Hooper Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Thats easy. Double team Moss. Take away Moss and with no other decent receiver shutting down the passing game wasnt that hard. That's football 101. Except, you know, he had the same problems in 2006. To make matters worse, he suddenly stopped stepping up in the pocket and was playing scared. If somebody less than five yards away wasn't open, he just bailed out on the play. MB is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Doesn't matter if JC goes down. According to some here, all we have to do is draft Calvin Johnson and he'll fix everything!! From the offense to defense to special teams..etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 CJ would be a lousy pick if MB is the starting QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Mark Brunell played better than Jason Campbell last season, better stats and more wins, so . . . . . . what does that tell us? Damond Huard and Tony Romo sits to pee... better stats than Tom Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC girl Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Man Brunell is terrible, he might be able to come in and manage a game or two, with us relying on the run, to get us through a short term injury to JC, but if he goes down long term, we are done if Brunell is our backup. I think we need to get a better backup than the two guys we have, doubt that will happen as there are not many options and it is not extremely pressing. So let's just hope JC stays healthy! And I find it seriously hard to believe that someone is still defending Brunell's play this year, I hope Cyber Pimp is just doing that to try and make everyone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Clause Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 If Mark Brunell plays extensively in more than 2 games this year we will not make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worstSeat Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yeah, like the Eagles...oh, wait. :doh: That's right, they had a veteran QB who lead them to the playoffs through a division title. Thank heavens someone's still got sense. Please explains Brunell's horrid second half performance in 2005 then. The league figured him out -- take away the short passing lanes and he's useless. Gibbs told us that Brunell was playing on a bruised, black & blue hammy, and for some reason that didn't equate to Gibbs pulling Brunell. I'll hang that tank on Gibbs. Brunell can be effective for a few games a year. I don't see how anyone can doubt that. Count the playoff games Brunell's won and tell me who since Pettibon has more. Did Brad win two? If you take away salary, Brunell's a good fit at #2. So Gibbs, take away the salary, and Mark, take one for the team, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Man Brunell is terrible, he might be able to come in and manage a game or two, with us relying on the run, to get us through a short term injury to JC, but if he goes down long term, we are done if Brunell is our backup. I think we need to get a better backup than the two guys we have, doubt that will happen as there are not many options and it is not extremely pressing. So let's just hope JC stays healthy!And I find it seriously hard to believe that someone is still defending Brunell's play this year, I hope Cyber Pimp is just doing that to try and make everyone mad. I'm not into making people mad. If anyone gets mad about my opinion that their problem. My opinion is that JC did ok but he did nothing to really impress me. His numbers wasnt much better then Brunell. If Brunell is done and JC is put up similar numbers then thats not impressive. I have been a skins fan for 30 years. Since Danny boy became the owner. He has this attitude of getting rid of people quick if they dont perform to there expectations (ex. Johnson/George). That same attitude has trickled down to the fans. Fans now have the "get rid of him attitude". Fans are becoming "wishful thinkers". We hear names like AA, Andre Carter B lloyd and fan get phyiced up only to be let down. And the only way to fix the weak links is to pull that Danny by attitude out of their azz and say "hes done get rid of him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Brunell can be effective for a few games a year. I don't see how anyone can doubt that. Count the playoff games Brunell's won and tell me who since Pettibon has more. Did Brad win two? Good point. But then again, he throw for what, a colletive 200 yards in both playoff games? 