Brunell is Bad
 

I'm not going to dazzle you with numbers or deep theory. I just want to see where this goes. I have been concerned with the aquisition of a #2 WR when somone posed that it is Brunell's fault not Patten's. He is absolutely right. I have never been sold on him but what little offensive success we saw last year had little to do with his play and more to do with individual great plays, good team strategy, and a great offensive line. Our most successful pass plays were quick screen's to Moss and Cooley, and passes in the flat to Sellars. This requires nothing from the QB but delivery and every 3rd QB in the league can give you delivery. Our success on these passes were due to great blocks and moss's speed. At no point did Brunell demonstrate an ability to read coverages and complete passes down the middle of the field. The long ball consisted of him throwing it as far as his weak arm could muster and have speedy Moss outrun coverage. He rarely even attempts down the field passes and when he does they make me sad. Honestly, I tear up. His willingness to throw the ball away is something for review, and he has no problem punting the ball away. I often feel that he does not want the ball and would prefer that the other team's offense had it so the defense would be responsible. We have four arguable top-5 at their position lineman who provided remarkable protection last year. Barring injuries they should be better next year, but hopefully the guy responsible for getting the ball out of the pocket will be calm, assertive, and not mark brunell.


PS- I was just watching a recording of Gibbs at the combine. I love him. And I love you.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Rather a bold statement. Though I look forward to the Campbell era, there's no way I can throw Brunell under the bus. He threw the ball deep well enough in Dallas to win that ball game, and took care of the ball as he was asked to do. I'd love to have a QB who could throw it fifteen yards deeper than him with some zip, but not at the expense of five or ten more INTs.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I'm not sure this warranted another new thread considering how much we've already discussed the QB situation, but I think it's easy (and undeserving) to heave all the blame on Mark. He played well enough, and surprised a lot of us. Does that warrant him being the unquestioned starter going into the next season? Maybe not, but I think it's safe to say he is not bad.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Brunell is not the best QB in the NFL but he is much better than you give him credit for. You said he does not want the ball and wishes the other team had it. Then why does he throw it away and not throw ints. If he threw more int. he would be off the field more and maybe riding the bench. I'm sorry I do not know why I started replying to this thread its been beat to death. I have not been on the sit much in the past few weeks when PR and Brunell was the topic and two weeks later the same type threads. I can see why Ramsey is of conversation with a trade issue but do we have to keep on the Brunell issue. If you love Gibbs so much then you must trust him to make the best decision for our team.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I'm with Brud. I thought Brunell was done in 2004, but I was wrong. While Brunell's performance wasn't great in the last few games of the season, he was suffering from an injured knee. I don't pretend to claim that Brunell was some Pro Bowl-caliber QB, but he was pretty close.

That said, I want to say to everyone who feels like I do, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Please don't bash the poster's fanship, brains, etc. (Just being preemptive here).

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

You love Gibbs yet you don't trust his guidance on the single most important decision on the football team. If Brunell was not the best QB the redskins had last year than why was he playing for 16 straight weeks. I just can't come to terms with how you can be a Joe Gibbs fan and still question the biggest decision he made all of last season. This isn't a run of the mill decision like a call on a particular 3rd & 2 or whether or not Thrash is better than Jacobs...the starting QB is the most major of major decisions. To imply that gibbs started the wrong QB for 16 straight weeks pretty much says that you don't believe he knows what he's doing. I don't see how you can seperate one from the other.

And as for your basic point on Brunels performance, I disagree with it completely. I don't think the Redskins would have been any where near the playoffs with Ramsey or Campbel playing last year. Brunell is not the player he used to be but he had a very good season. He carried out the offense the way Gibbs wanted and prodcued 10 wins.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I agree, I think Ramsey could have done just as well with a very good O- Line, a very good wide reciever and tight end, then also throw in there that we have clinton portis. Don't forget that our defense was the main reason why we had 10 wins because they are the only consistent week in and week out pretty much. I don't have a problem with Brunell though I think he tries as hard as he can but he is getting pretty old and heart can only take you so far.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

My biggest problem with Brunell for most of the season (not including after the 2nd giants game when he was obviously injured) was the fact that he seemed to fumble a lot. It was nice that he didn't constantly throw INTs like Ramsey (who I still kind of like for some reason), but I was never all that comfortable with Brunell in terms of turnovers. I got to the point last year where I thought he would let it go each time he was sacked.

I was pleasantly suprised with some of his deep passes, especially in the Monday Night Miracle, but those could have been attributed to Moss' incredible deep ball skills. This may be an indication of the fact that I play too much Madden, but I think a little more play action would have suited us nicely this past season (but I'm not complaining).

