Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238391]Nobody on this fourm knows how well Brunell is seeing the field. I think. Unless we have a member of the coaching staff on the board...[/QUOTE]

No, we don't have a coach on the site, but we've got a Sheriff. ;)

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238391]Nobody on this fourm knows how well Brunell is seeing the field. I think. Unless we have a member of the coaching staff on the board...[/QUOTE]

So you think Moss / Cooley / ARE / Lloyd ALL aren't creating separation downfield?
I used to be a football coach, I can tell. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, heck, we all would...but it's Brunell.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=jsarno;238396]So you think Moss / Cooley / ARE / Lloyd ALL aren't creating separation downfield?
I used to be a football coach, I can tell. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, heck, we all would...but it's Brunell.[/quote]

But the numbers say Brunell is the 12th best quarterback in the league... :laughing2

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=Southpaw;238398]But the numbers say Brunell is the 12th best quarterback in the league... :laughing2[/quote]there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics!

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;238398]But the numbers say Brunell is the 12th best quarterback in the league... :laughing2[/QUOTE]

Those stats are not the type to see the whole picture. Brunell is afraid to make mistakes, thus the OK looking numbers. With the weapons we have, our offense should be top 5 at worst.
Can you name one team that has more dumps / screens than the Skins? I think through 7 games we have more dumps / screens than every skins team for the past 3 years.

ps- I understand you were being sarcastic, but it's not the first time someone used that argument for real, so I was jumping the gun there.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=jsarno;238403]Those stats are not the type to see the whole picture. Brunell is afraid to make mistakes, thus the OK looking numbers. With the weapons we have, our offense should be top 5 at worst.
Can you name one team that has more dumps / screens than the Skins? I think through 7 games we have more dumps / screens than every skins team for the past 3 years.[/quote]

Trust me, I agree completely, but GTripp will throw numbers at you all day to show you how flawless Brunell's play has been this season.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;238405]Trust me, I agree completely, but GTripp will throw numbers at you all day to show you how flawless Brunell's play has been this season.[/QUOTE]

My nickname is "the stat man", trust me, I know numbers. Any stat man worth a salt, realizes there is more to numbers than just the numbers. Any real objective Skins fan realizes Brunell is not seeing the field.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

Eli manning's QB rating is lower than David Carr's, does that make carr better than manning. Carr got benched for Rosenfels. Brunell has had a pretty weak season. I think a good stat would be to check his first downs per completion.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=jsarno;238396]So you think Moss / Cooley / ARE / Lloyd ALL aren't creating separation downfield?
I used to be a football coach, I can tell. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, heck, we all would...but it's Brunell.[/quote]Well, apparently they are getting seperation at times because Brunell throws for 200+ yards a game. Remember, even at the NFL level, its impossible to follow 5 guys every play. The best can follow 3 or maybe 4 play in and play out.

Guys who don't see the field throw a lot of interceptions and miss a lot of throws. Brunell has done neither. Also its pretty baseless to say that a guy who has seen the field well his whole career all of a sudden isn't doing it anymore, and to not have any reasoning for it.

Here's everything you need to know: If he wasn't seeing the field, Gibbs and Saunders would be looking to replace him. He hasn't been, so the problem lies elsewhere. Like on the other side of the ball.

Look, no one is criticizing your credentials. I aspire to be a football coach one day. I've played. But I don't claim to be able to diagnose problems within an offense that I don't completely understand. We, as fans, don't have all the information the coaching staff has. All we are given is production numbers, or statistics. In 2004, Brunell got benched because he wasn't getting it done. In 2006, he's having his best season in the last 7 years. But the fans are frusterated because it hasn't translated into wins. That's understandable. I, at least, am happy that Gibbs feels strongly that what he is doing is correct, because, any luck willing, his patience should translate into a winning streak.

According to our estimated wins stat (3.8, [URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff.php"]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/URL]) We have played .500+ football even with all the defensive injuries and struggles. I'm as pissed off as the rest of you that we are 2-5. It sucks, I get it. But give some credit to Al Saunders for getting us those two wins.

The only sure, solid evidence we have are statistics, and they say Brunell and the offense is doing fairly well. I don't expect these to override your observations, but just to force you (the warpath collective) to question your reasoning a tad more. I say this because my observations of Brunell's play are generally positive, but like the rest of you, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me. That's why we have stats, they support what I think of him, letting me know that my observations are correct. Without stats, my pro-Brunell banter would be just as baseless as the anti-Brunell banter that I combat, seemingly anytime I'm on. I would still feel strongly about it because those are what my observations tell me, but it would be baseless.

Ask yourself this, are you actually pissed because our offense, which is a vast improvement over the last two seasons, has a tendency to get conservative on third down? Or are you pissed because the team is 2-5, like I am?

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

the offense is hurting the defense gtripp, even parcells has said that. I know you love brunell, but you keep throwing up stats that were mainly made in garbage time after the game was already lost as though they mattered.

I mean, i know you love stats, but do you actually see all those 5 yard dump offs when we need 10 yards? do you see him refusing to ever throw over the middle? do you see him NEVER going deep? there's a reason he's not throwing interceptions, and it's cause he seemed to be more concerned with finding a backup job for next year than trying to win.

[quote]are you actually pissed because our offense, which is a vast improvement over the last two seasons...[/quote]

what f'ing planet are you living on?

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238421]i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.[/quote]This is true, there is no foregone conclusion until you get another guy in there, but this is always true in every situation.

I fall in the stick with whats working, change what isn't department.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=That Guy;238421]i agree with the brunell ain't getting it done dept... maybe it's all on the coaches, but unless they give another QB to compare apples to apples with, we can't be sure.

the offense is hurting the defense gtripp, even parcells has said that. I know you love brunell, but you keep throwing up stats that were mainly made in garbage time after the game was already lost as though they mattered.

I mean, i know you love stats, but do you actually see all those 5 yard dump offs when we need 10 yards? do you see him refusing to ever throw over the middle? do you see him NEVER going deep? there's a reason he's not throwing interceptions, and it's cause he seemed to be more concerned with finding a backup job for next year than trying to win.



what f'ing planet are you living on?[/quote]OK, statless arguement for a second, because I know you actually understand FO and what they do, and trust thier work.

Do I see all those 5 yard dumpoffs? Yes. Do they irritate me, because I know what Brunell and this offense could be capable of? Yes. Do I dwell on them or blame conservative playcalling as the basis for our losing even though that same playcalling is what is making this offense improve? No I do not. I do not expect perfection, and I take the bad with the good.

For those who don't follow:

Good-Offense is significantly better than previous years

Bad-In rare situations, playcalling/3rd down check down philosophy is more questionable than in previous years

I don't even begin to see how someone could say the offense is hurting the defense under the conditions. I mean, I'll watch the O get the ball in horrible field position after a rare defensive stops. I'll watch them put some stuff together, move the ball 30-40 yards. Near midfield, I see the drive stall. Holding or maybe a sack, or even sometimes the dreaded check down. We punt, Frost pins them inside the 20. And then I watch the opposing offense convert 3rd down, after 3rd down, after 3rd down. And all of a sudden, they are in field goal range. Don't believe me? Don't like statistics? That's cool, just go back and read any game thread from one of our losses. People comment on 3rd down conversions by the opponent all the time. It's frusterating as hell. The offense, quite frequently puts the D in ideal field position, virtually never turning the ball over, and very rarely does the D ever capitalize. Thats not the offense hurting the defense. I've can remember one pass broken up in 7 games by this D (Springs against Indy).

I don't love Brunell anymore than the rest of you hate him. Plain and simple.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;238420]Ask yourself this, are you actually pissed because our offense, which is a vast improvement over the last two seasons, has a tendency to get conservative on third down? Or are you pissed because the team is 2-5, like I am?[/QUOTE]

Frankly I'm pissed that the defense gives it up like a slutty highschool cheerleader. Way more pissed about that than the offense.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

You say "slutty cheerleader" like its a bad thing.

Re: Sports Junkies talking about a Campbell rumor
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;238412]Eli manning's QB rating is lower than David Carr's, does that make carr better than manning. Carr got benched for Rosenfels. Brunell has had a pretty weak season. I think a good stat would be to check his first downs per completion.[/quote]QB Rating is a crappy stat, but what it does is shows you very generally how good a QB has performed this season. It will tell you that Brunell is better than Bledsoe...and so will every other stat.

The reason that first downs per completion doesn't exist as a stat is because it has no correllation to successful offense or wins or whatnot. I think you mean first downs per attempt, but even then, you have to account for the fact that not every pass is designed to get the first down every time its run.

What they should do is keep a stat on 3rd/4th downs that is first downs per attempt. Of course, this is already a big section of FO's DVOA ratings, in which we rank quite highly.