bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Brunell vs McNubb Career QB rating Brunell- 85.2% McNubb- 79.3 Career Completetion Pct. Brunell- 60.3 McNubb- 57.0 Yards Per Attempt Brunell- 7.08 McNubb- 6.16 TD to INT Ratio Brunell - 144-86= 59.72% McNubb - 87-49= 56.32% Rushing YPA, and total TD's Brunell- 5.1 - 15TD McNubb- 6.4 - 17TD Fumbles Lost Brunell- 19 lost in 122 games played McNubb- 21 lost in 70 games played Age Brunell- 33 McNubb- 28 Experience Brunell- 11 years 122 games McNubb- 5 years 70 games Playoff Experience Brunell- 4(w)- 5(l) 2 AFC Championship games McNubb- 5(w)-4(l) 3 NFC Chapionship games Intangable Career Stats Brunell: Seasons among the league's top 10 Pass attempts: 1996-2, 2000-10 Completions: 1996-2, 2000-9t Passing yards: 1996-1, 1997-9, 2000-8 Passing TDs: 1996-8, 2000-10t Adjusted yards per pass: 1996-6, 1997-4, 1998-8, 1999-10, 2001-8, 2002-10 Among the league's all-time top 50 Pass attempts: 44 Completions: 34 Passing yards: 44 McNubb: Seasons among the league's top 10 Pass attempts: 2000-4 Completions: 2000-4 Passing TDs: 2000-7t, 2001-7 Adjusted yards per pass: 2003-10 Donovan McNabb is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 McNubb I don't know, that spelling may be considered an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by ramseyskins I don't know, that spelling may be considered an opinion. Nah, just a nickname Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afparent Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Come on people, just because Brunell didn't play much last year doesn't mean he still doesn't have it. Why do you think Coach Gibbs wanted him so bad...because the man can play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Career Stats (no opinion BS) No offense, but you know for a fact that those stats don;t tell the whole story. For one, no one is doubting that Brunell is/was a very good QB. Secondaly, he has 6 more years in the league than Mcnabb- would you really expect Mcnabb to be the top 50 in anything yet? At any rate, I don't care. It's obvious that are beating Brunell's drum and that's okay- I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Dang McDoogle only edges Brunell by a little less than 1.5 yards in YPA rushing. Surprising stat. Anyone know where some Jax tape on Brunell is online? I seem to remember him being quite mobile and deadly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by f_dallas No offense, but you know for a fact that those stats don;t tell the whole story. For one, no one is doubting that Brunell is/was a very good QB. Secondaly, he has 6 more years in the league than Mcnabb- would you really expect Mcnabb to be the top 50 in anything yet? At any rate, I don't care. It's obvious that are beating Brunell's drum and that's okay- I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind, though. :laugh: It tells a great deal of the story, more than McNabb fans care to admitt. Yes Brunnell has 6 more years experience, which is a plus in my book. QB's get better and smarter with age, better decision making... until there body gives out. Brunell is just 33, he may have lost a step rushing, but I doubt he has lost anything in passing velocity yet.... Probably better in arcuarracy... Manning is in the Top 50 in some catagories, but the main stat was the number of times the QB was rated in the top 10 in the NFL in a catagory, in a different season. McNabb has had some in his 5 years. Stats don't lie, you wash away the excuses, the twisted opinions, and personal feeling what you have left is simply "the truth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Brunell is arguably the best QB Gibbs has ever coached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Bubba you should also say that McNabb has never had a WR as good as Jimmy Smith or even a young McCardell. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Bubba you should also say that McNabb has never had a WR as good as Jimmy Smith or even a young McCardell. :doh: more excuses, Brunell also was the QB of an expansion team.. see you can say anything to twist the stats... that's why I only use the Qb stat numbers. It represents the true level of a QB play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 more excuses, Brunell also was the QB of an expansion team.. see you can say anything to twist the stats... that's why I only use the Qb stat numbers. It represents the true level of a QB play. It isn't an excuse, it is hard to be a good QB when you have no good WR's, you could also say that Philly hasn't had any good RB's as well. That expansion team was loaded with talent. Which is why they went to two AFC championships. I like Brunell but McNabb just hasn't had the talent around him, this year could be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 One more statistic to add: McNabb Wins: 43 Losses: 21 Ties: 0 Pct: .672 Brunell Wins: 63 Losses: 54 Ties: 0 Pct: .538 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 It represents the true level of a QB play. The only way to judge a QB is their record. McNabb has taking his team to 3 straight NFC championships, that isn't just luck. When we think of the all time best QB in the history of the NFL Montana will be ahead of Marino, guess why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Thank you, Bubba!! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Now maybe number5 will stay off our backs for a while. (You know I luvs ya, number5!) I was met with A LOT of disinterest when I jumped for joy at acquiring Mark Brunell. My friends and football enemies have SUCH short memories. Mark Brunell is a BAD-ASS. He has always been (I swear to GOD) my favorite NFL QB. Partly because we haven't had anyone worth getting behind since Mark Rypien, but mostly because I loved Brunell's game. The guy can run, throw and think with the best of them and now it's finally shown to all the Iggle fans that they don't even HAVE the best quarterback in the NFC East ANYMORE!! I agree that Mark is getting old and that he has gotten hurt the past 2 years. But on the field, he's statistically BETTER than Donovon McNabb. I still stand by my opinion that Patrick Ramsey (my NEW favorite NFL QB) should be starting for the Skins and Brunell should be his mentor/backup. However, this ingenius move by Bubba should get alot of you young 'uns who may not have seen Brunell play a lot to understand why he is the right man for the job. NOT a washed-up ex-Jag. :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 The only way to judge a QB is their record. McNabb has taking his team to 3 straight NFC championships, that isn't just luck. Wuttup, jboom! Yeah, but McNabb has to win a super bowl before one could use that argument. Perhaps Brunell will do that first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Blazers21 One more statistic to add: McNabb Wins: 43 Losses: 21 Ties: 0 Pct: .672 Brunell Wins: 63 Losses: 54 Ties: 0 Pct: .538 Not applicable, because a TEAM wins not a QB. one player can not win a ball game. I have always felt if the Eagles had a worse defense or special teams, they would have been an average team at best The above stats represent their true abilities as a QB nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma It isn't an excuse, it is hard to be a good QB when you have no good WR's, you could also say that Philly hasn't had any good RB's as well. That expansion team was loaded with talent. Which is why they went to two AFC championships. I like Brunell but McNabb just hasn't had the talent around him, this year could be different. A great player brings up the level of play of his team mates.. I contend McNabb brings down the others. How can any reciever put up good numbers if the QB misses him 50% of the time?? James Thrash Last year in DC as a #3 2000 Washington Redskins 16 9 50 653 13.1 50(lg) 2(TD) 7(+20) 4(+40) 29(fd) Thrash last season as the Eagles #1 2003 Philadelphia Eagles 16 16 49 558 11.4 51(lg) 1(TD) 5(+20) 3(+40) 24 (fd) The only way to judge a QB is their record. McNabb has taking his team to 3 straight NFC championships, that isn't just luck.When we think of the all time best QB in the history of the NFL Montana will be ahead of Marino, guess why Total BS and you know it. Wins represent a team effort....doesn't represent the ability of QB and his skills. Your logic says Dilfer is a better QB than Brunell, McNabb, even Peyton Manning because he won a Super Bowl Ring :laugh: Again.. no spins, no opinions.. just plain stats that represent a players abilities. In the HOF Marino stats puts him ahead of Montanna in pure passing ability.. which is what I am showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma That expansion team was loaded with talent. Which is why they went to two AFC championships. And McNabb's Eagles went to 3 NFC championships because they had no talent, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 Your logic says Dilfer is a better QB than Brunell, McNabb, even Peyton Manning because he won a Super Bowl Ring :laugh: He was that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 Not applicable, because a TEAM wins not a QB. one player can not win a ball game. I have always felt if the Eagles had a worse defense or special teams, they would have been an average team at best The above stats represent their true abilities as a QB nothing more. Bubba, You're being hypocritical here. A TEAM also