The Brunell STAT OF DOOM!

[Skin Patrol]

Look dude. You want to ***** about QB rating and completion percentage, and then you present stats about the O-line and claim that any argument against the O-line is "slander" and "compeltely baseless".

Hypothetical situation:

A team runs on 1st down. Gains 1 yard. Then on second down they run again and gain 2.5 yards. So now the team is looking at 3rd & 6. They run again and gain 1.5 yards.

According to your "stuffed" stat this is a pretty decent series. It lowers the team's "stuffed %", because the team was not "stuffed" even though tehy picked up 5 yards in 3 plays.

That failure would be listed in the Adjusted Yards rating, which I also listed and which also places the Redskins at 3rd. The Stuffed Percentage is merely a measure of offensive line breakdowns, it is not meant to reflect how much push or how good an O-Line is outside of their ability to prevent complete breakdowns.

Basically, I'm just trying to show you that, just how you criticize the QB rating and completion percentage...stats are not infallible just because YOU are the one using them, or because they back the anti-Brunell side. You can run circles, and dance around the facts, and come up with explanations for any stat.

Of course stats are not infallible, that's why you have to examine what they are actually designed to measure as opposed to just saying "Stat X proves Y". You need to determine the relationship between X and Y. Hence why a discussion of QB Rating is largely meaningless when determining the length of passes that a QB is attempting since QB Rating makes no distinction between a 1 yard incompletion and a 41 yard incompletion. Similarly, completion percentage makes no distinction between a pass thrown behind the line of scrimmage to an open running back (who is smothered seconds later) and a threaded pass 25 yards down the field. Yet it's clear the latter is a much better pass and deserving of more recognition.

All I know is that Brunell commits very few turnovers. In addition, he leads (or gets taken along for the ride, however you guys want to put it) our team on decent-sized drives, that would be long enough on teams with any sort of defense. With a defense playing the way ours is, 1 turnover is enough to lose the game. ****...we lose the games even when we DONT turn the ball over. I want a QB who can protect the ball and put points on the board. Brunell has done a decent job of that.

I'm pretty sure Brunell did not lead very many "decent sized drives" against either the Giants or the Cowboys.

All this "he only throws dumpoffs" is a bunch of crap. I don't care HOW he runs the offense. I care that we get results. And 140 points (yes, a TD or 2 in garbage time, 2 TDs by special teams) speaks for itself.

It sure does. That's the 18th best scoring offense in the league. That's not playoff material at all, with or without a great defense.

We've got a 9-7 offense, with an 0-16 defense. That's my bottom line.

With the playmakers we have on offense we should have a 12-4 offense. 18th in scoring is completely unacceptable at this point.

[Skin Patrol]

Let me just say I think this thread has deteriorated into a bunch of name calling uselessness and is getting us nowhere.

Here are the points that need addressing by the Brunell crowd:

If you think statistics are inherintly misleading then you should not offer up "QB Rating" or "completion percentage" or "total yards" as alternatives to statistical breakdowns of how far his passes travel, where they go, who they are going to, etc.

If you feel like your statistics explain something about his play that these others do not, tell us why. Merely frog marching out your stats and claiming "they disagree with yours, therefore stats are always wrong" is not a sufficient dismissal of another's statistical metric.

I've gone into great detail as to why the offensive line play has been perfectly adequate and, in fact, is well above average in this league. One person has addressed it, but I think they missed the point of the statistics being listed. No one else has challenged the numbers yet it is being repeated ad nauseum that the O-Line is to blame for Brunell's troubles.

Even if we accept the argument that the offensive line sucks, wouldn't it make more sense to put a mobile, young QB in the game who can throw very accruately on teh run? Furthermore, despite getting tossed around by Freeney I feel that Samuels has been the more consistent O-lineman than Jon Jansen. As JC is right handed, and Brunell is left handed, Samuels would be the blind side blocker which is far more important to a QB. That is a plus, in my opinion.

Defenders of Brunell should keep in mind that this discussion is not solely meant to debase the man, but to get something done, namely Jason Campbell starting. Explaining that Brunell excells at Stat X or Y isn't a ringing endorsement unless you can convincingly argue that Jason Campbell would fail at that statistic. It has been argued extensively by myself and others that the majority of Brunell's throws are short enough such that an "ok" College QB could complete them. Jason Campbell happens to be a "very good" College QB (if you believe everything Joe Gibbs knows anything about that) and I have no doubt or concern about his ability to complete -3 to 7 yard passes to wide open Running Backs in the flats.

