Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Redskins Locker Room


View Poll Results: Is it time to bench Brunell?
Yes 141 61.84%
Give him another week 37 16.23%
Give him a few more weeks 35 15.35%
No 15 6.58%
Voters: 228. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-26-2006, 04:43 AM   #511
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 11,902
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

It's hard to try the deep ball when teams play the cover 2 deep all the time. That's what opens up the underneath passing game. All three opponents we've played used the cover 2 to prevent the big gains, and that's why we stuck with the dinks and dunks against the texans, and they couldn't stop it or figure out what we were doing. The reason they were playing the cover 2 in the first place was because Portis wasn't in there, and they didn't think our running game could exploit the cover 2's weaknesses.
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-26-2006, 05:17 AM   #512
Playmaker
 
onlydarksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH4413 View Post
I apologize to anyone (except onlydarksets) who had to read that. Too long. Next time I'll just make an outline or something. Mabye a nice Ven Diagram. Mabye a little brainstorm web. who knows... not a book tho.

nite
You obviously took my post as a personal attack, although I can't really figure out why. Let's drop that, OK?

As for Brunell, I'm sticking to my guns (and my promise not to belabor this issue) - I think we have to take his performance for what it is - a step, not the final result we're looking for.
__________________
Stop reading my signature.
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:28 AM   #513
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets View Post
C'mon - this is the NFL. It's not about what you have done, it's about what you can do. MB did exactly what was asked of him against Houston, and he did an incredible job for the most part. However, you can't seriously suggest that Saunders asked a lot of MB's arm. That's still the unknown, and that's what has been missing for the past 5 games (plus pre-season, which I know you don't count for some reason).
And what better way to see what an expierenced player can do than by looking at what he has done?
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:35 AM   #514
Special Teams
 
mike340's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 57
Posts: 269
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

I rather enjoyed it. I think your argument was completely convincing for all but one of us. But I think we've now spent enough time being the unstoppable force...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH4413 View Post
I apologize to anyone (except onlydarksets) who had to read that. Too long. Next time I'll just make an outline or something. Mabye a nice Ven Diagram. Mabye a little brainstorm web. who knows... not a book tho.

nite
mike340 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 09:41 AM   #515
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH4413 View Post
Alrighty... Your post has been read, and re-read... and then I took a deep breath to symbolize the long arduous journey of responding ahead... and alas.. i've reached some conclusions...

1) I did read your post, but obviously left out important information.... so here we go.

A quarterbacks job, regardless of where he is, is to follow a gameplan and execute it to perfection. Whereas I mentioned that winning involves following that gameplan, you assumed I meant we were going to stick to the same gameplan against all over teams (not the case) or that Brunell can only perform in the non-downfield passing variety.
Brunell can throw downfield, and if you pay attention you'll remember why.


Why can't you use the first two games to judge Brunells deep throw ability?

Because my friend, In the first two games our leading rusher only managed 39 & 40 yards respectively. That means your not forcing any safeties to come into the box. And in football, when the safety stays in cover 2 (meaning two safeties deep in coverage) the downfield ball doesn't really play as a factor. Brunell simply would read the coverage and dump it off to a number 2 or 3 read, given appropriate blocking and minimal pressure. Did you watch the game? Did they even try for Moss deep? Now you know why. Finally, the offensive line was less than spectacular. Brunell was running for his life, and no-one should rush to judgement on his play based on the circumstances. Let us not forget 2005. Bear with me... I promise I'm almost done. (not really)


You've got me one there. Brunell isn't 29. Your absolutly right. He isn't even 33. However he is healthy.

Oh, and remember who our receivers were last season towards the end? Little refresher.... Santana Moss, Antonio Brown, and Jimmy Farris. James Thrash had a hurt thumb. Patten was out. So what does a defense do? Double-team Moss and stifle Chris Cooley. So what is a Quarterback to do? Drop back and run everytime... No, he did (while injured) the best he could and it was pathetic. If Mark Brunell (or any other quarterback for that matter) was productive in that offense it would have been heroic given the circumstances. Do yourself a favor and go back and watch those playoff games. You'll see what I'm talking about. They're not pretty. If your going to point a finger, make sure you know what your talking about.

So there's that, and when he had healthy receivers? HE DID NOT STRUGGLE ANYTHING ABOVE 15-20 YARDS. In fact he excelled. Brunell threw 36 times for 20+ yards or more, and 9 times for 40+ yards. Let us also not forget him passing for over 3000 yards, 23 TD and 10 INT. Granted alot of them were screen passes, in which it still disproves your claim that short passes won't work, since clearly if he's thowing short screens with those numbers, the offense is rolling. So let me jump through time to the year 2006. Mabye there IS a reason we got all speedy little receivers after all (heavens open upon onlydarksets). Oh and for a comparative statistic Carson Palmer threw 43 passes 20+ and 9 for 40+. (that's 7 more 20+ plays...and 0 more 40+ if your not good at math). I'm really almost done this time.


