Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

In the Colts, Giants, Cowboys, and Vikings games, the offense scored a total of 37 points, or about 9 points per game. Against NFC East opponents in two games, our offense has failed to score a touchdown and scored a whopping total of 6 points, or 3 points per game.

The defense is certainly awful and they are in a horrible state, but please don't act like Brunell is leading a good offense or the team would be running away with tons of wins if our defense could just get its act together. I don't care what Brunell's rating is, how many yards per play we are averaging, or any of those other meaningless stats. I care about how many points the defense is allowing and how many points the offense is scoring. The bottom line is that the offense isn't scoring squat and the defense is letting opponents score at will.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;233726]In the Colts, Giants, Cowboys, and Vikings games, the offense scored a total of 37 points, or about 9 points per game. Against NFC East opponents in two games, our offense has failed to score a touchdown and scored a whopping total of 6 points, or 3 points per game.

The defense is certainly awful and they are in a horrible state, but please don't act like Brunell is leading a good offense or the team would be running away with tons of wins if our defense could just get its act together. I don't care what Brunell's rating is, how many yards per play we are averaging, or any of those other meaningless stats. I care about how many points the defense is allowing and how many points the offense is scoring. The bottom line is that the offense isn't scoring squat and the defense is letting opponents score at will.[/QUOTE]

How many times have we been in the red zone this year? Just curious.

Anyhow, the problems lie across the board. I think the bigger [I]surprise[/I] though is the defense. Injuries and underachieving have unraveled that unit.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;233726]In the Colts, Giants, Cowboys, and Vikings games, the offense scored a total of 37 points, or about 9 points per game. Against NFC East opponents in two games, our offense has failed to score a touchdown and scored a whopping total of 6 points, or 3 points per game.

The defense is certainly awful and they are in a horrible state, but please don't act like Brunell is leading a good offense or the team would be running away with tons of wins if our defense could just get its act together. I don't care what Brunell's rating is, how many yards per play we are averaging, or any of those other meaningless stats. I care about how many points the defense is allowing and how many points the offense is scoring. The bottom line is that the offense isn't scoring squat and the defense is letting opponents score at will.[/quote]

Thank you. Blaming the defense for Brunell's inability to put points on the board is tired. Sure, if the defense hold the Vikings and Titans to one less score each, that'd be two more wins. God forbid Brunell has to lead one more scoring drive in each of those two games for two more wins. That's not his job or anything...

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;233735]How many times have we been in the red zone this year? Just curious.

Anyhow, the problems lie across the board. I think the bigger [I]surprise[/I] though is the defense. Injuries and underachieving have unraveled that unit.[/QUOTE]

The defense's struggles are definately more suprising than the offense's given its performance in years past. The defense's woes, however, are more understandable given the rash of injuries. Moreover, the offense has more playmakers than the defense. Any offense with Portis, Cooley, Moss, ARE, and Lloyd as their weapons should be dynamic and this one simply isn't. Go figure.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

i really fell like the d is just having an off year IMO, like the ravens last year (sort of)

go ravens! my 2nd favorite team (sort of)

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Southpaw;233737]Thank you. Blaming the defense for Brunell's inability to put points on the board is tired.[/quote]

Almost as tired as blaming Brunell for not keeping the defense off the field all game long.

Is it too much to ask the D to come up with a few 3 and outs or maybe a turnover? How about not giving up a score on every opening drive? Or giving up 3 TDs in one quarter?

We can't win with this defense, I don't care if we had McNabb or Manning. Even those guys can't win shootouts week in and week out.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

I don't think it's "this" defense. It's the injuries we've had. I bet that once we finally have both starting corners back, Griffin back and a healthy rotation of the rookies with Big Joe, the defense will begin to look dominant again. Add that to the fact that we play Dallas at HOME, where they most likely are starting a rookie QB and that's a recipe for the defense to start playing better.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;233842]Is it too much to ask the D to come up with a few 3 and outs or maybe a turnover? How about not giving up a score on every opening drive? Or giving up 3 TDs in one quarter?[/quote]

Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;233848]Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.[/QUOTE]

Well as has been said by many repeatedly here, the blame has to go all around.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Southpaw;233848]Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.[/quote]Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=TAFKAS;233850]Well as has been said by many repeatedly here, the blame has to go all around.[/quote]

Exactly.

