So, does Brunell favor Moss? Let's see.

[DieselPwr44]

what Football is all about Faith and Loyality.

As long as you get production and difference making out of said Faith and Loyalty, fine.

Otherwise, that and .75 might get you a cup of coffee.

[Ghost of]

It sure is.

Yet those who's arguments don't have a "Ghost" of a chance, keep saying he isn't even hitting the board.

Next time you got something to say about me, PM me to the thread. Otherwise, keep my name out your mouth. I've disagreed with a lot of people over the years, but you continually cross over the line into insult in place of argument and you are easily the most obstinate poster I've ever encountered on this issue (or any other football subject.) In real life, some of your insults would have warranted a punch in the throat, but I guess you feel safe behind the distance and anonymity of the internet.

The only person who looks ridiculous, by the way, is the lot of you. All 5-8 posters who continually advance the same absurd arguments, twist and distort stats, refuse to acknowledge context-providing numbers and don't even attempt to WATCH games and employ observation and football acumen to arrive at a reasonable result.

You pick and choose only the numbers you can throw out without context (and visual backing, as well as further statistical research) and you seem VERY MUCH more interested in backing Brunell than you do backing the Redskins, including many players that have bled for this franchise long before Gibbs brought Mark in.

[BG]

Considering this just shows completed passes to Moss and others and not who he is locking onto this doesn't prove much.

Is it any coincidence that yesterday we threw a few times to places we normally don't with Moss out and Brunell unable to lock onto him?

Nevermind eyewitness accounts of Brunell ignoring wide open recievers.

:idea: But don't stats mean everything? :thumbsup:

We won. That is awesome. Kudos to Mark for helping make it happen, but don't delude yourself into thinking we are superbowl bound, or better yet that the QB situation is stabilized. It's not. We were able to take two weeks to make adjustments and fix this "super-powered" offense.

Regardless Philly will be ready to pick out our new wrinkles and put bodies where Dallas didn't. The true status of the position will be revealed if Mark can find a way to draw them in or far downfield. That is what a good QB can do. I guarantee that the dump offs will be available all day, much like Houston, but Philly's DE's are fast even without Kearse. They'll make some plays, so we will have to make throws over 10 and 20 yards.

However, we can make life easier on entire team and fanbase if we can start running the ball more effectively.

[box8276]

Youre not gonna convince me boonell is as great as you think he is. Why take away the titans game out of the equation? Didnt he play in that game too. That was a awful D he couldnt move the ball against. Any qb with 2 wks to prepare is gonna look half way decent. If he goes on the road and produces then your argument might have some credelince, until then stop glorifying a qb who has LEAD us to a subpar record.

[arkowi]

Even when a poster makes very valid points such as The Consigliere did in this post: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3143892#post3143892, I saw not one peep from you, socrates or bubba to refute it.

I had missed that post, and it is excellent and very well thought out.

[cyfar]

Next time you got something to say about me, PM me to the thread. Otherwise, keep my name out your mouth. I've disagreed with a lot of people over the years, but you continually cross over the line into insult in place of argument and you are easily the most obstinate poster I've ever encountered on this issue (or any other football subject.) In real life, some of your insults would have warranted a punch in the throat, but I guess you feel safe behind the distance and anonymity of the internet.

The only person who looks ridiculous, by the way, is the lot of you. All 5-8 posters who continually advance the same absurd arguments, twist and distort stats, refuse to acknowledge context-providing numbers and don't even attempt to WATCH games and employ observation and football acumen to arrive at a reasonable result.

You pick and choose only the numbers you can throw out without context (and visual backing, as well as further statistical research) and you seem VERY MUCH more interested in backing Brunell than you do backing the Redskins, including many players that have bled for this franchise long before Gibbs brought Mark in.

:applause: Excellent post, Ghost.

[Peregrine]

Problem: This only evaluates who Brunell THREW it to. Throwing the ball as a QB, is really of very small importance. Vision is the key. Being able to find a reciever who has a step on the defender, when you have 6-7 defensive backs, and 4-5 receivers all running in different directions, while you have 4-5 defenders coming after you, while you have 5-6 blockers, should give you an idea of how important vision is. How many of those passes to recievers OTHER than Moss were plays where Brunell was locked on Moss, moss wasnt open, and Brunell either had to dump it to a back, or scrambled and threw to someone on the sideline. There have been a lot of scramble, sideline catches this season.

Sure, its not easy to give these figures, but the question people have been asking is not whether Brunell throws to moss alot more, but whether he FAVORS them. Your own thread topic points that out.

