QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?

The four yard passes on 3rd and 8 are what I was referring to by changing the plays in the huddle. Obviously, he checks down because the main reciever is covered. So if there was a better play call, the intended reciever would be open, because a pre snap read determines where the ball is going to go against 3rd down pressure. So what normally happens is that teams blitz us on 3rd down, Brunell has time to look at one reciever which is taken away for a multitude of reasons, and he checks it down.

that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....

No, I do however think that is the SECOND option on many of them. If you watch how often Trent Green used to check down, it makes a lot of sense.

Fine, he's too old to evade the blitz (even though he still can at times). Campbell doesn't yet have that level of pocket presence, and he's not exactly known for his mobility.

right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

If I had a signature quote, I'd have to use that. Friggin classic.

what stats, his completion ratio??

the stats bubbling up by the Brunell apologists are *very* selective. it's not hard to NOT complete passes when they're deep behind the line of schrimmage, and last time i checked "Touchdowns" was also a stat. why aren't those ever mentioned by the apologists? how bout first downs?

another stat not mentioned by them is YAC, they'll state Brunell's yards sure, but completely discount how much of those were by the receiver.

there's a reason why Moss got into the pro-bowl last year, and his QB didn't.I'll give you Touchdowns. This offense has scored 14 TDs thus far and has rushed for more TDs than any team save San Diego.

It's stupid to seperate passing TDs from rushing TDs since if the team gets into the endzone, the QB has done his job. Likewise, a passing TD shouldnt take away from a RBs accomplishments. I think the NFL should use total TD's in their QB rating stat or there will continue to be an extra varible in it.

Anyway, we are in the top 10 in scoring offense anyway (7th in efficiency), so I fail to see what you are trying to say in this arguement.

The reason why you don't ever get first downs is because those stats arent easily accessable. But first downs are a big part of football outsider's DVOA rankings (something I really buy into if you follow my posts), in which we are 7th in the NFL through the first 7 weeks.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005 (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/24/ramblings/dvoa-rankings/4443/)

As far as YAC goes, we play in a YAC based offense. The arguement of the WRs collecting yards for the QBs statsheet directly contradicts the complaint of check downs being a negative play. We do have a YAC based offense. Whether Brunell or Campbell or Collins plays, WRs will get YAC for us. So unless you also want the offense changed with the QB, its seems pretty moot to trash MB's statline because of the offensive system he's in.

The efficiency ratings above do account for that stuff though.

The reason why Moss got into the Pro Bowl and Brunell didn't is simply because Michael Vick did get in following a disappointing year. Moss probably wouldn't have made it with Ramsey at QB...but then again I guess it's a completely useless arguement since the offense is new this year.

well, for that game it was a garbage TD against prevent, and you need a LOT of points to beat peyton (usually). in our losses, our offense hasn't been getting it done either, even though the jacksonville, houston, and end of the indy game pad the stats. 3 of those 4 games weren't even close on either side of the ball.

I'm not saying the offense is fantastic. I'm saying that even if the offense was clicking they would struggle to win games because the defense can't stop anyone. I don't think some people realize how bad the defense is right now. They are one of the worst groups in the League right now - and getting worse every week.

right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"Every time we complete a pass short of the first down marker, we hurt our offensive DVOA. Yet we still rank 7th in the league. This tells me that this does not happen as frequently as the Brunell-haters think it does.

I'm not sure a strong arm and long-range efficiency are a good fit in this offense. It's something that may be an improvement over Brunell, but at what cost? Expierience, short-range accuracy, pocket presence, probably a bit of pre LOS mobility. A lot of things that keep this offense moving.

There ARE offensive issues. We don't score nearly as many points as our efficiency would dictate. Of course, the statistical solution is to create a bigger sample size, in which points would theroretically balance out. So our biggest offensive problem, if not inconsistent line play, is a lack of fortune.

