Breaking down the True Reason why Brunell should sit (long)

[ceviker]

I was thinking about what is it about Brunell that pisses me off the most. I can pick numerous things, lack of arm strength, inability to throw to receivers not named Moss or Cooley, too many check downs, etc. Those are what the Brunell haters mention.

The Brunell supports mention that he is not the problem with the team (the D is more the problem, perhaps the o-line and penalties as well), that he manages the game well, and his stats show that he is a top 10 QB.

The stats are meaningless because the stats include those meaningless yards and td's in the end of games that we were already out of (cowboys and colts). And I agree that he manages the game ok and that our D is more of a concern.

But the MAIN reason I believe he needs to sit down is because he CANNOT lead this team from behind! If the D is super and everything else is clicking, yes, I firmly believe Brunell can be our guy. But it's not. And we need a QB that can be a strength at the end of games. For example:

The Vikings Game: he played well, but he could not lead us in the endzone. AT ALL! If he could have gotten us in the endzone just once instead of settling for FG's, we would have won that game.

Dallas: Yeah, we started out HORRIBLY on D. But after Rock returned that kick for a TD, the D got pumped up and put the pressure on Dallas and caused numerous 3 and outs. Then we caused a turnover finally, with great field position, and what happens? Brunell throws a pick. He had NUMEROUS opportunities to lead the team back but he couldn't do it. Then of course the D got tired and we just collapsed further. Oh don't forget, he only had some completions when Dallas was up by 17 and was playing a prevent in the last 5 minutes of the game. Way to go super smart Brunell!

Texans: Good game against one of the worst D's in the NFL. I know all those passes were screen passes, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he had a decent, not great, game.

Jags: The ONE game where he played great. If Brunell played like this every week, we wouldn't be here. Where did this Brunell go?

NYG: Yeah, the D sucked it up big time. But the D gave the O many chances at the end and what did Brunell do? JACK ****! He didn't even take chances at the end. Who cares if the Giants pick you off in the 4th when you're already down double digits? TAKE A DAMN CHANCE!

Titans: Those first two drives were great. What the hell happened? He became his inept self again for the rest of the game. Yes, the D played horrid. But he had many chances, yet again, to lead this team from behind and get a score (against a ****ty Titans D, mind you!) and what happened? He decided to throw to Moss with 4 Titans jerseys surrounding him. I'm no math major, but if there are 11 players on D, and 4 on moss, that leaves 7 players left. And subtract the D line, that gives you 3-4 in coverage against Lloyd, Randle El, and Cooley! What the hell was he thinking!? I forget the stat, but it was something like 15/19 passes were thrown to Moss. Yeah, real hard for a D to figure that out.

Colts: He just could not move this team. At all. Sanders, their best man in the secondary is out, and you're telling me that we could only muster one offensive score against them!? (The 2nd td was from randle el's return, the last one didn't count because the Colts weren't trying at that point). Please. Yes, again the D was abysmal. But I guarantee that if the O had scored after the Colts scored their opening drive in the 3rd instead of punting immediately, the D would have stepped it up. I'm not saying the D would have shut them out, I'm just saying they'd be playing with more fire.

Brunell could have led us to victory IN AT LEAST the Vikings game, Cowboys game, Giants game, and Titans game. He should have pulled out AT LEAST two of those. That's what QB is supposed to do, right? Lead the team when it needs him to do it most?

Now I'm not necessarily saying that JC would have led us from behind - we don't know what he would have done. But I guarantee you would have AT LEAST done equal. And even if he did equal to MB, he would have gained valuable experience, the team would start rallying behind him, and maybe, just maybe, the whole team would start playing with some more emotion.

I'm sure that if JC had started the year (which I didn't want, this is obviously in hindsight. I was DEF. a Brunell supporter when the season started) guarantee you he would not have been worse than 2-5. Maybe equal, prolly better, but def. not worse.