[TheLongshot]

Problem: This only evaluates who Brunell THREW it to. Throwing the ball as a QB, is really of very small importance. Vision is the key. Being able to find a reciever who has a step on the defender, when you have 6-7 defensive backs, and 4-5 receivers all running in different directions, while you have 4-5 defenders coming after you, while you have 5-6 blockers, should give you an idea of how important vision is. How many of those passes to recievers OTHER than Moss were plays where Brunell was locked on Moss, moss wasnt open, and Brunell either had to dump it to a back, or scrambled and threw to someone on the sideline. There have been a lot of scramble, sideline catches this season.

From my understanding of the offense, from what has been said on here, is that the read as to who to throw to is done at the line. If the receiver isn't open, then it goes down to the dump off guy. There isn't a progression, or any audibles to other plays.

So, if the receiver isn't open, the next move is the dump off.

Sure, its not easy to give these figures, but the question people have been asking is not whether Brunell throws to moss alot more, but whether he FAVORS them. Your own thread topic points that out.

And why shouldn't Brunell favor Moss? He's familiar with him, and looking at the stats, is the most explosive WR on this team, and is one of the most reliable receivers out there.

The point of this was all the people who said after this game who said that "now Brunell knows that there are other receivers on this team." More like, fans now notice that Brunell does throw to other receivers.

Jason

[desertfox59]

Next time you got something to say about me, PM me to the thread. Otherwise, keep my name out your mouth.

First off, I'll say whatever I want about you, whenever I want too.

Secondly, It only shows your arrogance that you assume that I was even talking about you. I guess the sun revolves around you, huh ghost?

I've disagreed with a lot of people over the years, but you continually cross over the line into insult in place of argument and you are easily the most obstinate poster I've ever encountered on this issue (or any other football subject.)

I'm sorry if by disagreeing with you I've insulted you ghost.

I'm even more sorry, for you, that I have the power over you to make you feel insulted. That's pretty pathetic, don't you think? You know the opposite of love is not hate ghost....it's apathy, but it's nice to know you care.;)

In real life, some of your insults would have warranted a punch in the throat, but I guess you feel safe behind the distance and anonymity of the internet.

:laugh::laugh:

No ghost, I'd feel pretty safe saying the same thing right to your face. Bank on it.

The only person who looks ridiculous, by the way, is the lot of you. All 5-8 posters who continually advance the same absurd arguments

:gus:

:gus:

It really is pointless to respond to you because you are so close minded... but for every one else who might be reading, here goes:

It's funny how Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin consistently says that others skew stats and then, in the same post, He turns around and does the same thing he accuses others of doing.

The above quote is just the latest of many examples of this.

Ghost would have you believe that "5-8 posters advance the same absurd arguments" (defending Brunell) Yet in a poll about who on the offense is more responsible for our troubles 42.66% of the respondents stated that it was the fault of other players not Brunell. See for yourself.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3395

Clearly a minority, but hardly the 5-8 posters that He implies. 5-8 posters like, Bubba, illone, loudmouth, and others may be the only one's writing up their defenses of Brunell, but you can see for yourself what the Ghostly spin-meister is trying to do.

I guess you are saying that 40% of ES members are absurd because they don't agree with you, or am I wrong Ghost?

, twist and distort stats, refuse to acknowledge context-providing numbers and don't even attempt to WATCH games and employ observation and football acumen to arrive at a reasonable result.

Pot meet Kettle

and you seem VERY MUCH more interested in backing Brunell than you do backing the Redskins, including many players that have bled for this franchise long before Gibbs brought Mark in.

This is the largest of Ghost's lies about those of us who have continually defended Brunell.

The reason we do defend him is because we believe, that while not perfect, he provides our beloved skins the best chance to win. We believe He is playing well because we watch the games, and the stats bear that belief out, in spite of how other units around him are playing. We think that he should be given the benefit of the doubt because we have faith in our Coaches and Loyalty to our players.

In short, We believe that Fans can and should be critical of our players (god knows I have been) , but not cynical of them, like you and others like you Ghost.

:helmet:

[LoudMouth12thMan]

Really? Seems to be the same with the Pro-Brunell crowd. You can bring up stats and eyewitness accounts from fans who see what goes on at the games and it gets laughed off as nothing.

Even when a poster makes very valid points such as The Consigliere did in this post: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3143892#post3143892, I saw not one peep from you, socrates or bubba to refute it.

Why?? Because you know it's right and that you can't.

BTW, "buttmonkies" ? Haven't heard that one since the 5th grade. But I guess that's what you resort to when you have no substance to back your argument up with.

Alright, you can hear from me then Consig's post was too long for me to read before, but you had me intruiged.

It's completely shot out of the water, and here's why. Simply, Gibbs brought him in because he is "super smart" .

No seriously, I realize that he hasn't met many of our expectations. The fact is that he is and will remain to be a consummate game manager. That doesn't sit well with many. Brunell wasn't asked to be the equivalent of some of the aforementioned qb's listed in Consig's post. He was brought here for leadership, experience, and to manage the game.

