Brunell Revisited

jdlea · 10-05-2004, 09:44 PM

I don't see a why lot of you think that he's a great or even capable QB. I see him throw balls high all the time. Coles drops balls because he has to outstretch all the time. He does drop a few that are thrown right to him, but the "fumble" was Brunell's fault. I see Brunell throw balls away when he doesn't have pressure on him. I see him start to run around the pocket when a blitzer gets close, but is demolished by Portis. I see him hold the ball too long. Most of all, I see why his passer rating is so high...all he does is check down. Clearly that's not all he does, but more often than not. People wonder why the Skins don't throw downfield, I guarantee Gibbs is calling the plays, but Brunell is checking down. Brunell has played 1 very good quarter of football this season. People blame clock management for the Cowboys loss, how about the check down that wasted over 10 seconds on the first play of the possession? How about the fact that he threw the last pass to Terrance Newman and Rod had to go over his back. Had he put the ball to the sideline Rod would have been out of bounds.

People say he didn't lose the Browns game: 13 of 24, 125 yards, no TD's; tell me how he did enough to win.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 10-05-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I don't see a why lot of you think that he's a great or even capable QB. I see him throw balls high all the time.

Come on, he RARELY throws high balls....I mean completing 1 out of every 10 deep passes is really good, creme-de-la-creme, elite, fantastic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

Coles drops balls because he has to outstretch all the time.

Just because a ball is fifteen feet above his head doesn't mean Coles has an excuse, I mean he is paid a lot after all. Go up and get it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

Brunell has played 1 very good quarter of football this season.

1 out of 16 is pretty damn good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

People say he didn't lose the Browns game: 13 of 24, 125 yards, no TD's; tell me how he did enough to win.

Hey, just because he didn't throw a touchdown, throw more than 200 yards even though Portis only had about 3 carries in the entire second half, and had a sub-50% completion rate on dink-and-dunk passes, doesn't mean he didn't fare well statistically.

SUNRA · 10-05-2004, 10:05 PM

The subject of Mark Brunell is water under the bridge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why we are 1-3. Clinton Portis 149 yds.= W. Clinton Portis 87, 94 or 58 yds = L,L and L. Clinton Portis three fumbles = 2 TD's in 2 games. The question that was just asked on NFL Network was, " Does this team still believe in Clinton Portis?" The answer will be answered if Portis does not have the kind of game that Priest Holmes had against the Ravens. Gibbs is very happy with the play of Brunell and it shows when he allowed Brunell to run a no huddle offense that was successful at moving the ball down the field in the first half. The bottom line is turnovers have killed this team. Brunell has not thrown an INT, fumbled or been sacked against the Browns. We need receivers who will hold on to the ball when it is thrown to them. Coles has not been the force that was expected and it has caught up with him. There will be changes at WR and RB, but not at QB because he has managed to lead this team down the field successfully. Last point, penalties were the knife in the back for the offense. 8/87 yards is ridiculous.

jdlea · 10-05-2004, 10:12 PM

1 of 11 on 3rd Down

SUNRA · 10-06-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

1 of 11 on 3rd Down

I can't believe you fell for the ookie doke. This stat is the most deceptive of all stats. How many first downs did the Redskins get? 13 first downs. What down did they get the first downs on? Try first and second downs. Which means Brunell moved the ball down the field without relying on third downs to achieve a first down.

SmootSmack · 10-05-2004, 10:13 PM

Here are some guys with relatively comparable numbers to Brunell this weekend:

Michael Vick was 10/18 for 148 yards on Sunday. Yet the Falcons won 24-10 over the Panthers.

Marc Bulger was 17/25 for 186 yards. Rams won 24-14 over the Niners (yes I realize it was the Niners)

Jake Plummer was 13/31 for 138 yards. Broncos won 16-13 over the Bucs (yes I realize it was the Bucs)

Broncos, Rams, and Falcons all had one thing in common that the Redskins were lacking-mistake free football, i.e. no turnovers. Brunell was not responsible for Portis' fumble and he put the ball where no one but Coles could catch it, and Coles did catch it. He has to be able to hold onto the ball on the way down, it's not like he get leveled and someone jarred the ball loose.

That Guy · 10-05-2004, 10:49 PM

i don't know where you got those stats, but they're wrong.. he was 17-32 for 192 yards with 9 yards rushing...

SmootSmack · 10-05-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

i don't know where you got those stats, but they're wrong.. he was 17-32 for 192 yards with 9 yards rushing...

who are you talking about?

That Guy · 10-05-2004, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

who are you talking about?

original post, brunell is listed as 17-32 and 192 yards with 9 rushing yards against the browns, and thats what i saw when i WATCHED the game

SmootSmack · 10-05-2004, 11:10 PM

thanks That Guy

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 10-05-2004, 11:56 PM

Wait a minute. Are people saying that Brunell's numbers are satisfactory? (I didn't say great, poor, or sub-par....satisfactory)

That Guy · 10-05-2004, 10:52 PM

changes at RB sunra??? i don't really think so... i don't think its realistic to think CP is gonna have a priest holmes game either, KC has a REALLY GOOD O line for running, we don't... not even close right now...

MTK · 10-05-2004, 11:02 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Brunell wasn't brought in to be a gunslinger, he was brought in to manage the game and not turn the ball over.

For the most part he's done his job and he's still settling into the offense, just like everyone else on that side of the ball.

I'm not saying Brunell is playing great, because he's not, he definitely has room for improvement. Is he playing poorly though? Poor enough to be benched for an inexperienced strong-armed backup who has an even worse grasp of the offense and a much higher propensity for throwing INT's?

