Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=offiss]The fact is Gibbs has done nothing but sing Campbells praises since he's arrived so yes he does concur with Patten on Campbell.
[/quote]

and he's sung brunell's praises even higher.... you know the best praise that you a head coach can give you? naming you the starter.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012]Wait, so Mark Brunell has been a great career passer...because he's lucky? Wha? Tom Brady might be the greatest ever because he's never had anyone to throw to? Patten is a great reciever because he played with Brady? Brunell is terrible because he doesnt make mistakes? Brunell's progressionary reads are bad because Troy Aikman can make an observation pertaining more to the offense in general than Brunell? The Brunell signing is a complete failure if he doesn't win a super bowl? What's next, Dan Marino's a bust? I mean, he never won a super bowl with Miami.

And I think somewhere in there you mention that Gibbs is a great coach, and the fact that he trusts Brunell should be a black mark against him (MB) because Gibbs won SBs with 3 different QBs.

Do you hate quarterbacks or something? Or just Brunell specifically?

This post is illogical, tough to follow, contradiciting and in many cases, downright wrong.[/QUOTE]


Talk about one giant contradiction.

There is a major difference between a great coach and a great GM, Gibbs still need's, and want's to prove he's the latter.

Brunell was never a great passer persay ala Marino, or Aikmen etc. Brunell was more of a playmaker, the problem with that is once your legs go so does most of your game and that's Brunell in a nut shell. A strong armed pocket passer can survive longer in the NFL if he has the protection he can still get the ball downfield, but if your legs were your primary weopon to create, your finished once they go, bottom line Brunell can't move like he used to, and he wont, and can't take the hit anymore.

And yes I do believe Aikman knows a little about offense and the proper functioning of a QB, as well Aikman is one commentator who is about as fair with his analists as you will get, he alway's gives us unbiased coverage of our games, and that say's a lot from an X-cowboy.

As for Marino, did Marino have the luxory of a top flight defense throughout his career? I think not, so Marino was very unlucky, the fact is if Gibbs had Marino for 10 years both Gibbs and Marino would probably be walking around with 5 rings on thier hand. Brunell had an opporunity to take advantage of maybe the best defense we have ever had over the last 2 years, and did nothing but jump on thier backs and make the defenses burden that much tougher. Let's face it there is a reason Gibbs get's ultra concervative late in the game, and I don't believe it's because he feels he can trust Brunell, Gibbs didn't coach that way his first time around.

Brunells another year older, can Saunders revitalize him for 1 more season, I actually think yes, I also believe we could do much more without Brunell, Saunders help make a stock boy an NFL MVP. Brunell will start off well I do believe but his next big hit will be his last.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]and he's sung brunell's praises even higher.... you know the best praise that you a head coach can give you? naming you the starter.[/QUOTE]


Tell that to Ramsey.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=offiss]Talk about one giant contradiction.

There is a major difference between a great coach and a great GM, Gibbs still need's, and want's to prove he's the latter.

Brunell was never a great passer persay ala Marino, or Aikmen etc. [B]Brunell was more of a playmaker, the problem with that is once your legs go so does most of your game and that's Brunell in a nut shell.[/B] A strong armed pocket passer can survive longer in the NFL if he has the protection he can still get the ball downfield, but if your legs were your primary weopon to create, your finished once they go, bottom line Brunell can't move like he used to, [B]and he wont, and can't take the hit anymore.[/B][/quote]There's a big, big difference between Aikman and Marino. Just like theres a difference between Peyton Manning and Brunell. Brunell's running ability has diminished over time, but his legs are hardly gone. Tire easily, maybe. Gone, no. Ask Dallas. He can break off 25 yard runs any time the defensive line gets upfield. Vick, he's done when his legs go. McNabb will have his game limited. But Brunell, Steve McNair, Trent Green, Rich Gannon these guys are all old, all could run, and all played very well rounded football late in their careers. Both running effectively and passing. Brunell is accurate. Few in the NFL are more accurate. He has a good arm. Stronger than league minimum. There is no great advantage to having an arm stronger than the one he has in the NFL. A strong armed pocket passer will last no longer than a savvy game manager of equal career success. At no point were MB's legs his primary weapon. Vick is the only QB in the NFL who boasts that.

To say that Mark Brunell won't and can't take the hit anymore is downright wrong. If you said that to him, he'd punch you. If you said that to his wife, she'd slap you. And you'd deserve it.

And yes I was talking about one giant contradiction. Not sure what you are talking about though.

[quote=offiss] And yes I do believe Aikman knows a little about offense and the proper functioning of a QB, as well Aikman is one commentator who is about as fair with his analists as you will get, he alway's gives us unbiased coverage of our games, and that say's a lot from an X-cowboy.[/quote]Very true. Even in the 35-7 whooping we put on them last year, Aikman still broke down the game accurately giving props where they were due. Don't see how this is relevant, though.