Mark is doing what he's been asked to do, and its interesting how things have apparently changed since the bye week. I mentioned in a thread during the first week of October that we needed to attack the middle of the field. We did not, and we lost. I mentioned that against the Titans we had to run a lot and again attack the middle of the field. We did not, and we lost. Case in point, Mark can get it done inside the numbers even if it isn't his strength, supposedly. Saunders called a great game on Sunday (for the most part), but it reeked of Gibbs football. Brunell really is the scapegoat for many fans at this point. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but he's not going anywhere for a few weeks at least. It'd be hard to sit down a guy with Brunell's numbers. They really don't lie for the most part, IMO.

HTTR

[desertfox59]

Alright, you can hear from me then Consig's post was too long for me to read before, but you had me intruiged.

It's completely shot out of the water, and here's why. Simply, Gibbs brought him in because he is "super smart" .

having not read that guys post, I can say that because of your posts lately, I defer to your assessment. Thanks for reading that for me.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Well, here are some target stats for each player

Moss 48 targets

Lloyd 27

ARE 25

That includes Sunday's game. Also, you have to take in account who Brunell looks to on crucial downs. That's where the big discrepency is in the amount of looks Moss gets compared to the other two guys.

If you compare those numbers to say Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, you'll see that Harrison was targeted 79 times and Wayne 76.

Totally ignoring the amount of looks and just focusing on the ratio, you can see where people can easily claim that Moss is looked at a lot more that the two other guys, and worse yet, those two other guys are for the most part totally ignored if Moss is covered and Brunell will check down to Betts, Portis or Cooley. Now there's nothing wrong with checking down, but not if you have two other recievers that are open because Moss draws most of the attention.

[cyfar]

Well, here are some target stats for each player

Moss 48 targets

Lloyd 27

ARE 25

That includes Sunday's game. Also, you have to take in account who Brunell looks to on crucial downs. That's where the big discrepency is in the amount of looks Moss gets compared to the other two guys.

If you compare those numbers to say Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, you'll see that Harrison was targeted 79 times and Wayne 76.

Totally ignoring the amount of looks and just focusing on the ratio, you can see where people can easily claim that Moss is looked at a lot more that the two other guys, and worse yet, those two other guys are for the most part totally ignored if Moss is covered and Brunell will check down to Betts, Portis or Cooley. Now there's nothing wrong with checking down, but not if you have two other recievers that are open because Moss draws most of the attention.

Interesting stat, but I'm wondering, where did you get this from?

[ArmchairRedskin]

Interesting stat, but I'm wondering, where did you get this from?

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/index.asp

[cyfar]

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/index.asp

Cool. Good find. :cool:

[DieselPwr44]

having not read that guys post, I can say that because of your posts lately, I defer to your assessment. Thanks for reading that for me.

Figures. The blind always lead the blind.

[TheLongshot]

Well, here are some target stats for each player

Interesting site. I wonder why the discrepency between my numbers and theirs. Maybe they are counting plays that were brought back because of penalties, because I didn't include those in my numbers.

And as I said, you remove the Titans game from the stats, it ends up evening out the stats a lot. The Titans game he was definitely guilty of it, but that was an exception this season, not the rule.

That includes Sunday's game. Also, you have to take in account who Brunell looks to on crucial downs. That's where the big discrepency is in the amount of looks Moss gets compared to the other two guys.

But, there is nothing wrong with that. Art Monk was pretty much the go-to reciever back in the 80s when you wanted a first down. Also, ARE has had his share of 3rd down catches starting pretty early.

But, the idea that you want to get the ball in your best receiver's hands shouldn't be an unusual occurence.

Totally ignoring the amount of looks and just focusing on the ratio, you can see where people can easily claim that Moss is looked at a lot more that the two other guys, and worse yet, those two other guys are for the most part totally ignored if Moss is covered and Brunell will check down to Betts, Portis or Cooley. Now there's nothing wrong with checking down, but not if you have two other recievers that are open because Moss draws most of the attention.

Unless the offense dictates that you check down if the designated receiver isn't open. Someone on this board explained that the QB does his read at the snap as to who gets the ball. There is no progression. If the receiver isn't open, the QB goes to his outlet valve.

Jason

[DieselPwr44]

Unless the offense dictates that you check down if the designated receiver isn't open. Someone on this board explained that the QB does his read at the snap as to who gets the ball. There is no progression. If the receiver isn't open, the QB goes to his outlet valve.

Jason

I don't believe that's true. If that's the case, then why was it reported that over the bye,the coaches were working with Mark on his drops and stressing the importance of making his reads and getting the ball out quickly?