I'd like it if this discussion returned to civil, but instead you all seem more preoccupied with having "GOTCHA" moments with each other.

[waterwagen]

There's no "nice try" to it. There is thread only few above or below this one where someone is calling brunell a top 10 qb, not that that's the absloute pinnacle of QB'ing, but there 60,000 + fans here, believe me when I say there are those that are quite a bit more delusional than that.

If you don't read the stadium much, fine, say so, otherwise don't expect me to fill you in on every thread or post I read. Research it yourself.

Yes, "top 10" = "the pinnacle of quarterbacks". Also, "someone" = "many people on this board". Yeah.

[GaryClark4Canton]

5 Yards Shy of the First on 3rd Down!!!

Not only that, but he's throwing to statues half the time as well. For whatever reason I rarely see MB hit guys on the run, he hits a lot of staionary targets that wind up getting teed up on. (No surpris there) "Brings up another 4th down situation, skins will have to punt"....grrrrrrr!!!!!!!!:doh:

GC

[alaadin123]

Brunell has gout in his big toe from eating too much spicy food! :2cents:

[waterwagen]

By the way, someone in this thread argued that Brunell WAS effectively turning the ball over because the team had to punt too often. That's only true if you don't think 40+ yards of field position and an organized coverage unit to tackle the receiver don't matter. Just a little ridiculous.

[Troy Fakeman]

Draft picks...draft picks....draft picks...

Build your championship via the draft....

(I know this has nothing to do with this thread - but nonetheless I think it is a great point)

[cphil006]

we need to hit the medium ot long routes....too may dump offs for 3 yards...

[Skin Patrol]

Let me walk you through the Washington @ Dallas game. Here is a summary of how each of our drives that was ended by Mark Brunell:

1. 3rd and 4 pass incomplete to Ladell Betts in the right flat.

3. 3rd and 18 pass complete for 14 yards. This was the only successful scoring drive of the day.

4. 3rd and 8 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

5. 3rd and 11 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

6. 3rd and 7 Mark brunell pass incomplete

8. 3rd and 5 Mark Brunell pass complete for 2 yards.

9. 3rd and 11 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

10. 3rd and 9 Mark Brunell pass intercepted on the one yard line

11. 3rd and 15 Mark Brunell sacked

12. 3rd and 5 Mark Brunell sacked. He gets another shot on 4th down... sacked.

13. 3rd and 7 Mark Brunell sacked.

11 of 13 drives against Dallas were effectively killed by Mark Brunell.

Average length of drive: 12.2 yards.

[waterwagen]

Let me walk you through the Washington @ Dallas game. Here is a summary of how each of our drives that was ended by Mark Brunell:

1. 3rd and 4 pass incomplete to Ladell Betts in the right flat.

3. 3rd and 18 pass complete for 14 yards. This was the only successful scoring drive of the day.

4. 3rd and 8 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

5. 3rd and 11 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

6. 3rd and 7 Mark brunell pass incomplete

8. 3rd and 5 Mark Brunell pass complete for 2 yards.

9. 3rd and 11 Mark Brunell pass incomplete

10. 3rd and 9 Mark Brunell pass intercepted on the one yard line

11. 3rd and 15 Mark Brunell sacked

12. 3rd and 5 Mark Brunell sacked. He gets another shot on 4th down... sacked.

13. 3rd and 7 Mark Brunell sacked.

11 of 13 drives against Dallas were effectively killed by Mark Brunell.

Average length of drive: 12.2 yards.

By your own list you acknowledge that 3 of those were sacks. 6 of the other 10 were 7 yards to go or longer. Does Brunell deserve part of the blame for being in those positions to start with and/or for not converting them? Sure. But let's not act as if he's THE problem. I see an overall bad situation described there.

[Skin Patrol]

By your own list you acknowledge that 3 of those were sacks. 6 of the other 10 were 7 yards to go or longer. Does Brunell deserve part of the blame for being in those positions to start with and/or for not converting them? Sure. But let's not act as if he's THE problem. I see an overall bad situation described there.

One of two scenarios: Either Brunell is to blame for the sack or the offensive line is to blame. If it is the former then there is no question that Brunell should be benched. If it is the latter than the team is better off with a younger, more mobile quarterback is better able to make plays with his feet and throw on the run. Meaning there is no question that Brunell should be benched.

