How Long For Brunell?

PorterHouse · 09-12-2006, 11:42 AM

We should have lost by more, how many times was C.Rogers burnt for a td and the receiver dropped the ball. Also why the hell woudnt Lloyd try to get the first down at the end of the game? All he had to do is put his head down and take one more step. It would have at least gave us another shot at the endzone. As for Brunell he did what hes still having trouble learning this offense. 0 inerceptions thats alright.

skinsfan0201 · 09-12-2006, 11:43 AM

Five Reasons the Redskins lost: (from the Washington Post) 1. They couldn't score in the red zone 2. They couldn't dominate the clock. 3. They couldn't convert third downs. 4. They had costly fourthquarter penalities. 5. Brad Johnson was steadier than Mark Brunell.

The coaches and some of the fans need to stop looking away from the source, sometimes you really need to be on the outside of the situation not to see it with rose tinted glasses. JMO

SmootSmack · 09-12-2006, 11:45 AM

When a team loses the most popular player on the team is always the backup QB. But while there were some poor decisions by Brunell, it wasn't all on him. He's not the one who ran 4 yard routes on 3rd and 6, he's not the one who left the middle of the field wide open on defense, he's not the one with the late hit, or the missed field goal, or the poor special teams coverage. His knee isn't the one that got busted on the first play damaging our nickel defense.

It's just one game. Way, way, way too early to start making changes.

EXoffender · 09-12-2006, 11:57 AM

This is what happens when you bring in a a signififcant number of offensive starters and a new offensive coordinator. I agree that our D isn't as strong as last year.

Texanskin · 09-12-2006, 12:00 PM

I am saying this, we spent tons of money on receivers.
Why hell arent we throwing down field!!!! Dang. With Lloyd and Moss we should take at least 6-7 shots per game. I am sick of this short yardage crap.

skinsfan0201 · 09-12-2006, 12:01 PM

I beg to differ Brunell had all spring and summer he is a professional, he is the leader (supposedly) of the offense, and both his counterpart Brad Johnson and Trent Green certainly do not appear to have the same types of adjustment problems.

In addition we won in spite of Brunell lots of times last year, namely Arizona and would not have even made the playoffs if it was not for our other offensive players and our fantastic D. I am a little tired of yelling at our D yesterday, when clearly it was our offense who did not get it done. Please, those of you ripping on the D, consider the fact that they have and still are the heart and core of our team.

EXoffender · 09-12-2006, 12:05 PM

I guess Brunell is torn between to idealolgies. A high powered offense that takes risks (and possibly INTs) and a conservative one that takes care of the ball.

Southpaw · 09-12-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

When a team loses the most popular player on the team is always the backup QB. But while there were some poor decisions by Brunell, it wasn't all on him. He's not the one who ran 4 yard routes on 3rd and 6, he's not the one who left the middle of the field wide open on defense, he's not the one with the late hit, or the missed field goal, or the poor special teams coverage. His knee isn't the one that got busted on the first play damaging our nickel defense.

Agreed, but while Brunell wasn’t the only problem, many of his decisions were very questionable. There were a few specific plays last night where Portis came in on 2nd or 3rd and short. The Vikings obviously knew it was a run, so they put NINE in the box. One would think this is a perfect time to run a quick slant or play action, but what happens? Handoff to Portis, right into the middle of nine defenders.

I refuse to believe that Brunell doesn’t have the option to audible in that situation. I think he’s just so scared of making a mistake, that he’ll run the called play, even when he knows it will fail. And while many of you praise the fact that he’ll give up, rather than make a mistake, I can’t stomach the supposed offensive leader of the Redskins playing scared. Watching him throw the ball away on third down, when the closest defender was still four yards from him, was making me sick.

MTK · 09-12-2006, 12:25 PM

Saunders offense doesn't allow for audibles.

Quote:

Where it gets tricky is that there are virtually no audibles: The quarterback and receivers must read the defense quickly and make pre-assigned adjustments.

ARTICLE: NFL Preview: Al Saunders on the attack for Redskins (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com)

redskinsfanatic · 09-12-2006, 12:43 PM

ai'nt brunnels fault!the defense and mr inconsistentt john hall gave this one away!other than having to kick hip shot fgs,the o looked very good!

