Does Anyone Want To Compare Brunell To Manning Now????

[61cad]

Manning is a winner!

Brunell is a question mark!

[BDBohnzie]

It's not that Brunell can't go downfield, it's that he is way too quick to checkdown when he doesn't see exactly what he wants. He's not willing to believe in his talent and throw the ball into coverage, like he did in Jacksonville. Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell used to go deep all day with Brunell throwing to him.

Peyton is one of the premier QBs in the league right now, and it also much younger than Brunell. Brunell is past his prime, but still a serviceable QB. He need to shake that conscience and trust his arm more.

[61cad]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

It's not that Brunell can't go downfield, it's that he is way too quick to checkdown when he doesn't see exactly what he wants. He's not willing to believe in his talent and throw the ball into coverage, like he did in Jacksonville. Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell used to go deep all day with Brunell throwing to him.

Peyton is one of the premier QBs in the league right now, and it also much younger than Brunell. Brunell is past his prime, but still a serviceable QB. He need to shake that conscience and trust his arm more.

He checkdown just fine yesterday. The problem was that the Colts secondary read the checkdowns and blewup the plays.

[GTripp0012]

Manning is the best QB in the league. Brunell is a vet who still plays at a pretty high level. While I could draw parallels all day, the truth is no one in the game today is anywhere near Peyton Manning. I don't know if anyone at this fourm ever tried to make a point of one being better than the other simply because it's a given that Manning is the best.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Campbell-Manning comparision sometime after his first TD pass from someone on this fourm. It's quite sad that some people can be so blind to good production. Campbell will be good, I promise you. If you want to know why, pick up the Pro Football Prospectus 2006.

But the only reason I ever mention Manning and Brunell in the same sentence, is because they are both veteran QBs who are in fact human and make mistakes. Two different players, two different roles in two different offenses. Manning is better. No one disputes that.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Manning is the best QB in the league. Brunell is a vet who still plays at a pretty high level. While I could draw parallels all day, the truth is no one in the game today is anywhere near Peyton Manning. I don't know if anyone at this fourm ever tried to make a point of one being better than the other simply because it's a given that Manning is the best.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Campbell-Manning comparision sometime after his first TD pass from someone on this fourm. It's quite sad that some people can be so blind to good production. Campbell will be good, I promise you. If you want to know why, pick up the Pro Football Prospectus 2006.

But the only reason I ever mention Manning and Brunell in the same sentence, is because they are both veteran QBs who are in fact human and make mistakes. Two different players, two different roles in two different offenses. Manning is better. No one disputes that.

yeah, but based on that (qb success from NCAA -> NFL based on NCAA starts and completion %), kyle boller is god, which is clearly untrue.

[BDBohnzie]

Of course his checkdowns are fine, he only does it 20 f'ing times a game. He's a master at screens and checkdowns. And of course the Colts D was ready for it...it's all he f'ing does.

If he takes 1 chance out of 5 to trust his arm, his ability and his receivers, instead of dumping the goddamn ball off, we may be better off.

[61cad]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Of course his checkdowns are fine, he only does it 20 f'ing times a game. He's a master at screens and checkdowns. And of course the Colts D was ready for it...it's all he f'ing does.

If he takes 1 chance out of 5 to trust his arm, his ability and his receivers, instead of dumping the goddamn ball off, we may be better off.

Welcome to Joe Gibbs football!

Play not to loose the game instead of playing to win the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

If he takes 1 chance out of 5 to trust his arm, his ability and his receivers, instead of dumping the goddamn ball off, we may be better off.

What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...

We can get pretty much 4-5 yards a play dumping the ball off. If they jump that, Brunell tends to find guys sitting around the sticks for the first down. I'd say 4/5 times we can pick up 4-5 yards doing what we do in the passing game. So the only way our drives stall are: Turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd and short conversions.

Throwing the ball up would increase the turnover rate. It would increse the likelyhood of sacks and penalties. More importantly, 80% of the time, it costs you a down...if you are lucky. Remember, you are throwing into coverage. By design. Which I don't like.

So if the offense we run now is designed to keep negative plays, penalties, and turnovers from occuring, then the problem happens only when those things occur. We aren't turning the ball over. We are however getting negative plays and penalties. And the penalties aren't on Mark Brunell. The sacks could be on a Quarterback if he holds the ball too long. But one of the main complaints with his play is that he doesn't hold it long enough.