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

Gibbs seems to have a pretty good handle on QB's, so rather than rehashing this tired argument I'll just defer to his judgement on the matter.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

"At no point did Brunell demonstrate an ability to read coverages and complete passes down the middle of the field."

You must be kidding with this statement???

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.[/QUOTE]

I think it's a double edged sword. Most QBs that have stronger arms have a tendency to force the ball a little more. Which sometimes translates into higher ints. I think Brunell plays well within his ability and sometimes beyond given his knack scramble well and pick up key first downs.

I just don't think we can say "Brunell is not good", given his Pro-Bowl worthy season.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

My point is the only reason he had close to the season he did was his supporting cast, not him. WR Screens are not hard to throw.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

10-6, Playoffs, hard to hate on that.

We've discussed this topic to death, try a search.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]My point is the only reason he had close to the season he did was his supporting cast, not him. WR Screens are not hard to throw.[/QUOTE]

Dude, name me one QB in the playoffs this year who didn't have a helluva supporting cast? Which, yes, included a very good defense?

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]Dude, name me one QB in the playoffs this year who didn't have a helluva supporting cast? Which, yes, included a very good defense?[/QUOTE]

Simms, Delhomme, Grossman

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

The Bucs had a good running game and defense.

The Panthers had Smith and a good defense, and Delhomme is a pretty damn good QB anyway.

The Bears had a running game and defense around Grossman.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to be showing up on the site and posting the same threads that we have discussed here for months. Please show us, the guys that are here every day, some respect by looking through the locker room forum some before you post a "new" thread. Trust me, this one isn't new.

If you don't believe me, find some posts by "offiss".

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps your criticism of Brunell is also undo.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.[/QUOTE]

LOL and you're giving him zero credit.

I'm not giving him all the credit for the 11 wins, but I'm certainly not going to say he played no part in that.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Gibbs seems to have a pretty good handle on QB's, so rather than rehashing this tired argument I'll just defer to his judgement on the matter.[/QUOTE]

In 2006, we can expect Ramsey will be elsewhere and Al Saunders to have the final say on the QB decision. Joe will offer his input certainly.

I gave Brunell an A- through the SF game but he faded after that. I have him at a C for the year. Although there were other contributing factors, I thought the dropoff had more to do with defenses adjusting to take away Brunell's limited arsenal than anything else.

I can't see Mark doing any better in 2006 than he did finishing 2005. I hope Campbell is the real deal.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]Simms, Delhomme, Grossman[/QUOTE]
Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to be showing up on the site and posting the same threads that we have discussed here for months. Please show us, the guys that are here every day, some respect by looking through the locker room forum some before you post a "new" thread. Trust me, this one isn't new.

If you don't believe me, find some posts by "offiss".[/QUOTE]

You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.[/QUOTE]


It's a fair statement, our defense bailed out his 3 and outs late in the game many times.

Brunells problem with the long ball is that it has to be premediatated, he doesn't have the arm to check off and then throw deep, the recievers are to far downfield and he has to put to much air under the ball to reach them allowing the defenders to recover. During the year one analists pointed that very thing out, [may have been Aikmen] he said on a couple of particular plays that recievers were open downfield but by the time they broke open and Brunell saw them Brunells arm was incapable of reaching them. Defenses knowing that can tighten their defense closer to the line of scrimmage and make the short passing game as well as the running game more difficult to execute, than if they had to respect the ability of a QB who can flick his wrist and throw a 50 yard strike downfield.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.[/QUOTE]

The one common thread of these three teams is great defense. By supporting cast i meant several players on offense. each team has one guy who excelled except the bucs who we beat, with defense.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.[/QUOTE]

Everyone here is looking for interesting topics and insight and I understand the newbies are always going to have a little trouble adjusting. You seem to be posting a lot so I guess you just stick out more right now.

Just click the "forum" click on the home page. Then click "locker room". You can look through the existing threads until you find one with the topic you are looking to talk about. Then post your opinion and it will automagically jump to first in line on the homepage! If you don't find your topic, then by all means, post a new thread!

Just for the record, Brunnel had a very good year. My concern is that I don't know if he can reproduce his production next year.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God]You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.[/QUOTE]

Please excuse the hostility but you have to understand we've discussed this very topic ad nauseam... when you're new to a forum try doing a [url="http://www.thewarpath.net/search.php?"]search[/url] before posting. Often you'll find we're already discussing your topic.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Sean Taylor is God][QUOTE=BrudLee]Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.[/QUOTE]

The one common thread of these three teams is great defense. By supporting cast i meant several players on offense. each team has one guy who excelled except the bucs who we beat, with defense.[/QUOTE]

To be perfectly fair, the Panthers had 17 rushing TDs, which puts them tied for 2nd in the NFC (behind Alexander the stat-whore and his Seahawks). Injuries to Stephen Davis (how do you not see [u]that[/u] coming?) kept him out of a short-yardage role that had him at 12 tds in 10 games, or on pace for 19 TDs all by his lonesome. They also think enopugh of DeShaun Foster to "transition" him, giving them right to match any deal he gets.

