Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2008, 08:18 AM   #31
Impact Rookie
 
BrunellMVP?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 726
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I feel like I've done this 100 times, but I'd definately calling the BS here.

If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006. That 9th was even more impressive when you realize that it was done while we f'ed around with the Brandon Lloyd freakshow, and a bunch of poor games from a still-learning Randle El.

Presumably, Campbell is going to achieve more here than Brunell did, and Collins was successful in limited time also. But the guys who preceeded MB were Ramsey, Matthews, Wuerffel, Tony Banks, and Jeff George. Any objective (and I mean any) measure will show you that Brunell was far better than any of those players here.

He was as successful as Brad Johnson was, and you can keep going back, and back in time and find that our QB production was pretty terrible prior to 2005. Since 2005, we've been incredibly stable, and certainly Collins and Campbell deserve their credit for that, but Brunell has played more snaps than either of those guys as a Redskin.

So, yeah, saying he's one of the worst QBs we've had makes about as much sense as saying that Patrick Ramsey deserved eight more shots at the starting job here. No matter how much objective evidence can be addressed, some people just won't give up the point.
While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.
__________________
in writing these daily letters and trying to make them interesting it is always possible that some sentiment may occur which has not received the severe and deliberate scrutiny and reconsideration which should attach to a State Paper.
- Churchill
BrunellMVP? is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-14-2008, 08:33 AM   #32
Camp Scrub
 
RiggoDrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 57
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

On his best days, Brunell was slightly better than average. From a quartebacking perspective - I am elated to see him go.
He is a good man, a good representative of the organization, and the trigger man for the "Monday Night Miracle" in Dallas. For that I will always think well of him.
__________________
"In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria." - Benjamin Franklin
RiggoDrill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 08:58 AM   #33
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunellMVP? View Post
While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.
If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 09:07 AM   #34
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,341
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
....If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006.....
First let me say Good luck to MB in N.O.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stats you are quoting are Total Yards - Offense. If you look at:
Passing Yards for 2005 we were ranked 21st, 5th in Passing TDs.
Passing Yards for 2006 we were ranked 21st again, 17th in Passing TDs.
2004 was a trainwreck.

Brunell was a very good leader, good mentor, serviceable back-up, and a significant improvement over Wuerfel, Matthews and Ramsey. He was a good game manager. He wouldn't make the critical mistake to kill the team, but because his limitations hampered offensive production it was more of a slow bleed. The problem with MB is, his arm has been done since he arrived here. Other than the miracle against Dallas, he hasn't been able to throw a pass with any velocity over 15-20 yards. His accuracy has also gone way downhill since 2006. If there is no threat by the QB to stretch the field, the defense has a huge advantage and the offense is extremely limited. You can't survive on screens and 5-yard check-downs for very long. Especially on 3rd & 8+.

Here are a couple more factoids on MBs production.
Since Nov 2005
MB has passed for over 200 yards in 5 out of 18 games, and for over 250 in only 2 of 18.
He has thrown for more than 1 touchdown in 5 out of those same 18 games, but 0 touchdowns in 7 of 18.
His QB rating in 2006 was over 77 in only 4 out of 9 games.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 09:13 AM   #35
Inactive
 
KLHJ2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DC Metro Area
Age: 36
Posts: 5,829
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hesscl34 View Post
.... I'll miss you MB ... :-(
Yes, but for all of the wrong reasons.
KLHJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 10:34 AM   #36
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I feel like I've done this 100 times, but I'd definately calling the BS here.

If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006. That 9th was even more impressive when you realize that it was done while we f'ed around with the Brandon Lloyd freakshow, and a bunch of poor games from a still-learning Randle El.

Presumably, Campbell is going to achieve more here than Brunell did, and Collins was successful in limited time also. But the guys who preceeded MB were Ramsey, Matthews, Wuerffel, Tony Banks, and Jeff George. Any objective (and I mean any) measure will show you that Brunell was far better than any of those players here.

He was as successful as Brad Johnson was, and you can keep going back, and back in time and find that our QB production was pretty terrible prior to 2005. Since 2005, we've been incredibly stable, and certainly Collins and Campbell deserve their credit for that, but Brunell has played more snaps than either of those guys as a Redskin.

So, yeah, saying he's one of the worst QBs we've had makes about as much sense as saying that Patrick Ramsey deserved eight more shots at the starting job here. No matter how much objective evidence can be addressed, some people just won't give up the point.
Well if you want to compare him to those QB's than yes he was an improvement but if you want to compare him to some real NFL QB's then it gets a litttle tough. I've back MB because he was our only choice for a few years and we were stuck with him. I feel as others do that JG's success the past 4 years was hampered by his age and play. I hope only the best for him and felt he gave us his best and was a team player. It just sucks getting old.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 10:35 AM   #37
Impact Rookie
 
BrunellMVP?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 726
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12 View Post
If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.

As I wrote in my first, post, I cannot and do not fault Mark for taking the redskin's bid. The point of my first statement was simply, while MB wasn't horrible from a playing perspective (though even in his good year, he wasn't healthy enough for the playoffs, so really, what good did it do? Ask the eagles) he was not a good choice given the investment (both financial and the opportunity cost associated with not trying someone younger and more able)- fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.
__________________
in writing these daily letters and trying to make them interesting it is always possible that some sentiment may occur which has not received the severe and deliberate scrutiny and reconsideration which should attach to a State Paper.
- Churchill
BrunellMVP? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 10:41 AM   #38
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
Ok, calling him one of the worst Redskins QB was overstating it BUT with the level of expectation that came with him and what he represented (Gibbs first player he targeted), what we gave up (a draft pick when he was going to be released) and the was he was so indignantly defended by the coaching staff when it was OBVIOUS he was done made his tenure torturous to bear.
Obvious only to the ignorant, as I will defend below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunellMVP? View Post
While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body).
Of course, you've both touched on the counter argument regarding Brunell--that a year and a half of solid play does not warrent a trade of a 3rd round draft pick, and about 17 million dollars in cap space over 4 years.