I think most of us would agree there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yet the overwhelming amount of time and energy around here is spent talking about one position.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

I think for most of us, the jury is still out on whether it's Saunders ASKING Brunell to throw short, or if it's just Brunell not hitting the open guy. I would lean more towards him not hitting the open guy, because I just don't see Saunders calling so many dump off passes.

The defense can and will get fixed once the entire defense returns healthy. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, Brunell is the weak link in an otherwise strong chain.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;233856]Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?[/quote]

First of all, I didn't say he sucks, just that he's not getting it done. And moving the ball and accuracy are fine, but when he has less touchdowns than starts, throws a four yard pass on 3rd and 8 constantly, and skips the ball to open receivers, he's not holding up his end of the deal.

Oh, I almost forgot... 2-5.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

Yes. And I do have to say this for anyone who is a Brunell apologist. His stats look fine, but I would have to say that when a majority including: fans, sport writers, players and more say that he's not getting the job done, you'd tend to think that was true.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233856]Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?[/QUOTE]

GTripp,
how bout throwing to his number 2 and number 3 receiver? YES, he's accurate because he's "moving the ball" 5yds away to the runningback.

do you really think all of Al Saunder's plays are "throw to the runningback 5yds SHORT of the 1st down"? NO. that's all Brunell. his check down in light of not being able to evade blitzes and find and throw to the open guy PAST the 1st down marker. heaven forbid they'd be near the endzone.

sure some of those screens are set up, but those dump offs he keeps making are his emergency valve when HE thinks he can't make the play. THATS the part of the deal he's not holding up, MAKING THE PLAY.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Southpaw;233866]First of all, I didn't say he sucks, just that he's not getting it done. And moving the ball and accuracy are fine, but when he has less touchdowns than starts, throws a four yard pass on 3rd and 8 constantly, and skips the ball to open receivers, he's not holding up his end of the deal.

Oh, I almost forgot... 2-5.[/quote]Ok, my fault for misquoting you then. But still...

The four yard passes on 3rd and 8 are what I was referring to by changing the plays in the huddle. Obviously, he checks down because the main reciever is covered. So if there was a better play call, the intended reciever would be open, because a pre snap read determines where the ball is going to go against 3rd down pressure. So what normally happens is that teams blitz us on 3rd down, Brunell has time to look at one reciever which is taken away for a multitude of reasons, and he checks it down. Running routes like all curl or all slant versus the blitz would allow Brunell to pick a guy before the snap and deliver the ball...but we never use these plays on third down. I think Saunders is getting too creative on a down where a conversion is critical.

I should be fair. On the flip side of the coin, the offense is more efficient than last year because on first and second down, we are more creative in the passing game and when not facing a blitz, work the intermediate passing game quite well. That's a big perk with an Al Saunders offense. But vs a blitz, a check down is the only way to beat it if the intended reciever is covered. My theroy is consistent with those observations of Brunell looking at one guy and then checking down.

As for the fewer TD's than games played:
1. That's not even true. Brunell has 7 starts and 7 TD passes.
2. Clinton Portis is second in the league with 6 TD runs. You can't score more than one TD a drive, so who the hell in their right mind would penalize the QB for a TD scored in the rushing game. Such I believe is the fundamental flaw of QB rating as a stat (which Brunell still ranks high in this season).

I don't remember him skipping a ball in since the Dallas game, which is pretty impressive for any QB. Then again, I was following the Tennessee game on radio, so I have no visuals from that game whatsoever.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;233870]Yes. And I do have to say this for anyone who is a Brunell apologist. His stats look fine, but I would have to say that when a majority including: fans, sport writers, players and more say that he's not getting the job done, you'd tend to think that was true.[/QUOTE]

what stats, his completion ratio??

the stats bubbling up by the Brunell apologists are *very* selective. it's not hard to complete passes when they're deep behind the line of schrimmage, and last time i checked "Touchdowns" was also a stat. why aren't those ever mentioned by the apologists? how bout first downs?

another stat not mentioned by them is YAC, they'll state Brunell's yards sure, but completely discount how much of those were by the receiver.

there's a reason why Moss got into the pro-bowl last year, and his QB didn't.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

Yeah....let's not use facts in support of a logical argument here.

</sarc>

Brunell has been bad. No two ways about it.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233883]do you really think all of Al Saunder's plays are "throw to the runningback 5yds SHORT of the 1st down"? NO. that's all Brunell. his check down in light of not being able to evade blitzes and find and throw to the open guy PAST the 1st down marker. heaven forbid they'd be near the endzone.[/quote]No, I do however think that is the SECOND option on many of them. If you watch how often Trent Green used to check down, it makes a lot of sense.

