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

[desertfox59]

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

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

Well the biggest myth is put forward by likes of your kind....

The Brunell sucks garbage.

[NoDQForums]

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).

Your pretty much on the money, but also remember as a fan when things are not going well the easiest person to blame is the quarterback and fans in Washington D.C. love to do this. I think most fans just truly want to know if J.C. is going to be worth it down the road or not because of the history of bad quarterbacks or short lived quarterbacks we have had here for years now.

Either way being a long time follower of Mark I've been pleased with his performance so far, but still feel there are a few things he needs to do to make himself a more well rounded quarterback.

[DieselPwr44]

Well the biggest myth is put forward by likes of your kind....

The Brunell sucks garbage.

Brunell is too inconsistent to be a weekly starter. He'd serve well as a backup.

[NoDQForums]

Brunell is too inconsistent to be a weekly starter. He'd serve well as a backup.

Our TEAM is too inconsistant on a weekly basis. There is probably only a handful of players that are consistant each and every week.

[DieselPwr44]

Our TEAM is too inconsistant on a weekly basis. There is probably only a handful of players that are consistant each and every week.

And Brunell ain't one of 'em.

[supadrummer]

NO NO NOOOOO, Why, OH Why can't this war stop. Brunell has no weapons of mass distruction.....

Stats...I don't care ..I'll print them out and wipe my azz with them.... Start an original thread about something else.

Great analysis of facts but don't you think this back and forth is getting old.

Get off of attacking fellow fans and lets root together for the skins to beat the eagles . Lets be honest our skins are going to need it.

This is sooo old

[supadrummer]

And Brunell ain't one of 'em.

And you posters are consistant. Consistantly Bashing each other in a debate that means nothing.

You both lose...Brunell and the skins won the game. He as earned the right to keep the starting QB positions so stats arguments and point of view of fans don't mean anything.

If joe Gibbs listen to fans he would be sitting in the stands with the fans.

I don't agree with Brunell starting but hey Gibbs is the coach .... What can you do but ride the roller coaster of wins and loses

[DieselPwr44]

And you posters are consistant. Consistantly Bashing each other in a debate that means nothing.

You both lose...Brunell and the skins won the game. He as earned the right to keep the starting QB positions so stats arguments and point of view of fans don't mean anything.

If joe Gibbs listen to fans he would be sitting in the stands with the fans.

I don't agree with Brunell starting but hey Gibbs is the coach .... What can you do but ride the roller coaster of wins and loses

If you don't like the endless debate, why even click on the thread.

Nobody forces you to read or post. If you don't like what's on the radio, do you keep listening or change the channel?

[supadrummer]

If you don't like the endless debate, why even click on the thread.

Nobody forces you to read or post. If you don't like what's on the radio, do you keep listening or change the channel?

Hard to Change up if you guys are redundant. My point is this horse is dead. Bury this horse cause Gibbs is going to start Brunell.

[supadrummer]

If you don't like the endless debate, why even click on the thread.

Nobody forces you to read or post. If you don't like what's on the radio, do you keep listening or change the channel?

By the way this the 1000 copy of this debate. i can see a single thread that keeps resurfacing, but you posters keep starting the same old thing. Why not search for a previous thread and debate that one.

[The Sisko]

Interesting that you now want to remove Brunell's stats from the Titans game to help make your point in this thread Longshot. It's interesting because when I discussed adjusting for outliers by removing the stats from Brunell's best and worst games earlier, I was soundly rebuked because after all, stats don't mean anything...until you or someone who agrees with you are trying to prove a point (and I don't mean you personally, I mean the folks on your side of this arguement).

Secondly, I also find the requests to answer questions interesting as well since I asked several of them and never even got so much as an attempt at a response. For the record, I'm posting them below once again. Though I don't expect any logical answers this time around since the only logical answer to these questions is that Brunell is at best an average QB...which would of course cause you and the rest of the Brunell zombies to immediately implode.

