Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Paintrain;431913]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. [/quote]Obvious only to the ignorant, as I will defend below.

[quote=BrunellMVP?;431923]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).[/quote]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=Paintrain;431913]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.[/quote]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=Slingin Sammy 33;431933]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.[/quote]I was actually quoting [URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff2005.php"]DVOA[/URL], but you can use passing yards [B]as long as you remember to divide by the number of attempts. [/B] 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)

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;431965]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)- [B]fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.[/B][/quote]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.

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.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;431973]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.[/quote]

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...

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.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Daseal;431979]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.[/quote]


I'll laugh if your kids once say that exact same statement to you when you get old. :)

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;431982]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...[/quote]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.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;431986]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Paintrain;431992]The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG..[/quote]I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;432000]I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.[/QUOTE]
You're right, if you're comparing grapes to grapefruits.. Campbell's career is just beginning and Brunell's was over before he got here so that's a brilliant conclusion that Campbell's career is over. C'mon dude, use common sense in making your point or refuting mine..

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Paintrain;432012]You're right, if you're comparing grapes to grapefruits.. Campbell's career is just beginning and Brunell's was over before he got here so that's a brilliant conclusion that Campbell's career is over. C'mon dude, use common sense in making your point or refuting mine..[/quote]Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

[quote=Paintrain;431992]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.[/quote]Your words, not mine.

I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard. Bottom line...

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

It's begginning to sound like Brunell is still here!

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;432015]Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

Your words, not mine.

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :argue::cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

yes brunell was the man so its natural for everyone to like him, but i think everyone on this board forgot about just how bad brunell's game was. Aside from the Dallas and Jacsonville game I cant think of any really nice throws he made. Yeah he made the playoffs but he had a good running game and defense to back him up. This is how i will remember Mark Brunell in DC. three step drop, roll out, throw away. and dont forget about his other signature play. 3 step drop, defender in face, lays down.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Paintrain;432021]Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :argue::cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

[B] But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.[/B][/quote]Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement, but I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is to say that all you care about is wins. First of all, you have too much rep on this site for that to be true.

Secondly, as I posted (edited) above I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard...all of which suggest that Campbell is far beyond where Ramsey was at that point in his career.

I'm trying to give you a hard time here. Not because you didn't respect what Brunell did here, I could care less. Only because you resorted to oversimplifying an intelligent argument, and that's a pet peeve of mine.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

Good Luck MB thanks for the years of hard work even though I didn't like him as our QB I always respected him.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;432024]Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement, but I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is to say that all you care about is wins. First of all, you have too much rep on this site for that to be true.

Secondly, as I posted (edited) above I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard...all of which suggest that Campbell is far beyond where Ramsey was at that point in his career.

I'm trying to give you a hard time here. Not because you didn't respect what Brunell did here, I could care less. Only because you resorted to oversimplifying an intelligent argument, and that's a pet peeve of mine.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, thanks for keeping me on task.. I'll learn that once I broach the 3500 post mark!

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=bigm29;432023]yes brunell was the man so its natural for everyone to like him, but i think everyone on this board forgot about just how bad brunell's game was. Aside from the Dallas and Jacsonville game I cant think of any really nice throws he made. Yeah he made the playoffs but he had a good running game and defense to back him up. This is how i will remember Mark Brunell in DC. three step drop, roll out, throw away. and dont forget about his other signature play. 3 step drop, defender in face, lays down.[/quote]
Ok, I'm not a big fan of MB (the QB) but to say the Dallas and Jacks were the only nice throws he had is stretching it a bit. MB was showing age when he played for us but he was not a tatal bust but we could have done better with the money we spent on him.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

Im sad to see him go to be honest.......

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

He will be a reliable backup in NO but Brees is a ticking time bomb with his shoulder and Brunell, although descent, is pushing 60 so who is next in line? they need depth at QB and WR or else they will be the Saints of yesteryear soon enough.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;431986]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.[/quote]

Very solid points across the board. Hindsight is 20/20 (easy for me to sit here in 2008 and play 2004 GM) - your well reasoned alternative views were refreshing...Note- there is very little chance I can be convince that Brunell wasn't a failure (wins, losses, salary, opportunity costs, stats, firmness of handshake, etc)- but i don't think we have much left to dispute- I'm not sure we we couldn't sign him without a lesser pick or on the open market- but that is semantics.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

I totally agree, mark was a good steady QB in his time but his time has passed. he lost a lot of his bottle maybe a team like the saints may suit him better.

BTW i'm a new member. Does the forum have an introduction thread?

Thanks

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

Good luck to MB. Hopefully Saints fans will appreciate him a bit more than Skins fans have.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Posse;434398]I totally agree, mark was a good steady QB in his time but his time has passed. he lost a lot of his bottle maybe a team like the saints may suit him better.

BTW i'm a new member. [B]Does the forum have an introduction thread?[/B]

Thanks[/quote]

We don't but welcome!

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

many thanks

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

[quote=Paintrain;431843]Did we watch the same Brunell? He had about 7 decent games in a Redskins uniform in almost 3 years as a starter.. He'll go down as one of the WORST QB we've had, especially since he was a veteran who was supposed to come in and lead the offense.. He may be a great guy, but he was done when he got here, sucked while he was here and I'm glad he's no longer here. Good riddance.[/quote]

In 04 he was as bad as anyone we've ever had. But he played well through most of 05. He's better than Tony Banks, Danny W. Tim H. and Shane Matthews. People just didn't seem to realize that at this point of his career Brunell was no longer the playmaker he was in Jack. His stats are decent but when you have 3-9 and check it down for a 6 yard pass it's good for your stats, but it doesn't do jack to help you score and move the chains. But he a class act and a team guy and I wish him well.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

PLEASE LETS CLOSE THIS THREAD!

Waste of time! Im glad he had a few games for us, but he was some overall trash. He makes room for something good to happen now that we don't to worry about him ever stepping onto the field as Redskin anymore.

Re: Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.
 

Saints sign Joey Harrington....as for MB? Time to call it a career.

SAINTS SIGN HARRINGTON
Posted by Mike Florio on September 19, 2008, 12:59 p.m.

In a move that might say a lot about the team’s confidence (or lack of it) in Mark Brunell as the backup to Drew Brees, the Saints have signed veteran quarterback Joey Harrington, according to Adam Schefter of NFLN.

Harrington is in New Orleans and will travel to Denver for the team’s game on Sunday against the Broncos.

He was the third overall pick in the 2002 draft, and he has generated a career passer rating of 69.4 via 76 NFL starts. Harrington has started at least 10 games in every season of his pro career.

After four years with the Lions, Harrington spent 2006 with the Dolphins and 2007 with the Falcons.