Fine, he's too old to evade the blitz (even though he still can at times). Campbell doesn't yet have that level of pocket presence, and he's not exactly known for his mobility.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=TenandSix:Unacceptable;233381][I][I]Quote:[/I]
[I]Originally Posted by [B]TenandSix:Unacceptable[/B] [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/15165-qb-defense-whats-bigger-problem-post233291.html#post233291"][IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL] [/I]
[I][I]ANYONE WHO SAYS DEFENSE IS WRONG. [/I]
[I]DEAD WRONG![/I]

Have you been paying any attention to the missed tackles? The blown coverages? The injuries?[/I]


[/I]
[I]Have you been paying attention to football teams with good QB´s?[/I]

[I]Essentially because of Joe Gibbs and Trent Dilfer, some people actually try to win without a franchise QB. Let´s look back at the last 20 years or so, shall we? Who wins superbowls?[/I]

[I]Ben Rothlisberger[/I]
[I]Brady times three[/I]
[I]Brad Johnson[/I]
[I]Trent Dilfer[/I]
[I]Kurt Warner[/I]
[I]John Elway times two[/I]
[I]Brett Favre[/I]
[I]Troy Aikman times three[/I]
[I]Steve Young[/I]
[I]Mark Rypien[/I]
[I]Jeff Hostetler[/I]
[I]Joe Montana times two[/I]
[I]Doug Williams[/I]
[I]Phil Simms[/I]

[I]Now, my point is, that out of the last twenty SB winners, 15 were won with franchise QB´s. That´s 75%. It´s no coincidence that the teams with franchise QB´s are consistantly in it, year after year. The Redskins QB´s, Rypien and Williams, had solid if not spectacular careers, but had incredible SB performances. Dilfer is another QB on the list who had done very little else in his career. Hostetler and Johnson had solid careers but weren´t franchise QB´s. Warner is the lowest rated in my opinion out of the Franchise group. But he went again two years later and lost in an upset to a young guy named Brady. He bloomed late, and luckily for the Rams they cut him as soon as his skills had diminished. To me, what most of you are trying to say is that you´d rather take the Gibbsian approach to winning. Build the team around the QB first thinking that we can win it with a servicable QB who gets hot as the team around him peaks. Obviously, as Gibbs is our coach again, it makes sense to me and has the ring of foolishness to suggest otherwise. However, just imagine if we had a franchise QB? Would you trade that player for all the players and the members of the coaching staff of the #1 defense in the league? Do you trade Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for the Bears D? Absolutely not. [/I]

[I]Let me repeat that: ABSOLUTELY NOT![/I]

[I]So, my point is that it all starts with a QB. Perhaps in other places the need is not quite as dire as it is here for us here in Skinsland. We haven´t had a franchise QB for decades and it is time to make that priority number one.[/I]

[/quote]
im just going to throw htis out there but YES! defenses win superbowls want an example the ravens? and now im willing to place money the bears take it this year.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233888]
The four yard passes on 3rd and 8 are what I was referring to by changing the plays in the huddle. Obviously, he checks down because the main reciever is covered. So if there was a better play call, the intended reciever would be open, because a pre snap read determines where the ball is going to go against 3rd down pressure. So what normally happens is that teams blitz us on 3rd down, Brunell has time to look at one reciever which is taken away for a multitude of reasons, and he checks it down. [/QUOTE]

that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233893]No, I do however think that is the SECOND option on many of them. If you watch how often Trent Green used to check down, it makes a lot of sense.

Fine, he's too old to evade the blitz (even though he still can at times). Campbell doesn't yet have that level of pocket presence, and he's not exactly known for his mobility.[/QUOTE]

right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233902]he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"[/quote]

If I had a signature quote, I'd have to use that. Friggin classic.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233891]what stats, his completion ratio??

the stats bubbling up by the Brunell apologists are *very* selective. it's not hard to NOT complete passes when they're deep behind the line of schrimmage, and last time i checked "Touchdowns" was also a stat. why aren't those ever mentioned by the apologists? how bout first downs?

another stat not mentioned by them is YAC, they'll state Brunell's yards sure, but completely discount how much of those were by the receiver.

there's a reason why Moss got into the pro-bowl last year, and his QB didn't.[/quote]I'll give you Touchdowns. This offense has scored 14 TDs thus far and has rushed for more TDs than any team save San Diego.

