Give Props to Brunell

[That Guy]

well i showed the not as often and it was a VERY stark contrast. i only used him and peyton cause of the large time investment it takes to go over the game logs and ensure accuracy, but brunell's stats were VERY bad (% deep, attempts deep, completions deep, deep int % etc) when compared, even taking into account that peyton is simply better than anyone else.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Theres a difference between not throwing deep and not throwing deep as often as so and so. If you make a comparison, then you may have a point. But if you say "doesn't throw deep", then all I have to do is show one example and said person is wrong.

It's nitpicky I know, but if you use qualifiers and comparisions, we have a discussion. If you don't, I use stats...and then we have whiny baseless rebuttles.

I hate to be stingy like this (I really do), but if people don't back up their posts with evidence, they shouldn't be able to dismiss stats.

Remember, I don't think the way I do because of the stats, I only use them to reinforce my opinion.

I had remembered off the top of my head that there was something in the spread sheet that proved the point.

Im probably totally wrong, but I couldn't find the spread sheet to respond further soooo yeah. You may be 100% correct... I looked for it and couldn't find it.

Anyone have the link?

[RobH4413]

and I prefer someone being nit-picky then for me to walk around ignorant...

so no beef there.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

while i am aware that Brunell's completion percentage is up yoy, I admit to not knowing the exact numbers associated with an increase in Yards per attempt. I would love to see them. I would suspect that if you were to look at his passes, most would be in the under 10 yards range- with significant yards coming from his recievers gaining YAC. I would not take anything away from Brunell for such plays- as getting the ball to the open man 5 yards away who runs for 20 there after is just as important as tossing for 25. I cannot however, agree that Mark Brunell's numbers have been stellar. What is the basis for comparison? I would argue that you should compare him to other QBs in the league (more specifically- those that aren't in danger of losing their jobs- ie winning). (i have a feeling some will tout the numbers of plummer and mcnair as comparisions- fair enough- but we don't have anyhting close to Broncos or Raven's D). That said, it is entirely possible that we just disagree on the definition of stellar.

The part I have bolded is a very important part of the equation. Your statement is 100% correct. As the leader of the offense, Mark Brunell should not be penalized for finding his best player in open space, simply because the pass was short. Simple logic says that if he throws the ball underneath and the back gets 10 yards yac, there probably (as in not every time) was not a better throw to make. The 7.24 yards/attempt figure ranks 7th in the NFL. Rivers, Brees, Huard, Bulger, Peyton Manning, and McNabb are the only QBs who rank ahead of him. Does Brunell have better run after catch recievers than every other QB in the NFL? I'm guessing no. For every Moss and Randle El, There's an Owens and Glenn, or a Walker and Rod Smith (and David Kircus!), or an Ocho Cinco and a Championship. But are passing game out produces those, because we get more yards per attempt then they do which last time I looked was the goal of passing.

I don't remember saying stellar and if I did I was surely refering to THIS game only on his measly 23 attempts. To put it in perspective, in each of the 8 games this year, the opposing QB has thrown 25 or more passes against us despite the 3-5 record. In fact only once were we thrown on less than 29 times. 23 attempts is nothing, and with little YAC help and a lot of drops, Brunell threw for nearly 200 yards. But thats why you use Y/A instead of yards. Even the dudes who developed the weak QB Rating formula figured that one out.

[RobH4413]

I really really really want that spread sheet link... comon... someone has it..

I know they do...

why am I too dumb to find it.

I'm web savy, but not warpath savy.