Southpaw · 09-12-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Saunders offense doesn't allow for audibles.

ARTICLE: NFL Preview: Al Saunders on the attack for Redskins (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com)

Comparing that articles description of Saunders' vaunted offense, and the performance of the Redskins offense last night is a joke, just like this remark:

In 35-year-old Mark Brunell, Saunders saw a quarterback comparable to Green: smart enough to adjust to an attack predicated on reading defenses and precision timing.

Really? Where was the adjustment to the attack of nine in the box on a halfback dive play? And there are some contradictions, or perhaps just differences in verbage, but how are quarterbacks and receivers supposed to "adjust on the fly" without some type of cummunication? If it's supposed to be strictly based on instincts and timing, Brunell can't handle it at this point in his career. He may be a smart quarterback, but when his instincts tell him, "first option or give up", he's not the man to lead Saunders' complicated offense.

MTK · 09-12-2006, 12:51 PM

The offense is going to take a few weeks to really come together.

I think we saw some flashes last night. They'll improve, gotta be a little patient here. Still 15 games to go.

Monkeydad · 09-12-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The offense is going to take a few weeks to really come together.

I think we saw some flashes last night. They'll improve, gotta be a little patient here. Still 15 games to go.

Just remember last season, people.

Compare the first half to the second half. I expect the same kind of turnaround, although I think it will be sooner.

In 3-4 weeks, we should be rolling.

FRPLG · 09-12-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The offense is going to take a few weeks to really come together.

I think we saw some flashes last night. They'll improve, gotta be a little patient here. Still 15 games to go.

I totally agree. I still think Brunell didn't give our WRs the best chance to get open last night. He was simply too content to make the safest play when a little bit more patience might have paid off. I think that will get fixed. I surely more concerned about a myriad of other issues.

Longtimefan · 09-12-2006, 01:17 PM

I have been a supporter of Brunell since JG decided to bring him here, but as I said in one of my post after the first two preseason games, there are some things about his game that is becoming increasingly disturbing. Minnesota sat in a two deep zone most of last night and basically challenged Brunell to beat them with the deep ball knowing full well he's incapable. Granted, he does some things well, like not throwing INT and forcing the ball into coverage. However, there comes a time when the QB has to make plays, and that is espically true when the game is on the line. It would appear to me that when we need a play is when he's not at his best (except for the game in Dallas last year). Another poster mentioned earlier, Brunell has a tendency to stare down his primary and if he's covered he run's toward the sideline and throws the ball away. I can understand sometime your receivers are covered, but this seems to happen all to often with Brunell and I think it's because he has limited faith in his OL and dosen't want to get hit. If that's not the case then we're playing a flawed offense where the receivers can only get open a small persentage of the time. Another poster mentioned the players we brought in during the off-season to help on the outside and so far hasn't made a difference. Brandon Lloyd caught (what) one ball last night? It pains me when I think those guys have been here since the beginning of FA, plenty of time to work in the offense with such little production, and then I look at what McNabb and Stallworth did in their game sunday and they've only been together two weeks. I'm an eternal optomist and won't abandon ship but we must play better on both sides of the ball starting Sunday night. I'm not convinced we will fare any better against Dallas unless we play with a little more sense of urgency.
Pardon my rant fella's I just had to get this off.

09-12-2006, 11:42 AM	#31
PorterHouse No new threads for you Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 48 Posts: 230	Re: How Long For Brunell? We should have lost by more, how many times was C.Rogers burnt for a td and the receiver dropped the ball. Also why the hell woudnt Lloyd try to get the first down at the end of the game? All he had to do is put his head down and take one more step. It would have at least gave us another shot at the endzone. As for Brunell he did what hes still having trouble learning this offense. 0 inerceptions thats alright.

