Give Props to Brunell

Why minus the throw to Cooley? Did that not count or something? How about adding the potential yardage he lost when Cooley dropped that ball?

I don't understand why people always want to subtract plays out, I read an article this morning about how Portis ran 22 times for 46 yards (minus the 38 yard TD run). Why is it ok to analyze a performance by subtracting out big plays?? Why do they count any less?

Rant over.


While i agree with your point...can't subract or add for point purposes..I think his (repeat HIS-not mine) point was, it was a dink toss to cooley with no chance of actually scoring- and was, for all intents and purposes, a stat padding play. Kinda like A-rod hitting 3 homers and batting in 8 runs, and the yanks (i hate them) win 12-0 and then striking out with the game on the line. The point is, there is such a thing as stat padding, and is does matter the circumstances of the play. That said, i wouldnt' take anything away from brunell on sunday...my point remains, he looked good in the first half, and ok in the second. I would argue that this is also as good as it gets for Mark, and therefore, I'm not sure how many more miracles we have in us to win...bc alone, it wasn't enough to pull out the W.

aw hell i spoke too soon. GTripp thinks Brunell plays this "good" practically every week. well you're wrong, regardless of the stats you have on your calculator, Brunell didn't rely on YAC and short yardage dinks to get him some decent stats *this* game.But your "best" point before was that MB wasn't getting it done at 2-5. It's obvious that teams lose football games, not QBs. It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to come to that conclusion.

The gameplan was quite obviously different this game then the other games. It called for MB to throw down the middle a whole lot more. And it was just as effective, if not a bit more than Al's other gameplans (possibly because Gibbs had imput). We moved the ball, a lot. We didn't turn it over minus that one fumble. We didn't throw all that much and his normal stats are pedistrian. A futher investigation shows that he was quite effieient.

So yeah, everyone is right. Brunell isn't the reason we won. He also hasn't been the reason we have been losing. His numbers have been consistent between the wins and losses, minus the first Dallas game in which they were horrible.

Obviously, if we had lost on Vandy's FG, Brunell bashing would be rampant right now. I think a lot of others have reached this conclusion This goes back to MHeisig's point from last week. Fans, in general, are fickle. Note how Brunell didn't see the field between Novak's missed first FG and the end of the game. But that sequence of events determined what the fans thought of Brunell's performance.

A microchosm of Brunell's entire season. It can be quite easily proven that his performance has remained relatively steady. I hope you don't challenge me to do so, but I warn you that I'm ready.

POINT is that Brunell is our QB and will remain so the remainder of the year, so why do we have to talk about this week in and week out. He's not going anywhere, and to those of us that like enjoying a WIN, it gets old listening to the same crap over and over and over again from the bashers.


I just think it seems to be a case of the bar was sooo low that an average (below average) NFL QB performance is praised "Amazing". Kinda like a dog that soils the kitchen floor as opposed to the carpet, its an improvement, but its not really good. Now imagine the dog is 38...


call it what you want, but please don't pretend it was anything more than ok. 1 td and less than 200 yards. fine stats if you are trent dilfer with the ravens D and jamal lewis running for 100+ a game. but lets be reasonable.

Re: sick of "bashers": without people willing to take the other side, this forum would be quite uneventful.

I just think it seems to be a case of the bar was sooo low that an average (below average) NFL QB performance is praised "Amazing". Kinda like a dog that soils the kitchen floor as opposed to the carpet, its an improvement, but its not really good. Now imagine the dog is 38...Well, who set the bar there? Certainly not coach Gibbs. Certainly not his supporters. Certainly not objective observers. So I find it funny that the bashers, who spend so much of their time lowering the bar on Brunell, actually find it offensive that he outperformed the low bar!

It wasn't an amazing performance. Al and Joe decided they were going to take more risks offensively. Brunell went out and executed. Just another day at the office.

A microchosm of Brunell's entire season. It can be quite easily proven that his performance has remained relatively steady. I hope you don't challenge me to do so, but I warn you that I'm ready.


I'd really like to see this...I honestly see him as nothing more than a below average QB, who while not completely at fault by any means (D, O-line, whole team) led his team to a 3-5 record. I would love to be a believer...

Well, who set the bar there? Certainly not coach Gibbs. Certainly not his supporters. Certainly not objective observers. So I find it funny that the bashers, who spend so much of their time lowering the bar on Brunell, actually find it offensive that he outperformed the low bar!


i don't find it offensive at all...on the contrary, I was very pleased that he seemed to stretch the field in the first half, etc. very pleased. I would argue Mark Brunell set the bar so low with his performances throughout most of his tenure as a skin...objectively speaking his numbers here have been less than stellar- for a non project QB (as has his record).

Sorry, just the first few pages:

He made some nice deep passes
distributing the ball nicely
did a pretty good job
threw some lasers over the middle
played a very good game
he did pretty darn good
played well today
He was a Pro-Bowler today
He was a field general today
a commendable job

No, he didn't, and that's why I said so in my initial post.

My last post in this thread (possibly).

While I agree that Brunell didn't play like a pro bowler or necessarily a "field general" to say his performance was sub-par is equally incorrect.

A microchosm of Brunell's entire season. It can be quite easily proven that his performance has remained relatively steady. I hope you don't challenge me to do so, but I warn you that I'm ready.

steadily what? pedestrian? 'efficient'? does it make any difference at all in HOW he got those stats - deeper, and over the middle - to the result of the game? does emotion factor at all in your precious stats, because i can assure you it does in a football game.

yeah brunell was decent at best. most of the first quarter receptions came from pass interference calls. its hard to say as im boasting about the victory last night but the cowboys really did beat themselves. but guys i must say im proud of all of you. we did have a great win last night and not many of you are saying "oh were back in this race". we have a lot of work to do. and you all seem to get that.....sweet, i finally found a place where i can talk to real skins fans that arent totally crazy.....

POINT is that Brunell is our QB and will remain so the remainder of the year, so why do we have to talk about this week in and week out. He's not going anywhere, and to those of us that like enjoying a WIN, it gets old listening to the same crap over and over and over again from the bashers.



I was feeling that same way in 2004 when Brunell was being called everything except what his mother named him. Sometime during that period I felt sort of out of place being only one of the few who supported him. Compare what was being said about him then, with what's being said about him now from basically the same people. I have come to the conclusion that for Brunell, his situation is going to go back and forth, week after week depending on whether the team wins or looses, It's just that simple. The fact we won ten games and made the playoffs last year with Brunell still dosen't make up for/or off-set some of the things that were said about the man, and "You heard it right here".