Give Props to Brunell

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

No. Thanks for asking though!

Niiiiice.

Really, you thought so? You don't say...

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.

Did Dallas make the right decision for them? Absolutely. Romo is growing into that QB roll. Don't even try comparing Bledsoe's season to Brunell's. It's not even remotely close.

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.

If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm'..ill get to that later), and while you would be correct in saying that statistics cannot isolate intangibles from talent, you'd be a fool to think a guy's intangibles don't play a huge part in his overall statistical production. If that wasn't true, how could a guy like Chad Pennington, who has a weak arm and no leg speed and a serious rotator cuff injury, put up good numbers year in and year out? Statistics look at the player as a whole, not a bunch of parts. Since you can't put Pennington's head on Favre's body anyway, it doesn't do any good to break a player's game down to the level of "cannon-arm". If you have a cannon-arm and are good, the stats will show it. If you have a cannon-arm and suck, then you are Rob Johnson.

Speaking of cannon-arm, wtf makes that an intangible. Intangibles are usually mental things if I'm not mistaken. I would describe cannon-arm as more of a tool. And if tools were the most important thing in a QB, every team would put their best athlete at that position.

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

No. That's an opinion. I learned that one in 4th grade (I was 10).

We aren't retarding his growth by not starting him, but for all intents and purposes, we would be conceeding the season.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

3-5. There, that was easy.

[GTripp0012]

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!

Uh huh. Good point. From here on out, I'm only going to respond if someone says something really ignorant.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

3-5. There, that was easy.

That's a TEAM STAT! Brunell is no more responsible for that stat than Warrick Holdman...in fact, probably less.

Hopefully that can be the final word...

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm' <SNIP>

OK, you missed the point ( I learned Not missing the point in Kindergarten) of what I was saying was an intangible.

Quote: ....and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring


Bringing in a QB that would give the team a charge. That's the intangible. Remember how Fed Ex felt when we started Ramsey? The place came alive, the team look re-energized. THAT'S the 'intangible' I'm talking about. Can't measure it (yet) but you can see the effect.

[illdefined]

if you've been reading my earlier posts, i have reluctantly conceded that Brunell shouldn't be benched soon because of the truly disheartening fact Jason Campbell hasn't even trained with the first team in consecutive days since he's been a Redskin. utterly tragic. i becried that sad little fact last week before the Dallas game. i was also impressed with Mark throwing over the middle and putting his INT ratio on the line to actually beat our hated rival last week.

so i hope that clears that up, but your last point, which seems kind of a sore point is a tough one. seems like you are all too cognizant of Brunell's limitations. please reconcile these last two statements by you.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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".

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 RedskinRat

OK, you missed the point ( I learned Not missing the point in Kindergarten) of what I was saying was an intangible.

Bringing in a QB that would give the team a charge. That's the intangible. Remember how Fed Ex felt when we started Ramsey? The place came alive, the team look re-energized. THAT'S the 'intangible' I'm talking about. Can't measure it (yet) but you can see the effect.

I remember it. Here's the difference. In 2004, the offense was horrible. It was energized...not the defense that was already playing well.

Do you remember how quickly that energy wore off, and how we really didn't get much better at all?

So you'd be willing to throw away a season if it meant for one quarter the guys could get excited and start jumping around? And as soon as McNabb throws a TD...it's gone again. Sure, all small chances of a playoff comeback are gone...but it least we had some fun BEFORE the game!

[RedskinRat]

Campbell > Ramsey + Brunell

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

so i hope that clears that up, but your last point, which seems kind of a sore point is a tough one. seems like you are all too cognizant of Brunell's limitations. please reconcile these last two statements by you.

Was going to give up the arguement, hopefully can do it after this post.

Those were two completely seperate points. In one I comment that last year we had a system built around Brunell. This year we have a system that has been successful with a different QB, and on the surface it appears that he's actually improved even though the offense isn't built for his strengths. This is based 100% on observation and really isn't saying anything on its own, just adding to that guy's playcalling point, which I agree with.

The other one is simply addressing what is an inconsistency between what you believe and what evidence says. You say that Brunells limitations are what make him a small-role player in the offense. But the offense itself on the surface appears to be unchanged. Therefore the QB role would be the same whether or not it is him or someone else. It is certainly not Brunell that makes the system. You drew up the point that his limitations make him a small role player to cover the gap in your belief that his stats are 100% product of system. I just can't see anyway that's probable, so I pointed that out. You stat it as if it was fact...but in reality I don't think its an even realistic statement.

That's the problem though. Without statistics, it's going to be my word vs your word.

[RobH4413]

At first glance, you'd think we just gave Brunell 20 pages of props....


so sad....


But seriously... why don't we all just agree to disagree?

A debate lasting mabye 4-5 pages.... makes sense... but 20!?!?... I'll admit I got sucked in back on page 16-17 area... but man.. this is nuts...

[SmootSmack]

F it. It's my birthday and I'm hijacking this bad boy (*note: thewarpath.net front office does not condone the hijacking behavior exhibited in this thread, but will let it slide....this time)

Favorite Sesame Street character. Go.