Players want fans to go bonkers because they feed off of that at home. Can you imagine the electricity at FedEx if JC came out of the tunnel to lead this team? I guarantee that the place would rock harder than it has in a long time. That's what the players would feed on. People say "Oh, what if he sucks? The fans would turn on him"

Did the fans ever turn on Ramsey? No, Gibbs is the only one who turned on Ramsey. When Ramsey threw picks in 04 when he came in for Brunell, the fans never turned on him. Likewise, the fans know that JC is young and will not turn on him (at least for 2 years, then they might).

I will support this team until I die, no matter who is the QB, who is the coach, and what our record is. And no matter how we are doing, I will always have my opinions. But please, for the love of God...

Put the big, strong, young canon armed QB in there. And let the electricity begin!

HTTR

[ceviker]

Any thoughts?

[#1SkinsFan]

good post, and I do agree that if we started Campbell at the beginning of the season, we'd at least have 3 wins and be 3-4 or maybe even 4-3, b/c he might have beaten the Titans and Vikes for us, but instead we have a 36 yr old qb who is 2-5 and isn't getting any better, and have a young future nfl star qb sitting on the bench. I'm a Campbell supporter and I believe that if we lose to Dallas AT HOME, it's time for a change. Not saying it will be done, but it def. should be considered.

[TheLongshot]

Well, we do have a QB who is learning a new offense and has two new WRs to learn. Course, those excuses are going by the wayside with each game.

But, I find the argument that "Campbell couldn't do any worse" doesn't float either. One thing Brunell doesn't do is turn the ball over. As bad as the defense has been, how much worse would it be if you put an additional two turnovers per game?

Jason

[gca61087]

sorry dude, i just can't be a JC supporter yet.

look at what Romo sits to pee did for dallas. he threw three picks. yeah, two touchdowns too, but the picks killed em.

one thing brunell does is not turn the ball over. imagine if we were turning the ball over 2 more times a game? we'd really be getting killed. JC will be turnover prone for at the very least his first few starts.

while i think brunell is killing the offense, i don't think campbell will be doing us much good either. at least if you look at past examples of young quarterbacks. keep in mind, roethlisberger had a top 3 defense and running game that won games.

[gca61087]

Well, we do have a QB who is learning a new offense and has two new WRs to learn. Course, those excuses are going by the wayside with each game.

But, I find the argument that "Campbell couldn't do any worse" doesn't float either. One thing Brunell doesn't do is turn the ball over. As bad as the defense has been, how much worse would it be if you put an additional two turnovers per game?

Jason

haha weird. i was writing while you posted this i guess.

[chaz13]

Campbell may make more mistakes but I would rather have a guy that throws 2 Td's and 2 picks, then a guy who throws 0 TD and 0 picks. TD's are a guaranteed 7 points but interceptions don't always equal 7 points. I'd like to have a QB that is willing to go downfield and use all of our receivers. A QB that will challenge the whole field not just short or outside the numbers and concentrates on one receiver. It makes it so much easier on the D when they know that the QB is going to focus on 1 player and if he is not open check down. Our receivers are small and fast they are made to go downfield for big plays. Brunell is a bad fit for this offense. If we were a WC offense w/ big physical receivers that run shorter routes and rely on YAC, Brunell would be a better fit. But that is not what Gibbs does. Quite frankly w/as bad as Brunell has been he has a high QB rating and I believe we are like 13th in offense. That tells me that we have the playmakers to be a great offense, but we need a new QB. I want to know before next season if JC is the future.If he isn't then we need to address the QB situation. I think we can all agree that Brunell will not be the starter in 07'. So let's find out if JC can be. Better to find out now then wait until 07' and waste another season. Plus if he is the future he needs game experience. The sooner he gets it the better off we will be. I want these questions answered by the end of this year.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

The one thing I feel that is being overlooked is that this is a system that Todd Collins said takes a year to get a good hold on (if someone wants the link, I'll dig it up).

