Give Props to Brunell

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.

so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.

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.

then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.

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.

thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.

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.

YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.

again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.

just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?

yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Isn't this debate tired yet? We're at 270 posts and counting.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Isn't this debate tired yet? We're at 270 posts and counting.

Yeah seriously....


But atleast it's civil.

Personally, I stopped reading them once they got too long for my ADD.

[RedskinRat]

I feel partially responsible somehow

[illdefined]

and my first post in this thread was giving Brunell PROPS!

[GoSkins!]

i just think we should bring back ramsey

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

i just think we should bring back ramsey

hahaha...ur a sick puppy...he cant beat out Pennigton for a job...what a jerk-off.....

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Isn't this debate tired yet? We're at 270 posts and counting.

I agree! Let's just be happy we won against Dallas and hope for more wins regardless as how we get them.

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

i just think we should bring back ramsey

I could go for that.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by JGisLordOfTheRings

hahaha...ur a sick puppy...he cant beat out Pennigton for a job...what a jerk-off.....

Neither would Brunell.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

gibbs/musgrave 05 was a much better system for this talent.

No arguement here, in fact this is a great point. Saunders' system seems to be pretty universal, but its a far cry from the Gibbs/Musgrave system which taylored to Brunells strengths. I mean how often these days do you see Brunell throw that godly accurate touch pass? Pretty much never.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.

so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.




then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.



thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.



YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.

again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.

just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?

yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.

The reason I say "the Redskins rank 6th in offensive efficency" is because if I were to say "Washington is plus 12.5% DVOA through 8 games (true statement)," about three people on this fourm would know what the f I'm saying. Don't get me wrong, thats a very general 6. Just because we rank 1 spot ahead of the Patriots doesn't mean a person who says the Pats have a better offense is wrong...its too close to be certain.

I actually agree with your post up to a certain point, but I'm afraid you missed the main part of my point again. I'm not trying to call you out or anything. Let me simplify everything for a second. We are going to take Mark Brunell out of the equation. Lets examine this situation from the start.

Quarterback B is producing good stats this year, in a YAC based offense. Quarterback B played in a different, also YAC based offense in 2005. Quarterback B argueably should have been a pro bowler in 2005 due to a weak NFC QBing class. Quarterback B's numbers (in a different offense, but certainly no more YAC-based) have improved in 2006 over his fairly impressive 2005.

Some fans still think Quarterback B should be benched.

All of the above statements are either facts, or very reasonable assumptions. Now, it can be argued that I'm oversimplifying a situation. But no matter how bad the situation is being simplified, the final sentence seems to make absolutely no sense given the above statements. There is always going to be some reasoning to explain it, like offensive additions of godly talent at the wide receiver position that make Santana Moss look like a camp scrub, or that maybe the new offense is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the playcalling is made by Albert Einstein's son.

But no matter what you say, the final statement will still seem (and is of course) somewhat obsured. Maybe less obsured once you get the whole picture i.e. haven't missed a Redskin game since September 2003 like me, or much earlier like some of you. But obsured none the less.

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Theres strong statistical evidence to suggest Jason Campbell will become one of the better QBs in the NFL. But what can't be predicted is how he will play in his first few starts, which is what we are talking about when we say "bench Brunell." Espicially when Brunell is doing everything that's asked of him so far.

thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.

It's this kind of statement that hurts me when I read it. This is supposed to be your big knockout punch to me...and its reliant on the fact that I completely and utterly assume you correct when you say "Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense". Granted all the limitations are assumed ones (I would argue that they arent actually limitations at all), and YOU, illdefined, are giving reasoning that only Mark Brunell himself knows for sure (and maybe the coaches if there is a mass conspiracy going on). You simply don't have the knowledge necessary to make this statement. Thats not a personal attack, I don't either, as likely no one on this fourm does. But if that's your evidence for him "not cutting it", so be it...I have hundreds of relatively unbiased observations (just as good as yours) and a few key stats that says he is "cutting it".

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Are you saying that your assumptions are better than our assumtions?

Niiiiice.

Here's a hypothetical for you. A team with a struggling but proven Vet decides to bench said Vet. They go on to win their first game with their well versed but essentially 'new' QB. The next game they play away and come close to another victory. Was that a good decision? Should they go back to Bledsoe...bugger, I meant the hypothetical QB.

If anyone (other than the coaching staff, and please try to remember coaches can get it wrong) can truthfully say that Brunell is the only option for winning that we have I'd like to see their evidence. I don't want stats, you can make stats say anything and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring.

We need to start Campbell. That's a fact.

[SmootSmack]

You know what would be a nice birthday present? Putting this thread to sleep. It's giving me a headache. Some of these posts are like thesis papers!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

You know what would be a nice birthday present? Putting this thread to sleep. It's giving me a headache. Some of these posts are like thesis papers!

Thread Hell! Thread Hell! Thread Hell!