Will Saunders Affect Our QB Situation?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

You should define records, those were team records, not NFL. If you only throw to 2 guy's that will happen.

Of coarse we improved on offense, but I think it was down right impossible to go backwards.

Of course it's possible to go backwards, there is at least 32 teams in the NFL if I remember correctly. We were ranked #30, which means we could have been ranked worse.

Originally Posted by offiss

Our offensive performance in the last 3 games is what makes my statement correct,

Right! You'd rather dwell on three games out of the 18 we played this year and ignore the rest.

Originally Posted by offiss

Laying the blame on Portis in the Seattle game is ridiculous, did you watch that game, Seattle was sending 7 guys at him where ever he went with no caution to misdirection, why you ask? Could it be they didn't have any real worries about Brunell beating them downfield?

How so? Portis didn't perform well. Why not blame him? You're quick to pick Brunell apart when he doesn't play well, regardless of the reason. By your logic, it's just as correct to blame Portis. How is it that Brunell can't get the ball down the field? Go back and watch the highlight films of this season. Brunell doesn't have a problem with getting the ball downfield.

Originally Posted by offiss

You are not going to run the ball I don't care who you are if you become 1 dimensional, you have to be able to beat a team in the air if they over committ to the run, Brunell never did that.

It's not Brunell's fault that Portis couldn't establish the run. Our offensive philosophy is a run first to set up the pass philosophy. Logically, you must establish the running game to open up the passing game. We couldn't establish the running game, therefore, our passing game suffered as well. When you're put in a position where the majority of the plays have to be pass plays, then the defense can double your ONE receiver down the field. It's not that hard to figure out.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Of course it's possible to go backwards, there is at least 32 teams in the NFL if I remember correctly. We were ranked #30, which means we could have been ranked worse.



Right! You'd rather dwell on three games out of the 18 we played this year and ignore the rest.




How so? Portis didn't perform well. Why not blame him? You're quick to pick Brunell apart when he doesn't play well, regardless of the reason. By your logic, it's just as correct to blame Portis. How is it that Brunell can't get the ball down the field? Go back and watch the highlight films of this season. Brunell doesn't have a problem with getting the ball downfield.



It's not Brunell's fault that Portis couldn't establish the run. Our offensive philosophy is a run first to set up the pass philosophy. Logically, you must establish the running game to open up the passing game. We couldn't establish the running game, therefore, our passing game suffered as well. When you're put in a position where the majority of the plays have to be pass plays, then the defense can double your ONE receiver down the field. It's not that hard to figure out.

It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by offiss

It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

So basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, we should lay ALL offensivefailure and success at the feet of Mark Brunell?

[SmootSmack]

Offiss, what would have been sufficient for you-that we had won the Super Bowl this year...or that we got as far as we did exactly the same way but with Patrick Ramsey at QB?

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that what really bothers you is that Ramsey wasn't playing and that, contrary to what you believed at the start of the season, Brunell is still capable of being the starting QB of a playoff team.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Offiss, what would have been sufficient for you-that we had won the Super Bowl this year...or that we got as far as we did exactly the same way but with Patrick Ramsey at QB?

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that what really bothers you is that Ramsey wasn't playing and that, contrary to what you believed at the start of the season, Brunell is still capable of being the starting QB of a playoff team.

You may assume that I don't like Brunell because I am a Ramsey backer, which I know that's true with Brunell backers, you know how many were bashing Brunell after last season and were on the Ramsey bandwagon, but as soon as Gibbs makes a switch right, wrong, or indifferent, they immediatly jump ship for Brunell, which is fine, but don't try to convince me he's a good QB at this point in his carreer.

The only reason I back Ramsey is because I beleive he's our best option to win, and if I didn't feel that way I would say we need a QB, not back him just because Gibbs named him the starter.

If Patrick performed as bad as Brunell did at the end of the season after an entire year in this offense I would be saying the same thing, I don't play favortism above performance, I just feel Patrick hasen't been given a real opportunity to prove himself, and Bruenll has and it's not good.

Do you think Brunell is going to get better next season? Or will he continue to decline? We all saw what he did when we needed him most.

If you can use the word capable about Brunell after watching him the last 3 games we played, the 3 biggest games of the year and say CAPABLE, well your a better man than I. But if that's your definition of capable, then no way is capable winning a SB. Now if your going to tell me he's going to be much better next year then I will listen to your explination why.

[Bozzy]

Hey why don't we just bring back the Kilmer-Jurgenson, Theisman-Schroeder debates too! Hell, what about Gus Frerotte-Heath Shuler!

This is stupid.

Cut them both. I'm tired of this debate.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by offiss

You may assume that I don't like Brunell because I am a Ramsey backer, which I know that's true with Brunell backers, you know how many were bashing Brunell after last season and were on the Ramsey bandwagon, but as soon as Gibbs makes a switch right, wrong, or indifferent, they immediatly jump ship for Brunell, which is fine, but don't try to convince me he's a good QB at this point in his carreer.