It's stupid to seperate passing TDs from rushing TDs since if the team gets into the endzone, the QB has done his job. Likewise, a passing TD shouldnt take away from a RBs accomplishments. I think the NFL should use total TD's in their QB rating stat or there will continue to be an extra varible in it.

Anyway, we are in the top 10 in scoring offense anyway (7th in efficiency), so I fail to see what you are trying to say in this arguement.

The reason why you don't ever get first downs is because those stats arent easily accessable. But first downs are a big part of football outsider's DVOA rankings (something I really buy into if you follow my posts), in which we are 7th in the NFL through the first 7 weeks.

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/24/ramblings/dvoa-rankings/4443/]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/url]

As far as YAC goes, we play in a YAC based offense. The arguement of the WRs collecting yards for the QBs statsheet directly contradicts the complaint of check downs being a negative play. We do have a YAC based offense. Whether Brunell or Campbell or Collins plays, WRs will get YAC for us. So unless you also want the offense changed with the QB, its seems pretty moot to trash MB's statline because of the offensive system he's in.

The efficiency ratings above do account for that stuff though.

The reason why Moss got into the Pro Bowl and Brunell didn't is simply because Michael Vick did get in following a disappointing year. Moss probably wouldn't have made it with Ramsey at QB...but then again I guess it's a completely useless arguement since the offense is new this year.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=That Guy;233511]well, for that game it was a garbage TD against prevent, and you need a LOT of points to beat peyton (usually). in our losses, our offense hasn't been getting it done either, even though the jacksonville, houston, and end of the indy game pad the stats. 3 of those 4 games weren't even close on either side of the ball.[/quote]

I'm not saying the offense is fantastic. I'm saying that even if the offense was clicking they would struggle to win games because the defense can't stop anyone. I don't think some people realize how bad the defense is right now. They are one of the worst groups in the League right now - and getting worse every week.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233902]right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"[/quote]Every time we complete a pass short of the first down marker, we hurt our offensive DVOA. Yet we still rank 7th in the league. This tells me that this does not happen as frequently as the Brunell-haters think it does.

I'm not sure a strong arm and long-range efficiency are a good fit in this offense. It's something that may be an improvement over Brunell, but at what cost? Expierience, short-range accuracy, pocket presence, probably a bit of pre LOS mobility. A lot of things that keep this offense moving.

There ARE offensive issues. We don't score nearly as many points as our efficiency would dictate. Of course, the statistical solution is to create a bigger sample size, in which points would theroretically balance out. So our biggest offensive problem, if not inconsistent line play, is a lack of fortune.

Some people on this fourm are under the impression that a QB change would fix some of our offensive problems. It would create a few more than we already have. Inevitably, we would fall out of the top 10 in efficiency as Campbell learns the ins and outs of the NFL game.

It MIGHT soften Campbell's learning curve to play him now, but this is a bad situation. I would hope that the defense can get rolling soon, and the line begins to play better. If that happens and we find ourselves out of the race in December, then give JC a chance to succeed and win some games in a good situation.

This is anything but a good situation, and Brunell has done a pretty solid job holding this toghether, even if he's errored on the cautious side (which is pure speculation at this point).

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233914]I'll give you Touchdowns. This offense has scored 14 TDs thus far and has rushed for more TDs than any team save San Diego.

It's stupid to seperate passing TDs from rushing TDs since if the team gets into the endzone, the QB has done his job. Likewise, a passing TD shouldnt take away from a RBs accomplishments. I think the NFL should use total TD's in their QB rating stat or there will continue to be an extra varible in it. [/QUOTE]

clever way of making our offense seem awesome, but i agree with you in that rushing TDs are just as important. a real offense is both. how do we fare in combined TDs?

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233914]Anyway, we are in the top 10 in scoring offense anyway (7th in efficiency), so I fail to see what you are trying to say in this arguement.[/QUOTE]

again, what's 'efficiency'? sounds fishy for 'completion ratio'

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233914]The reason why you don't ever get first downs is because those stats arent easily accessable. But first downs are a big part of football outsider's DVOA rankings (something I really buy into if you follow my posts), in which we are 7th in the NFL through the first 7 weeks.