Looking into this however, I don't think it's as cut and dry. This is a comprehensive list of players who had more total value over the same time period, and the compensation given to get them:

Steve McNair (1st round pick, 1995, by Titans) (4th round pick 2006,by Ravens)
Marc Bulger (6th rounder, 2001, by Rams)
Peyton Manning (1st rounder, 1998, by Colts)
Drew Brees (2nd rounder, 2000, by Chargers)
Carson Palmer (1st rounder, 2003, by Bengals)
Tom Brady (6th round pick, 2000, by Patriots)
Ben Roethlisberger (1st rounder, 2004, by Steelers)
Matt Hasselbeck (6th rounder, 1998, by Packers) (6th rounder, 2000, by Seahawks)
Trent Green (8th rounder, 1993, by Chargers), (unknown draft pick, 2000, by Chiefs)

Obviously, those picks netted more years for those players than we got from Brunell, and that has to be considered in the draft pick equation, but do realize that every one of those players was, or is current getting paid more money than Mark Brunell was here. Conclusively, cut and dry, you HAVE to pay well to get and keep QB talent. Indisputable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue here in most people's minds the fact that we paid Mark Brunell before he ever played a down for us? I think this is the case here, and in my opinion, that's not really relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
As to the passing rankings, I'm not as interested as where they finished statistically as results.. He had one good year in 3, 2005. Other than that he was garbage. I could complete 70% of my passes if I didn't throw more than 5 yards downfield for a majority of the game. I was one of the biggest critics of Gibbs offense during 2.0 but MB played a big role in that.
False, because in the first half of 2006, he was, along with Portis and the offensive line, the only player doing his job on the Redskins. Go back, crunch the numbers, or save yourself the time and just listen to me. We were top ten in yards per pass while MB was the QB, and top 3 in fewest INTs per pass. That's about the only thing we had going for us in 2006, at least until Betts came on and got hot.

It's not a good criticism to say a guy who averaged 6.8 yards an attempt "never threw more than 5 yards downfield". Big gap in logic there that you have to backpeddle on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stats you are quoting are Total Yards - Offense. If you look at:
Passing Yards for 2005 we were ranked 21st, 5th in Passing TDs.
Passing Yards for 2006 we were ranked 21st again, 17th in Passing TDs.
2004 was a trainwreck.
I was actually quoting DVOA, but you can use passing yards as long as you remember to divide by the number of attempts. It's a really important step that makes the numbers look a lot more accurate. We simply didn't throw as often as other teams and you can't penalize us for that.

(Remember I'm also not counting the Campbell era of 2006, because the numbers saw a huge decline when he came in--for obvious reasons that say everything about his inexperience and nothing about his skill level)
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 10:44 AM   #39
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunellMVP? View Post
As I wrote in my first, post, I cannot and do not fault Mark for taking the redskin's bid. The point of my first statement was simply, while MB wasn't horrible from a playing perspective (though even in his good year, he wasn't healthy enough for the playoffs, so really, what good did it do? Ask the eagles) he was not a good choice given the investment (both financial and the opportunity cost associated with not trying someone younger and more able)- fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.
Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 10:59 AM   #40
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,220
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Good riddance. Nice guy, but just feel like he's run out of gas in the tank. He's been coasting downhill without gas for a few years now.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 11:07 AM   #41
Impact Rookie
 
BrunellMVP?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 726
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.
Fair point. I guess I just feel that if the rest of the NFL "knew" he couldn't really hack it as a starter any more, why didn't we? (that was the prevailing sentiment when we signed him). As a result, i do blame his age and mileage for his injuries...
__________________
in writing these daily letters and trying to make them interesting it is always possible that some sentiment may occur which has not received the severe and deliberate scrutiny and reconsideration which should attach to a State Paper.
- Churchill
BrunellMVP? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 11:10 AM   #42
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Farewell Mark.

Thanks for the memories, the big run to the playoffs in 2005, your shortly-held consecutive completions record and most of all, GETTING PATRICK RAMSEY OFF THE FIELD.

He wasn't the best QB all of the time, but he was a great team player.

Now he's following in the footsteps of Heath Shuler, going to Naw'lins.
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 11:10 AM   #43
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
Good riddance. Nice guy, but just feel like he's run out of gas in the tank. He's been coasting downhill without gas for a few years now.

I'll laugh if your kids once say that exact same statement to you when you get old.
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 11:14 AM   #44
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunellMVP? View Post
Fair point. I guess I just feel that if the rest of the NFL "knew" he couldn't really hack it as a starter any more, why didn't we? (that was the prevailing sentiment when we signed him). As a result, i do blame his age and mileage for his injuries...
Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2008, 11:28 AM   #45
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.
Rather than debate you point for point since we are on polar opposites of the Brunell bandwagon, I'll just say this.. The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG.. Bottom line, he had one decent season, 2005. He was terrible and benched in 2004. He was terrible (outside of the Houston game) and benched in 2006. I know the entire offense isn't all on him and it's not his fault entirely that we struggled mightily on that side of the ball for years but for what we paid for him in picks, money and time he was an unmitigated bust in DC.

The reason that QB is the most valued and highest paid position in the NFL is because the buck stops there. RB get to make excuses about blocking in front of them. WR get to make excuses about not getting the ball thrown their way. DB get to make excuses about officiating or not being in the right scheme. QB are paid to do one thing, win.

I'm sure he's a great guy and a wonderful teammate but he didn't get the job of winning football games done well enough, bottom line.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain 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 07:27 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 0.40423 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