The only reason I back Ramsey is because I beleive he's our best option to win, and if I didn't feel that way I would say we need a QB, not back him just because Gibbs named him the starter.

If Patrick performed as bad as Brunell did at the end of the season after an entire year in this offense I would be saying the same thing, I don't play favortism above performance, I just feel Patrick hasen't been given a real opportunity to prove himself, and Bruenll has and it's not good.

Do you think Brunell is going to get better next season? Or will he continue to decline? We all saw what he did when we needed him most.

If you can use the word capable about Brunell after watching him the last 3 games we played, the 3 biggest games of the year and say CAPABLE, well your a better man than I. But if that's your definition of capable, then no way is capable winning a SB. Now if your going to tell me he's going to be much better next year then I will listen to your explination why.

Offiss,

How could anyone say with reason Brunell will be better next year. No one, including me, thought he would be as good as he was this year. That's a foolish prediction because so many variables, out of his control, come into play.

If Brunell isn't that good of a quarterback, then I don't know how you define good. And for you to say Patrick would have done better, to get let's say 11 or 12 wins is total conjecture on your part.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Offiss,

How could anyone say with reason Brunell will be better next year. No one, including me, thought he would be as good as he was this year. That's a foolish prediction because so many variables, out of his control, come into play.

If Brunell isn't that good of a quarterback, then I don't know how you define good. And for you to say Patrick would have done better, to get let's say 11 or 12 wins is total conjecture on your part.

Really? What gave it away, his lack of playing time?

[SmootSmack]

I think we differ on what "real opportunity" is. I think practices, minicamp, training camp, and preseason games this past year do give Ramsey the opportunity to improve and the coaching staff the chance to evaluate his progress.

But the issue here isn't what will Brunell do in 2006. It's why can't you respect what he did in 2005? His overall body of work, as Matty has said.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I think we differ on what "real opportunity" is. I think practices, minicamp, training camp, and preseason games this past year do give Ramsey the opportunity to improve and the coaching staff the chance to evaluate his progress.

But the issue here isn't what will Brunell do in 2006. It's why can't you respect what he did in 2005? His overall body of work, as Matty has said.

But what about 2004!!

j/k

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Not it's not. Stacking the box doesn't mean that they ONLY go after the running back. Brunell was pressured all day against Seattle's defense...that's a fact! The persuit stopped our WR screen - which helps to keep the defense honest. Nobody was getting open on a consistant basis. You have Taylor Jacobs playing opposite of Santana Moss..'nuff said.

Originally Posted by offiss

Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

If and only if the receivers are open and if and only if you're given time to burn the defense deep - both were not true in that game.

Originally Posted by offiss

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

In your theory, we should be able to burn people deep everytime a defense stacks 7 or 8 guys in the box. That doesn't always happen. Just like you said, you can't expect 5 guys to block 7 or 8, so how do you expect 5 guys to pass protect against 7 or 8 guys? It doesn't happen. The best way to counter that is a quick dump off pass. Again - Seattle's persuit was faster than what anybody gave them credit for. It's not Brunell's fault or at least isn't Brunell's fault alone.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Not it's not. Stacking the box doesn't mean that they ONLY go after the running back. Brunell was pressured all day against Seattle's defense...that's a fact! The persuit stopped our WR screen - which helps to keep the defense honest. Nobody was getting open on a consistant basis. You have Taylor Jacobs playing opposite of Santana Moss..'nuff said.




If and only if the receivers are open and if and only if you're given time to burn the defense deep - both were not true in that game.



In your theory, we should be able to burn people deep everytime a defense stacks 7 or 8 guys in the box. That doesn't always happen. Just like you said, you can't expect 5 guys to block 7 or 8, so how do you expect 5 guys to pass protect against 7 or 8 guys? It doesn't happen. The best way to counter that is a quick dump off pass. Again - Seattle's persuit was faster than what anybody gave them credit for. It's not Brunell's fault or at least isn't Brunell's fault alone.

Why has this discussion gone this far?

[CooleyFan]

Yeah, Taylor Jacobs is a homo. He needs to go back home on a greyhound.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by CooleyFan

Yeah, Taylor Jacobs is a homo. He needs to go back home on a greyhound.

Are you just mad because he broke up with you?

[Pocket$ $traight]

If you stood behind Ramsey and said "Look out it's Warren Sapp!" He would get happy feet and fumble the ball.

He needs a change of venue. I don't think he trusts the offensive line here (and rightfully so). The poor guy has taken some serious punishment.

He had his opportunity in '04 and in the preseason for '05. He is damaged goods. Take the 3rd rounder and let him try to salvage his career. Campbell is the #2 now. They used a 1st rounder on him and he was handpicked by Gibbs.

I liked Ramsey. I just think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.