Brunell isn't on the hook because he completed 22 passes in a row, and helped amass almost 500yds in total offense. Brunell made plays. Brunell let his receivers make plays (ie Randel El). That is why he's off the hook. He didn't perform well in the first two games, but we already know why don't we. (re-read post if necessary)

True we did play the texans, and I'm not buying a non-refundable plane ticket to Miami based on the results of the game. But give credit where credit is due. We performed the way good teams are supposed to. Mark Brunell played a great game, and as far as the game plan goes, I think Mr. Saunders would agree with you, that this gameplan won't work on everyone. I'm pretty sure there is a reason coaches have different gameplans to attack different defenses. And we already know Brunell can throw downfield don't we.
---------------------------
So there it is, my longest post ever... I just got home from class and saw that my post had been picked apart (gasp) with the latest "quote" technology and felt compelled to respond. I'm going to go anticipate a million more quoted responses while I dream tonight. Goodnight- HTTR.
Well stated. I would actually argue that he played pretty well in the first game, looking purely at the stats. The defense was torn up at home by Minnesota. A few points would have been nicer, but all the QB can do is move the ball.

Dallas is a completely different story, but take away any teams best offensive weapon and send them into Dallas, and pretty much everyone would lose.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 10:00 AM   #516
Playmaker
 
onlydarksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH4413 View Post
Alrighty... Your post has been read, and re-read... and then I took a deep breath to symbolize the long arduous journey of responding ahead... and alas.. i've reached some conclusions...

1) I did read your post, but obviously left out important information.... so here we go.

A quarterbacks job, regardless of where he is, is to follow a gameplan and execute it to perfection. Whereas I mentioned that winning involves following that gameplan, you assumed I meant we were going to stick to the same gameplan against all over teams (not the case) or that Brunell can only perform in the non-downfield passing variety.
Brunell can throw downfield, and if you pay attention you'll remember why.


Why can't you use the first two games to judge Brunells deep throw ability?

Because my friend, In the first two games our leading rusher only managed 39 & 40 yards respectively. That means your not forcing any safeties to come into the box. And in football, when the safety stays in cover 2 (meaning two safeties deep in coverage) the downfield ball doesn't really play as a factor. Brunell simply would read the coverage and dump it off to a number 2 or 3 read, given appropriate blocking and minimal pressure. Did you watch the game? Did they even try for Moss deep? Now you know why. Finally, the offensive line was less than spectacular. Brunell was running for his life, and no-one should rush to judgement on his play based on the circumstances. Let us not forget 2005. Bear with me... I promise I'm almost done. (not really)


You've got me one there. Brunell isn't 29. Your absolutly right. He isn't even 33. However he is healthy.

Oh, and remember who our receivers were last season towards the end? Little refresher.... Santana Moss, Antonio Brown, and Jimmy Farris. James Thrash had a hurt thumb. Patten was out. So what does a defense do? Double-team Moss and stifle Chris Cooley. So what is a Quarterback to do? Drop back and run everytime... No, he did (while injured) the best he could and it was pathetic. If Mark Brunell (or any other quarterback for that matter) was productive in that offense it would have been heroic given the circumstances. Do yourself a favor and go back and watch those playoff games. You'll see what I'm talking about. They're not pretty. If your going to point a finger, make sure you know what your talking about.

So there's that, and when he had healthy receivers? HE DID NOT STRUGGLE ANYTHING ABOVE 15-20 YARDS. In fact he excelled. Brunell threw 36 times for 20+ yards or more, and 9 times for 40+ yards. Let us also not forget him passing for over 3000 yards, 23 TD and 10 INT. Granted alot of them were screen passes, in which it still disproves your claim that short passes won't work, since clearly if he's thowing short screens with those numbers, the offense is rolling. So let me jump through time to the year 2006. Mabye there IS a reason we got all speedy little receivers after all (heavens open upon onlydarksets). Oh and for a comparative statistic Carson Palmer threw 43 passes 20+ and 9 for 40+. (that's 7 more 20+ plays...and 0 more 40+ if your not good at math). I'm really almost done this time.


Brunell isn't on the hook because he completed 22 passes in a row, and helped amass almost 500yds in total offense. Brunell made plays. Brunell let his receivers make plays (ie Randel El). That is why he's off the hook. He didn't perform well in the first two games, but we already know why don't we. (re-read post if necessary)

True we did play the texans, and I'm not buying a non-refundable plane ticket to Miami based on the results of the game. But give credit where credit is due. We performed the way good teams are supposed to. Mark Brunell played a great game, and as far as the game plan goes, I think Mr. Saunders would agree with you, that this gameplan won't work on everyone. I'm pretty sure there is a reason coaches have different gameplans to attack different defenses. And we already know Brunell can throw downfield don't we.
---------------------------
So there it is, my longest post ever... I just got home from class and saw that my post had been picked apart (gasp) with the latest "quote" technology and felt compelled to respond. I'm going to go anticipate a million more quoted responses while I dream tonight. Goodnight- HTTR.
F- it, if a bunch of you are going to jump on a brother while he's down, then I'm going to keep posting.