As for the Bears, if you're looking for a receiving threat, you would have to filter their statistics through a Kyle Orton filter. The Bears won games where he went 12-26, 6-17, and 2-10. The fact that Muhammed caught 50+ balls from him probably equates to an 80 catch season anywhere else.

STiG, sorry if it seems like I'm loading up on you. I think we agree that this can't be Brunell's team if we want to continue to improve. We likely saw his best stuff last year. However, I'/m not willing to smack his best stuff, even if it wasn't gaudy, seeing as how it got us into the playoffs.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[IMG]http://www.ozbird.com/images/alb18.jpg[/img]

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I know the Parrot doesn't need a supporting cast, he's a one bird wrecking crew.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]Everyone here is looking for interesting topics and insight and I understand the newbies are always going to have a little trouble adjusting. You seem to be posting a lot so I guess you just stick out more right now.

Just click the "forum" click on the home page. Then click "locker room". You can look through the existing threads until you find one with the topic you are looking to talk about. Then post your opinion and it will automagically jump to first in line on the homepage! If you don't find your topic, then by all means, post a new thread!

Just for the record, Brunnel had a very good year. My concern is that I don't know if he can reproduce his production next year.[/QUOTE]


Reproduce? If he can't get better we are in trouble. If we don't put a very dominant defense on the field Brunell isn't going to win games, if we fielded an average defense, everyone hear would be calling for his head right now. There is nothing special about a QB who is out there just trying not to lose games, you can sign the trent Dilfers of the world at a very reasonable price to do that, good QB's win with average defenses, and they win super bowls with good defenses.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

I've never felt comfortable with Brunell behind center. Never liked the way we acquired him and have a constant feeling of impending doom when he drops back and doesnt hand off to Portis. However, I will be the first to admit he made some spectacular plays this season. Especially in Dallas, and every now and then he'd throw a ball perfectly into coverage that made you say "wow." Even with that, I don't feel that's enough to keep him here and I really thought Ramsey could have done a much better job than Brunell this season. While he'll definitely turn the ball over more, he'll also put up a lot more yards and spread the ball around a lot more than Brunell.

I may be wrong in this, but I think we save a lot of money cutting Brunell, I'd feel much more confident cutting Brunell and keeping a cheap Ramsey to compete with Campbell for the starting job.

Brunell's biggest downfall is when he gets at all hurt, he starts to make Ryan Leaf look like a good pickup. He won't pull himself out, Gibbs won't pull him out, and all he does is hurt the game. One play, in particular, made me nervous about Brunell last year. I think we can all remember Cooley trotting, wide open, along the back of the endzone. While Brunell stared at him the whole time before finally throwing the ball what seemed like hours later. During this time a defensive player locked onto Brunells eyes and was pretty close to Cooley by the time he caught it. After this he said he just had to make sure he was open. Granted he made that one, but how many potential plays did he miss.

I simply don't feel confident with Brunell behind center, while he had few interceptions, like an above poster said, his fumbles were pretty bad. At least Ramsey throws INT's 40 yards up field near the receiver.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

There is no need to apologize. I wrote my comments to instigate people and it has worked. Before you can clean the rug you must agitate it to make the dirt rise. I had Brunell on my fantasy team and found him quite servicable. I think that his price and age are troublesome and I did not feel confident in his ability to lead us down the field with the game on the line.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]One play, in particular, made me nervous about Brunell last year. I think we can all remember Cooley trotting, wide open, along the back of the endzone. While Brunell stared at him the whole time before finally throwing the ball what seemed like hours later.[/QUOTE]

If you're talking about the 2nd Dallas game that was actually a good play on Brunell's part I thought, he simply waited to make sure Cooley was open and that he had a good throwing angle.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

alright stisgod we are going after jeff george this off season because according to you ,all you need to suceed is a cannon for an arm.we made the playoffs,,taking one step at a time i trust coach gibbs!do you?

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I've never felt comfortable with Brunell behind center. Never liked the way we acquired him and have a constant feeling of impending doom when he drops back and doesnt hand off to Portis. However, I will be the first to admit he made some spectacular plays this season. Especially in Dallas, and every now and then he'd throw a ball perfectly into coverage that made you say "wow." Even with that, I don't feel that's enough to keep him here and I really thought Ramsey could have done a much better job than Brunell this season. While he'll definitely turn the ball over more, he'll also put up a lot more yards and spread the ball around a lot more than Brunell.