09-12-2006, 11:43 AM	#32
skinsfan0201 Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Falls Church, VA Age: 45 Posts: 234	Re: How Long For Brunell? Five Reasons the Redskins lost: (from the Washington Post) 1. They couldn't score in the red zone 2. They couldn't dominate the clock. 3. They couldn't convert third downs. 4. They had costly fourthquarter penalities. 5. Brad Johnson was steadier than Mark Brunell. The coaches and some of the fans need to stop looking away from the source, sometimes you really need to be on the outside of the situation not to see it with rose tinted glasses. JMO

09-12-2006, 11:45 AM	#33
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: How Long For Brunell? When a team loses the most popular player on the team is always the backup QB. But while there were some poor decisions by Brunell, it wasn't all on him. He's not the one who ran 4 yard routes on 3rd and 6, he's not the one who left the middle of the field wide open on defense, he's not the one with the late hit, or the missed field goal, or the poor special teams coverage. His knee isn't the one that got busted on the first play damaging our nickel defense. It's just one game. Way, way, way too early to start making changes. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

09-12-2006, 11:57 AM	#34
EXoffender The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 1,046	Re: How Long For Brunell? This is what happens when you bring in a a signififcant number of offensive starters and a new offensive coordinator. I agree that our D isn't as strong as last year.

09-12-2006, 12:00 PM	#35
Texanskin Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Skins fan in the Dallas area Posts: 187	Re: How Long For Brunell? I am saying this, we spent tons of money on receivers. Why hell arent we throwing down field!!!! Dang. With Lloyd and Moss we should take at least 6-7 shots per game. I am sick of this short yardage crap. __________________ We are finally looking like a respectable opponent.....Lets keep it going!!!

09-12-2006, 12:01 PM	#36
skinsfan0201 Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Falls Church, VA Age: 45 Posts: 234	Re: How Long For Brunell? I beg to differ Brunell had all spring and summer he is a professional, he is the leader (supposedly) of the offense, and both his counterpart Brad Johnson and Trent Green certainly do not appear to have the same types of adjustment problems. In addition we won in spite of Brunell lots of times last year, namely Arizona and would not have even made the playoffs if it was not for our other offensive players and our fantastic D. I am a little tired of yelling at our D yesterday, when clearly it was our offense who did not get it done. Please, those of you ripping on the D, consider the fact that they have and still are the heart and core of our team.

09-12-2006, 12:05 PM	#37
EXoffender The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Norfolk, Va Posts: 1,046	Re: How Long For Brunell? I guess Brunell is torn between to idealolgies. A high powered offense that takes risks (and possibly INTs) and a conservative one that takes care of the ball.

09-12-2006, 12:43 PM	#40
redskinsfanatic Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 542	Re: How Long For Brunell? ai'nt brunnels fault!the defense and mr inconsistentt john hall gave this one away!other than having to kick hip shot fgs,the o looked very good!

09-12-2006, 12:51 PM	#42
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: How Long For Brunell? The offense is going to take a few weeks to really come together. I think we saw some flashes last night. They'll improve, gotta be a little patient here. Still 15 games to go. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

09-12-2006, 01:17 PM	#45
Longtimefan Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Germantown, Md. Posts: 4,832	Re: How Long For Brunell? I have been a supporter of Brunell since JG decided to bring him here, but as I said in one of my post after the first two preseason games, there are some things about his game that is becoming increasingly disturbing. Minnesota sat in a two deep zone most of last night and basically challenged Brunell to beat them with the deep ball knowing full well he's incapable. Granted, he does some things well, like not throwing INT and forcing the ball into coverage. However, there comes a time when the QB has to make plays, and that is espically true when the game is on the line. It would appear to me that when we need a play is when he's not at his best (except for the game in Dallas last year). Another poster mentioned earlier, Brunell has a tendency to stare down his primary and if he's covered he run's toward the sideline and throws the ball away. I can understand sometime your receivers are covered, but this seems to happen all to often with Brunell and I think it's because he has limited faith in his OL and dosen't want to get hit. If that's not the case then we're playing a flawed offense where the receivers can only get open a small persentage of the time. Another poster mentioned the players we brought in during the off-season to help on the outside and so far hasn't made a difference. Brandon Lloyd caught (what) one ball last night? It pains me when I think those guys have been here since the beginning of FA, plenty of time to work in the offense with such little production, and then I look at what McNabb and Stallworth did in their game sunday and they've only been together two weeks. I'm an eternal optomist and won't abandon ship but we must play better on both sides of the ball starting Sunday night. I'm not convinced we will fare any better against Dallas unless we play with a little more sense of urgency. Pardon my rant fella's I just had to get this off.

How Long For Brunell?

Locker Room Main Forum