A few final questions. Suppose I accept your contention that Brunell had a stellar (sub 200 yard) game against the Cowpukes. Do you honestly expect he'll do the same next week without two weeks rest? What about the week after that? Finally, since it's all the defense's fault, to what would you attribute Brunell's horrid play during all but 8 games last season? Hmmm?

WOW Peregrine. Those #s are fugly. But wait, Brunell is ranked in the top 10 of NFL QBs.

You're telling me that in 7 games he's only attempted 31 passes of 11-20 yards? I mean, we're not talking low percentage stuff here. These are meat and potatoes passes. We're talking the classic 15 yard out pattern. 32% completion rate on that...uhhh, yeah. Must be those WRs we have that drop the ball all the time. Yeah, right. Tell me again why he doesn't suck?

Amazing. Absolutely amazing that A) He's still out there and that anyone on this board (or anywhere for that matter) can argue with a straight face that he's still worth a darn. For the record Bubba and Longshot, please explain to me how our poor defensive showing has affected Brunell's play in this area? And no, please don't bring up the OL. If our OL can't hold off the pass rush long enough to complete a 11-20 yard pass we might as well not even try to pass the ball. We'd also probably have a lot more sacks than we do were that the case.

You're evading the point. I agree that Brunell had a decent overall year last year. However, what that "decent" overall year amounted to was 8 lousy games and 8 very good ones. Since you can't blame it on the defense last season and in 2004, what then was the issue during all but those 8 very good games Brunell had last season?

Since I can't find them right now I'll just ask the last two questions again off the top of my head. First, Brunell's record with us is 17-18. During the great majority of that time (the last two whole seasons) our defense was incredible and our OL at least competant. To what then do you attribute our lack of wins during most of that time? Could it have been, ooohhh, I don't know....SATAN!!??

Secondly, we all agree that Brunell sports a fairly high QB rating and completion pct. To what then do you attribute the fact that he has so many fewer yards than almost all the QBs that are similarly ranked?

Thanks in advance for your selective amnesia and ignoring of these disturbing questions.

[TheLongshot]

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:

Actually, that supports my argument. It sounds like they are expecting Mark to drop back, find the receiver, and throw it to the guy. That doesn't sound like an offense where the QB is going through progressions to find who is open, and can explain some of his behavior. It also tells me that this type of offense may take a little time to get good at it, if you aren't used to doing things this way.

Jason

[Ghost of]

Actually, that supports my argument. It sounds like they are expecting Mark to drop back, find the receiver, and throw it to the guy. That doesn't sound like an offense where the QB is going through progressions to find who is open, and can explain some of his behavior. It also tells me that this type of offense may take a little time to get good at it, if you aren't used to doing things this way.

Jason

Again, the problem is many of us have actually watched football games and seen Trent Green and Kurt Warner play and AL Saunders call football games.

One and done is not how it is. Yes, it's around timing but that also means the QB is supposed to be able to absorb what's open and get the ball out quickly to an OPEN receiver. You think Trent or Kurt never went through progressions?

Come on, man, you just look more foolish by the minute on this board.

[TheLongshot]

Interesting that you now want to remove Brunell's stats from the Titans game to help make your point in this thread Longshot. It's interesting because when I discussed adjusting for outliers by removing the stats from Brunell's best and worst games earlier, I was soundly rebuked because after all, stats don't mean anything...until you or someone who agrees with you are trying to prove a point (and I don't mean you personally, I mean the folks on your side of this arguement).

Well, I don't know what kind of problem you were having, but my point was that the Titans game was an exception and not the rule, which many people here seem to assume.

Since I can't find them right now I'll just ask the last two questions again off the top of my head. First, Brunell's record with us is 17-18. During the great majority of that time (the last two whole seasons) our defense was incredible and our OL at least competant. To what then do you attribute our lack of wins during most of that time? Could it have been, ooohhh, I don't know....SATAN!!??

I don't think anyone is going to argue about 2004. Course, since then, he hasn't looked like that QB.

