LoudMouth12thMan Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Tom Brady... 23 20+passes 2 40+passes 83.0 Rating and less yards per avg. Granted Tom has more TD's but also 8 INT's, 4 of which came Sunday night. He obviously is getting it done in the Red Zone. That's the only negative thing that stands out to me. Other than Red Zone scoring (which isn't completely Brunell's fault b/c of playcalling) I don't see how you can say Mark is hurting this team. He earned the right to keep his job Sunday... HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge316 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 brunell needs to go...he simply doesn't make plays to help the team win...how many times did he make plays when we needed it (besides the jax game, not many) randel el had some good punt returns, but it's useless cuz brunell can't do anything with it...you don't play safe with a veteran qb...brunell can't throw the ball up the middle and isn't consistent at all...way too many series where we go 3 and out and what i hate is that brunell isn't expected to make plays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRKiller Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 People are obsessed with stats. Is there a stat for underthrown deep passes? How many of these do you have to see before you realize that Brunell is a mediocre downfield passer? A lot of times receivers can come back, make these catches, and turn on the speed. Sometimes they comeback back and catch them within inches of the ground. Other times, our receivers end up playing DB. Just because there have been a few instances of deep passes doesnt make Brunell a good or even acceptable downfield passer. If you remember Al Saunders' offenses in the past five years, they accomplished a lot of downfield passing with less talented receivers than the skins have. Watch some highlights. Brunell is unable to lead receivers on deep pass routes. Ultimately, this flaw makes him a poor candidate to run the Saunders playbook. Brunell can manage the game and show some glimmers of hope, but his inconsistancy in downfield passing is a HUGE burden on the offense's production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Loud..have to admire your perversity....errrrr........loyalty...in the face of thje evidence. but you are lucky in one regard....like me you don't live in DC...under Dem leadership some major metropolitan area is gonna suffer a big hit sometime in the next few years....possibly DC. the arguments over MB will evaporate at that point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 That is not my point. If we are winning, I do not mind Brunell in. He manages the game great for us and makes plays when he needs to. My point in this entire thread is Brunell does not throw deep. He puts the ball in the playmakers hands, like he should, and lets them do the rest.But that is no pun intended for Brunell. Now if we start losing, I would want Campbell in to build for the future. Not hate or love for Brunell. Just accepting him as long as we win. But the Vikes game was more on the defense and some on the offense for not putting up at east 25 points. The Titans game, we just flopped, but still 22 points against a winless team at home should have been enough to win, so that game might as well be on the defense too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Tom Brady...23 20+passes 2 40+passes 83.0 Rating and less yards per avg. Granted Tom has more TD's but also 8 INT's, 4 of which came Sunday night. He obviously is getting it done in the Red Zone. That's the only negative thing that stands out to me. Other than Red Zone scoring (which isn't completely Brunell's fault b/c of playcalling) I don't see how you can say Mark is hurting this team. He earned the right to keep his job Sunday... HTTR Exactly! Despite his inability to go deep, he hasn't really hurt the team at all. We have been putting up the points, 22 in 3 straight weeks, and 36 against the jags and 31 against the texans. The only games in which we have scored less than 15 points have been the first cowboys game and the first giants game. Therefore most of the blame should go on the DEFENSE for allowing the opposing teams to put up more than 20 ppg on us. NOT MARK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 But the Vikes game was more on the defense and some on the offense for not putting up at east 25 points. The Titans game, we just flopped, but still 22 points against a winless team at home should have been enough to win, so that game might as well be on the defense too. How so? The defense stopped the Titans in the four quarter 3 times and gave us the ball back. The offense did nothing. On the third time, with a little over a minute to play, Brunell fires into five defenders, forcing the ball to Moss. But it's the defense's fault when he does that. yadda yadda yadda...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dent19 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 YAC..... Els pass was the best deep ball thrown this year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Therefore most of the blame should go on the DEFENSE for allowing the opposing teams to put up more than 20 ppg on us. NOT MARK! Why is it that the Redskins have to field a top five defense in order to carry Mark Brunell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 How so? The defense stopped the Titans in the four quarter 3 times and gave us the ball back. The offense did nothing. On the third time, with a little over a minute to play, Brunell fires into five defenders, forcing the ball to Moss.But it's the defense's fault when he does that. yadda yadda yadda...... Could it be the playcalling? Too conservative with the lead maybe. Yeah, that's what it was. Just like when we ran 3 straight runs against the boys and made novak attempt a fg, b/c we didnt score. But when the playcalling was good, Brunell got it out and downfield to thrash 2 or 3 times, cooley and others. But please don't tell me that the defense has been playing even close to good, b/c they haven't. At least the offense is in the top 15 in the league. If the D played like it did in 04 or late 05, we would have beat the colts and the titans, and the vikes, but since they have been hurt and struggling, we are at 3-5 and theres nothing we can do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Could it be the playcalling? Too conservative with the lead maybe. Yeah, that's what it was. Just like when we ran 3 straight runs against the boys and made novak attempt a fg, b/c we didnt score. But when the playcalling was good, Brunell got it out and downfield to thrash 2 or 3 times, cooley and others. But please don't tell me that the defense has been playing even close to good, b/c they haven't. At least the offense is in the top 15 in the league. If the D played like it did in 04 or late 05, we would have beat the colts and the titans, and the vikes, but since they have been hurt and struggling, we are at 3-5 and theres nothing we can do now. Playcalling?? I'm sorry but that excuse holds no water. I guess that's why during the bye week the coaches stressed the importance of the QB's drops, making your reads and getting the ball out quickly instead of dropping too deep, patting the ball and messing up the timing to where your only option is the dump down to the back? Try again....