Brunell is Bad

[Duffman003]

I agree, I think Ramsey could have done just as well with a very good O- Line, a very good wide reciever and tight end, then also throw in there that we have clinton portis. Don't forget that our defense was the main reason why we had 10 wins because they are the only consistent week in and week out pretty much. I don't have a problem with Brunell though I think he tries as hard as he can but he is getting pretty old and heart can only take you so far.

[Sean Taylor is God]

It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.

I think it's a double edged sword. Most QBs that have stronger arms have a tendency to force the ball a little more. Which sometimes translates into higher ints. I think Brunell plays well within his ability and sometimes beyond given his knack scramble well and pick up key first downs.

I just don't think we can say "Brunell is not good", given his Pro-Bowl worthy season.

[Sean Taylor is God]

My point is the only reason he had close to the season he did was his supporting cast, not him. WR Screens are not hard to throw.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

My point is the only reason he had close to the season he did was his supporting cast, not him. WR Screens are not hard to throw.

Dude, name me one QB in the playoffs this year who didn't have a helluva supporting cast? Which, yes, included a very good defense?

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Dude, name me one QB in the playoffs this year who didn't have a helluva supporting cast? Which, yes, included a very good defense?

Simms, Delhomme, Grossman

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

Simms, Delhomme, Grossman

Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.

It's a fair statement, our defense bailed out his 3 and outs late in the game many times.

Brunells problem with the long ball is that it has to be premediatated, he doesn't have the arm to check off and then throw deep, the recievers are to far downfield and he has to put to much air under the ball to reach them allowing the defenders to recover. During the year one analists pointed that very thing out, [may have been Aikmen] he said on a couple of particular plays that recievers were open downfield but by the time they broke open and Brunell saw them Brunells arm was incapable of reaching them. Defenses knowing that can tighten their defense closer to the line of scrimmage and make the short passing game as well as the running game more difficult to execute, than if they had to respect the ability of a QB who can flick his wrist and throw a 50 yard strike downfield.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Duffman003

I agree, I think Ramsey could have done just as well with a very good O- Line, a very good wide reciever and tight end, then also throw in there that we have clinton portis. Don't forget that our defense was the main reason why we had 10 wins because they are the only consistent week in and week out pretty much. I don't have a problem with Brunell though I think he tries as hard as he can but he is getting pretty old and heart can only take you so far.

everyone is working off the defense did it all cause of 2004, but they're were a lot of 30 point games this year and the offense wasn't ranked 29th, it was above average. The offense wasn't existant in the playoffs, but in the regular season, the D gave up a lot more points and long runs than expected (36 to TB for example).