(I'm all about Oscar the Grouch, 2nd place-Cookie Monster, 3rd-Kermit the news reporter)

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You say that Brunells limitations are what make him a small-role player in the offense. But the offense itself on the surface appears to be unchanged. Therefore the QB role would be the same whether or not it is him or someone else. It is certainly not Brunell that makes the system. You drew up the point that his limitations make him a small role player to cover the gap in your belief that his stats are 100% product of system. I just can't see anyway that's probable, so I pointed that out. You stat it as if it was fact...but in reality I don't think its an even realistic statement.

That's the problem though. Without statistics, it's going to be my word vs your word.

well that's a pig part of what a discussion forum is. opinions and observations. as long as you recognize that stats aren't the final word on football you and i are good. and if you say they are still the best we have, then i'll begrudingly agree and just point to the most meaningful stat of them all. 3-5.

you've now opined yourself about Brunell's throwing ability and quick checkdowns. i argue that last week, Brunell put himself in a *bigger role in this offense* by not checking down so much, and throwing to his primary receivers downfield. so while his previous dump-offs to Ladell may have resulted in the same amount of NET yards, the KINDS of passes thrown are vitally important and have a bigger impact to the whole team and ultimately the final results of the game.

Brunell's shots downfield, made Dallas's defense cover the whole field, and allowed Portis more attempts (if not YPC). also, to Rat's point, Brunell's confidence 'energized' the offense. Lloyd's emotional block on the Portis run is a good example. Lloyd just may not have hit that guy so hard, if he hadn't gotten those passes thrown to him earlier in the game and felt involved. it's not a secret Lloyd didn't feel involved enough in this offense, net yards and offensive 'efficiency' be damned.

i'd also argue that seeing Brunell attacking the defense would even energize OUR defense. it's remarkable how leadership builds momentum, and when one part of the team suddenly starts fighting its guts out (vs safely collecting yards allowed to them) i'd dare say it motivates everyone on the team. thats why i remarked earlier that football is a game of emotion (is there a stat for 'momentum' - do you agree it exists?). anyway that's all opinion, no stats, but still worth saying. in my opinion.

[RedskinRat]

Sesame Street would have been so much better with a new line of characters. FACT!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

well that's a pig part of what a discussion forum is. opinions and observations. as long as you recognize that stats aren't the final word on football you and i are good. and if you say they are still the best we have, then i'll begrudingly agree and just point to the most meaningful stat of them all. 3-5.

you've now opined yourself about Brunell's throwing ability and quick checkdowns. i argue that last week, Brunell put himself in a *bigger role in this offense* by not checking down so much, and throwing to his primary receivers downfield. so while his previous dump-offs to Ladell may have resulted in the same amount of NET yards, the KINDS of passes thrown are vitally important and have a bigger impact to the whole team and ultimately the final results of the game.

Brunell's shots downfield, made Dallas's defense cover the whole field, and allowed Portis more attempts (if not YPC). also, to Rat's point, Brunell's confidence 'energized' the offense. Lloyd's emotional block on the Portis run is a good example. Lloyd just may not have hit that guy so hard, if he hadn't gotten those passes thrown to him earlier in the game and felt involved. it's not a secret Lloyd didn't feel involved enough in this offense, net yards and offensive 'efficiency' be damned.

i'd also argue that seeing Brunell attacking the defense would even energize OUR defense. it's remarkable how leadership builds momentum, and when one part of the team suddenly starts fighting its guts out (vs safely collecting yards allowed to them) i'd dare say it motivates everyone on the team. thats why i remarked earlier that football is a game of emotion (is there a stat for 'momentum' - do you agree it exists?). anyway that's all opinion, no stats, but still worth saying. in my opinion.

I actually agree with this post to the extent that football is a team game. That's cliche, but the reason we have the 3-5 record is that we have played only well enough to be a 3 or 4 win team. It's important to realize that one man is not responsible for the record, and that the whole team is. But if the goal is to fix it, then you have to find the problems. 3-5 isn't a problem...it's the product. That's why its a horrible arguement for benching MB.

You are 100% right with your diagnosis of the game as one rooted in emotion. It's why a team can beat another team on any given Sunday. It may very well be why we lost to Tennessee. But the funny thing about that is when you get emotionally dominated...you also get statistically dominated. Stats do not show the level of emotion, but they show what happened DUE to the emotion. They are not going to tell you why it happened, but they will tell you how it was executed. And if trying to dig deeper into why and how things happen makes me a stathead, then I'm guilty as charged. But I've been a football fan longer than ive been a staticisian, and stats will never be bigger than the game itself.

Outside of that, I think this is a very well written final word. Although I don't agree 100%, I'm willing to let the issue rest at this point. At least until next week when we inevitably disagree on MB's performace. It will be interesting to see what we have in store for the Eagles offensively.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

F it. It's my birthday and I'm hijacking this bad boy (*note: thewarpath.net front office does not condone the hijacking behavior exhibited in this thread, but will let it slide....this time)

Favorite Sesame Street character. Go.

(I'm all about Oscar the Grouch, 2nd place-Cookie Monster, 3rd-Kermit the news reporter)

Good golly!! Thank you TAFKAS!