JC, when he does come in, will have the mental aspect down - or should if he is intelligent. He will have had plenty of time to get everything down from an X's and O's standpoint - he will just have to get the reps and build chemistry with the offense.

When JC comes out, he has the potential to be a beast because of this... but for now, Mark Brunell will have to get the job done, and I believe he can.

Just a thought...

[Supreme Wu]

The red zone playcalling hasn't exactly been a thing of beauty. Brunell has moved the team up the field many times, but Saunders inability to recognize this teams true TD threats (Sellers, Cooley) has cost just as many missed opportunities as Brunell, if not more.

[bubba9497]

enough with labeling these agenda laiden opinions as "true" or the "truth"

nothing could be farther from the "truth"

[SkinsFTW]

Well, we do have a QB who is learning a new offense and has two new WRs to learn. Course, those excuses are going by the wayside with each game.

But, I find the argument that "Campbell couldn't do any worse" doesn't float either. One thing Brunell doesn't do is turn the ball over. As bad as the defense has been, how much worse would it be if you put an additional two turnovers per game?

Jason

You don't know that Campbell would be turning the ball over. I do have my doubts about Saunders being able to design an offense around a QB with no experience though.

And enough excuses for Brunell. There are successful teams that this year have new head coaches/systems/players and these were losing teams last year.

[Skins11]

look at what Romo sits to pee did for dallas. he threw three picks. yeah, two touchdowns too, but the picks killed em.

Romo sits to pee came in COLD, with no preparation time. Anyway, it is a fallacy to say Campbell shouldn't start because Romo sits to pee threw a bunch of picks.

[Jofizz]

I think you lost most people when they saw "long" in the title.

Including myself.

[Aluadan]

sorry dude, i just can't be a JC supporter yet.

look at what Romo sits to pee did for dallas. he threw three picks. yeah, two touchdowns too, but the picks killed em.

one thing brunell does is not turn the ball over. imagine if we were turning the ball over 2 more times a game? we'd really be getting killed. JC will be turnover prone for at the very least his first few starts.

while i think brunell is killing the offense, i don't think campbell will be doing us much good either. at least if you look at past examples of young quarterbacks. keep in mind, roethlisberger had a top 3 defense and running game that won games.

So you're saying that Bledsoe's pick he threw right at the goal line didn't kill them?

[tehhunter]

Heres how I see it. We have two scenarios:

1) Brunell remains starter for rest of season, JC starts next year, and has to develop under fire while still trying to remain competitive in the division. We win more games, and get lower draft picks. Bad couple of years.

2) JC starts, initially turns over much, but gets into the NFL rhythm by the end of the season. We lose more games, but in turn have a better draft, and have gotten JC valuable playing time in a game against real NFL players to develop him. Bright future.

[ceviker]

Romo sits to pee threw his picks because he was trying to force them in there cause they were down double digits, he was cold, it was his first time ever playing, and he had no gameplanning the week.

JC (should he start vs Dallas), would have TWO weeks game planning and reps, a custom taylored gameplan, mentally knowing he is going to be the man, and starting 0-0 instead of down double digits (thus he would know he doesn't need to force everything).

I'm not saying he won't make mistakes - he certainly will. But the net positives/negatives of Campbell out-weigh the net positives/negatives of Brunell.

[JollyGreene]

If he stinks it up at home against Dallas...if he makes the same mistakes that Campbell would make anyway....bench him.

[JollyGreene]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501844.html

Campbell is taking the snaps with the first team. Good article...explains alot of the stuff going on, including what is going on with Brunell. They say his habit of dropping back, scanning the field and patting the football has disrupted the timing of the offense.

[Ghost of]

I think you lost most people when they saw "long" in the title.

Including myself.

SO you took time out of your day to post that you didn't pay attention to a post because it was too lengthy for your short attention span.

Talking about losing people when they see your post... :doh: