Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]I can throw an NFL football 40 yds. So can a bunch of people on this message board. Samuels is a top 5 LT, Jansen?, Rabach, and you think randy thomas is the only good one? Brunell has a offensive line, that I might ad is run by one of the best line coaches of all time, Joe Bugel.[/QUOTE]

do you watch other teams games regularly? rabach is average, not near top 5. he just looks great cause raymer may very well have been the worst starting center in 2004. Samuels has top 5 talent, but he's wildly inconsistant. Just cause bugle is coaching them doesn't automatically make them superstars. I didn't say they weren't good, but only thomas is head and shoulders with the league's best, and after reviewing some video, jansen may be as well :P

at LT: jones, ogden, pace, roaf, McKinnie and you could argue light, thomas, glenn and possibly clifton or the guy from the titans... so top 10-12 somewhere, but not top 5.

RT: there's a legit arguement for jansen here, everybody is pretty close. gallery will be better in a year or two and runyan is better, but gross, mckenzie and anderson are all around the same level.

at RG: shields, posibly rivera and then there's no one else... both those guys are 33 too, so thomas is top 3 without much question.

c: Kruetz, mawae, birk, nalen, weigmann, bentley, saturday, flanagan, newberry, possibly meester... he'd be in the average class there... otherwise why would the ravens let him go after he started 15 games in one season for them? they had a guy (that was on IR i believe) who they liked more.

and at LG we're probably mid 20s, there's ample room to upgrade there (spencer will be available, 350+ lbs (heaviest at combine) and ran a 5.28... dockery was 347 and ran a 5.58, so bigger and much more athletic with great drill work).

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Actually, you are proving my point. We had an excellent OL but Brunell's indeciciveness and lack of awareness were the cause of those sacks. A lineman can only be expected to block for so long.[/QUOTE]

you think brunell is indecisive yet you want ramsey in there? once patten left the supporting cast wasn't as great anymore. he had the best numbers of his career (and its been a good career), so i don't get what the knock is (besides him playing terribly when injured and fading down the stretch). Brunells pocket awareness wasn't one of his weaknesses, it was one of his stonger points (knowing when to run etc).

he's a mobile guy and was willing to throw the ball away, he avoided more sacks than he caused. you know the skins run max protect a lot right? that means a lot of 1 and 2 man routes where you either have to wait for a receiver to get open or throw it away.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]do you watch other teams games regularly? rabach is average, not near top 5. he just looks great cause raymer may very well have been the worst starting center in 2004. Samuels has top 5 talent, but he's wildly inconsistant. Just cause bugle is coaching them doesn't automatically make them superstars. I didn't say they weren't good, but only thomas is head and shoulders with the league's best, and after reviewing some video, jansen may be as well :P

at LT: jones, ogden, pace, roaf, McKinnie and you could argue light, thomas, glenn and possibly clifton or the guy from the titans... so top 10-12 somewhere, but not top 5.

RT: there's a legit arguement for jansen here, everybody is pretty close. gallery will be better in a year or two and runyan is better, but gross, mckenzie and anderson are all around the same level.

at RG: shields, posibly rivera and then there's no one else... both those guys are 33 too, so thomas is top 3 without much question.

c: Kruetz, mawae, birk, nalen, weigmann, bentley, saturday, flanagan, newberry, possibly meester... he'd be in the average class there... otherwise why would the ravens let him go after he started 15 games in one season for them? they had a guy (that was on IR i believe) who they liked more.

and at LG we're probably mid 20s, there's ample room to upgrade there (spencer will be available, 250+ lbs and ran a 5.28... dockery was 347 and ran a 5.58, so bigger and much more athletic with great drill work).[/QUOTE]

i like the way you have outlined the positions and it makes me realize how subjective OL positions can be. The only statistic's are pancake blocks and sacks allowed and those are not always good measures. perhaps you are right about rabach but i thought he did a great job all year. as for samuels, he had one bad year two years ago. he is better than mckinnie, light, clifton and i think is definitely top five. he made it to the pro-bowl.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]you think brunell is indecisive yet you want ramsey in there? once patten left the supporting cast wasn't as great anymore. he had the best numbers of his career (and its been a good career), so i don't get what the knock is (besides him playing terribly when injured and fading down the stretch). Brunells pocket awareness wasn't one of his weaknesses, it was one of his stonger points (knowing when to run etc).

he's a mobile guy and was willing to throw the ball away, he avoided more sacks than he caused. you know the skins run max protect a lot right? that means a lot of 1 and 2 man routes where you either have to wait for a receiver to get open or throw it away.[/QUOTE]

i never said i wanted ramsey

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]So after all this is said and done, you've flip-flopped a bit, do you still think that Brunell is bad or do you think that he's not as great as he was made out to be last year?

I strongly feel that he made plays when he had to and definitely had a Pro Bowl caliber season, however I feel he should have had the balls to sit down when his knee wasn't 100% in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

While I realize my title was a bit misleading it was meant to spark interest. I am saying the latter, that brunell's success is due in large part to his team and coaches.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

rabach was fine and i don't see any need to upgrade there, but he's not an elite center by any means. there's an arguement that samuels is the #5 LT (no way in #$%% he's #4 or above), but i'd prefer more consistant guys. sometimes samuels just decides to quit on a play and let someone go right by him or something equally boneheaded (i believe the greenish football stat site did a super intensive analysis of the 2004 OL and that outlined that).

and the pro bowl means nothing. vick made the pro bowl after a terrible year (even brunell's stats were much better :P). cooley missed the pro bowl when his stats were WAY beyond the alt that got in ahead of him.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]While I realize my title was a bit misleading it was meant to spark interest. I am saying the latter, that brunell's success is due in large part to his team and coaches.[/QUOTE]


But the same could also be said about Joe Montana, Steve Young, Joe Theismann, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, etc.....

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]But the same could also be said about Joe Montana, Steve Young, Joe Theismann, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, etc.....[/QUOTE]


please don't tell me you are comparing brunell to any of those guys. They won.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Actually, you are proving my point. We had an excellent OL but Brunell's indeciciveness and lack of awareness were the cause of those sacks. A lineman can only be expected to block for so long.[/QUOTE]

LOL spin it any way you want I guess.

That's what the Brunell haters will do... spin it any way to take credit away from the guy.

It actually sounds like you are describing Ramsey with use of the words indecisive and lack of awareness.

Brunell did exactly what was asked of him, he threw the ball away when something wasn't there and he didn't force his throws and cause INT's.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I can not believe this is even a discussion. The man had the best year he has had probably ever. Over 3000 yards, 22 tds and 5,6 ints. The offense was 11 in the NFL. A 1400 almost 1500 yard receiver. His experience to throw the ball away when there was nothing open is what Gibbs wants. he does not want turnovers, of any kind. Especially with our D, you dont need to force things. What else would you want out of your QB? If those stats aren't good enough for you, then I dont know what you think is acceptable.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]I can not believe this is even a discussion. The man had the best year he has had probably ever. Over 3000 yards, 22 tds and 5,6 ints. The offense was 11 in the NFL. A 1400 almost 1500 yard receiver. His experience to throw the ball away when there was nothing open is what Gibbs wants. he does not want turnovers, of any kind. Especially with our D, you dont need to force things. What else would you want out of your QB? If those stats aren't good enough for you, then I dont know what you think is acceptable.[/QUOTE]

obviously you haven't read the other things I have written. Yes, he produced statistically, my point is there are many QB's who could step in and do that same job with the same or better results. why don't you refer to my previous post and tell me which QB's are better or worse.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.[/QUOTE]

But isn't your point that Brunell is bad? I wouldn't put ANY of these quarterbacks in the category of bad.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.[/QUOTE]

i'd argue with plummer brooks and farve cause they historically can't do what's asked of them, and i don't think frye bledsoe or eli are as good, we haven't sseen campbell and johnson wouldn't work well with moss cause his arm is totally dead.

that said, we don't have any of the above QBs nor will we next year so that question is completely bogus. no one is saying brunell is a top 5 QB, just that he got the job done. we're not getting brady, so however good he may be, its pointless conjecture cause he's not an actual realistic or viable option for the skins for either the 2005 or 2006 season.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's great.

What's your point?

None of those guys are in a Redskins uniform so who cares?

Nobody has ever said Brunell is the best QB in the league... why don't you mail this list to Gibbs because I'm sure he could use such valuable info.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]i'd argue with plummer brooks and farve cause they historically can't do what's asked of them, and i don't think frye bledsoe or eli are as good, we haven't sseen campbell and johnson wouldn't work well with moss cause his arm is totally dead.

that said, we don't have any of the above QBs nor will we next year so that question is completely bogus. no one is saying brunell is a top 5 QB, just that he got the job done. we're not getting brady, so however good he may be, its pointless conjecture cause he's not an actual realistic or viable option for the skins for either the 2005 or 2006 season.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.[/QUOTE]

The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Yeah that's great.

What's your point?

None of those guys are in a Redskins uniform so who cares?

Nobody has ever said Brunell is the best QB in the league... why don't you mail this list to Gibbs because I'm sure he could use such valuable info.[/QUOTE]

My point is that Brunell and his statistics are easily replaced.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.[/QUOTE]

Well on the flipside it doesn't warrant saying "Brunell is bad".

The numbers just don't support your claim. 3050 yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. 10 regular season wins and a playoff win. 11th ranked offense.

Nobody is praising Brunell like he's the 2nd coming of Marino, but you're the one that started up a thread that just bashes him for no good reason and from the sounds of it your not willing to give him any credit at all.

Everyone was quick to pile on the blame in 2004 but now those same people aren't willing to give him his proper credit for 2005. You can't have it both ways, he was responsible for the poor offense in '04 and he was just as responsible for the offensive turnaround in '05.

If you have an axe to grind against Brunell just admit it and let's move on. Admit your biased and I can at least accept that.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]My point is that Brunell and his statistics are easily replaced.[/QUOTE]

So is anybody's, seriously what is your point?

You're really drifting out to left field with this one.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Replaced? replaced by whom? Ramsey, Campbell because that is the option we had. And to say someone could have put up the same or better numbers is moot. We dont have a choice of a Manning, Palmer, Farve ect. Brunell did exactly what a 35 year old veteran was suppose to do last year. Not lose games. and win some if you can. I doubt Ramsey or Campbell could have thrown two prettier balls than the two he threw in Dallas, or run the 25 on 3rd and 27. Brunell made so many plays that go un noticed. The scramble out of bounds for no gain, instead of getting sacked for 7 to 10 yard loss. Dump off to cooley or betts for 4 or 5 instead of incomplete or int down field. People would complain when we would do the int or imcomplete, now we get something positive and its still not good enough. Dude, unless Campbell comes out and burns down Redskin Park with his arm and inteligence this offseason, Brunell is going to be the started next year, so get use to it.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Well on the flipside it doesn't warrant saying "Brunell is bad".

The numbers just don't support your claim. 3050 yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. 10 regular season wins and a playoff win. 11th ranked offense.

Nobody is praising Brunell like he's the 2nd coming of Marino, but you're the one that started up a thread that just bashes him for no good reason and from the sounds of it your not willing to give him any credit at all.

Everyone was quick to pile on the blame in 2004 but now those same people aren't willing to give him his proper credit for 2005. You can't have it both ways, he was responsible for the poor offense in '04 and he was just as responsible for the offensive turnaround in '05.

If you have an axe to grind against Brunell just admit it and let's move on. Admit your biased and I can at least accept that.[/QUOTE]

Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.[/QUOTE]

So I guess all the good years he put in Jacksonville was a product of the system too. Are you kidding? He was injured in 2004, and played through the pain all year. That shows the confindence he has in an injured Brunell and a 100% healthy Ramsey. To say his productivity is due to the system is off, way off. Brunell has been through out his career, a good QB. QB rating of 80 a far better completion percentage than anyone playing and TD to INT ratio. Give it a rest.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but brunell iss clearly above average. if we had harrington or orton, we would have tanked horribly, so he played his part and (until the last weeks) did well.

career stats:
total reg season: 74 wins - 64 losses
total post season: 5-5

84.1 rating, 3 pro bowls (1 MVP) 189 TDs, 129 Turnovers (Fumbles lost + Ints)

average QBs TD-TO ratio is below 1, his is almost 1.5... he's not peyton, but he's clearly not bad. in 2005 he had 23 TDs, 16 TOs an a 11-7 record. i'm sure peyton or brady would have had better numbers, but we don't have (nor will we have) either, so that arguement is stupid. finding above average QBs is hard, and by definition, at least 15 teams would like to have had the production of ours last season. He won't be above average much longer, but bashing him for 2005 isn't really logical.

he brought in campbell because brunell is 35 and his legs aren't going to get faster and his arm isn't going to get stronger... and on rypien and williams, maybe those guys weren't that bad either, since they did win super bowls and the did alright on the TD-TO ratio.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Dude, bottom line - you're full of it. I think you've shaken this rug enough.
I think you're insightful enough to know that this is truly a bogus argument.


Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God
Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.[/QUOTE]

Isn't the whole goal of being a professional athlete to "get it done"?

Portis "got it done" rushing for over 1500 yards.
Both Moss and Portis "got it done by receiving and rushing for Redskins team highs.
Mark Brunell "got it done" by throwing a personal best in touchdown passes last year.

If you're a PRO you're supposed to get it done, if you're crap, you get benched. Can you SERIOUSLY argue that he didn't deserve a Pro-Bowl this year?

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Nobody on here is saying Mark Brunell is the premiere QB in the NFL, but this is a guy who 3/4 through the season was at the top of the list of candidates for Comeback Player of the Year before getting injured. Now I'm sorry, but you don't get that sort of recognition simply because your a "component of a system", and to say that player is "bad" is just ignorant.

Would I like to see a little better production from our QB position? Of course. Does a part of me hope the QB position is an open competition so JC can light it up & be our starter? Absolutely. Is Mark Brunell a "Bad" QB? No way in hell.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anybody is giving him sole credit for our turnaround this past season, but it is truly irresponsible to give him absolutely no credit whatsoever. If Gibbs truly thought Brunell "sucks" he would not have been starting Brunell this past year. He drafted Campbell because Gibbs knows Brunell isn't going to be playing for another 10 years. Gibbs didn't draft Campbell because Brunell sucks. That to me sounds quite ignorant. Sorry, but it does.

Gibbs brought Brunell in to run the offense and to teach the younger qbs how to manage the offense and how to be good leaders. Gibbs also brought Brunell in, because he felt Mark gave us a chance to be successful, and so far, Gibbs has been absolutely right. Mark will, again, be our starter on opening day this season. He may or may not finish as our starting quarterback, but there is no reason to make a change now.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Ugggg, I've entered a time warp to last September. Maybe we should debate in 9 separate threads whether it was wise to let go of Stephen Davis. This topic is as tired as the elastic on J.Lo.'s panties.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Yeah and 50/50 is going to be our premier receiver this year!

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.[/QUOTE]

I think we drafted Campbell because Gibbs thinks Ramsey sucks, not Brunell.

Can't believe I got sucked into this thread.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]I think we drafted Campbell because Gibbs thinks Ramsey sucks, not Brunell.

Can't believe I got sucked into this thread.[/QUOTE]

I think it's because he thinks both of them suck.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

it musst be offseason, i think we're done now :P

besides, we have more important things to worry about, like... should we bring in TO, OR should with bring in TO, randy Moss, Meshawn and the defense from the 85 bears? I hear they're only asking for a 7th round pick.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD...we all beat it to DEATH! this is really how u know its the offseason

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

gladly