I do not blame Brunell for failing to convert a 3rd and 18. As an individual 3rd down situation, I do not blame Brunell for failing to convert 15 or 11 yard play. Holistically I do blame Brunell for missing both of those, for failing to convert nine 3rd down plays under 12 yards (6 of which were within 8 yards, very completable). In fact, in the entire Dallas game Mark Brunell did not successfuly convert a single third down pass for a first down. Of the plays where Mark attempted a pass on third down (as opposed to falling to the ground) he went 2-8 for 16 yards and one interception. Neither of the completions successfully converted for a first down.

No one (not even Brunell supporters) has argued that Mark Brunell had a great game in Dallas. The only reasonable response to these numbers is "Brunell should have played better".

I'd like to remind everyone that though I agree the defense has played horribly they have kept us in enough games where our offense should have and did have the chance to win.

In three of our losses, to Dallas, New York, and Minnesota, our defense held all three teams to lower point totals than their league averages. These were all winnable games if the offensive production had improved.

[turbodiesel#44]

MB could avoid about half his sacks if he would just step up in the pocket and throw to an open reciever. He keeps stepping back, patting the ball and staring at Moss, waiting for him to get open. If he had the sense to find the pocket, it would give him a precious couple of seconds to throw it towards a cheerleader, which is his real target half the time anyway.

[Skin Patrol]

To add to above, per Howard Bryant's WaPo article this morning, Brunell's patting of the ball appears to be throwing off the timing of the entire offense.

[illone]

No one else has challenged the numbers yet it is being repeated ad nauseum that the O-Line is to blame for Brunell's troubles.

Plenty have challenged it but usually it is dismissed because it isn't a stat based argument. Saying "stats don't tell the entire story" is quickly dismissed by the anti-Brunell crowd, yet the anti-Brunell crowd uses the same rebuttal when they see QB rating and other such stats that show Brunell having a decent year.

Nobody is saying the oline is solely to blame for Brunell's troubles. What we are saying is that there is more to it than just Brunell being inept, as you would suggest.

I agree with you that Brunell can't throw 3rd and 8 right now, but guess what, HE NEVER HAS! Look at his stats for 1997 (arguably his best year with the Jags). His average per completion was only 7.5 (a whopping .4 more than he is right now).

The difference in Jacksonville was they used him more to his abilities. Roll outs, sprint outs, screen passes to Fred Taylor. Very similar to how we played last year on offense only we threw screens to Cooley and Sellers and the running game really started clicking towards the end of the year. Now he's faced with a new offense with a struggling running game and you are ready for the new guy?

I'm not buying it, man. I'm also not buying that Brunell should be the fall guy for this team. The reason what you are selling stinks is because you are failing to look at the big picture. It's obvious you have a bias towards Brunell, and that just lumps you in with Ghost and the other blind haters who have backup QB fever. You are pretty new here but we've been through this before when Ramsey was the backup and some people have yet to admit that he was a bust. *cough*ghost*cough*

You are willing to sacrifice a 90 rated QB who supposedly can't throw down the field for a inexperienced QB who potentially can. I just don't think Campbell is going to come in and save the season.

It isn't 2004, man. This team is supposed to make the post-season NOW, not rebuild with a new QB. Once we hit 8 losses (hopefully we don't) then Gibbs will be forced to start the Campbell era, and I'll be all for it, the same way I was all for Ramsey in 2004 when we the season was a goner.

[waterwagen]

One of two scenarios: Either Brunell is to blame for the sack or the offensive line is to blame. If it is the former then there is no question that Brunell should be benched. If it is the latter than the team is better off with a younger, more mobile quarterback is better able to make plays with his feet and throw on the run. Meaning there is no question that Brunell should be benched.

I do not blame Brunell for failing to convert a 3rd and 18. As an individual 3rd down situation, I do not blame Brunell for failing to convert 15 or 11 yard play. Holistically I do blame Brunell for missing both of those, for failing to convert nine 3rd down plays under 12 yards (6 of which were within 8 yards, very completable). In fact, in the entire Dallas game Mark Brunell did not successfuly convert a single third down pass for a first down. Of the plays where Mark attempted a pass on third down (as opposed to falling to the ground) he went 2-8 for 16 yards and one interception. Neither of the completions successfully converted for a first down.

No one (not even Brunell supporters) has argued that Mark Brunell had a great game in Dallas. The only reasonable response to these numbers is "Brunell should have played better".