[Skins4Eva]

unk hrujifd rhgl regiuywgrcgc jh;egp cgi; y4 pytc;ewu.rnhj rhurehut hw4ehjrhgk hrgjrngjrhuiebitchtuwl7654kjnbgrjfkhbg rhugh rugbhekjwasslbhljrhguhf u h h uhjnralj hruhgjuboyhujbnj rlh

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Skins4Eva

unk hrujifd rhgl regiuywgrcgc jh;egp cgi; y4 pytc;ewu.rnhj rhurehut hw4ehjrhgk hrgjrngjrhuiebitchtuwl7654kjnbgrjfkhbg rhugh rugbhekjwasslbhljrhguhf u h h uhjnralj hruhgjuboyhujbnj rlh

how useful.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Tripp, it's been explained ad infinitum. it's YAC - that's a stat, so start doing some serious subtraction. maybe if Distance Thrown was a stat, you would pay attention. maybe if stats only applied when In Contention (and not garbage time) you would stop basing Brunell's HOF application based on his 'stellar' numbers.

beware the number crunchers.

So you want all QB yardage to be calculated by how far the ball traveled? Figures as much. Then you'd have all the West Coast QBs with really shitty Y/A stats simply because of the system. Then you wouldn't really know anything about the guy except what kind of system he plays in. It would not go in any way toward getting you closer to the "why do teams win/lose?" answer (the ONLY reason for statistical analysis). But it'd make Brunell's stats look like what you think they should be, so thats cool I guess.

You could cut the stats at the point when garbage time starts, and it would make the numbers ever so slightly more accurate, or you could just leave EVERYONES garbage time in and understand that what you are given is a general representation of how well a player has performed. So you can say Brunell sucks, I can show you his stats, you can make any dann excuse you want to, and I'll say fair enough, but in general Brunell has played well. Someone who is doing poorer than him in all major categories is not playing as well. Obviously. QB Rating puts him at #8 in the NFL. You will never hear me refer to him as the 8th best QB. That's not general enough. Conventional stats aren't that accurate.

QBing is all about doing your role in the offense. Some QBs have bigger roles than others. Brunell's is actually quite small, and he does it well. Stats are not what made me come to this conclusion, its what allows me to make an arguement thats actually something and not nothing.

Back to your YAC point, stats aren't going to seperate the QB from the offense (FO's stats try to but that seems a bit advanced for you), but even if you change the QB he still won't be seperated from the offense. So you accept the YAC as part of the offense, and you move on. You don't worry about it skewing the stats. We aren't talking about Brunell moving to another team here.

Which brings me back to my main point. There is no present reason good enough to replace Mark Brunell. People who agree with me: Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, among others. People who (at least seem to) disagree: Illdefined, RedskinRat, among others.

Here's what's been explained ad infinitum. I've given countless reasons why MB SHOULDN't be benched. You've given baseless reasoning to why he SHOULD, and then have given at least relevant reasoning to why my stats are not all they are cracked up to be. They are what they are. A general representation of how well a player has performed.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Skins4Eva

unk hrujifd rhgl regiuywgrcgc jh;egp cgi; y4 pytc;ewu.rnhj rhurehut hw4ehjrhgk hrgjrngjrhuiebitchtuwl7654kjnbgrjfkhbg rhugh rugbhekjwasslbhljrhguhf u h h uhjnralj hruhgjuboyhujbnj rlh

fuck you

[That Guy]

as for why to bench him - he's not going to get better and we're probably not going to the playoffs, so seeing if campbell can play and giving him experience is in the best long term interests of the franchise.

brunell has been nothing but average. when we needed him in the playoffs, he was MIA. when we had a great defense he was terrible, now that we have a terrible defense, and he's just not good enough to overcome that. his W-L record (which is a valid stat) isn't good, and when we need a play to win, he often takes the sack/inc instead (TB, DEN, KC, etc). he has the worst record BY FAR in 4th quarter comebacks (something on the order of 8-43 - beyond horrible) and that's WITH very favorable conditions (down by less than 7 entering the 4th and failing to win = loss, but coming back from ANY number = win). I've never said he's the ONLY problem, or that he's the BIGGEST problem, just that he's a bottleneck (spending too much time watching the rush vs looking downfield) and we have possibly have the longterm solution in house, but it's important to know whether JC is truly the guy or if we're still looking. before building a team, it's important to be sure that the trigger man is more than just average, and capable of a clutch play more often than what we've seen lately.

