Post Dallas Mark Brunell Thread

Washington Redskins' Game Day discussions for 2003, 2004, and 2005
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11058
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:58 am

If Brunell isn't physically capable of running 3 or 4 yards for a first down then he shouldn't be in there.


That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.

Brunell's play wasn't great but it wasn't half as bad as the descriptions that I've seen on the board in the past week. Funny how Brunell criticizers lived off of statistics until about week 3-4 of this year, and since then their arguments have gotten weaker. . .

I think that the same thing applies to this week that applied to last week. If the coaches plan on starting Brunell--and it appears that they are--then (necessarily) Brunell gives us the best chance to win unless BOTH of the following conditions are true:

(1) The coaches are wrong about Campbell AND
(2) Campbell's chances of being a solid QB right away are pretty good.

Who gives us the best chance to win this upcoming week? I'd say Brunell, since I reject both of the points above.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:31 pm

Postby SkinzCanes » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:13 pm

That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.


We'll see how important mobility is when Brunell faces Philly's front 4 on Sunday. And it wasn't just once that Brunell failed to run for a first down. He did it twice in key situations against Dallas. If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8446
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:23 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.


Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).

When ST went down, the clock read 00:00, and we were on the 45.

Perhaps, we should start thanking Cowboys, since not one of our players had a role in our wins, eh Joe?? :roll:
Back and better than ever!

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8446
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:25 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:First of all, we aren't winning the Super Bowl this year.


Preserved for posterity. :wink:
Back and better than ever!

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8446
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:27 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.


Memo to SC: WE WON!!!!!

HTTR
Back and better than ever!

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11058
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:30 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.


We'll see how important mobility is when Brunell faces Philly's front 4 on Sunday. And it wasn't just once that Brunell failed to run for a first down. He did it twice in key situations against Dallas. If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.



Still don't think mobility is a crucial indicator for who should be starting. While it would be nice to have someone with Jason's ability to move in there, game management, decision-making, familiarity with the offense, and timing with receivers are all probably more important to the coaches in picking their starting QB. Mobility is certainly a factor, but it simply can't be the reason why you choose a starter in this case (unless all of those other factors are equal).
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: C.T. WV

Postby nuskins » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:36 pm

Run for a first down? Your joking right? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mark Brunell won't even run to avoid a sack, he just curls into the fetal position when the defender is yards away! The vast majority of his passes float high and hangs his WR's up in the air b/c he is throwing off his heels, or they thud into the turf about 5 yrds behind the target.

His play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.
Last edited by nuskins on Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13216
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:37 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:...I think that the same thing applies to this week that applied to last week. If the coaches plan on starting Brunell--and it appears that they are--then (necessarily) Brunell gives us the best chance to win unless BOTH of the following conditions are true:

(1) The coaches are wrong about Campbell AND
(2) Campbell's chances of being a solid QB right away are pretty good.

Who gives us the best chance to win this upcoming week? I'd say Brunell, since I reject both of the points above.


=D> FFA has asked this before and I have not seen it answered or countered - can someone please explain how this simple position is not clear to them? :hmm:

If that is the case then can we not just support our QB in this game this week?


There are a number of us who only want our team to be successful and if Gibbs thinks that Brunell gives him the best shot at that, then IMO, we or those of us who are fans AND want our team to succeed (there are some who obviously do not) should support the team.

It is really strange to hear some claim to be a fan and say that it is a shame we beat the pukes because somehow they think that means we will continue to "suffer" with Brunell as our QB - IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE - Gibbs and Saunders will put in Campbell when he gives them the best chance to win and BTW - you are not a true fan if you do not support your team
We are very fortunate to have Kirk Cousins but Griffin has a huge upside IMO

Robert needs to continue to get better and to do that he needs time on the field - hopefully sooner than later

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

Pushing Paper
Online
Posts: 4598
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:52 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
joebagadonuts wrote:Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.


Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).


Well, to be fair, out of 9 drives that started in our territory (and ignoring the end of half/end of game/safety ones), we only sustained 3 of them past 41 yards. We were incredibly inconsistent, and I had really no faith that we would be able to sustain a 60+ yard drive to score a field goal.

Just as a comparison, out of the Cowboys 10 drives, 6 went longer than 41 yards. They were able to sustain an offensive drive far better than us. If it went overtime, and the Cowboys won the flip, they win the game. If we won the flip, it'd honestly be a toss up in my opinion. So, I'd guess if it went into OT, the Cowboys win 66% of the time.

The big difference to me was QB play. Romo made a ton of plays, Brunell didn't. He didn't play awful, but he certainly wasn't the reason we won. And considering the poor play of our defense, we can't have a game manager at QB. We need a someone who can make plays and put points on the board, consistently, a playmaking QB. I don't know if JC is a playmaker, but I sure know that Brunell isn't.