I may be wrong in this, but I think we save a lot of money cutting Brunell, I'd feel much more confident cutting Brunell and keeping a cheap Ramsey to compete with Campbell for the starting job.

Brunell's biggest downfall is when he gets at all hurt, he starts to make Ryan Leaf look like a good pickup. He won't pull himself out, Gibbs won't pull him out, and all he does is hurt the game. One play, in particular, made me nervous about Brunell last year. I think we can all remember Cooley trotting, wide open, along the back of the endzone. While Brunell stared at him the whole time before finally throwing the ball what seemed like hours later. During this time a defensive player locked onto Brunells eyes and was pretty close to Cooley by the time he caught it. After this he said he just had to make sure he was open. Granted he made that one, but how many potential plays did he miss.

I simply don't feel confident with Brunell behind center, while he had few interceptions, like an above poster said, his fumbles were pretty bad. At least Ramsey throws INT's 40 yards up field near the receiver.[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

I also find it funny that the prevailing thought is that Ramsey won't continue to grow and get better as he gets more comfortable in Gibbs offense.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Reproduce? If he can't get better we are in trouble. If we don't put a very dominant defense on the field Brunell isn't going to win games, if we fielded an average defense, everyone hear would be calling for his head right now. There is nothing special about a QB who is out there just trying not to lose games, you can sign the trent Dilfers of the world at a very reasonable price to do that, good QB's win with average defenses, and they win super bowls with good defenses.[/QUOTE]

Maybe we can agree on this:

maybe Brunnel is better than you think
AND
maybe Ramsey is better than Gibbs thinks.

To me, Brunnel looked good when he had to open up the offense ?(KC, Denver, Dallas...), but there is no doubt that defenses would have backed off if Ramsey was back there and the line could protect him. I'll be interested to see what Saunders thinks if Ramsey stays.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]Maybe we can agree on this:

maybe Brunnel is better than you think
AND
maybe Ramsey is better than Gibbs thinks.

To me, Brunnel looked good when he had to open up the offense ?(KC, Denver, Dallas...), but there is no doubt that defenses would have backed off if Ramsey was back there and the line could protect him. I'll be interested to see what Saunders thinks if Ramsey stays.[/QUOTE]


I am very interested in Saunders evaluation of the situation will be as well, but I have a feeling Ramsey will be out of hear before he has a chance to do so, as we close in on draft day something is probably going to happen maybe even on draft day, right now things are up in the air on which direction teams with QB needs are going to go, once that straightens itself out Patrick will probably be on the move, to bad for us IMO.

Re: Brunell is Bad
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I've never felt comfortable with Brunell behind center. Never liked the way we acquired him and have a constant feeling of impending doom when he drops back and doesnt hand off to Portis. However, I will be the first to admit he made some spectacular plays this season. Especially in Dallas, and every now and then he'd throw a ball perfectly into coverage that made you say "wow." Even with that, I don't feel that's enough to keep him here and I really thought Ramsey could have done a much better job than Brunell this season. While he'll definitely turn the ball over more, he'll also put up a lot more yards and spread the ball around a lot more than Brunell.

I may be wrong in this, but I think we save a lot of money cutting Brunell, I'd feel much more confident cutting Brunell and keeping a cheap Ramsey to compete with Campbell for the starting job.

Brunell's biggest downfall is when he gets at all hurt, he starts to make Ryan Leaf look like a good pickup. He won't pull himself out, Gibbs won't pull him out, and all he does is hurt the game. One play, in particular, made me nervous about Brunell last year. I think we can all remember Cooley trotting, wide open, along the back of the endzone. While Brunell stared at him the whole time before finally throwing the ball what seemed like hours later. During this time a defensive player locked onto Brunells eyes and was pretty close to Cooley by the time he caught it. After this he said he just had to make sure he was open. Granted he made that one, but how many potential plays did he miss.

I simply don't feel confident with Brunell behind center, while he had few interceptions, like an above poster said, his fumbles were pretty bad. At least Ramsey throws INT's 40 yards up field near the receiver.[/QUOTE]

Couple of points of contention.. First, cutting Brunell would acutally [b]cost[/b] $300K more than keeping him.. Brunell had his best season in years and [b][i]easily[/b][/i] the best season for a Redskins QB since Brad Johnson in 1999 and Ramsey could have done better? How much better are you looking for? You admitted that Ramsey would probably turn the ball over more, how is that an improvement? Brunell certainly isn't the picture of youth or ideal health but I feel 200% better going into the season with him as the starter than I would Ramsey..