It's not Brunell's fault!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

if we had more consistant production we'd have a higher TOP. and garbage time = prevent defense = the defense giving you the 5 and 6 yard plays. and that's more or less what we got. 1 TD after their D had completely let up, and it looked like the skins were barely even trying. and I wouldn't tear generalizations apart if they're true. we don't throw deep, not compared to other NFL teams, and we don't throw over the middle, and haven't for quite a while.

fighting a losing battle is meaningless. that whole part of your arguement is skewed, because in the prevent they weren't rushing nearly as much, and if he completed deep earlier, they'd back off the line and he wouldn't have to throw nearly every down. prevent defenses almost never hurt stats, since shallow completions are almost given away.

If you want to get techincal, add a qualifier to your generalization such as "we dont throw deep often", or "we dont throw deep as much as Indy does". Saying we don't do this, and we don't do that is incorrect. We do throw all over the field, but we tend to use the flats more often than most teams.

And teams DO back off the line already because they respect Santana's deep threat ability. You know this because we don't throw deep to him, and Saunders has a history of going deep in KC and STL.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

And teams DO back off the line already because they respect Santana's deep threat ability. You know this because we don't throw deep to him, and Saunders has a history of going deep in KC and STL.

I didn't see them backing off, i saw them punking him. maybe they didn't throw to him because brunell has a noddle arm, and saunders had better QBs with better arms in KC and STL. :P

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I didn't see them backing off, i saw them punking him. maybe they didn't throw to him because brunell has a noddle arm, and saunders had better QBs with better arms in KC and STL. :P

Maybe. I'm guessing no, since I've seen him throw deep a bunch over the past two seasons. If he physically couldn't that's one thing, but he quite obviously can (I don't believe anyone who watches the games <or even a QB competition> disputes the fact that Brunell can toss it 50+ yards in the air), and all confidience issues aside, the D will generally play to the speed of the WRs, not the arm of the QB.

Remember, as soon as a D trys to get cute on us and puts all 11 guys within 5 yards of the LOS, they will get beat deep.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe. I'm guessing no, since I've seen him throw deep a bunch over the past two seasons. If he physically couldn't that's one thing, but he quite obviously can (I don't believe anyone who watches the games <or even a QB competition> disputes the fact that Brunell can toss it 50+ yards in the air), and all confidience issues aside, the D will generally play to the speed of the WRs, not the arm of the QB.

Remember, as soon as a D trys to get cute on us and puts all 11 guys within 5 yards of the LOS, they will get beat deep.

Brunell has thrown deep, but its WHEN he tries thats the problem. he's only willing (or able) to when he can step into it and no one's around ("never"). he can't do it on the run, and he's not willing to unless the reciever is far enough away from a DB for Brunell to feel safe in throwing ("never").

superlatives like "never" aside, its why you always blitz Brunell, because his tendencies are the worst kept secret in the league.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Brunell has thrown deep, but its WHEN he tries thats the problem. he's only willing (or able) to when he can step into it and no one's around ("never"). he can't do it on the run, and he's not willing to unless the reciever is far enough away from a DB for Brunell to feel safe in throwing ("never").

superlatives like "never" aside, its why you always blitz Brunell, because his tendencies are the worst kept secret in the league.

maybe he needs them that open cause he can't get great velocity on balls (to prevent them from haning up).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Brunell has thrown deep, but its WHEN he tries thats the problem. he's only willing (or able) to when he can step into it and no one's around ("never"). he can't do it on the run, and he's not willing to unless the reciever is far enough away from a DB for Brunell to feel safe in throwing ("never").

superlatives like "never" aside, its why you always blitz Brunell, because his tendencies are the worst kept secret in the league.

Okay, but all justifications aside, why is he still the 11th rated QB in the 6th rated offense? You make him sound like a horrid player. I'd say as bad as you make his tendencies sound, he's still quite effective against NFL defenses.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, but all justifications aside, why is he still the 11th rated QB in the 6th rated offense? You make him sound like a horrid player. I'd say as bad as you make his tendencies sound, he's still quite effective against NFL defenses.

maybe because our entire games are "garbage time". and all the completions and yards Brunell gets is what the defense provides him. can you seriously say Brunell attacks defenses? defenses have been dictating to him all season. with our defense the way it is, they can afford to be generous.