RobH4413:
For what it's worth, I don't think I disagree with anything you stated (it was kinda long, so I might have missed something). I think we both agree that:
1. Saunders called a great game.
2. Brunell executed the plan to near perfection, and he played a great game given what was asked of him.
3. The game plan used against the Texans will not win against most other teams in the league.
4. We have to have a long ball option.

Please, correct me if I have misstated your position at all.

All that leaves us with is whether or not Brunell can throw the long ball now. I recognize that the team has more offensive threats now than it did last year. I have never said that it's Brunell's fault that the long ball options haven't been there. Obviously, more offensive threats equals more options for Brunell.

My concern is with the throws he has made and the throws he could have attempted but backed off of. Sunday's game didn't test Brunell's arm, so, IMO, the jury is still out on that issue. He showed he could get it there last year. However, he's old enough that each year makes a difference, and he tends to run down.

If you (or the others who chimed in) feel 100% confident in Brunell's ability to thow the long ball, then I guess we do disagree. Otherwise, if you would like to see Brunell actually throw deep a few times before passing judgment, then I think we're probably on the same page (scary as that is to me and you).
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:13 PM   #517
Wildcard Bitches
 
RobH4413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Age: 29
Posts: 2,488
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

I wasn't attacking your character onlydarksets. I was just having a little fun.

I felt like you were assuming some things incorrectly and I just wanted to clarify them a bit. I'm all about elevated discourse, but sometimes I slip (when I'm tired and frustrated from school) into childish banter.
__________________
This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
RobH4413 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:18 PM   #518
Wildcard Bitches
 
RobH4413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Age: 29
Posts: 2,488
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets View Post
F- it, if a bunch of you are going to jump on a brother while he's down, then I'm going to keep posting.

RobH4413:
For what it's worth, I don't think I disagree with anything you stated (it was kinda long, so I might have missed something). I think we both agree that:
1. Saunders called a great game.
2. Brunell executed the plan to near perfection, and he played a great game given what was asked of him.
3. The game plan used against the Texans will not win against most other teams in the league.
4. We have to have a long ball option.

Please, correct me if I have misstated your position at all.

All that leaves us with is whether or not Brunell can throw the long ball now. I recognize that the team has more offensive threats now than it did last year. I have never said that it's Brunell's fault that the long ball options haven't been there. Obviously, more offensive threats equals more options for Brunell.

My concern is with the throws he has made and the throws he could have attempted but backed off of. Sunday's game didn't test Brunell's arm, so, IMO, the jury is still out on that issue. He showed he could get it there last year. However, he's old enough that each year makes a difference, and he tends to run down.

If you (or the others who chimed in) feel 100% confident in Brunell's ability to thow the long ball, then I guess we do disagree. Otherwise, if you would like to see Brunell actually throw deep a few times before passing judgment, then I think we're probably on the same page (scary as that is to me and you).
I'm a worrier, that's what I do. I don't go to sleep at night feeling totally confident that Mark Brunell is going to play like Peyton Manning. I can say that he hasn't disproved himself as of yet, so there really is no reason to doubt him. My only point was that there is no reason to say the sky is falling based on Brunell's play. There will always be reason to worry no matter what.
__________________
This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
RobH4413 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 02:46 PM   #519
Playmaker
 
onlydarksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

No worries - I was thinking the same about your assumptions. All is well (assuming Brunell can throw the long ball, of course ).

"Brothers gotta hug!" - Thomas 'Tommy' Callahan III

Last edited by onlydarksets; 09-26-2006 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Cite for quote.
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2006, 04:54 PM   #520
Wildcard Bitches
 
RobH4413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Age: 29
Posts: 2,488
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

great movie...

I love the new portis avatars by the way.
__________________
This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
RobH4413 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 12:35 PM   #521
Special Teams
 
DaveyFoSho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Potomac, MD
Age: 28
Posts: 304
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

I think it would be fun to create a new shld we bench brunell poll
__________________
DaveyFoSho
DaveyFoSho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 01:37 PM   #522
Karma Chameleon (I come and go)
 
jdlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 3,087
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

I would only change my vote from "yes" to "give him a few more weeks." As "good" as he looked last week, I think he only made about 5 throws that it required an NFL QB to make. Everything else was dink and dunk and hope that the receiver/back could make plays. If they had lost that game everyone would be complaining that all he did was throw the short pass. I don't think he made more than 3 plays Campbell couldn't make and I tink he made maybe 5-7 passes I couldn't make!

I'm not trying to say he didn't manage the game very well, cause he did. But that's all he did. Manage the game. He did that to perfection and they were able to destroy Houston with that, but if you think that's gonna work against the Jags you're sadly mistaken.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
Albert Connell is perhaps the worst Redskin I ever had the misfortune of meeting. He's the kind of guy that makes media people covering their favorite team growing up no longer like that team
jdlea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 02:00 PM   #523
Special Teams
 
DaveyFoSho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Potomac, MD
Age: 28
Posts: 304
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

Hey jdlea...im a jr at CP...good times and yea id probably say give him til the giants
__________________
DaveyFoSho
DaveyFoSho is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:32 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 0.45817 seconds with 10 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