Mark Brunell, Phillip Daniels, Renaldo Wynn, Shawn Springs

Stats don't mean a damn thing if you can't get your team in the end zone. Get your team in the end zone, move the chains and convert on 3rd down. Brunell failed in all of these areas. So this is why I think Collins should be 2nd string or let Brunell and Collins battle for #2.

I never said I did not like Mark Brunell. Personally I like Mark Brunell alot. I think some of the fans and local media have treated him like shit. He's a stand up guy and we all know he's good in the locker room. That was never my point. It's his on the field performance. If we cut him tomorrow how many teams in the NFL would pick him up? Probably nobody. Same with Wynn. Springs and Daniels should come back but both are not full time players anymore. Springs just can't stay healthy. We can't count on him. It's just time to move on. But because of the lack of quality depth and draft picks most or all will be back.First of all, it's the stats that show how helpful a guy is in getting his team into the endzone, moving the chains etc. Anyway, it's a team game through and through. It wasn't Brunell who failed to pick up first downs, or score touchdowns, it was the Redskin's offense. Al Saunders on the playcalling, the receivers on the routes, the line in pass protection, the line, tight ends, and backs in the running game, AND the quarterback's ability to make good decisions and throw the football.

There's a certain method to the way team offense SHOULD be judged based on the order in which things are done. First and foremost, the line has to block (I would estimate that 80% of an offenses problems origniate from poor blocking. This is where a team has to look first). Secondly, there must be some sort of a running game if the line is opening up holes. If the back can't see the holes and get through them, the offense is going to struggle even if the blocking is there. Third comes the quarterback's role. If a team has suffient blocking and a good running game and still isn't getting it done, the blame probably falls on the QB and his receivers. The role of the playcaller supercedes this entire process. Each position player is dependant on the scheme to get him in a situation conducive to success.

During the first half of the season, when we had a league average offense, it was in my best estimation that the line and running game weren't getting it done. Some of this is attributable to the instability at the RB position, and to some questionable playcalling in enemy territory (particularly in the red zone and on the fringe of an compromised FG range. Seemed like Saunders was playing for the FG and Gibbs wasn't going to trust Hall/Novak from 50 yards away), but even so--even the least observant of fans would notice that the line was getting little push up front and letting defenses run free at the QB.

And then of course we put a QB in there with little experience and the offensive production went down a little bit, which all but proves to the objective fan that Brunell was doing his job well. On top of this, the line improved it's play immensely over the course of the season and JC got pressured quite rarely. Ladell Betts also became a star in the same offense where Clinton Portis failed (in 2006)--that speaks volumes.

I'll agree with that point that nobody wants him besides us. I think we can agree that he's still one of the 32 best QBs in this league and that some teams are currently starting QBs worse than Brunell (probably a lot of teams). However, no team is going to bench a younger starter just so they can start a 37 yr old caretaker who is good at his job. So Brunell's best chance for success would be to stay here as a backup and see if he ever gets another chance. But his best career move may very well be to retire.

We almost have to keep Springs, Brunell, and Daniels, because their is no real depth at their positions and if we got rid of them we are going to be extremely thin depth wise.

we're already extremely thin on depth :/.

we're already extremely thin on depth :/.

Very true and that is why I think we need to keep these players, with the exception of Wynn, because of depth issues, and not to mention they have a pretty good locker room presence.

First of all, it's the stats that show how helpful a guy is in getting his team into the endzone, moving the chains etc. Anyway, it's a team game through and through. It wasn't Brunell who failed to pick up first downs, or score touchdowns, it was the Redskin's offense. Al Saunders on the playcalling, the receivers on the routes, the line in pass protection, the line, tight ends, and backs in the running game, AND the quarterback's ability to make good decisions and throw the football.

There's a certain method to the way team offense SHOULD be judged based on the order in which things are done. First and foremost, the line has to block (I would estimate that 80% of an offenses problems origniate from poor blocking. This is where a team has to look first). Secondly, there must be some sort of a running game if the line is opening up holes. If the back can't see the holes and get through them, the offense is going to struggle even if the blocking is there. Third comes the quarterback's role. If a team has suffient blocking and a good running game and still isn't getting it done, the blame probably falls on the QB and his receivers. The role of the playcaller supercedes this entire process. Each position player is dependant on the scheme to get him in a situation conducive to success.

During the first half of the season, when we had a league average offense, it was in my best estimation that the line and running game weren't getting it done. Some of this is attributable to the instability at the RB position, and to some questionable playcalling in enemy territory (particularly in the red zone and on the fringe of an compromised FG range. Seemed like Saunders was playing for the FG and Gibbs wasn't going to trust Hall/Novak from 50 yards away), but even so--even the least observant of fans would notice that the line was getting little push up front and letting defenses run free at the QB.