I'd like to remind everyone that though I agree the defense has played horribly they have kept us in enough games where our offense should have and did have the chance to win.

In three of our losses, to Dallas, New York, and Minnesota, our defense held all three teams to lower point totals than their league averages. These were all winnable games if the offensive production had improved.

That's fine, but those stats don't condemn him. Particularly from one game. I still think that overall he's a serviceable quarterback, until Joe Gibbs says otherwise through word or action.

[Skin Patrol]

Plenty have challenged it but usually it is dismissed because it isn't a stat based argument. Saying "stats don't tell the entire story" is quickly dismissed by the anti-Brunell crowd, yet the anti-Brunell crowd uses the same rebuttal when they see QB rating and other such stats that show Brunell having a decent year.

You're missing the point. There is a reason why one statistical method measures something differently than another. Stats do tell the entire story, you just have to know what kind of story those stats tell. QB Ratings aren't "wrong" because they have Brunell ranked 9th, they're just meaningless in a discussion of how far he has thrown the ball because they do not weight a 1 yard incompletion any differently than a 51 yard completion. It is a statistical fact that Mark Brunell has a high QB rating. Our response isn't that "stats are meaningless" but that being the 9th rated QB in the league doesn't necessarily make one a very good QB. I've expressed the reasons why, namely that Brunell completes a higher percentage of easy-to-throw short passes that, even in completions, are frequently bad decisions (such as throwing behind the line of scrimmage on 3rd and 7). Furthermore as QB Rating does not account for yards acquired after the catch -- which could reasonably be attributed to the WR -- and yards accumulated in the air, QBs with a higher percentage of yards in YAC benefit disproportionately to those who do not. Since Brunell has a higher % of yards after the catch than any other QB in the entire league one could reach the conclusion that Brunell's QB Rating is inflated to a degree unshared by any other QB.

I will rehash these arguments if you need me to.

Nobody is saying the oline is solely to blame for Brunell's troubles. What we are saying is that there is more to it than just Brunell being inept, as you would suggest.

On this point we can agree. However, even if we reach the conclusion that the O-Line sucks, which I've argued is an incorrect conclusion, then it still suggests we should start Jason Campbell as he gives us more chances to win with a better line than a 37 year old Mark Brunell.

I agree with you that Brunell can't throw 3rd and 8 right now, but guess what, HE NEVER HAS! Look at his stats for 1997 (arguably his best year with the Jags). His average per completion was only 7.5 (a whopping .4 more than he is right now).

7.5 were his yards per attempt. His yards per completion in 1997 was over 12 yards.

But again this statistic tells a story, but not necessarily the one that matters. A 10 yard completion is a 10 yard completion whether or not Brunell threads the needle with an excellent pass 9 yards down the field or whether or not he throws a pass behind the line of scrimmage and Clinton Portis breaks three tackles for a 10 yard gain.

The difference in Jacksonville was they used him more to his abilities. Roll outs, sprint outs, screen passes to Fred Taylor. Very similar to how we played last year on offense only we threw screens to Cooley and Sellers and the running game really started clicking towards the end of the year. Now he's faced with a new offense with a struggling running game and you are ready for the new guy?

All the more reason to bring in Campbell. Mark Brunell doesn't have any strengths anymore because he is an aging, immobile qb. Jason Campbell has far more in common with the Mark Brunell of 1997 than Mark Brunell 10 years removed does.

Also, the reason we succeeded last year was because our team had a legitimate week-by-week deep threat. Teams were forced to respect the deep pass and couldn't crowd the line as much (which stifles our run this year).

I'm not buying it, man. I'm also not buying that Brunell should be the fall guy for this team. The reason what you are selling stinks is because you are failing to look at the big picture. It's obvious you have a bias towards Brunell, and that just lumps you in with Ghost and the other blind haters who have backup QB fever. You are pretty new here but we've been through this before when Ramsey was the backup and some people have yet to admit that he was a bust. *cough*ghost*cough*

I am not trying to make Brunell the fall guy for this team. The defense is to blame, especially the secondary. Vinny Cerrato made horrible free agency decisions. Etc.

I do not have a bias towards Brunell, or against him for that matter. I have a bias for the Redskins, who I want to see succeed. I honestly don't think Brunell gives us the best opportunity to do so. It is not by a crazy vendetta I have against Brunell that I make this case, it is because i feel it is logically sound and tightly argued. If you want to irrationally lump me with some other debate about Ramsey, go right ahead. But admit it straight forward so we can both stop wasting each other's times.