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/24/ramblings/dvoa-rankings/4443/]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/url]

As far as YAC goes, we play in a YAC based offense. The arguement of the WRs collecting yards for the QBs statsheet directly contradicts the complaint of check downs being a negative play. We do have a YAC based offense. Whether Brunell or Campbell or Collins plays, WRs will get YAC for us. So unless you also want the offense changed with the QB, its seems pretty moot to trash MB's statline because of the offensive system he's in.

The efficiency ratings above do account for that stuff though.

The reason why Moss got into the Pro Bowl and Brunell didn't is simply because Michael Vick did get in following a disappointing year. Moss probably wouldn't have made it with Ramsey at QB...but then again I guess it's a completely useless arguement since the offense is new this year.[/QUOTE]

thanks for the link. yes, i'm well aware we have a YAC based offense. god knows. it puts the onus on the WR and not the QB, thats the reason Brunell wasn't a serious pro-bowl consideration.

i consider expecting YAC to get us a first down on 3rd and long an extremely bad offensive strategy (especially when the defense knows its coming and encourages it) as do most of the fans, and published NFL pundits and commentators everywhere. don't you wonder WHY our offense is YAC based? it wasn't a staple of Gibbs era offense, it seems like an offense directly tailored to the limitations of our starting QB.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233896]that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....[/quote]No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;233932]No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.[/quote]


Did you see how the Colts defense played the check down in the 2nd half?

A bet the remaining teams on the schedule will play it the same way.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

GTripp,

I just wanted to say that, although we differ in our evaluations of the offense, you make some good points. It's also nice to see someone actually articulate reasonable bases for their opinions instead of simply saying, "you're an idiot," "you're ignorant," or "I'm right and you're wrong."

I do not think that Brunell is a bad QB; he's pretty accurate in his short-game, he doesn't throw a lot of picks, he's smart, he's classy, and he's done relatively well considering the constant turnover in the coaching staff and offensive personnel. So, unlike some others, I do not believe that Brunell is the worst quarterback we've seen or the cause of all of our offensive struggles. Moreover, I also agree that our defense is playing worse than our offense and shares a lot of the blame for our record.

However, I think now is the time to replace Brunell. If we had a reasonable chance of making the playoffs, I would say that we should stick with Brunell as he gives us a better chance of winning than Campbell. However, because our post-season hopes are all but mathematically over and Brunell isn't getting any younger, it's time for JC to see the field. Campbell will probably throw more picks, make poor drive-killing plays, and struggle more than Brunell, but he's our future and now's a good time to start working towards next season.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233929]clever way of making our offense seem awesome, but i agree with you in that rushing TDs are just as important. a real offense is both. how do we fare in combined TDs?



again, what's 'efficiency'? sounds fishy for 'completion ratio'



thanks for the link. yes, i'm well aware we have a YAC based offense. god knows. it puts the onus on the WR and not the QB, thats the reason Brunell wasn't a serious pro-bowl consideration.

i consider expecting YAC to get us a first down on 3rd and long an extremely bad offensive strategy (especially when the defense knows its coming and encourages it) as do most of the fans, and published NFL pundits and commentators everywhere. don't you wonder WHY our offense is YAC based? it wasn't a staple of Gibbs era offense, it seems like an offense directly tailored to the limitations of our starting QB.[/quote]Our scoring offense is 10th in the NFL. Not bad, but you have teams like Dallas above us, and look at their efficiency rating. It's not even close. In a sport where points are scored 7 at a time, its tough to use total points at this point in the season to evaluate an offense. But we have scored 14 TDs through 7 games, and that I assume is good for league average, at least, despite some hard luck.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233932]No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.[/QUOTE]

it's still a check down correct? the non-primary read. the "covered" argument starkly remains.

does this elusive 'efficiency' stat reflect combined TDs, redzone scoring and W-Ls? (i know that last one is heavily defense dependent)

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;233935]GTripp,

I just wanted to say that, although we differ in our evaluations of the offense, you make some good points. It's also nice to see someone actually articulate reasonable bases for their opinions instead of simply saying, "you're an idiot," "you're ignorant," or "I'm right and you're wrong."

I do not think that Brunell is a bad QB; he's pretty accurate in his short-game, he doesn't throw a lot of picks, he's smart, he's classy, and he's done relatively well considering the constant turnover in the coaching staff and offensive personnel. So, unlike some others, I do not believe that Brunell is the worst quarterback we've seen or the cause of all of our offensive struggles. Moreover, I also agree that our defense is playing worse than our offense and shares a lot of the blame for our record.

