Mattyk72
Quote:
|
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.
|
The 2004 Gibbs offensive scheme was the major problem. By the time Ramsey took over, it was improved, particularly with the running game. Ramsey was lucky he didn't win the starting job at the beginning of the year.
Quote:
|
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.
|
After the SF game, defenses adjusted. They doubled Santana and limited Brunell's effectiveness on his rollouts. These, I think, were the primary factors in the drop off (Didn't you say earlier the dropoff didn't happen?).
Quote:
|
This quote from Gibbs is an indicator that Brunell's leg injuries are a concern: 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.
|
As I said, Brunell's strong supporters make it more of a factor than Mark does. Maybe Mark just doesn't want to make excuses but I doubt it. Besides, if the injuries were that restrictive, why was he playing?