Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

That's one huge run on sentence! Okay, let's break this down. First of all, as much as this offense needed some tweaking from the previous year, I find it hard to put the blame on Brunell's play on the system. If the system was too simplistic like you say, then Brunell would have had an easy time adjusting to it. Let's face it, Brunell stunk it up last year. Part of the reason was that he was injured. I think the other part of it had to do with him being away from playing for at least year in Jacksonville. When you're an older athelete it is much harder to comeback from an injury.

Patrick Ramsey played better than Mark Brunell did LAST year, but that isn't really saying much. I felt Patrick came in and showed signs of promise, but he also showed signs of being a long ways from being a true starter. This year, I was hyped about how much Patrick would've improved. Yes, I base this on preseason, but why should I not? Patrick Ramsey showed no signs of improvement during preseason, and it spilled into our first regular season game.

Maybe you're argument is based on principle. You feel it's only fair to give Ramsey 8 or 9 games like Brunell was given last year. Well yes, that would be considered fair to a certain extent. But, these NFL teams do not put their success in how fair things are. They put their success in winning. However, judging by how Patrick Ramsey played in preseason, we would more than likely be 4-8 right now, if not worse. I witnessed nothing about Ramsey's play that would've suggested anything much better than that.

As far as Brunell's play lately, he hasn't played as well as he has for the most part of this season. He has also had two of his starting receivers out. With both Thrash and Patten in there with Moss, Brunell is a better quarterback. When he basically has one proven threat to throw too, how can Mark Brunell duplicate his best performances of this season? It doesn't happen.

Finally, this system is not inept. It is a ball controlled system that thrives off of maximum protection and a strong running game. That is how it has always been. It has always been a run first pass second offense - even during the days of the posse. They made this offense special, because they were probably the best three wide receivers in the league back then. That is probably the biggest reason why we could score points easily. But we don't have Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders now. We have only one receiver in Santana Moss, who I feel could be as good as any of the members of the posse.

Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny. We have a winning record and a chance to make the playoffs. That is a whole heck of alot more than what we can say about this team for the most part this past decade. There is alot to look forward to even if we don't make the playoffs this year. This franchise is establishing itself as a good franchise, but that does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on maybes or would've could've should've.

How do you figure we are in control of our own destiny? FACT? If watching the playoffs on TV is our destiny then I would agree, take a good look we need help to get into the playoffs.

Brunell was hurt last season? Explain to me why he insist's he wasen't, and why he had his best game of the year statistically the week after he supposedly had this big time injury, Brunells explanation was he didn't believe he really had a hole lot of help around him.

As you said winning is the measuring stick in this league, that's winning in the regular season, not pre-season, and Brunell is failing.

Now the contradictions start, on one hand you say that the reason Brunell can't duplicate what he's previously done on offense is because Patten is out, then on the other hand you say we have no one except Moss who was in the posse's league, how many balls did Patten catch, and how much could an inferior talent in Patten to the Posse really effect an offense? And correct me if I am wrong but Brunell was losing games before Patten was injured.

The big reason why we won back in the 80's was because our O-line used to dominate everyone we faced, we would run at will on teams, that doesn't exist anymore, and Gibbs hasen't shown an ability to adjust the offense to compensate for the lack of a dominating offensive line.

And just for the record Moss is more explosive than any reciever Gibbs ever had in DC, and Patten was the same type player as Sanders, except Patten is probably a little faster, Cooley is better than any H-back we had, and a better all around reciever than Didier, one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

As for the ball control aspect in the 80's, only our running game was ball control, our passing game under Gibbs was alway's a downfield passing attack, and that's part of the problem, with Portis he's more of a homerun hitter than a ball control back.

Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad! what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again. But if your putting a lot of stock into what you saw in the pre-season OK, although most scouts and coaches don't put any stock into the pre-season, and yes that has alway's inc. Gibbs, why becuase of mismatches and vanilla offenses, while most legitamate starters are playing not to get hurt. How indicative was Brunells play in the pre-season, hold up to how he is playing now? I don't think he was succeeding in the pre-season with Patten as one of his WR's either. I do believe Patten played most of the pre-season with Ramsey.