If we had a reasonable chance of making the playoffs, I would say that we should stick with Brunell as he gives us a better chance of winning than Campbell. However, because our post-season hopes are all but mathematically over and Brunell isn't getting any younger, it's time for JC to see the field. Campbell will probably throw more picks, make poor drive-killing plays, and struggle more than Brunell, but he's our future and now's a good time to start working towards next season.[/quote]First off, thanks for the kind words. After two days of the me vs the world treatment (which I knew I was getting into), it means a lot.

The basis of my desire to argue my point over and over stems from the fact that the Redskins have a QB who should have been a probowler in 2005, that's tough to dispute without defending disappointing seasons from both Delhomme and Vick. This man came under scrutiny in the offseason for seemingly no reason, and played average out of the gate, prompting the world to fall on his shoulders. Since then, hidden game's and FO's stats show that Al Saunders and Mark Brunell are doing their part for the Redskins to be a much better than 2-5 team.

I continue to press the arguement for this reason: We trail the first place Giants by 2.5 games. We have 9 games left. They have 10. One in FedEX. Not only are we not as out of it as we have been led to believe, but I think the Redskins have a better chance to catch the G Men than the Cowboys do, and maybe even Phili who still has to play that string of three road divisional games in a row which will be brutal. I don't expect the Giants to encounter clear sailing, so I believe the Redskins should start trying to accumulate victories with Dallas, and see if they can't string something toghether. Get back to 5-6 or even 6-5. They have a tough schedule, but all of the difficult games (save Phili) are at home. When was the last time they weren't at least [I]IN[/I] a game at home. Maybe once or twice in 2004, maybe. We are competitive at home vs anyone. So why not string a few games toghether and make a playoff push? Winning will fix all of our problems, the key is to get the first one.

So I guess that's the ONLY place where I disagree with you Sheriff. You see it as Campbell time, and I see it as do or die time for this team. If the offense keeps doing what its doing, and the defense improves and gets healthy, why not the Skins in 2006?

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=illdefined;233937]it's still a check down correct? the non-primary read. the "covered" argument starkly remains.

does this elusive 'efficiency' stat reflect combined TDs, redzone scoring and W-Ls? (i know that last one is heavily defense dependent)[/quote]It's a play by play breakdown of offensive production compared to the league average in a certain situation. It's point based, and has been refined over the years. Basically if the Redskins are in a 3rd and 10 (adjusted for the team they are playing), there is a certain league expectation for an offense on 3rd and 10. They are to convert a certain percentage of the time, and they are supposed to average a certain number of yards on the play. Over the course of a game, if they convert a number of first downs thats above league expectation and average more yards per play than league expectation, their DVOA stat for the game will be positive.

W-L is not a factor. The idea is to go beyond the game and see why teams are winning and losing.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

Qb [size=6]mark Brunell Sucks [/size]
[size=6][/size]
[size=6]enough Said[/size]

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=0421kidwell;233942]Qb [SIZE=6]mark Brunell Sucks [/SIZE]

[SIZE=6]enough Said[/SIZE][/quote]Thanks for your two cents.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=61cad;233934]Did you see how the Colts defense played the check down in the 2nd half?

A bet the remaining teams on the schedule will play it the same way.[/quote]I hope your right. Then there won't be enough guys to bracket the intended reciever in blitz situations. First down, Redskins.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=TenandSix:Unacceptable;233381][I][I]Quote:
Originally Posted by [B]TenandSix:Unacceptable[/B] [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/15165-qb-defense-whats-bigger-problem-post233291.html#post233291"][IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[I]ANYONE WHO SAYS DEFENSE IS WRONG.
DEAD WRONG![/I]

