Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Huddle
You are correct that the Browns decision to platoon was more obvious than ours.
In the foregoing quote, you conclude that "We have a QB that has taken us to the playoffs."
Many of us didn't see that. With the exception of the Tampa Bay game, I saw a passing game that tanked after the San Francisco blowout, one that couldn't move the chains even against defenses like the Rams and Cards.
Of the several reasons to account for the dropoff in production, one was that defenses caught up with Mark Brunell's game which is very limited at this point in his career. As an earlier poster noted, there is doubt whether Brunell will be helped by additional receivers.
I thought a surging defense creating turnovers, heavy reliance on an improved running game, and a very good special teams performance down the stretch got us to the playoffs.
|
A passing game that tanked after the SF game?
Really?
Let's look at the facts.
A week later he had a horrible game against the Giants, but then again nobody played well that day.
Two weeks later against the Eagles he threw for 224 yards and was 21 of 29.
A week later he threw for 226 yards and 2 TDs against the Bucs in that wild shootout.
Against SD he was 17 of 27 for 194 yards and 1 TD.
Against the Rams he was a very efficient 14 of 21 for 156 yards and 1 TD, a game in which the Skins switched to a commitment to pounding the football.
Against the Cardinals he did struggle.
But he bounced back against Dallas with 4 TDs.
Against the Giants, (the game in which he got hurt which effectively changed the course of his season), he was 7 of 11 for 112 yards and a TD before going down.
If you ask me, there is clear correlation between his injury and the way he played the remainder of the season. Plus you add in the fact Portis was banged up and rendered ineffective in the playoffs and that only added to the passing game struggles.
So in conclusion, the passing game certainly didn't tank after the SF game, it tanked after he got injured.