[SmootSmack]

Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines



<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>

[saskin]

offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins at all? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Redskins88

offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins at all? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....

What is it you would like to hear?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by offiss

What is it you would like to hear?

After reading that..that....that, ridicularity, I fear I will suffer physical damage if I do not respond! However, It MUST come in the form of personal attack!!!!!! I will refrain, as I would not want to do that to a football fan!!!!!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines



<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>

love that emoticon, I'm adding that right away

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by offiss

one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

...

what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again.

Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.

Yeah I don't get it either. Brunell was throwing the ball deep just fine earlier in the year. I think the way defenses are playing us now has more to do with our troubles going down the field, add in the losses of Patten & Thrash and it's much more logical to conclude that than to say Brunell has suddenly lost his arm strength.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.

I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by offiss

I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.

I would have to disagree with you on him just airing out those two balls to Moss in the Dallas game. Mose was not wide open he just had step on the D and both passes had to be perfect or they would have been imcomplete or for no gain after the catch. I cannot comment on the whole season and all our long passes unless I had the time to go back and watch all the games.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by offiss

I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.

Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.

I guess what I am saying is this, yes we have plays over 20 yds and 40, but how many were actually thrown deep, and how many were short routes turned into long plays, you can't just look at stats sometimes their misleading, my contention is that Brunell can't throw deep, not that he can't hit a quick hitch and turn it into a long play, that does have it's benefits but not what I was pointing out. Take a look a Palmer, every highlight is a deep throw not a short pass turned into a long gain, Palmer has been bombing away.

Don't get me wrong I feel brunells short passing game is tremendous he's been showing accuracy that's Montana like, but it's repetative and I believe defenses are now sitting on the short game, without much regard for the deep game, which has stagnated our offense, this allows safeties to play to close to the LOS which really hinders our running game.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Tell that one to Moss, he couldn't outrun anyone last season.

Our offensive line has provided for the most part enough time to throw deep, and if Moss can't get deep who may be the fastest player in the NFL, then what do you think it may be.

I do agree that many times players are scapegoated because of lack of a team effort, but sometimes that goes the other way as well.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by offiss

I guess what I am saying is this, yes we have plays over 20 yds and 40, but how many were actually thrown deep, and how many were short routes turned into long plays, you can't just look at stats sometimes their misleading, my contention is that Brunell can't throw deep, not that he can't hit a quick hitch and turn it into a long play, that does have it's benefits but not what I was pointing out.

I guess I don't see how the difference between a play where the ball is in the air for 40 yards vs. a play that ends up going for 40 yards, but mostly on the ground really matters. Unfortunately it's not a stat the NFL measures, so we're sorta screwed.

I guess you could argue that if it really is short passes going for long gains rather than long passes, then the defense can play more guys up on the line to try and stop the short passes - but we're still making the long plays regardless.

It seems like the end result is that we have as many long plays as the best teams around. If it's true that Brunell actually isn't throwing the ball long on these plays, then our receivers must be doing an absolutely astonishing job of breaking tackles and turning short passes into long gains to the point that we have similar stats as the Mannings and Palmers. I find that a little hard to believe, but I'm willing to grant that short passes turning into long plays is perhaps contributing somewhat.

Still seems like from a defensive point they have to respect the big play potential of the Skins because long pass or short pass we're getting it done.

I think my main point in all of this discussion is that it's foolish to try to pin this down to one thing. Brunell suddenly heaving the ball 70 yards downfield isn't going to magically fix everything. I place the blame for the offensive troubles squarely on everyone - coaching, playcalling, QB, WRs, offensive line, etc.

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

That is a great question! We win as a team, we lose as a team.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

Fans love a scapegoat. Plus it's easy to single players out rather than look at the big picture. The QB is the easiest player to single out and the most convenient scapegoat.