Last year, I can pick out 3 games we lost which were clearly on the defense. (KC, Den, and the Giants) The SD game we lost because of a holding penalty. (That game was also a shootout.)

Until last Sunday, I had a hard time finding big plays from the defense. We won when the offense was able to get the win. Sunday was an up and down game on both sides of the ball, but Brunell was probably the most consistant thing we had.

Secondly, we all agree that Brunell sports a fairly high QB rating and completion pct. To what then do you attribute the fact that he has so many fewer yards than almost all the QBs that are similarly ranked?

Funny thing is, he's on pace to do better than last year, with the exception of scoring. His YPA is higher than his career average.

From what I saw on Sunday, he's not holding us back as much as other elements are. Sure, he doesn't throw a great deep ball anymore, but for the most part, he still seems to be able to make a lot of the throws out there.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Again, the problem is many of us have actually watched football games and seen Trent Green and Kurt Warner play and AL Saunders call football games.

Well, first, Saunders was WR coach in St. Louis, so he wasn't calling much of anything.

Also, unless you are a fan of KC, I doubt you have done a deep study of what they did on offense.

One and done is not how it is. Yes, it's around timing but that also means the QB is supposed to be able to absorb what's open and get the ball out quickly to an OPEN receiver. You think Trent or Kurt never went through progressions?

It is this little thing called reading defenses. There is a lot you can tell by the way the defense is lined up. Players go in motion to see if the defense is in man-to-man. How many players are up on the line? What does the film say is their behavior in certain formations and downs?

Remember also that Saunders' offense doesn't use audibles. So, if there is a problem, the QB needs to figure out what to do with the ball at the line.

Come on, man, you just look more foolish by the minute on this board.

Nice with the personal insults. :doh:

Jason

[akorn22]

Good stat's but you CAN'T take out the tennesee game. The tennesee game happened and you must count it. Plus the tennesee game was a pivitol game. They were and easy team that we lost because brunell didn;t spread the ball around enough. If he had spread the ball around the game mgiht have ended differently. If he heavily favored moss in the teneesee game but we won anyway, then we could disregard it. But this was a game that should have been won but we lost. Plus if we won this game we would have been 4-4 right now instead of 3-5. that one game makes a huge difference.

[TheLongshot]

Good stat's but you CAN'T take out the tennesee game. The tennesee game happened and you must count it. Plus the tennesee game was a pivitol game. They were and easy team that we lost because brunell didn;t spread the ball around enough. If he had spread the ball around the game mgiht have ended differently. If he heavily favored moss in the teneesee game but we won anyway, then we could disregard it. But this was a game that should have been won but we lost. Plus if we won this game we would have been 4-4 right now instead of 3-5. that one game makes a huge difference.

I see that my point was lost on you. Yes, we know he heavily favored Moss in the thumbtacks game, and for the most part, it wasn't justified. What I'm refuting is the allegation that he does this in EVERY game this year, and that he doesn't look for other receivers. When you look at the other games, you see a much more even distribution of the ball, so Tennesee was an exception to the rule.

Jason

[Riggo#44]

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).

This is the biggest crux of the argumet: By statistical analysis. Numbers are numbers, but anyone who thinks Brunell played well in Indianapolis is crazy. Anyone that things he played well in New York is crazy. Anyone who thinks he played well against Tennesee is crazy. He had a better game against Dallas but luck was very much on his side.

Here are my problems with Brunell, and the supporters are more than welcome to debunk these with any numbers they want to:

- Brunell in the 3rd Q. is horrible. He diappears, and that's when most of our games are lost. Granted the defense falls apart too - which is a different thread entirely - but Brunell does nothing to rectify it. We have been outscored 57-10 in the 3rd Q. I'd love to see his #'s here.

- I heard this, but don't have the actual numbers to back it up but I read that Brunell has a 64-something rating when playing from behind.

- He played better against Dallas this past week but luck was certainly on his side - there were three or four passes that coulda-shoulda been picked: Roy Williams off his helmet, Brandon Lloyd turning defender when Brunell has clear sailing to pick up the 1st down and then some by running, it looked like Brady James had one go off the side of his head (I couldn't really tell from where I was sitting).