You are willing to sacrifice a 90 rated QB who supposedly can't throw down the field for a inexperienced QB who potentially can. I just don't think Campbell is going to come in and save the season.

He doesn't have to "save the season" when we're 2-5. We know Brunell cannot win games with this defense. We know that Campbell can make 5-7 yard passes, which make up the lion's share of Brunell's throws.

I hate having to go over this time and time again but there are other reasons to try Campbell. He has more of an arm and is more mobile. We need to gather information about whether he is a bust so that we can make informed decisions this offseason. Waiting until that absolute last second might be waiting too late, and then we'll be right back where we were in 2004 when we drafted JC.

I could go on and on for reasons that JC needs to get in now.

It isn't 2004, man. This team is supposed to make the post-season NOW, not rebuild with a new QB. Once we hit 8 losses (hopefully we don't) then Gibbs will be forced to start the Campbell era, and I'll be all for it, the same way I was all for Ramsey in 2004 when we the season was a goner.

Are you watching the Redskins this season? We are in Week 7 and 2-5. At this exact moment in 2004 we were 2-5. Some of us are unwilling to let you "wait it out" until that moment at which the season is a bust. If we honestly think Campbell gives us the best chance to win NOW then we'd reach the conclusion that it's retarded to keep Brunell in just for the sake of keeping him in.

[Skin Patrol]

That's fine, but those stats don't condemn him. Particularly from one game. I still think that overall he's a serviceable quarterback, until Joe Gibbs says otherwise through word or action.

0% conversion rate on third down doesn't condemn him? What the hell would then??? If your expectation of the QB play is so low that his dismal performance against the Cowboys doesn't make your skin crawl, then why are you even against Jason Campbell? What could he possibly do that would rattle you? Throw an interception on the one yard line? Fail to convert a single third down pass?

[turbodiesel#44]

We need to gather information about whether he is a bust so that we can make informed decisions this offseason. Waiting until that absolute last second might be waiting too late, and then we'll be right back where we were in 2004 when we drafted JC.

I understand some of the arguments for Brunell, but who can argue with this point? Face it, our defense is in shambles and this years palofs are a pipe dream.

[illone]

Are you watching the Redskins this season? We are in Week 7 and 2-5. At this exact moment in 2004 we were 2-5. Some of us are unwilling to let you "wait it out" until that moment at which the season is a bust. If we honestly think Campbell gives us the best chance to win NOW then we'd reach the conclusion that it's retarded to keep Brunell in just for the sake of keeping him in.

I'm not going to go over the differences between 2004 and 2006 because those should be obvious. The only thing I can tell you is that the coaching staff believes Brunell gives us the best chance to win RIGHT NOW. The players do too. Hey, that might change if Campbell shows something over the next couple days while Brunell attempts to heal from the ribbing he took Sunday. I just choose to believe the players when they say Mark is the guy.

If someone on the outside tells you how to do your job, you'd laugh in their face and continue to do business the way you know how to. Same concept here. I'm laughing at you because you don't have all the information you need to make the decision on who should play.

It doesn't really matter what you are 'willing' or 'unwilling' to do. Neither of us makes the decision about who plays. What are you gonna do, send that petition to Gibbs and demand Campbell goes in? :laugh:

[turbodiesel#44]

You understand any player speaking out publicly against MB, another player or a coach is going to get a royal tongue lashing from Gibbs. Maybe more. I think Joe puts his public personna ahead of winning. He hand picks character guys he believes will not make waves. Behind closed doors, I don't think he is such a nice guy if you cross him. Nor should he be.

[Skin Patrol]

I'm not going to go over the differences between 2004 and 2006 because those should be obvious. The only thing I can tell you is that the coaching staff believes Brunell gives us the best chance to win RIGHT NOW. The players do too. Hey, that might change if Campbell shows something over the next couple days while Brunell attempts to heal from the ribbing he took Sunday. I just choose to believe the players when they say Mark is the guy.

So why are you participating in a discussion? This isn't a discussion about what the coaches will do, but about what they should do. If you think that type of discussion is inappropriate, then move along.

If someone on the outside tells you how to do your job, you'd laugh in their face and continue to do business the way you know how to. Same concept here. I'm laughing at you because you don't have all the information you need to make the decision on who should play.