[quote=offiss] As for Marino, did Marino have the luxory of a top flight defense throughout his career? I think not, so Marino was very unlucky, the fact is if Gibbs had Marino for 10 years both Gibbs and Marino would probably be walking around with 5 rings on thier hand. Brunell had an opporunity to take advantage of maybe the best defense we have ever had over the last 2 years, and did nothing but jump on thier backs and make the defenses burden that much tougher. Let's face it there is a reason Gibbs get's ultra concervative late in the game, and I don't believe it's because he feels he can trust Brunell, Gibbs didn't coach that way his first time around.

Brunells another year older, can Saunders revitalize him for 1 more season, I actually think yes, I also believe we could do much more without Brunell, Saunders help make a stock boy an NFL MVP. Brunell will start off well I do believe [B]but his next big hit will be his last.[/B][/quote]Wasn't Gibbs always conservative late in the game? You tell me.

For the last time, 2004 is over. He sucked that year. Was probably seriously injured.

MB's next big hit his last? I guess it's possible. Peyton Manning's next big hit could be his last. And Tom Brady's. And McNabbs. God damn, being a QB in the NFL really sucks the big one...

I'll leave you all with this factoid. The last time Mark Brunell and Dan Marino met, Brunell won. By 63 points. In the playoffs. Irrelivant yes, but at least its a pretty cool way to end a rebuttal.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

What's interesting is that Gibbs, as Offiss correctly pointed out, was able to win with QBs like Rypien and Williams (and even got to a championship game with Schoeder) yet with Ramsey he felt like he still needed to go out and get someone else. I hate to bring up Ramsey yet again, but really doesn't that tell you something?

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

ramsey throws the football like its a javelin... that's why there are so many picks, so few deep completions, and no 4th quarter comebacks (he's like 0 for 18 or some such).

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=offiss]Tell that to Ramsey.[/quote]

he sucked and gibbs chose the better player. ramsey was only named the starter because brunell was playing terribly, not because he himself was lighting it up.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

:sleep:

So when does camp start??!!

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

I love the post, but I disagree with the 1987 Skins (88 SB). If you look at the year, Doug Williams was the best QB on the Team. Joe Gibbs was the first to notice that Jay S., had lost his touch. In fact Jay never, ever did anything close to his 2nd year passing yd stats wise with us. His TD to INT ratio is terrible. The odds that year in Vegas for us winning the SB was lower with Doug than Jay. Williams was brought to the team to be the backup, but we all knew he was better than Jay. Williams could flat out throw the ball to either the 2nd or 3rd option without a hitch.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=That Guy]ramsey throws the football like its a javelin... that's why there are so many picks, so few deep completions, [B]and no 4th quarter comebacks (he's like 0 for 18 or some such).[/B][/quote]
im not trying to say ramsey is good or anything, but his record is like 8-11 or something, so i know thats not possible...and i remember him having a couple late game comebacks

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

bleh, i must have mis-remembered FO, lemme go check it out...

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

nope, check out table 2, ramsey is listed under "the worst" category
[url]http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/06/26/ramblings/stat-analysis/3978/[/url]

it says he's 0 for 11

they define a comeback as:
[I]"Any instance in which a team had possession of the ball at some point in the fourth quarter and was trailing by eight points or less was considered for the study. This naturally would include any successful comeback regardless of the largest deficit faced – one can’t complete a twenty-point comeback without getting the score under 9 points at some time."[/I]

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=That Guy]nope, check out table 2, ramsey is listed under "the worst" category
[URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/06/26/ramblings/stat-analysis/3978/"]http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/06/26/ramblings/stat-analysis/3978/[/URL]

it says he's 0 for 11

they define a comeback as:
[I]"Any instance in which a team had possession of the ball at some point in the fourth quarter and was trailing by eight points or less was considered for the study. This naturally would include any successful comeback regardless of the largest deficit faced – one can’t complete a twenty-point comeback without getting the score under 9 points at some time."[/I][/quote]
i thought i remembered him making a couple 4th quarter comebacks at the beginning of 2003

I wish you hadn't showed me that though because Mark Brunell is dead last

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[quote=steveo395]i thought i remembered him making a couple 4th quarter comebacks at the beginning of 2003

I wish you hadn't showed me that though because Mark Brunell is dead last[/quote]

14/53 = 26.4%... 40% is considered good, only a few QBs are over 50% that are still playing (ben roth, tom brady... elway, young, montana etc had good comeback records too of course).

26.4% is about 26.4% more than 0% though. but we already knew brunell was a manager here and not a gunslinger. otherwisse he wouldn't be chucking balls out of bounds when nothing's open.

Re: Patten on NFL radio:
 

[QUOTE][gtripp]To say that Mark Brunell won't and can't take the hit anymore is downright wrong. If you said that to him, he'd punch you. If you said that to his wife, she'd slap you. And you'd deserve it.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he should start with the Jag organization and then work his way through the rest of the GM's around the league before he and his wife who is also apparently his tag team partner make thier way over to me.

Tell me Gtripp, are you still getting slapped around yourself, because you sound like your about 8 years old?