Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Huddle
Mark Brunell said that the hamstring injury in 2004 wasn't that much of a factor in his lackluster performance that year. My sense is that his strong supporters make the injury theory more of a factor than it really is when assessing Mark's performance. I regard it as a minor factor.
The major factor is his age and the accumulated wear and tear on his body.
In his prime, Brunell's game might be compared to Michael Vick's, a threat to run or pass especially when rolling left. He's not that much of a threat anymore even when he's 100%.
|
Brunell talked down his hamstring injury in 2004, but I don't think anyone can deny something was drastically hurting his play that year. The Mark Brunell from 2004 was not the Brunell of 2005, or compared to any other year in his career.
After the second Giants game in 2005 he was once again very clearly hampered by his injury. His play dropped off drastically and we saw shades of the 2004 Brunell.
This quote from Gibbs is an indicator that Brunell's leg injuries are a concern:
Quote:
|
"Mark's in good shape for his age, [but] his legs are a concern. [We want to] add some things to the offseason program for him from a flexibility standpoint."
|
Brunell isn't the same QB when his legs are bothering him. He's never had a rocket arm, so much like a finese pitcher in baseball, take away his legs and you have a QB that loses his accuracy and velocity.