Offensive efficiecy is up from last year due in part to the system, and in part to Brunell's play. But drives aren't being sustained. Either players who go hard the first two downs are deciding to pack in on third, or the playcalling is suspect. I blame the playcalling, but I think its a deeper issue. Saunders' philosophy is to ignore the down and distance and call the play he thinks will gain the most yardage at that time. So if he thinks a deep pass will net 0 yards (incomplete), he won't call the deep pass.

I believe he sees the long pass as a sign of desperation. By the way you guys talk about it, I think he might be on to something.

So if you have followed my stream of conscieousness to this point, I may have stumbled upon the reasoning for the lack of deep throws. Having the 6th ranked offense and the 11th ranked QB, he doesn't feel the pressure you do to tear up chunks of yardage. He continues to desire to move the chains. Saunders knows any call he makes could go for a touchdown. So why call the low percentage pass when he could call the high one or run it?

I don't condone being conservative, and if I was calling plays, I would put more stock into down and distance than Al does, but I REALLY don't condone offensive desperation, espicially when the alternative is working reasonably well.

I think its time for some desperate measures on the defensive end.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...

WHAAA???? moss runs a 4.27, and deep passes aren't his strength? El is super speed too, yet he's not good at deep balls? dallas 14-13 showed our strength, an it WASN'T screen screen screen, dump off dump off dump off. it was varied, and definately included going over the top.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

WHAAA???? moss runs a 4.27, and deep passes aren't his strength? El is super speed too, yet he's not good at deep balls? dallas 14-13 showed our strength, an it WASN'T screen screen screen, dump off dump off dump off. it was varied, and definately included going over the top.

We have height issues at WR. We won't win jump balls down the field. Moss' strength is YAC, it's something we figured out after the Jets had 4 years to and couldn't. They tried to use his speed down the field, and could never find him. We throw screens and curls, set up the blocks and watch him run. It's really cool.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We have height issues at WR. We won't win jump balls down the field. Moss' strength is YAC, it's something we figured out after the Jets had 4 years to and couldn't. They tried to use his speed down the field, and could never find him. We throw screens and curls, set up the blocks and watch him run. It's really cool.

Moss is definately good at getting YAC, but to say he isn't a deep threat is simply ridiculous.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We have height issues at WR. We won't win jump balls down the field. Moss' strength is YAC, it's something we figured out after the Jets had 4 years to and couldn't. They tried to use his speed down the field, and could never find him. We throw screens and curls, set up the blocks and watch him run. It's really cool.

height issues don't matter when you split defenders. height matters a bit more at the goal line, but moss got 9 tds last year, some of which were deep strikes over the top. (harrison got 2 TDs on the goal line with mis-direction and speed, not height).

the jets had a qb without an arm and misused him.

we've thrown screens, it's all we seem to throw, the defenses have blown the f**k out of them 2 weeks in a row now. you've got to be more than just screen passes.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...

Huh? So Moss isn't a deep threat either? What is ARE, a possession receiver? Patten was a deep threat in New England. You also concede that Lloyd is a deep threat. So I have no clue how you can say that we don't have deep threats.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We can get pretty much 4-5 yards a play dumping the ball off. If they jump that, Brunell tends to find guys sitting around the sticks for the first down. I'd say 4/5 times we can pick up 4-5 yards doing what we do in the passing game. So the only way our drives stall are: Turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd and short conversions.

NO team eliminates turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd down conversions.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Throwing the ball up would increase the turnover rate. It would increse the likelyhood of sacks and penalties. More importantly, 80% of the time, it costs you a down...if you are lucky. Remember, you are throwing into coverage. By design. Which I don't like.

So you don't like throwing the ball deep? I don't know of ANYONE that thinks that throwing the ball deep is a bad thing. Gibbs brought wideouts in to improve our deep passing game. So Gibbs was dumb to try to focus on the deep passing game?

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

So if the offense we run now is designed to keep negative plays, penalties, and turnovers from occuring, then the problem happens only when those things occur. We aren't turning the ball over. We are however getting negative plays and penalties. And the penalties aren't on Mark Brunell. The sacks could be on a Quarterback if he holds the ball too long. But one of the main complaints with his play is that he doesn't hold it long enough.

