QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Thank you. Blaming the defense for Brunell's inability to put points on the board is tired.

Almost as tired as blaming Brunell for not keeping the defense off the field all game long.

Is it too much to ask the D to come up with a few 3 and outs or maybe a turnover? How about not giving up a score on every opening drive? Or giving up 3 TDs in one quarter?

We can't win with this defense, I don't care if we had McNabb or Manning. Even those guys can't win shootouts week in and week out.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is it too much to ask the D to come up with a few 3 and outs or maybe a turnover? How about not giving up a score on every opening drive? Or giving up 3 TDs in one quarter?

Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.

Well as has been said by many repeatedly here, the blame has to go all around.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Well as has been said by many repeatedly here, the blame has to go all around.

Exactly.

I think most of us would agree there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yet the overwhelming amount of time and energy around here is spent talking about one position.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Of course it's not too much to ask, but just because they're not holding up their end, it doesn't free Brunell from blame for not holding up his end of the deal.

Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?

First of all, I didn't say he sucks, just that he's not getting it done. And moving the ball and accuracy are fine, but when he has less touchdowns than starts, throws a four yard pass on 3rd and 8 constantly, and skips the ball to open receivers, he's not holding up his end of the deal.

Oh, I almost forgot... 2-5.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

First of all, I didn't say he sucks, just that he's not getting it done. And moving the ball and accuracy are fine, but when he has less touchdowns than starts, throws a four yard pass on 3rd and 8 constantly, and skips the ball to open receivers, he's not holding up his end of the deal.

Oh, I almost forgot... 2-5.

Ok, my fault for misquoting you then. But still...

The four yard passes on 3rd and 8 are what I was referring to by changing the plays in the huddle. Obviously, he checks down because the main reciever is covered. So if there was a better play call, the intended reciever would be open, because a pre snap read determines where the ball is going to go against 3rd down pressure. So what normally happens is that teams blitz us on 3rd down, Brunell has time to look at one reciever which is taken away for a multitude of reasons, and he checks it down. Running routes like all curl or all slant versus the blitz would allow Brunell to pick a guy before the snap and deliver the ball...but we never use these plays on third down. I think Saunders is getting too creative on a down where a conversion is critical.

I should be fair. On the flip side of the coin, the offense is more efficient than last year because on first and second down, we are more creative in the passing game and when not facing a blitz, work the intermediate passing game quite well. That's a big perk with an Al Saunders offense. But vs a blitz, a check down is the only way to beat it if the intended reciever is covered. My theroy is consistent with those observations of Brunell looking at one guy and then checking down.

As for the fewer TD's than games played:
1. That's not even true. Brunell has 7 starts and 7 TD passes.
2. Clinton Portis is second in the league with 6 TD runs. You can't score more than one TD a drive, so who the hell in their right mind would penalize the QB for a TD scored in the rushing game. Such I believe is the fundamental flaw of QB rating as a stat (which Brunell still ranks high in this season).

I don't remember him skipping a ball in since the Dallas game, which is pretty impressive for any QB. Then again, I was following the Tennessee game on radio, so I have no visuals from that game whatsoever.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The four yard passes on 3rd and 8 are what I was referring to by changing the plays in the huddle. Obviously, he checks down because the main reciever is covered. So if there was a better play call, the intended reciever would be open, because a pre snap read determines where the ball is going to go against 3rd down pressure. So what normally happens is that teams blitz us on 3rd down, Brunell has time to look at one reciever which is taken away for a multitude of reasons, and he checks it down.

that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

that's precisely correct. because Brunell needs a DB to have fallen down for him to feel safe throwing a ball into a tight spot on the field during a blitz. that's the ability that makes a good QB. a receiver being "covered" is a relative term, but for ultra-conservative Brunell, it takes an overtime desperation for him to test that term. but hey, Ladell is always open. until he gets to the line of schrimmage that is....

No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?

GTripp,
how bout throwing to his number 2 and number 3 receiver? YES, he's accurate because he's "moving the ball" 5yds away to the runningback.

do you really think all of Al Saunder's plays are "throw to the runningback 5yds SHORT of the 1st down"? NO. that's all Brunell. his check down in light of not being able to evade blitzes and find and throw to the open guy PAST the 1st down marker. heaven forbid they'd be near the endzone.

sure some of those screens are set up, but those dump offs he keeps making are his emergency valve when HE thinks he can't make the play. THATS the part of the deal he's not holding up, MAKING THE PLAY.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

do you really think all of Al Saunder's plays are "throw to the runningback 5yds SHORT of the 1st down"? NO. that's all Brunell. his check down in light of not being able to evade blitzes and find and throw to the open guy PAST the 1st down marker. heaven forbid they'd be near the endzone.

No, I do however think that is the SECOND option on many of them. If you watch how often Trent Green used to check down, it makes a lot of sense.

Fine, he's too old to evade the blitz (even though he still can at times). Campbell doesn't yet have that level of pocket presence, and he's not exactly known for his mobility.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

No, I do however think that is the SECOND option on many of them. If you watch how often Trent Green used to check down, it makes a lot of sense.

Fine, he's too old to evade the blitz (even though he still can at times). Campbell doesn't yet have that level of pocket presence, and he's not exactly known for his mobility.

right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by illdefined

he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

If I had a signature quote, I'd have to use that. Friggin classic.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

right again, but Campbell is known for his strong arm and long range accuracy. my point is i'm certain Campbell's definition of a receiver being "covered" would be much, much different than Brunell's, and at the cost of a couple more INTs, we'd see alot more primary 1st down receptions and TDs.

better yet, as Campbell gains experience actually playing, that ratio would just get more and more in our favor. there's no such upside with Brunell, i'm sure he will break the record for least INTs thrown in a season, but it will be at the cost of our season record.

his "good" stats reflect all the 3rd down yards and completions Brunell has completed SHORT of the 1st down (and endzone) and those are all useless to us. he's effectively making the whole season "garbage time"

Every time we complete a pass short of the first down marker, we hurt our offensive DVOA. Yet we still rank 7th in the league. This tells me that this does not happen as frequently as the Brunell-haters think it does.

I'm not sure a strong arm and long-range efficiency are a good fit in this offense. It's something that may be an improvement over Brunell, but at what cost? Expierience, short-range accuracy, pocket presence, probably a bit of pre LOS mobility. A lot of things that keep this offense moving.

There ARE offensive issues. We don't score nearly as many points as our efficiency would dictate. Of course, the statistical solution is to create a bigger sample size, in which points would theroretically balance out. So our biggest offensive problem, if not inconsistent line play, is a lack of fortune.

Some people on this fourm are under the impression that a QB change would fix some of our offensive problems. It would create a few more than we already have. Inevitably, we would fall out of the top 10 in efficiency as Campbell learns the ins and outs of the NFL game.

It MIGHT soften Campbell's learning curve to play him now, but this is a bad situation. I would hope that the defense can get rolling soon, and the line begins to play better. If that happens and we find ourselves out of the race in December, then give JC a chance to succeed and win some games in a good situation.

This is anything but a good situation, and Brunell has done a pretty solid job holding this toghether, even if he's errored on the cautious side (which is pure speculation at this point).

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Out of curiosity, which part of his deal hasn't he been holding up? He hasn't been inaccurate, and he moves the ball. So do you want him to start changing Saunders' plays in the huddle or something? Is that why he sucks, he accepts coaching?

moving the ball before were down by 21 would be nice.