According to Howard Bryant's article, the coaches had said that Mark's dropping too deep and patting the ball was messing up the timing of the deeper routes and forcing him to go to the dump off.:2cents:

The coaches want to work more closely with Brunell, especially on his dropbacks on passing plays and his reading of defenses. While Brunell is a more accurate passer this year than a year ago, the coaching staff wants to emphasize to him that, in associate head coach Al Saunders's offense, decision-making must be immediate. Brunell's habit of dropping into the pocket, scanning the field and then patting the football has disrupted the timing of the offense, coaches say, and forced him to throw to a safety-valve receiver, most often a running back.

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

[Ghost of]

Why is this canard consistently trotted out? If a receiver isn't open, check down?

Does that sound like the Rams/Chiefs offense? No, then odds are very much against that case being made unless one wishes to pretend that we brought Saunders here to reinvent himself into a coordinator that favors Brunell's tendencies.

And when it's been debunked repeatedly, one then begins to question the motivation behind resurrecting an illegitimate argument. And to question the credibility of those engaged in such behavior.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Interesting site. I wonder why the discrepency between my numbers and theirs. Maybe they are counting plays that were brought back because of penalties, because I didn't include those in my numbers.

Target numbers show intended passes for. Like any pass that was intercepted for instance would be counted as would any ball was interfered with but not caught. Although the reception wouldn't count, the target would. Other than those instances, I dunno why your numbers would be off.

Unless the offense dictates that you check down if the designated receiver isn't open. Someone on this board explained that the QB does his read at the snap as to who gets the ball. There is no progression. If the receiver isn't open, the QB goes to his outlet valve.

Jason

That's ridiculous. If it were true then our plays would be designed to take advantage of the attention Moss draws and ARE and LLoyd's numbers would be a lot higher as a result. I don't buy that for an instant.

[s0crates]

Excellent post. You clearly show that Brunell has done a fine job of spreading the ball around this season. This should debunk the myth that Brunell locks on to Moss, but it won't. Regardless of how well Brunell distributes the ball, people will continue to hate him.

What else should we expect? People continue to hate him despite his good-nature, good play, and professionalism. Why should the fact that he is doing a good job spreading the ball around make any difference? Fans hated him after he took us to the playoffs and hate him after he beat Dallas. Brunell is just a whipping boy for ignorant fans.

I geuss the hate just comes with being the starting QB in DC, but people should give the guy a break. He is playing well by almost any statistical analysis. The only ways to show Brunell has played poorly involve absurd statistical fudging (i.e. ignoring the Houston and Jacksonville game as if they didn't happen, ignoring the fourth quarter, or otherwise picking out only the weakest parts of Brunell's game while ignoring his strongsuits).

[ArmchairRedskin]

Excellent post. You clearly show that Brunell has done a fine job of spreading the ball around this season. This should debunk the myth that Brunell locks on to Moss, but it won't. Regardless of how well Brunell distributes the ball, people will continue to hate him.

What else should we expect? People continue to hate him despite his good-nature, good play, and professionalism. Why should the fact that he is doing a good job spreading the ball around make any difference? Fans hated him after he took us to the playoffs and hate him after he beat Dallas. Brunell is just a whipping boy for ignorant fans.

I geuss the hate just comes with being the starting QB in DC, but people should give the guy a break. He is playing well by almost any statistical analysis. The only ways to show Brunell has played poorly involve absurd statistical fudging (i.e. ignoring the Houston and Jacksonville game as if they didn't happen, ignoring the fourth quarter, or otherwise picking out only the weakest parts of Brunell's game while ignoring his strongsuits).

Or to quote George Bush "Mission accomplished!" :laugh:

[s0crates]

Throwing the ball as a QB, is really of very small importance.

:doh:

[redskin81]

Excellent post. You clearly show that Brunell has done a fine job of spreading the ball around this season. This should debunk the myth that Brunell locks on to Moss, but it won't. Regardless of how well Brunell distributes the ball, people will continue to hate him.

What else should we expect? People continue to hate him despite his good-nature, good play, and professionalism. Why should the fact that he is doing a good job spreading the ball around make any difference? Fans hated him after he took us to the playoffs and hate him after he beat Dallas. Brunell is just a whipping boy for ignorant fans.

I geuss the hate just comes with being the starting QB in DC, but people should give the guy a break. He is playing well by almost any statistical analysis. The only ways to show Brunell has played poorly involve absurd statistical fudging (i.e. ignoring the Houston and Jacksonville game as if they didn't happen, ignoring the fourth quarter, or otherwise picking out only the weakest parts of Brunell's game while ignoring his strongsuits).

Well put. There are alot of myths on thsi forum that make no sense.

[DieselPwr44]

Well put. There are alot of myths on thsi forum that make no sense.

Such as..................?