Although the penalties aren't on Brunell, some of the negative plays are. He checks down on about 80% of all passing plays. Defenses just sit by the line of scrimmage and wait to jump on Portis or the guy getting the screen pass. Net result=negative plays.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Offensive efficiecy is up from last year due in part to the system, and in part to Brunell's play. But drives aren't being sustained. Either players who go hard the first two downs are deciding to pack in on third, or the playcalling is suspect. I blame the playcalling, but I think its a deeper issue. Saunders' philosophy is to ignore the down and distance and call the play he thinks will gain the most yardage at that time. So if he thinks a deep pass will net 0 yards (incomplete), he won't call the deep pass.

Drives aren't being sustained because you can't expect a team to be able to consistently sustain 16 play drives. They need to start airing it out a bit to get teams to respect our offense and back off the line of scrimmage.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Huh? So Moss isn't a deep threat either? What is ARE, a possession receiver? Patten was a deep threat in New England. You also concede that Lloyd is a deep threat. So I have no clue how you can say that we don't have deep threats.



NO team eliminates turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd down conversions. Plus, when you are constantly throwing screen passes or check offs to guys in the flats, you end up becoming predictable.



So you don't like throwing the ball deep? I don't know of ANYONE (other than you), that thinks that you don't need a deep passing game to have a successful offense.



Although the penalties aren't on Brunell, some of the negative plays are. He checks down on about 80% of all passing plays. Defenses just sit by the line of scrimmage and wait to jump on Portis or the guy getting the screen pass. Net result=negative plays.



Drives aren't being sustained because you can't expect a team to be able to consistently sustain 16 play drives. They need to start airing it out a bit to get teams to respect our offense and back off the line of scrimmage.

Moss, and ARE are runners. They excel when you get them the ball quickly in the open field and let them run. The key is the open field part.

And my problem is not going deep. It's with low percentage passes that don't work that have no purpose but to "open up the run". Offensively, you are going to layer your passing attack. So it becomes a progressionary thing. You throw deep to the open man when its given to you. We do this. We only get about 1-2 chances a game, but we certainly do this. The reason you only get 1-2 chances isn't rocket science. It's only going to occur when those DBs are in zone, and don't get help, because the safeties are out of position trying to take away something shorter. It's why the shorter routes are so successful. You can throw them over and over, and the defense can't always afford to gamble to stop them. We have had great success throwing those routes this year and it should shock no one. Also, it may not be that apparent, but we don't throw screens and dumpoffs every play. That's why they are often there.

And yes, I've seen the defense jump on Portis for like a 2 yard gain on a Brunell check down. But from a philosophy standpoint, this is much better than a ball thrown away (which is why Brunell is a significantly better QB than someone like, say, Kerry Collins), because once the pass is complete, something fluky can happen, like a missed tackle or a facemask, which becomes a big gainer. If not, you take your 1-2 yards, and call a different play. That's why completion percentage is significant. You give your team a chance to gain yards.

And despite all this horrible non-vertical heathen playcalling, Mark Brunell STILL is averaging 7.11 yards/attempt on the season.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Moss, and ARE are runners. They excel when you get them the ball quickly in the open field and let them run. The key is the open field part.

there's lots of open field above the safeties too.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

And my problem is not going deep. It's with low percentage passes that don't work that have no purpose but to "open up the run". Offensively, you are going to layer your passing attack. So it becomes a progressionary thing. You throw deep to the open man when its given to you. We do this. We only get about 1-2 chances a game, but we certainly do this. The reason you only get 1-2 chances isn't rocket science. It's only going to occur when those DBs are in zone, and don't get help, because the safeties are out of position trying to take away something shorter. It's why the shorter routes are so successful. You can throw them over and over, and the defense can't always afford to gamble to stop them. We have had great success throwing those routes this year and it should shock no one. Also, it may not be that apparent, but we don't throw screens and dumpoffs every play. That's why they are often there.

can't believe you think "opening up the run" is such a frivolous thing. how do you just toss that out there like its worthless. its what got us into the playoffs last season! and AGAIN, what do you keep calling "great success"? receptions made? what's it matter if they aren't turning into any points, and in Mark's case, even FIRST DOWNS??

GTripp, you are absolitely tripping if you think Santana, Lloyd and ARE were brought here just for curls and screens. i swear all you care about is Mark's QB rating.