Have you been paying any attention to the missed tackles? The blown coverages? The injuries?[/I]
[I] [/I]
[I] [/I]
[/I]
[I]Have you been paying attention to football teams with good QB´s?[/I]
[I] [/I]
[I]Essentially because of Joe Gibbs and Trent Dilfer, some people actually try to win without a franchise QB. Let´s look back at the last 20 years or so, shall we? Who wins superbowls?[/I]
[I] [/I]
[I]Ben Rothlisberger[/I]
[I]Brady times three[/I]
[I]Brad Johnson[/I]
[I]Trent Dilfer[/I]
[I]Kurt Warner[/I]
[I]John Elway times two[/I]
[I]Brett Favre[/I]
[I]Troy Aikman times three[/I]
[I]Steve Young[/I]
[I]Mark Rypien[/I]
[I]Jeff Hostetler[/I]
[I]Joe Montana times two[/I]
[I]Doug Williams[/I]
[I]Phil Simms[/I]
[I] [/I]
[I]Now, my point is, that out of the last twenty SB winners, 15 were won with franchise QB´s. That´s 75%. It´s no coincidence that the teams with franchise QB´s are consistantly in it, year after year. The Redskins QB´s, Rypien and Williams, had solid if not spectacular careers, but had incredible SB performances. Dilfer is another QB on the list who had done very little else in his career. Hostetler and Johnson had solid careers but weren´t franchise QB´s. Warner is the lowest rated in my opinion out of the Franchise group. But he went again two years later and lost in an upset to a young guy named Brady. He bloomed late, and luckily for the Rams they cut him as soon as his skills had diminished. To me, what most of you are trying to say is that you´d rather take the Gibbsian approach to winning. Build the team around the QB first thinking that we can win it with a servicable QB who gets hot as the team around him peaks. Obviously, as Gibbs is our coach again, it makes sense to me and has the ring of foolishness to suggest otherwise. However, just imagine if we had a franchise QB? Would you trade that player for all the players and the members of the coaching staff of the #1 defense in the league? Do you trade Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for the Bears D? Absolutely not. [/I]
[I] [/I]
[I]Let me repeat that: ABSOLUTELY NOT![/I]
[I] [/I]
[I]So, my point is that it all starts with a QB. Perhaps in other places the need is not quite as dire as it is here for us here in Skinsland. We haven´t had a franchise QB for decades and it is time to make that priority number one.[/I]
[I] [/I]
[I] [/I][/QUOTE]

Dude your wrong.
Look at the facts:

Two of the greatest Franchise QB's of all time Dan Marino and Peyton Manning have ZERo Superbowl Wins between them. What do they have in common? They both played for teams with shitty defenses!
Another one, John Elway was crushed in every superbowl he was in, until late in his career when the Broncos developed a good defense and ran the ball with Terrell Davis who rushed for 158 yds and named MVP of Sb 32.
Defense wins championships and you do not win a super bowl with out a good defense. There has rarely, if ever been a super bowl winner that did not have at least a top five defense. Even the Greatest Show on Turf the St. Louis Rams super bowl teams had a top 5 defense statistically.

Regarding Frachise Qb's:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood Franchise QB by definition means (1) he was a high draft pick then (2) developed in to a great QB. John Elway Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning,Steve Young and Ben Roethlisberger are or were franchise QB's.
Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson are not what you would consider Franchise QB's early in their careers. They might have become one after they won a SB. But Tom Brady was 6th round pick 199th over all. He was not considered a Franchise QB until after they won their second SB.

Bottom Line:
There have been more teams that have had strong Defenses and mediocre QB's win the SB than Great QB's with mediocre defenses. FACT.

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;233946]Thanks for your two cents.[/quote]

that was worth about .5 cents

Re: QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;233950]I hope your right. Then there won't be enough guys to bracket the intended reciever in blitz situations. First down, Redskins.[/QUOTE]

ah, but then we get back into what Brunell considers "open". his reflex so far has been to check down immediately, and defenses have done everything to encourage this, because they know how to stop it.

Brunell is well documented to avoid throwing to the middle of the field (BEFORE Saunders), so teams do the ideal defense against that tendency, the ubiquitous Cover-2. the safeties bracket the outside recievers toward the sidelines, where Brunell does throw often (to avoid INTs surely) and essentially double cover his number 1 and 2.

1 LB covers Cooley (or the Nickelback covers ARE in 3 WR sets), if Cooley stays in to max protect that LB becomes a pass rusher. the other LB goes on a blitz to make Brunell dump it off/and or occupy the dump off in a block, remember both his WRs are bracketed under and over already...

since Brunell won't throw to the middle of the field, the middle linebacker doesn't need to run up and cover the gap left by the safeties. instead he can stay on a spy near the line to stop the dump off, or the 'surprise' draw or double cover Cooley if need be.

it's what defenses have been doing to us like clockwork this whole season. i cant see if our WRs are taking middle of the field routes, but i definitely know Brunell isn't throwing there. defenses are taking advantage of Brunell's tendencies and dictating exactly what we get. while you can call him 'efficient' you can also call him dangerously predictable.