[Twilbert07]

Dan Daly in today's Washington Times makes a good point about Gibbs and his blind faith in Brunell.

"Gibbs' characteristic calm in the face of a storm, so important to last year's turnaround, seems almost an impediment to the club's progress these days. If Coach Joe truly thinks Brunell played "extremely well" against Indy -- after the offense generated seven points in the first 59 minutes, 41 seconds -- you have to wonder whether Mark might retire as the Redskins' quarterback. At the age of 65."

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, but all justifications aside, why is he still the 11th rated QB in the 6th rated offense? You make him sound like a horrid player. I'd say as bad as you make his tendencies sound, he's still quite effective against NFL defenses.

garbage time. houston. he isn't very good. and he's not effective. he has the worst record in comeback situations, a bad win % here. the offense is underperforming and he's a part of it.

[jdlea]

First of all, Campbell is not a cure-all. I've said plenty of times he doesn't translate to wins. What it means is that since they're going to lose, they'll now lose with a purpose so that a 22/23 year old can learn how to play. Not for a 36 year old to try to learn how to play QB in this system. They're 2-5, they're not going to make the playoffs. Everyone can try to feed me this bs about being 2.5 games back of Philly. Well, the Skins have yet to win 3 games this season against a few mediocre teams so far. So, what makes everyone think they'd somehow make up 3 games against Philly? Cause they play them twice? Well, the d stops no one and the O doesn't put points on the board...that doesn't translate to many wins.

I'm not saying that it is all on Mark Brunell. However, he's the only change that can be made. You can't replace 11 guys on defense. You're not gonna find replacements for everyone playing poorly on defense. You can replace the quarterback, if for nothing else, just ot let the kid learn how to play in the NFL. That's what's important now, getting Campbell ready to play. Leaving Mark in is just stupid.

Now, to absolve Mark Brunell from blame is wrong. I don't understand how anyone can watch that game and think "if they stretched the field they wouldn't be a better team." The defense is bad, so you have to put up points to win. Does anyone ever see a defense's win-loss record? No, but guess what you do see...a quarterback's win-loss record. Mark Brunell's with the Skins? 16-21. That's bad. If he were young I'd say he's developing, but he's old, so he's regressing. There is no reason to leave him in. They could have gone 2-5 with Campbell. And Brunell didn't show me anything that Campbell couldn't have done yesterday. I don't watch Brunell and even think that I can't make the throws he's making. It's embarassing.

Tom Jackson regularly references "the eye test." That's his football eye, Mark Brunell doesn't pass that. Hell, Aikman (a pretty damn good qb in his day) was wondering aloud why Brunell kept checking the damn ball down. So, I would say that's someone around the league that doesn't think he's getting the job done. Oh, and Shannon Sharpe called him out last week. He doesn't think he's getting it done either.

To the question as to what I would think if Campbell came in and did the same thing? I'd blame the coaches. However, I don't believe that Saunders' offense is all checkdowns and screens. I refuse to believe it. Maybe they'd put Jason in and leave the training wheels on for a while so they would be short passes, but I'll be really disappointed. If this is the offense, there's something wrong. I'd say heads should roll, but that doesn't usually help build stability (not the Skins strong point recently). However, I think Gibbs is smart enough to know that you can't win in the NFL throwing that many short passes.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, but all justifications aside, why is he still the 11th rated QB in the 6th rated offense? You make him sound like a horrid player. I'd say as bad as you make his tendencies sound, he's still quite effective against NFL defenses.

What 6th rated offense?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What 6th rated offense?

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What 6th rated offense?

You didn't know?

Were sixth in the NFC East!!!!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you want to get techincal, add a qualifier to your generalization such as "we dont throw deep often", or "we dont throw deep as much as Indy does". Saying we don't do this, and we don't do that is incorrect. We do throw all over the field, but we tend to use the flats more often than most teams.

If there's one thing I've learned on this board it's that it's not uncommon among several members to make all or nothing statements. Always and Never are two very popular words here. It's annoying but you can't change it