40 against the Bucs and 150 (most on one pass) against the Seahawks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeenzfan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 First of all CP was hurting. He didnt play the first two games of the season. When he returned he wasnt 100%. Mark Brunell faced the cover 2 defenses alot. The only way to beat the cover 2 is by running the ball and completing short passes mainly over the middle. CP and Betts combined wasnt producing the yardage that Betts put up the second half of the season. Look at the numbers. JC had an establihed running game to help him out and his numbers still wasnt much better then Brunells. The kid has a big wind up passing motion that will hurt us in the long run. His weakness is exposed to the entire NFL now. He will nothing more then average. I think you have it the other way around....the running game didn't work because teams were basically daring brunell to throw down the field by putting eight in the box. The only way to counter that is to complete some passes down the field which Jc did and thus the running game opened up. I think even if Jc isn't much better than burnell he will make more plays due to his mobility in and outside the pocket to keep drives alive and keep the defense of the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerbo Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Thank heavens someone's still got sense.Gibbs told us that Brunell was playing on a bruised, black & blue hammy, and for some reason that didn't equate to Gibbs pulling Brunell. I'll hang that tank on Gibbs. Brunell can be effective for a few games a year. I don't see how anyone can doubt that. Count the playoff games Brunell's won and tell me who since Pettibon has more. Did Brad win two? If you take away salary, Brunell's a good fit at #2. So Gibbs, take away the salary, and Mark, take one for the team, please. Ok, someone correct me if I am wrong, first Brunell didn't win squat, the Defense won that game for us against Tampa, Brunell threw for like what 50 yards ....absolutely pathetic. Secondly I think Johnson won a playoff game (against the Cards I think) as well but we lost to Tampa in the second game on a botched FG attempt at the end of the game I think?.......so stop trying to prop up a lame duck QB who can't throw the ball 20-30 yards downfield CONSISTENTLY enough to win a game for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfgoon21 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 . . . what does that tell us?Damond Huard and Tony Romo sits to pee... better stats than Tom Brady. I think it tells us that in order to make the playoffs you must have stats equal to or greater than Tom Brady's? Yeah......that'll be my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC girl Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm not into making people mad. If anyone gets mad about my opinion that their problem. My opinion is that JC did ok but he did nothing to really impress me. His numbers wasnt much better then Brunell. If Brunell is done and JC is put up similar numbers then thats not impressive. I have been a skins fan for 30 years. Since Danny boy became the owner. He has this attitude of getting rid of people quick if they dont perform to there expectations (ex. Johnson/George). That same attitude has trickled down to the fans. Fans now have the "get rid of him attitude". Fans are becoming "wishful thinkers". We hear names like AA, Andre Carter B lloyd and fan get phyiced up only to be let down. And the only way to fix the weak links is to pull that Danny by attitude out of their azz and say "hes done get rid of him". So your point is that Brunell is just as good as JC, or that JC is just as bad as Brunell (going back to your first post here). JC was 2-5, Brunell 3-6. Brunell is a veteran, JC a rookie, Brunell had all offseason to practice with the first string, took all the work, JC didn't really have any work at all with the first string before he started playing this year. JC put up way more points than Brunell while games were still competitve, and he at least had the ability to throw the ball down the field, which is what oppened up the running game, not the other way around, his timing was a little off due to very limited practice with the first string WRs. Mark Brunell is 37...he IS done. If you don't think Campbell will be better next year then you are crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 The defense in the second half of the season deteriorated ... 3nOut Brunell had the advantage of the stronger defense in the early going, but still could not score enough points to win ... JC clearly played better, but was let down by the lousy disintergrating D (he palyed well enough to beat the Eagles, Rams and Giants) ... just check TOP. The Skins hopefully will find another vet QB to back up JC ... I would even prefer Colllins over Bruney .... after all he knows Saunders' system like a mistress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Rather than ignorant ranting, let's consider the facts. Here are last year's numbers for you. Mark Brunell: 162 completions on 260 attempts, 62.3 % Jason Campbell: 110 completions on 207 attempts, 53.1 % Mark Brunell: 8 TDs, 4 INTs, 86.5 rating Jason Campbell: 10 TDs, 6 INTs, 76.5 rating Mark Brunell: 24 completions over 20 yards, 6.88 yards per attempt. Jason Campbell: 13 completions over 20 yards, 6.27 yards per attempt. Judging from last years stats, I'd say we would actually be better off with Brunell. I'm not saying Brunell should be the starter, because obviously Campbell has more upside, I'm just saying we would be fine with Brunell at QB. You people who hate Brunell amaze me, we could not ask to have a better backup than a smart veteran like him. We may have the best backup quarterback in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 erassed