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Why is it that the Redskins have to field a top five defense in order to carry Mark Brunell? Same reason the Rams have to field a top 5 offense to carry their defense. When the offense is better than the D, then they don't have to rely as much on the defense to make as many big plays b/c they know that they can score. With us, last year it was our defense carrying our offense, b/c when our offense knows that it can rely on the D to make plays to give them better field position, then it makes it easier on the qb and whole offense. But now, with our defense struggling, it is harder for a qb to get as much done as expected b/c even if he does score, theres a chance that the D will give up a play and let the opposing team back in it (minny and titans games), and he will have to do as much as he can to try to win. Kinda like against the Jags. If we had our top 10 D like last year, we would have blown them out. 30 points AT HOME should have been more than enough to win the game, but guess what? Our defense let them keep scoring, and we had to win in overtime. So yeah it is mostly the D's fault for mainly those 2 losses (Vikes and Titans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryanjr2003 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 pretty bad when a wide receiver throws a prettier deep ball than our starting QB come on play the kid he can throw swing passes to betts also like he said we know he can see whats going on better since he is taller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 So yeah it is mostly the D's fault for mainly those 2 losses (Vikes and Titans). 5 sub-200 yards passing out of eight says your QB is back up material at best. Our defense(up until this year) has carried Mark Brunell since he's been here. Here's a question for the whole Pro-Brunell crowd and basically what it boils down to: If Joe Gibbs wasn't coaching this team, would the starting QB's performance still be acceptable to you? Yes or No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 5 sub-200 yards passing out of eight says your QB is back up material at best.Our defense(up until this year) has carried Mark Brunell since he's been here. Here's a question for the whole Pro-Brunell crowd and basically what it boils down to: If Joe Gibbs wasn't coaching this team, would the starting QB's performance still be acceptable to you? Yes or No? If we made the playoffs last year without Gibbs, then my answer would be YES But if he continued his sucking from 2004, and didn't lead us anywhere in 2005, then my answer would be NO. I know he won't win us a SB, but he is apparently the "best guy to give us a chance to win." So I guess we should just stick with him until we are "mathematically eliminated". Then comes "Jason Campbell Time!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Here are the facts... Mark Brunell leads the NFL in passing BEHIND the line of scrimmage(balls that are caught behind the line). Hes at the top of the NFL in Yards, Comp%, Rating etc for that category. Meanwhile, Brunell is at the BOTTOM of the NFL in Comp% beyond 20 yards. Which would indicate that he is very innacurate on passes over 20 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'd like to point out that brunell threw a pass standing on the 26 yard line that Lloyd caught on the 31 of the other side but it was called back...... this thread wouldn't be around had there not been a bogus hold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 "I'd like to point out that brunell threw a pass standing on the 26 yard line that Lloyd caught on the 31 of the other side but it was called back...... this thread wouldn't be around had there not been a bogus hold" ummm...the pass to Lloyd I saw that was caleld back on a holding call....was a total duck. it was a horrible pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 He can throw downfield, he just doesn't like to... I have NEVER met a QB who does not like to throw the ball down the field. Met quite a few who couldn't mind ...... Brunell does have the arm still and he is still one of the most accurate passers in the NFL. I think where we are seeing the affects of his age are in his legs. He used to be a very mobile QB who made plays outside the pocket. His legs are just not there any more and he having to adjust to being more of a pocket QB which is not natural to him - consequently as many have commented he sometimes look uncomfortable sitting in the pocket and does not have great pocket sense. He is getting near the end - but he still represents our best opportunity to win right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 some of those catches have been due to the YAC yards by santana Not that I'm doubting you, But I can only think of one this year where Moss did all the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Not another Brunell thread. :doh: Is there any end to the madness? Only after he retires. But I am sure there will be one or two more after that, only to say we want him back. Like Brad Johnson, Patrick Ramsey and/or Trent Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 If Portis went down for the season, and ARE, Moss, and Lloyd were really banged up and we had to use Thrash and Cooley, but still got into the playoffs and won the Super Bowl, there would still be people on this board that would say Brunell sucks and can't play. People want to say his stats are skewed, when in reality, his stats are no more sked than any other QB or player in the league. It doesn't matter what the guy does or doesn't do, some people only see and believe what they want to see and believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjlax Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 "I'd like to point out that brunell threw a pass standing on the 26 yard line that Lloyd caught on the 31 of the other side but it was called back......this thread wouldn't be around had there not been a bogus hold" ummm...the pass to Lloyd I saw that was caleld back on a holding call....was a total duck. it was a horrible pass. When Brunell really steps into a 15 to 20 yarder, it still has a lot of zip. But, he usually is shuffling his feet or falling back and doesn't have the arm strength to have bad mechanics and throw hard. The puzzlingly bad passes are the lob bombs that he has underthrown EVERY time this year. And, in truth, after his knee injury last season, he couldn't throw the bomb either. I remember the bomb to start the Giants game at FEDEX last year where Santana had to contort himself to get to it. The Lloyd pass that was called back last game was a great catch of another underthrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 "People want to say his stats are skewed, when in reality, his stats are no more sked than any other QB or player in the league. It doesn't matter what the guy does or doesn't do, some people only see and believe what they want to see and believe." exactly. and you are prima facie evidence to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 But the Vikes game was more on the defense and some on the offense for not putting up at east 25 points. The Titans game, we just flopped, but still 22 points against a winless team at home should have been enough to win, so that game might as well be on the defense too. Ok your missing the point. I am not pinning the losses on Brunell at all. MY POINT is if we keep losing, we might as well bench Brunell to get ready for the future with Campbell. Brunell is old and this is probably his last stab at a SB (which is not happening). So why keep him in if we lose? Not saying he lost us the game, just saying we gain nothing from him being in there when were not in playoff contention. Also, if we want to utilize our playbook and WR strengths the most, Campbell can get the ball deep to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.