been unable to connect on for 7 weeks.Even the Saints who have a new QB, RB and WR are able to work together and put up productive numbers on offense. Brees throws the ball short and down the field and his receivers get open and catch the ball. If Peyton could do this much with a new group in New Orleans in the offseason, why is it so difficult for Saunders and the Redskins to make any plays at all? Joe Gibbs has not held players accountable. He alibis them in public and evidently is willing to write off the 15 yard penalties like the one to Randle El and not consider them significant, hence the fact players keep making these mistakes. Both Brian Mitchell and Doc Walker have said they really don't recognize this version of Joe Gibbs the coach. He is curiously detached from the action and doesn't seem as if he is really in this 100% at times. I've been saying all yeat that it when I watch the skins play it doesn't even feel like I'm watching the same sport as when I watch other teams. Even bad teams.....oh wait, we're 2-5. But thank God Brunell has given us chances to win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 What's also amazing is some peoples penchant to continue to blame the QB when we our oline isn't giving him any time to throw the ball.Now, this isn't a anti-anti-Brunell statement. Just pointint out the obvious. I'd bet money that if our oline was giving Brunell more time (he needs it) he'd be able to find guys down the field. They aren't and he isn't. Simple as that. Oh dont dare say the offensive line is a problem. Its all Brunell. Didnt you know that the whole team sucks because of one player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 The problem is that Brunell is being rewarded for the one or two big throws per game he makes, while everything else he does is being ignored. We all know what Brunell brings to the table at this stage in his career, and it isn't good enough to run this offense. It amazes me to see people making threads like "Is Lloyd a bust?" Why in the hell is someone questioning Lloyd? He is getting open all the time, has caught everything thrown his way, including passes he has to dive for or stop in his tracks and reach for. We don't have a QB that can consistently throw the ball downfield, which is a deadly thing when you have SPEED at the WR position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 You imply that the lack of sacks indicates adequate O-line protection. Yet it would be fairly argued that Brunell’s oft-criticized (by you for instance) habits of quickly throwing away the ball or making the quick short gain and behind the LOS pass under pressure (or even the backward peddle bad throw) has a lot to do with the low sack number. To my analysis, you do this sort of thing a lot and in a variety of ways and you're hardly the only one…though it doesn't change my POV that Brunell is a (has) real problem(s). Of course, I am long on record that saying our O-line has been inconsistent for years in both run and pass blocking, and in getting a good burst off the ball in short yardage, and that’s maybe become a bias of mine: thinking the O-line is worse at times than they are—but that’s another topic. The only problem is that the winning teams have Qbs that have taken more sacks and have a higher sacks per attempt in some cases (I'll be making a whole new thread, an omnibus for stats, if you will, shortly) and play in different systems that emphasize either looking deep OR getting rid of the ball quickly. As for the habits of which you mention having an impact on the low sack number, without looking at the games, I'd be inclined to agree. But having seen him operate for 3 years and having done the video analysis of the BRIEF period in which other QBs have operated here in DC, I'd just have to dismiss that out of hand. His overly deep drops have nothing to do with pass pro because he does them even when there's a great pocket. He backpedals often to escape someone who would be much more easily eluded AND set up a possible positive play by stepping up. I see it all the time and we can go back to the video. Often it's not the guy coming up the middle (which would justify a backpedal) but from the outside. Again, stepping up or using the pocket like everyone else in the league (almost) would obviate the worst pressure and at least eliminate that one criticism. BTW, I'm not making the case that the offensive line is perfect. But I think, just as during Spurrier, they are being made to look worse than they are by factors outside of their control. Or they are also made scapegoats for someone else's play, simply because it's more comfortable for them to do so. If Samuels was struggling so much with Freeney, it would make sense to give him help just a couple times, wouldn't it? Coaches bear some responsibility too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Yup, fair enough responses, Ghost. I have to leave or I'd be a little more detailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Lets forget about the sacks statistic anyway....is getting sacked once or twice during an entire game really an excuse for a loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 do you really think the Colts offensive line is that outstanding or is it Manning's quick release and pocket sense that prevents sacks and allows the offense to be productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I think Destino has watched a few too many 3 yard outs on 3rd and long. this was exactly what i was going to say. why dont people think this is a problem. i think the reason the running game is having such a tough time is cause defenses are creaping up towards the los cause nobody is scared of scotty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.