post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Cyber Pimp that post is a disaster. I think you should try to edit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 My bad yall. I copied and pasted from word and the alignment is off. I will fix it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Pimp Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Rather than ignorant ranting, let's consider the facts. Here are last year's numbers for you. Mark Brunell: 162 completions on 260 attempts, 62.3 % Jason Campbell: 110 completions on 207 attempts, 53.1 % Mark Brunell: 8 TDs, 4 INTs, 86.5 rating Jason Campbell: 10 TDs, 6 INTs, 76.5 rating Mark Brunell: 24 completions over 20 yards, 6.88 yards per attempt. Jason Campbell: 13 completions over 20 yards, 6.27 yards per attempt. Judging from last years stats, I'd say we would actually be better off with Brunell. I'm not saying Brunell should be the starter, because obviously Campbell has more upside, I'm just saying we would be fine with Brunell at QB. You people who hate Brunell amaze me, we could not ask to have a better backup than a smart veteran like him. We may have the best backup quarterback in the league. Thank you. MB out performed JC in every catagory. But everybody is on JC's nuts and he wasnt impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Thank you. MB out performed JC in every catagory. But everybody is on JC's nuts and he wasnt impressive.Yeah, some people are so caught up in the rhetoric that they forget the facts. It's good to see somebody around here who gets it . I thought Campbell looked good for a QB who is still wet behind the ears, but to suggest that Brunell couldn't do as well is absurd.By the way, welcome to Extremeskins! Thanks for editing that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Let's see stats for stepping up in the pocket and trying to make a play. Keeping defenses honest by simply taking shots downfield -- something Brunell can't do anymore -- opened up the running game tremendously. Campell had about a week of reps with the starters before he was thrust into the job. Gibbs and Saunders had all but ignored him because Gibbs had a mancrush on Brunell and Saunders had one on Collins. To do as well as he did, to show the poise and pocket presence of a vet, was very impressive and gives me hope we might finally have a good qb here in Washington again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Let's see stats for stepping up in the pocket and trying to make a play. Keeping defenses honest by simply taking shots downfield -- something Brunell can't do anymore -- opened up the running game tremendously.I posted those stats. Here they are again since you missed them:Mark Brunell: 24 completions over 20 yards, 6.88 yards per attempt. Jason Campbell: 13 completions over 20 yards, 6.27 yards per attempt. I have high hopes for Campbell too, but we need to be honest here. Let's stop repeating falsehoods like "Brunell can't throw downfield as well as Campbell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerbo Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Rather than ignorant ranting, let's consider the facts. Here are last year's numbers for you. Mark Brunell: 162 completions on 260 attempts, 62.3 % Jason Campbell: 110 completions on 207 attempts, 53.1 % Mark Brunell: 8 TDs, 4 INTs, 86.5 rating Jason Campbell: 10 TDs, 6 INTs, 76.5 rating Mark Brunell: 24 completions over 20 yards, 6.88 yards per attempt. Jason Campbell: 13 completions over 20 yards, 6.27 yards per attempt. Judging from last years stats, I'd say we would actually be better off with Brunell. I'm not saying Brunell should be the starter, because obviously Campbell has more upside, I'm just saying we would be fine with Brunell at QB. You people who hate Brunell amaze me, we could not ask to have a better backup than a smart veteran like him. We may have the best backup quarterback in the league. You just lost credibility with me there buddy...off the top off my head...Matt Schuab and Jeff Garcia are better backups than Brunell could ever be. So you lose on that one, we don't have the best back up QB in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerbo Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I posted those stats. Here they are again since you missed them:Mark Brunell: 24 completions over 20 yards, 6.88 yards per attempt. Jason Campbell: 13 completions over 20 yards, 6.27 yards per attempt. I have high hopes for Campbell too, but we need to be honest here. Let's stop repeating falsehoods like "Brunell can't throw downfield as well as Campbell." How many games did Campbell start compared to Boonell? Take that into consideration there buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm being serious here. Look what happened to the Steelers Ben R goes down from a bike accident, and not just through that but that seemed to cause the team to fall apart after a Super bowl run. Now while noone would say we are SB material last year, Should we be looking for a backup to fill that void instead of keeping the two backups we have? I'm not sure that's necessarily a good example. Charlie Batch played very well in Ben's absence if memory serves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.