Mmmm...donuts
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: How much text will they let me fit in this 'Location' space? I mean, can I just keep writing and wr

Postby joebagadonuts » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:58 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
joebagadonuts wrote:Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.


Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).


I meant 'ST' as in Special Teams, not Sean Taylor. My fault for not being specific.

Based on MB's performance during the latter half of regulation, I didn't have a whole lot of confidence that he could win the game for us, no. He made a couple of very nice throws early on (the one to Thrash over the middle was perfect), but I didn't see much good stuff later on when the game was to be won or lost.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Perhaps, we should start thanking Cowboys, since not one of our players had a role in our wins, eh Joe?? :roll:


I'll let my sig respond to that one.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13216
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:08 pm

nuskins wrote:...Mark Brunell's play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.


And you base this on what - there are only a few "veterans" with better ratings? He is here - he is the best starter we have or Gibbs would have a different starting QB.

Brunell has not won any games and more importantly he has not lost any games - this is a team game and he is doing what Gibbs wants - that might be a problem for a lot of fans but it is what it is and I hope he plays well this week. If you want him to play badly so we can get Campbell then I have to question your loyalty to the other members of the team.


Fortunately for me and I think a lot of others here, we happen to believe that the players are all hoping the other players on this team play well even though that means many of them are not actually participating because of that. We even have some who claim to be fans and want some of our players to get injured - that is really revealing - these are the people that you should be upset with, not the players :shock:

HTTR
We are very fortunate to have Kirk Cousins but Griffin has a huge upside IMO

Robert needs to continue to get better and to do that he needs time on the field - hopefully sooner than later

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:46 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
nuskins wrote:...Mark Brunell's play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.


And you base this on what - there are only a few "veterans" with better ratings? He is here - he is the best starter we have or Gibbs would have a different starting QB.

Brunell has not won any games and more importantly he has not lost any games - this is a team game and he is doing what Gibbs wants - that might be a problem for a lot of fans but it is what it is and I hope he plays well this week. If you want him to play badly so we can get Campbell then I have to question your loyalty to the other members of the team.


Fortunately for me and I think a lot of others here, we happen to believe that the players are all hoping the other players on this team play well even though that means many of them are not actually participating because of that. We even have some who claim to be fans and want some of our players to get injured - that is really revealing - these are the people that you should be upset with, not the players :shock:

HTTR


His play is not atrocious becuase of the ratings, but because we see him sucking.

I do not agree he is doing what Gibbs wants. We saw Gibbs for 12 years and he did everything with QBs. He did not say "dump off or throw it away" to anyone before and I don't believe he's saying that to Brunell now.

Gibbs won Superbowls with 3 QBs who were very different. But all could complete passes downfield and not just when receivers are wide open or steal sure INTs from DBs like Cooley and Lloyd had to do.

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13216
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:55 pm

Like the doctor said - tune in for another disapointing win this week against the Eagles :nana:
We are very fortunate to have Kirk Cousins but Griffin has a huge upside IMO

Robert needs to continue to get better and to do that he needs time on the field - hopefully sooner than later

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

#######
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:12 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
SkinzCanes wrote:...I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team?


Are you kidding?

The season is riding on Brunell's ability to lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl, and he's just getting over an injury that might have sidelined him, were it not for the extra week he got to rest, and you want him to go out there and potentially aggravate/worsen the injury???

Aside from just wanting to see JC in action, it makes no sense for Brunell to cut our season short by putting himself in harm's way, just so some fan can give him props on a message board.

Does it make sense to you?


If we lose because we can't move the ball and score points at critical points, doesn't THAT cut our season short? And don't give me 'But we won!', because that's avoiding the point. Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.


Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:31 pm

Postby SkinzCanes » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:19 pm


Still don't think mobility is a crucial indicator for who should be starting. While it would be nice to have someone with Jason's ability to move in there, game management, decision-making, familiarity with the offense, and timing with receivers are all probably more important to the coaches in picking their starting QB. Mobility is certainly a factor, but it simply can't be the reason why you choose a starter in this case (unless all of those other factors are equal).


That makes sense except for the fact that Brunell's game management isn't very good for a veteran qb and he hasn't really grasped the offense. There have been several articles about Brunell's struggles understanding the offense. I remember reading one is which the author cited several coaches as saying that Brunell wasn't reacting quickly enough after the snap and that's why he was having to throw underneath to his running backs isntead of downfield to his receivers. I could understand the argument if Brunell exhibited the charactersitcs of verteran qb: consistancy, leadership, good decision make, strong understanding of the offense, etc. But I haven't seen any of that from him yet this season.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell

Return to Washington Redskins Game Day - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006