Does anyone actually remember the Giants game? Ramsey came in and threw 3 INT's in one half of football. 3 INT's!

We have enough turnover problems right now, the last thing we need is Ramsey coming in and throwing darts to the other team 2-3 times per game. Ramsey played poorly all preseason and it carried right over to the regular season. He's not ready, if he was he'd be in there without question.

SmootSmack · 10-06-2004, 12:12 AM

I'm saying don't conclude from his stats what he did or didn't do to win the game. There were other quarterbacks with similar numbers whose teams won.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 10-06-2004, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

I'm saying don't conclude from his stats what he did or didn't do to win the game. There were other quarterbacks with similar numbers whose teams won.

Fair enough. His stats don't definately lead one to conclude he lost the game for us. The stats do tell me that he isn't moving the offense.

10-05-2004, 09:44 PM	#1
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Brunell Revisited I don't see a why lot of you think that he's a great or even capable QB. I see him throw balls high all the time. Coles drops balls because he has to outstretch all the time. He does drop a few that are thrown right to him, but the "fumble" was Brunell's fault. I see Brunell throw balls away when he doesn't have pressure on him. I see him start to run around the pocket when a blitzer gets close, but is demolished by Portis. I see him hold the ball too long. Most of all, I see why his passer rating is so high...all he does is check down. Clearly that's not all he does, but more often than not. People wonder why the Skins don't throw downfield, I guarantee Gibbs is calling the plays, but Brunell is checking down. Brunell has played 1 very good quarter of football this season. People blame clock management for the Cowboys loss, how about the check down that wasted over 10 seconds on the first play of the possession? How about the fact that he threw the last pass to Terrance Newman and Rod had to go over his back. Had he put the ball to the sideline Rod would have been out of bounds. People say he didn't lose the Browns game: 13 of 24, 125 yards, no TD's; tell me how he did enough to win.

10-05-2004, 10:05 PM	#3
SUNRA The Starter Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,680	The subject of Mark Brunell is water under the bridge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why we are 1-3. Clinton Portis 149 yds.= W. Clinton Portis 87, 94 or 58 yds = L,L and L. Clinton Portis three fumbles = 2 TD's in 2 games. The question that was just asked on NFL Network was, " Does this team still believe in Clinton Portis?" The answer will be answered if Portis does not have the kind of game that Priest Holmes had against the Ravens. Gibbs is very happy with the play of Brunell and it shows when he allowed Brunell to run a no huddle offense that was successful at moving the ball down the field in the first half. The bottom line is turnovers have killed this team. Brunell has not thrown an INT, fumbled or been sacked against the Browns. We need receivers who will hold on to the ball when it is thrown to them. Coles has not been the force that was expected and it has caught up with him. There will be changes at WR and RB, but not at QB because he has managed to lead this team down the field successfully. Last point, penalties were the knife in the back for the offense. 8/87 yards is ridiculous. __________________ Redskins Member since 1970

10-05-2004, 10:13 PM	#6
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Here are some guys with relatively comparable numbers to Brunell this weekend: Michael Vick was 10/18 for 148 yards on Sunday. Yet the Falcons won 24-10 over the Panthers. Marc Bulger was 17/25 for 186 yards. Rams won 24-14 over the Niners (yes I realize it was the Niners) Jake Plummer was 13/31 for 138 yards. Broncos won 16-13 over the Bucs (yes I realize it was the Bucs) Broncos, Rams, and Falcons all had one thing in common that the Redskins were lacking-mistake free football, i.e. no turnovers. Brunell was not responsible for Portis' fumble and he put the ball where no one but Coles could catch it, and Coles did catch it. He has to be able to hold onto the ball on the way down, it's not like he get leveled and someone jarred the ball loose. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

10-05-2004, 11:10 PM	#10
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	thanks That Guy __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

10-06-2004, 12:12 AM	#14
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	I'm saying don't conclude from his stats what he did or didn't do to win the game. There were other quarterbacks with similar numbers whose teams won. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

10-05-2004, 10:12 PM	#4
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	1 of 11 on 3rd Down

10-05-2004, 10:49 PM	#7
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	i don't know where you got those stats, but they're wrong.. he was 17-32 for 192 yards with 9 yards rushing...

10-05-2004, 11:56 PM	#11
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 8,317	Wait a minute. Are people saying that Brunell's numbers are satisfactory? (I didn't say great, poor, or sub-par....satisfactory)

10-05-2004, 10:52 PM	#12
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	changes at RB sunra??? i don't really think so... i don't think its realistic to think CP is gonna have a priest holmes game either, KC has a REALLY GOOD O line for running, we don't... not even close right now...

10-05-2004, 11:02 PM	#13
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	I've said it before and I'll say it again. Brunell wasn't brought in to be a gunslinger, he was brought in to manage the game and not turn the ball over. For the most part he's done his job and he's still settling into the offense, just like everyone else on that side of the ball. I'm not saying Brunell is playing great, because he's not, he definitely has room for improvement. Is he playing poorly though? Poor enough to be benched for an inexperienced strong-armed backup who has an even worse grasp of the offense and a much higher propensity for throwing INT's? Does anyone actually remember the Giants game? Ramsey came in and threw 3 INT's in one half of football. 3 INT's! We have enough turnover problems right now, the last thing we need is Ramsey coming in and throwing darts to the other team 2-3 times per game. Ramsey played poorly all preseason and it carried right over to the regular season. He's not ready, if he was he'd be in there without question.

Brunell Revisited

Locker Room Main Forum