- Cooley's TD was an amazing catch on a horribly thrown ball at the very least should have been incomplete - possibly intercepted. Lloyd made a fantastic catch (I believe this was Faruia's holding call) on a horribly thrown ball. Brunell has missed wide-open receivers for 3 yard check downs all year. This is the stuff the stats don't show. Sure he can throw it in the direction of Lloyd, but if it's horribly underthrown or at his feet - which happens all too often - those numbers aren't going to reflect that.

- His one saving grace - he doesn't put our craptastic defense in a hole with a short field.

I supported Brunell coming into this year - but after watching every snap of this season - he is NOT the right QB for this team.

[redskins55]

If the o-line would block we could get better production from our WR down field.

We've gone back to some max protect schemes that have given Brunell time to find Thrash over the middle and Lloyd down field.

When Moss gets back it will be Lloyd over the middle and Moss downfield!

[Geoff_K]

They forget what Football is all about Faith and Loyality

I will give you faith, but not loyalty. When any player is not doing as well as another loyalty goes out the window in the NFL. How many times does a 6 7 9 or 10 year vet get cut/released.

IF there was loyalty they would not be cut. Since it is based on performance they are.

I am not, nor ever was a fan of Brunell. I will be happy when he retires and hope we get a mobile QB (read younger) who can make plays happen, as Brunell did when he was YOUNGER. As well as be with the team for 10 years plus.

[s0crates]

Riggo #44, I find it funny that you quoted me and then proceeded to do exactly what I was admonishing, which is picking out every instance of Brunell's mistakes and ignoring every instance of his good play. I prefer to look at the big picture of his total performance, which has been good.

[fansince62]

"Just another in a long line of great posts nuking the Brunell bashers crazy theories. Just be prepared to listen to the "butt monkies". You hit them with facts, you see. That never sits well with the knee-jerk emotional reaction crowd.

Great post by the way."

I'm still looking for the "facts" in your post!!!!

data can be used to support all kinds of notions. If you limit the analysis enough it's easy to prove just about anything. How about some analysis on the percentage of plays ARE or Lloyd are open (further sub-divided into possible TD opportunities) that MB did not see, ignored or missed? How about some stats on the number of passes he throws into the middle when "feeling" little to great pressure?

look....you may be quite satisified with a player that requires sterling performances by the supporting cast and the defense to postiively support this team. Others of us want a bona fide NFL QB in his prime - not in decline. but we all have our preferences!

[fansince62]

"Riggo #44, I find it funny that you quoted me and then proceeded to do exactly what I was admonishing, which is picking out every instance of Brunell's mistakes and ignoring every instance of his good play. I prefer to look at the big picture of his total performance, which has been good."

oh please...with all due respect...your point is well taken but self-serving. MB did not play well in the Minny game, the Boys game....or the Gints game. He has played well and been a non-factor at other times.

[Neophyte]

"There are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics."

I have a problem with dropping the high game and not dropping the low game. That is just plan bad statistics. You either use them all or drop the top and bottom. You can't pick and chose what what to keep and what to throw away while still keeping the integrity of your analysis.

[TheLongshot]

This is the biggest crux of the argumet: By statistical analysis. Numbers are numbers, but anyone who thinks Brunell played well in Indianapolis is crazy. Anyone that things he played well in New York is crazy. Anyone who thinks he played well against Tennesee is crazy. He had a better game against Dallas but luck was very much on his side.

He did play well in Indy. Problem is, playcalling went to hell when the coaching staff decided, "we aren't running enough". Brunell had a pretty good first half in Tennesee. As far as the Giants go, no one had a good day in that game.

- Brunell in the 3rd Q. is horrible.

The team in general is horrible in the 3rd quarter. It certainly isn't just about Brunell. And what is Brunell going to do when he has plays called back because of penalties? When that puts you in 3rd and long, you are pretty much in trouble.

Jason