14-13 was great, but for brunell, those kinds of plays have been very few and far between across his entire career. it's not a big shocker that he is what he is, only slower now.

[That Guy]

that said, this year he hasn't been helped AT ALL by the play calling. he NEEDS shotgun, he NEEDS max protect, he NEEDS a couple audibles. that's WHY he looked good last year, and without them, it looks like he's playing with an arm behind his back.

he played well this week, he played well vs JAC, but I haven't thought much of any of his other games this year, and i've been even more unimpressed with saunders, who's calling plays like he has HoF O linemen and no need to call anything besides screens. gibbs/musgrave 05 was a much better system for this talent.


the chemistry on the defense and a bad offseason by the FO, and what appears to be injured or just under-performing OL (jansen, thomas, dockery) are also big concerns. punter/kicker are pretty shaky too, and while we don't have the pick to fix kicker, we'll be more than able to get sep or fields with one of our 2nd day picks. fields has lechler like leg strength. I mean, there's plenty of blame to go around. but if we're not going all the way, we should do everything possible to get there as soon as possible, which includes getting the young guys ready and evaluating current and future talent as closely as possible.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by That Guy

as for why to bench him - he's not going to get better and we're probably not going to the playoffs, so seeing if campbell can play and giving him experience is in the best long term interests of the franchise.

brunell has been nothing but average. when we needed him in the playoffs, he was MIA. when we had a great defense he was terrible, now that we have a terrible defense, and he's just not good enough to overcome that. his W-L record (which is a valid stat) isn't good, and when we need a play to win, he often takes the sack/inc instead (TB, DEN, KC, etc). he has the worst record BY FAR in 4th quarter comebacks (something on the order of 8-43 - beyond horrible) and that's WITH very favorable conditions (down by less than 7 entering the 4th and failing to win = loss, but coming back from ANY number = win). I've never said he's the ONLY problem, or that he's the BIGGEST problem, just that he's a bottleneck (spending too much time watching the rush vs looking downfield) and we have possibly have the longterm solution in house, but it's important to know whether JC is truly the guy or if we're still looking. before building a team, it's important to be sure that the trigger man is more than just average, and capable of a clutch play more often than what we've seen lately.

14-13 was great, but for brunell, those kinds of plays have been very few and far between across his entire career. it's not a big shocker that he is what he is, only slower now.

Philisophically speaking.... you play the guy that wins your next game. One game at a time. We're one game behind in the wild race. Theres no need to go "big picture" on us right now.

We put Campbell in, he throws picks (that happends to young QB's) and with our defense we can't afford that. We'll lose games with a young QB making mistakes. In-experience usually means turnovers, and our defense cannot win with that at stake. Brunell has not been playing badly as of recent, and if your a coach, your going to put your smart game manager in at QB. You cannot think long term in the middle of the season, and it's just not going to happen.

There really is no debate... JC will not start. We can all look at this when the season is over and say this and that, but right here, right now, we're making the only decision we can, and IMO it's the right one.

[That Guy]

that's nice, but unless we go 7-1, it's over for real, and the chances aren't great. right now brunell might be the best choice, but through the first 8 games, i'm not sure he was.

and yeah, campbell is going to throw ints, but if he's throwing more TDs and taking less sacks, it might not be as bad as predicted.

i can't possibly seeing us go 3-0 or 4-0 in the playoffs with this defense... hopefully they shore it up, and i know gibbs wins more late, but for the cost and hype, i need to see a lot more progress real fast.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Skins4Eva

unk hrujifd rhgl regiuywgrcgc jh;egp cgi; y4 pytc;ewu.rnhj rhurehut hw4ehjrhgk hrgjrngjrhuiebitchtuwl7654kjnbgrjfkhbg rhugh rugbhekjwasslbhljrhguhf u h h uhjnralj hruhgjuboyhujbnj rlh

what????

[VTSkins897]

i voted 'great'

oh well