contributes to a QB's stats, as JB pointed out. The numbers don't mean much without factoring in everything else, including quality of WR/RB/OL, field position, coaching, play calling, type of offense, strength of team. I'm sorry, but they do not represent their true abilities unless all else is equal. W-L record must be included, in any event, as a QB does have a lot to do with whether a team wins or loses on a consistent basis. So on the field, McNabb was 12-4 last season. How did Brunell do? I really don't care what either has done cumulatively over the past 5-11 years. The question is: what will they do this season? Given that criteria, I'd take McNabb based on recent performance, age, athletic ability and unit cohesiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Bubba...Thanks again for doing the research but I was just wondering about this; Age Brunell- 33 McNubb- 28 I was just wondering if Brunell turns 34 on 9/17/04 and McNabb turns 28 on 11/25/04 how you figured out that Brunell is 33 and McNabb is 28 because most of the rest of society would either consider McNabb 27 and Brunell 33 or if they want to project into the season McNabb would be 28 and Brunell would be 34. Since Brunell actualy turns 34 before McNabb turns 28 I was just wondering how you'd justify your contention that Brunell is 33 and McNabb is 28 because we know this is just the facts and couldn't be an attempt by you to make it seem they are closer in age by well.......lying about their relative ages. I was also wondering about how you would view the fact that Brunell got to sit on his butt for 2 seasons when he entered the league and learn the game while McNabb had to learn out on the field. Also I was wondering if you could come up with a stat for the number of seasons each QB sat on the bench while a raw rookie played because the coaches who saw him every day realized he didn't have it any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebowski Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by illone Brunell is arguably the best QB Gibbs has ever coached. That would be Patrick Ramsey, arguably. Why are we comparing our backup QB to the Eagles starter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 A great player brings up the level of play of his team mates.. I contend McNabb brings down the others. How can any reciever put up good numbers if the QB misses him 50% of the time?? You still can't get a good picture. How many drops did Eagles receivers have last year? Without that number, how can you accurately say that McNabb (or anyone) misses his receivers a certain % of the time? The perfect example was in the last NFCCG. McNabb hit Thrash with a nice pass. He caught the ball, was hit, the ball came out for an interception. Was that McNabb's fault? He threw a perfect pass but it's recorded as an INT. A little earlier, Pinkston cut his pattern short. McNabb threw the ball where Pinkston was supposed to be (timing pattern). Result: INT. Was that McNabb's fault? Does that illustrate him bringing down the level of play of his teammates? I'd say the reverse was true. Numbers never tell the complete story. In any event, who would you want at QB in the Super Bowl? Montana or Marino, based on everything you know about both players? I know my choice, and it wouldn't be the QB with the better stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Sebowski That would be Patrick Ramsey, arguably. Why are we comparing our backup QB to the Eagles starter? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by Blazers21 Bubba, You're being hypocritical here. A TEAM also contributes to a QB's stats, as JB pointed out. The numbers don't mean much without factoring in everything else, including quality of WR/RB/OL, field position, coaching, play calling, type of offense, strength of team. I'm sorry, but they do not represent their true abilities unless all else is equal. W-L record must be included, in any event, as a QB does have a lot to do with whether a team wins or loses on a consistent basis. So on the field, McNabb was 12-4 last season. How did Brunell do? I really don't care what either has done cumulatively over the past 5-11 years. The question is: what will they do this season? Given that criteria, I'd take McNabb based on recent performance, age, athletic ability and unit cohesiveness. No I am not, what % of those 12 wins was due to McNabb? You can't measure except with the stats I provided. Every year conditions change, players, schedules, coaching.. so to accurately gauge a QB's ability is to look at his career stats equally, numbers no excuses. would've, could've, should've means nothing... stats don'tlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.