Give Props to Brunell

gibbs/musgrave 05 was a much better system for this talent.No arguement here, in fact this is a great point. Saunders' system seems to be pretty universal, but its a far cry from the Gibbs/Musgrave system which taylored to Brunells strengths. I mean how often these days do you see Brunell throw that godly accurate touch pass? Pretty much never.

relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.

so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.




then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.



thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.



YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.

again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.

just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?

yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.The reason I say "the Redskins rank 6th in offensive efficency" is because if I were to say "Washington is plus 12.5% DVOA through 8 games (true statement)," about three people on this fourm would know what the f I'm saying. Don't get me wrong, thats a very general 6. Just because we rank 1 spot ahead of the Patriots doesn't mean a person who says the Pats have a better offense is wrong...its too close to be certain.

I actually agree with your post up to a certain point, but I'm afraid you missed the main part of my point again. I'm not trying to call you out or anything. Let me simplify everything for a second. We are going to take Mark Brunell out of the equation. Lets examine this situation from the start.

Quarterback B is producing good stats this year, in a YAC based offense. Quarterback B played in a different, also YAC based offense in 2005. Quarterback B argueably should have been a pro bowler in 2005 due to a weak NFC QBing class. Quarterback B's numbers (in a different offense, but certainly no more YAC-based) have improved in 2006 over his fairly impressive 2005.

Some fans still think Quarterback B should be benched.

All of the above statements are either facts, or very reasonable assumptions. Now, it can be argued that I'm oversimplifying a situation. But no matter how bad the situation is being simplified, the final sentence seems to make absolutely no sense given the above statements. There is always going to be some reasoning to explain it, like offensive additions of godly talent at the wide receiver position that make Santana Moss look like a camp scrub, or that maybe the new offense is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the playcalling is made by Albert Einstein's son.

But no matter what you say, the final statement will still seem (and is of course) somewhat obsured. Maybe less obsured once you get the whole picture i.e. haven't missed a Redskin game since September 2003 like me, or much earlier like some of you. But obsured none the less.

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Theres strong statistical evidence to suggest Jason Campbell will become one of the better QBs in the NFL. But what can't be predicted is how he will play in his first few starts, which is what we are talking about when we say "bench Brunell." Espicially when Brunell is doing everything that's asked of him so far.

thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.It's this kind of statement that hurts me when I read it. This is supposed to be your big knockout punch to me...and its reliant on the fact that I completely and utterly assume you correct when you say "Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense". Granted all the limitations are assumed ones (I would argue that they arent actually limitations at all), and YOU, illdefined, are giving reasoning that only Mark Brunell himself knows for sure (and maybe the coaches if there is a mass conspiracy going on). You simply don't have the knowledge necessary to make this statement. Thats not a personal attack, I don't either, as likely no one on this fourm does. But if that's your evidence for him "not cutting it", so be it...I have hundreds of relatively unbiased observations (just as good as yours) and a few key stats that says he is "cutting it".

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Are you saying that your assumptions are better than our assumtions?

Niiiiice.

Here's a hypothetical for you. A team with a struggling but proven Vet decides to bench said Vet. They go on to win their first game with their well versed but essentially 'new' QB. The next game they play away and come close to another victory. Was that a good decision? Should they go back to Bledsoe...bugger, I meant the hypothetical QB.

If anyone (other than the coaching staff, and please try to remember coaches can get it wrong) can truthfully say that Brunell is the only option for winning that we have I'd like to see their evidence. I don't want stats, you can make stats say anything and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring.

We need to start Campbell. That's a fact.

You know what would be a nice birthday present? Putting this thread to sleep. It's giving me a headache. Some of these posts are like thesis papers!

You know what would be a nice birthday present? Putting this thread to sleep. It's giving me a headache. Some of these posts are like thesis papers!

Thread Hell! Thread Hell! Thread Hell!

Are you saying that your assumptions are better than our assumtions?No. Thanks for asking though!

Niiiiice.Really, you thought so? You don't say...

Here's a hypothetical for you. A team with a struggling but proven Vet decides to bench said Vet. They go on to win their first game with their well versed but essentially 'new' QB. The next game they play away and come close to another victory. Was that a good decision? Should they go back to Bledsoe...bugger, I meant the hypothetical QB.Did Dallas make the right decision for them? Absolutely. Romo is growing into that QB roll. Don't even try comparing Bledsoe's season to Brunell's. It's not even remotely close.

If anyone (other than the coaching staff, and please try to remember coaches can get it wrong) can truthfully say that Brunell is the only option for winning that we have I'd like to see their evidence. I don't want stats, you can make stats say anything and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring.If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm'..ill get to that later), and while you would be correct in saying that statistics cannot isolate intangibles from talent, you'd be a fool to think a guy's intangibles don't play a huge part in his overall statistical production. If that wasn't true, how could a guy like Chad Pennington, who has a weak arm and no leg speed and a serious rotator cuff injury, put up good numbers year in and year out? Statistics look at the player as a whole, not a bunch of parts. Since you can't put Pennington's head on Favre's body anyway, it doesn't do any good to break a player's game down to the level of "cannon-arm". If you have a cannon-arm and are good, the stats will show it. If you have a cannon-arm and suck, then you are Rob Johnson.

Speaking of cannon-arm, wtf makes that an intangible. Intangibles are usually mental things if I'm not mistaken. I would describe cannon-arm as more of a tool. And if tools were the most important thing in a QB, every team would put their best athlete at that position.

We need to start Campbell. That's a fact.No. That's an opinion. I learned that one in 4th grade (I was 10).

We aren't retarding his growth by not starting him, but for all intents and purposes, we would be conceeding the season.

If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

3-5. There, that was easy. :)

You know what would be a nice birthday present? Putting this thread to sleep. It's giving me a headache. Some of these posts are like thesis papers!Uh huh. Good point. From here on out, I'm only going to respond if someone says something really ignorant.

3-5. There, that was easy. :)That's a TEAM STAT! Brunell is no more responsible for that stat than Warrick Holdman...in fact, probably less.

Hopefully that can be the final word...

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm' <SNIP>

OK, you missed the point ( I learned Not missing the point in Kindergarten) of what I was saying was an intangible.

Quote: ....and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring


Bringing in a QB that would give the team a charge. That's the intangible. Remember how Fed Ex felt when we started Ramsey? The place came alive, the team look re-energized. THAT'S the 'intangible' I'm talking about. Can't measure it (yet) but you can see the effect.