And then of course we put a QB in there with little experience and the offensive production went down a little bit, which all but proves to the objective fan that Brunell was doing his job well. On top of this, the line improved it's play immensely over the course of the season and JC got pressured quite rarely. Ladell Betts also became a star in the same offense where Clinton Portis failed (in 2006)--that speaks volumes.

I'll agree with that point that nobody wants him besides us. I think we can agree that he's still one of the 32 best QBs in this league and that some teams are currently starting QBs worse than Brunell (probably a lot of teams). However, no team is going to bench a younger starter just so they can start a 37 yr old caretaker who is good at his job. So Brunell's best chance for success would be to stay here as a backup and see if he ever gets another chance. But his best career move may very well be to retire.


One reason the running game stalled was because opposing defenses were crowding the line of scrimmage. They simply did not respect our passing game in the least bit. When Brunell is our QB the opposing DC probably says this to the defense. " Shut down Portis/Betts and we will win so let's keep everyone near the line." And that's what the good teams did to us. We could not back the defense off the line of scrimmage.

When JC took over you could see the offense slowly start to open up. Slowly. You saw more deep crossing routes, seam passes and fade routes. These are passes Brunell did not even try to complete while he was playing so that limits what Saunders can call. Plus JC kept drives alive with his legs. JC needs to work on his mechanics this offseason a bit and we will see his passing percentage go up. Remember, it was down partly becasue he takes more chances downfield. Yes Brunell has a high % but let's not kid ourselves. These were dink and dunk passes that traveled less than 10 yards. He simply did not push the ball down field. This is partly why he was benched. If he was playing well no way Gibbs benches him. Joe Gibbs loves this guy to death.

Did the WR's and the line let Brunell down? Somewhat. But part of his problem is everything has to be perfect for Brunell to play well. He has to have his feet perfectly set. Protection has to be perfect and the WR has to be wide open. Otherwise he's not effective. In the NFL how many times is everything perfect in the pocket? I remember a play against TB where JC threw it off his back foot, zipped it between 2 defenders for a TD. I believe it was to Todd Yoder. No way in hell can Brunell have made that play.

So with all that being said I think it's time for Collins to at least get a shot at 2nd string. If Brunell beats him out than fine.

Let me clarify something here. I don't think Mark Brunell is a very good NFL QB anymore. He was about four or five years ago; he was OK two years ago; he's about average now.

The reason I think the Skins should be cautious in dumping him is that I have no idea if Collins can play at all. Knowing the system and running it in practice and against ham-and-eggers in exhibition games does not mean a damned thing. Collins may be the best back-up QB in the NFL; I don't know that. Collins may be a completely incompetent stumblebum too; I don't know that either.

But if the Skins cut Brunell - - and assuming it really does take time for any QB they might bring in as the third leg on the quarterbacking stool to master the nuances of Al Saunders' vaunted 701 page playbook - - then the Skins are rolling the dice and hoping that Campbell never gets hurt.

That's why they pay a front office staff good money. Those guys are supposed to be able to make those assessments and take sensible risks and have insurance policies in place for unexpected events. And we do know that they pay the front office staff at Redskins' Park top dollar...

Me? I'd keep Brunell just in case... I would not let him play unless Campbell had one of his appendages hanging on by a thread of skin and blood vessels, but I'd keep him around. I DO KNOW that he can play well in short bursts these days and maybe - - just maybe - - I'd catch him in one of those good bursts...

I'd be interested in knowing just how important a backup QB is anyway (I sense GTripp's mind churning right now). I mean I'm not saying a backup QB isn't important of course but is it significantly less important than having depth in other categories?

TAFKAS:

A back-up QB does not matter even a little bit - - until the #1 QB goes down for a 4 game stretch.

Look at what happened to the Eagles two season ago when McNabb has his sports hernia and they had to play Mike McMahon at QB. The season imploded; they finished last in the division.

Look what happened to the Eagles last season when McNabb tore up his knee. Garcia could actually play and they went into the second round of the playoffs.

If McNabb does not get hurt in either of the last two seasons, you'd never know who the Eagles' back-up QB was. But since there was that injury factor...

I like Brunell but I think he should go personally. For his sake mainly. He's had a solid career and doesn't need to deal with all the negative bull directed his way all the time by fans here.

I agree also...

Cut Brunell bring back Ramsey to back up.......