Are you seriously laughing at me? Are you inches away from your keyboard right now giggling right now?

Again, if you think that, as fans, we have no right or reason to challenge any coaching decision, then why are you engaged in this discussion? Why even defend Brunell statistically (or otherwise) at all? The fact that Gibbs chose him should be reason enough for you, right?

It doesn't really matter what you are 'willing' or 'unwilling' to do. Neither of us makes the decision about who plays. What are you gonna do, send that petition to Gibbs and demand Campbell goes in? :laugh:

Despite the fact that you've been a petulant jerk this entire time, responding to me more with emoticons and snide remarks than with reasoned retorts, I've remained civil with you. I'm losing patience.

When I say I am "unwilling" it doesn't mean that I am in any position to do anything about it. It just means that I'm "unwilling" to accept a decision as the right one. I'm merely trying to express to you exactly why myself (and many others) have reached a certain kind of conclusion about Mark Brunell. "Unwilling" in this sense means we do not think Joe Gibbs is acting with the best interests of the team in mind and, accordingly, we're not just going to accept that decision because he's the coach. In essence though we are powerless we refuse to be indifferent.

If you think this kind of response is inpparopriate, if you honestly believe that decisions made by coaches are off limits to criticism or debate, then just shut up. Go away and let us discuss it.

You are not offering anything substantively to this debate: you are acting indignant at the mere fact that we are having it. Then when you run out of idiotic things to add you resort to the same, boring, tired nonsense about "Well you won't get your QB anyways because the coach makes the decisions, not you! Na na na na na!" Great point, poindexter, we know the coach Gibbs doesn't ask us for our opinions but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to have them.

[illone]

If you think this kind of response is inpparopriate, if you honestly believe that decisions made by coaches are off limits to criticism or debate, then just shut up. Go away and let us discuss it.

You are not offering anything substantively to this debate: you are acting indignant at the mere fact that we are having it. Then when you run out of idiotic things to add you resort to the same, boring, tired nonsense about "Well you won't get your QB anyways because the coach makes the decisions, not you! Na na na na na!" Great point, poindexter, we know the coach Gibbs doesn't ask us for our opinions but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to have them.

Stop taking yourself so seriously. I never suggested those decisions are off limits to discussion. You rode your high horse in this thread as if you were the expert on the subject. Get over yourself.

[Redskinswhoopass]

Youre watching different games than I am. Our o-line cant open holes for CP, which is supposed to be an 0-linemans forte, mind you. What makes you think theyve been any better at protecting the qb?

BTW- Portis is on track to end the season UNDER 1000 rushing. Chew on that Brunell bashers.

No bonehead, At his current pace he is going to have 1035, by the end of the season AND that is only playing in 15 games, so check your math.

[Uno Mas]

No bonehead, At his current pace he is going to have 1035, by the end of the season AND that is only playing in 15 games, so check your math.

Negative. Portis, through 7 games has 414 yards, 22nd in the league. Thats an average of 59.14 yards a game, multiplied by 17 equals 1005 yards. So I was off by 6 yards, so you check your math, BONEHEAD. I think you get the point though, yeah?

Meantime, Tiki Barber has 647 yards in only six games (1st in the league), projecting him to finish the season with 1833 yards. Interestingly enough, Eli is looking pretty damn strong as well. With 1518 yards through 6 games, he currently ranks 6th in the league in passing. Coincidence? I think not. To have this kind of success, your O-line must be dominant, or atleast semi-competent. If you watch the games and you still need these stats to open your blind eyes then you need a football education. Im available weeknights 7-10.

[Ghost of]

By your own list you acknowledge that 3 of those were sacks. 6 of the other 10 were 7 yards to go or longer. Does Brunell deserve part of the blame for being in those positions to start with and/or for not converting them? Sure. But let's not act as if he's THE problem. I see an overall bad situation described there.

Actually, he would be THE problem. REad the damn Post article. They don't talk about working on pass protection, do they? No, they're talking about working with BRUNELL.

As for the sacks, did you watch the Dallas game? He walked/ran into TWO of the sacks Dallas had. He has some of the worst pocket presence in the league and it's made worse by the fact he rarely USES the pocket anyway, which makes his 'mistakes to time spent in pocket' ration even more awful.

By running backwards, as pointed out a million times, even on plays where the line has obviously formed a decent pocket, he is going RIGHT into the direct path of DEs or blitzers from the edge.