Some people on this fourm are under the impression that a QB change would fix some of our offensive problems. It would create a few more than we already have. Inevitably, we would fall out of the top 10 in efficiency as Campbell learns the ins and outs of the NFL game.

It MIGHT soften Campbell's learning curve to play him now, but this is a bad situation. I would hope that the defense can get rolling soon, and the line begins to play better. If that happens and we find ourselves out of the race in December, then give JC a chance to succeed and win some games in a good situation.

This is anything but a good situation, and Brunell has done a pretty solid job holding this toghether, even if he's errored on the cautious side (which is pure speculation at this point).

I'll give you Touchdowns. This offense has scored 14 TDs thus far and has rushed for more TDs than any team save San Diego.

It's stupid to seperate passing TDs from rushing TDs since if the team gets into the endzone, the QB has done his job. Likewise, a passing TD shouldnt take away from a RBs accomplishments. I think the NFL should use total TD's in their QB rating stat or there will continue to be an extra varible in it.

clever way of making our offense seem awesome, but i agree with you in that rushing TDs are just as important. a real offense is both. how do we fare in combined TDs?

Anyway, we are in the top 10 in scoring offense anyway (7th in efficiency), so I fail to see what you are trying to say in this arguement.

again, what's 'efficiency'? sounds fishy for 'completion ratio'

The reason why you don't ever get first downs is because those stats arent easily accessable. But first downs are a big part of football outsider's DVOA rankings (something I really buy into if you follow my posts), in which we are 7th in the NFL through the first 7 weeks.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005 (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/24/ramblings/dvoa-rankings/4443/)

As far as YAC goes, we play in a YAC based offense. The arguement of the WRs collecting yards for the QBs statsheet directly contradicts the complaint of check downs being a negative play. We do have a YAC based offense. Whether Brunell or Campbell or Collins plays, WRs will get YAC for us. So unless you also want the offense changed with the QB, its seems pretty moot to trash MB's statline because of the offensive system he's in.

The efficiency ratings above do account for that stuff though.

The reason why Moss got into the Pro Bowl and Brunell didn't is simply because Michael Vick did get in following a disappointing year. Moss probably wouldn't have made it with Ramsey at QB...but then again I guess it's a completely useless arguement since the offense is new this year.

thanks for the link. yes, i'm well aware we have a YAC based offense. god knows. it puts the onus on the WR and not the QB, thats the reason Brunell wasn't a serious pro-bowl consideration.

i consider expecting YAC to get us a first down on 3rd and long an extremely bad offensive strategy (especially when the defense knows its coming and encourages it) as do most of the fans, and published NFL pundits and commentators everywhere. don't you wonder WHY our offense is YAC based? it wasn't a staple of Gibbs era offense, it seems like an offense directly tailored to the limitations of our starting QB.

that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.

No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.


Did you see how the Colts defense played the check down in the 2nd half?

A bet the remaining teams on the schedule will play it the same way.

GTripp,

I just wanted to say that, although we differ in our evaluations of the offense, you make some good points. It's also nice to see someone actually articulate reasonable bases for their opinions instead of simply saying, "you're an idiot," "you're ignorant," or "I'm right and you're wrong."

I do not think that Brunell is a bad QB; he's pretty accurate in his short-game, he doesn't throw a lot of picks, he's smart, he's classy, and he's done relatively well considering the constant turnover in the coaching staff and offensive personnel. So, unlike some others, I do not believe that Brunell is the worst quarterback we've seen or the cause of all of our offensive struggles. Moreover, I also agree that our defense is playing worse than our offense and shares a lot of the blame for our record.

However, I think now is the time to replace Brunell. If we had a reasonable chance of making the playoffs, I would say that we should stick with Brunell as he gives us a better chance of winning than Campbell. However, because our post-season hopes are all but mathematically over and Brunell isn't getting any younger, it's time for JC to see the field. Campbell will probably throw more picks, make poor drive-killing plays, and struggle more than Brunell, but he's our future and now's a good time to start working towards next season.