Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Brunell is Bad

Redskins Locker Room


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2006, 04:26 PM   #31
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,178
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.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline  

Advertisements
Old 02-27-2006, 04:27 PM   #32
Registered User
 
Sean Taylor is God's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 68
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.
Sean Taylor is God is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 04:30 PM   #33
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 79,430
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 04:32 PM   #34
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 52
Posts: 10,504
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?
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 04:38 PM   #35
The Starter
 
GoSkins!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorktown, Va
Age: 44
Posts: 1,587
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. A. Einstien
GoSkins! is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 04:48 PM   #36
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,878
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Couple of points of contention.. First, cutting Brunell would acutally cost $300K more than keeping him.. Brunell had his best season in years and easily 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..
__________________
FREE RG3!
Paintrain is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 04:58 PM   #37
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 49
Posts: 15,818
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I would think that with Gibbs given Ramsey the OK to seak a trade gives us some insight to what Saunders thinks of him. Saunders had to of looked at game film and pratice film of Ramsey befor they gave him the Ok to go looking for a trade. If for one minute Saunders thought Ramsey should be the starter or could be the starter of the team he would not be looking for a trade.
firstdown is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:02 PM   #38
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,178
Re: Brunell is Bad

Paintrain, read my post and I explain how. Ramsey would have given us a better TOP, more passing yards, more TDs, and more INTs. However he'd have far fewer fumbles than Brunell. Ramsey did more in slightly over one quarter in the first game than Brunell was able to pull out in the remainder of it. This was a good defense he was playing very well against.

I think the total amount of turnovers would have been similar, but Ramsey would have had more, yet we would have scored more and had more players worked into the mix. Easily the best season since 1999, big deal, this was "Easily the best season" for every Redskin since 1999, we made the playoffs. Little of that, in my opinion, had to do with the great play of Mark Brunell.

I guess I'm wrong about his contract, I thought the restructure last year made him even easier to cut this year. I could definitely be wrong here.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:04 PM   #39
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 49
Posts: 15,818
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
Couple of points of contention.. First, cutting Brunell would acutally cost $300K more than keeping him.. Brunell had his best season in years and easily 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..
Come on man whats a few turn overs every game. Who needs to play field position and who cares that we toss a few to the other guys in the red zone. We can make all that up on a few long passes. Gibbs is just blind to all of Ramsey's tallent and is not going to look like a fool for picking up Brunell. Thats his guy!
firstdown is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:13 PM   #40
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 79,430
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss
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.
I'd think if Saunders felt strongly about keeping Ramsey then Gibbs would have listened.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:23 PM   #41
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,155
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God
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.
4 top 5 linemen? who would those be? not dockery or rabach... and jansen and samuels are alright, but neither is top 5. (samuels is althletic enough to be in the top 5, but he's too inconsistant). thomas i would say is undoubtedly top 5, but 1/5 is a lot less than 4/5.

brunell threw deep fine. see dallas, see 49ers, etc... moss was in the top 3 in 40+ yard passes. most of his screen stuff went for 10-20 yards, not 40+.

brunell does have the running qb menality where he looks 1,2 and tosses it or runs or dump it off where (good) pocket passers tend to get an extra read in. he's actually good at what he does, but lossing patten really hurt and at the end of the year he was obviously banged up and playing very poorly. that' a far cry from saying he's just outright bad though. The protection wasn't remarkable though, it was average to slightly above average... which would be appaling if we actually did have 4/5 Olinemen that were top5 at their positions.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:27 PM   #42
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,155
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman003
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.
everyone is working off the defense did it all cause of 2004, but they're were a lot of 30 point games this year and the offense wasn't ranked 29th, it was above average. The offense wasn't existant in the playoffs, but in the regular season, the D gave up a lot more points and long runs than expected (36 to TB for example).
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:35 PM   #43
Special Teams
 
Huddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 352
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown
I would think that with Gibbs given Ramsey the OK to seak a trade gives us some insight to what Saunders thinks of him. Saunders had to of looked at game film and pratice film of Ramsey befor they gave him the Ok to go looking for a trade. If for one minute Saunders thought Ramsey should be the starter or could be the starter of the team he would not be looking for a trade.
It's likely that the Ramsey Bridge had already been burned before Saunders got here.

Take a look at the contracts. Suppose Saunders decided he wanted to start Patrick in 2006 and he was tickled pink with his performance...what then? How would we retain Ramsey for the future given his increased value, the Campbell and Brunell contracts, and the salary cap?
Huddle is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:38 PM   #44
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,155
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddle
It's likely that the Ramsey Bridge had already been burned before Saunders got here.

Take a look at the contracts. Suppose Saunders decided he wanted to start Patrick in 2006 and he was tickled pink with his performance...what then? How would we retain Ramsey for the future given his increased value, the Campbell and Brunell contracts, and the salary cap?
campbell wasn't a top5 pick, he's cheap. If you cut brunell after june 1, you save 4-5mill this year and 1mill next year. ramsey is also cheap.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 05:51 PM   #45
Special Teams
 
Huddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 352
Re: Brunell is Bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
campbell wasn't a top5 pick, he's cheap. If you cut brunell after june 1, you save 4-5mill this year and 1mill next year. ramsey is also cheap.
Ramsey won't be cheap to re-sign for the future if Saunders starts him and he performs well in 2006. That was the scenario.

We aren't talking about this year's cap but 2007's.

So my point was...it doesn't matter what Saunder's opinion is of Ramsey. There's no good reason to keep him in the team's plans.
Huddle is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.42550 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25