Give Props to Brunell

[hesscl34]

POINT is that Brunell is our QB and will remain so the remainder of the year, so why do we have to talk about this week in and week out. He's not going anywhere, and to those of us that like enjoying a WIN, it gets old listening to the same crap over and over and over again from the bashers.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

POINT is that Brunell is our QB and will remain so the remainder of the year, so why do we have to talk about this week in and week out. He's not going anywhere, and to those of us that like enjoying a WIN, it gets old listening to the same crap over and over and over again from the bashers.

I just think it seems to be a case of the bar was sooo low that an average (below average) NFL QB performance is praised "Amazing". Kinda like a dog that soils the kitchen floor as opposed to the carpet, its an improvement, but its not really good. Now imagine the dog is 38...


call it what you want, but please don't pretend it was anything more than ok. 1 td and less than 200 yards. fine stats if you are trent dilfer with the ravens D and jamal lewis running for 100+ a game. but lets be reasonable.

Re: sick of "bashers": without people willing to take the other side, this forum would be quite uneventful.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

I just think it seems to be a case of the bar was sooo low that an average (below average) NFL QB performance is praised "Amazing". Kinda like a dog that soils the kitchen floor as opposed to the carpet, its an improvement, but its not really good. Now imagine the dog is 38...

Well, who set the bar there? Certainly not coach Gibbs. Certainly not his supporters. Certainly not objective observers. So I find it funny that the bashers, who spend so much of their time lowering the bar on Brunell, actually find it offensive that he outperformed the low bar!

It wasn't an amazing performance. Al and Joe decided they were going to take more risks offensively. Brunell went out and executed. Just another day at the office.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, who set the bar there? Certainly not coach Gibbs. Certainly not his supporters. Certainly not objective observers. So I find it funny that the bashers, who spend so much of their time lowering the bar on Brunell, actually find it offensive that he outperformed the low bar!

i don't find it offensive at all...on the contrary, I was very pleased that he seemed to stretch the field in the first half, etc. very pleased. I would argue Mark Brunell set the bar so low with his performances throughout most of his tenure as a skin...objectively speaking his numbers here have been less than stellar- for a non project QB (as has his record).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

i don't find it offensive at all...on the contrary, I was very pleased that he seemed to stretch the field in the first half, etc. very pleased. I would argue Mark Brunell set the bar so low with his performances throughout most of his tenure as a skin...objectively speaking his numbers here have been less than stellar- for a non project QB (as has his record).

Fair enough. Your point is very objective, although a bit undefended. Heres why:

This year his numbers have been stellar. People have made excuses for his numbers, usually fairly subjective reasoning, but then act like these excuses completely dismiss his numbers. Like the short easy passes explain the massive jump in completion %, but then seem to directly conflict the jump in yards per attempt. No one to date has been able to explain the jump in MB's yards per attempt because theres an assuption (an incorrect one) that he never throws deep.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough. Your point is very objective, although a bit undefended. Heres why:

This year his numbers have been stellar. People have made excuses for his numbers, usually fairly subjective reasoning, but then act like these excuses completely dismiss his numbers. Like the short easy passes explain the massive jump in completion %, but then seem to directly conflict the jump in yards per attempt. No one to date has been able to explain the jump in MB's yards per attempt because theres an assuption (an incorrect one) that he never throws deep.

I think the assumption that he doesn't throw deep has some legitimacy towards it. I think it was my homie tafkas that released the deep ball spread sheet, I'll look for it in a second.

He is however looking better as of late. That extra weak of rest definitly helped him out. He doesn't play well injured ever, and I think he's looking pretty sharp now.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I think the assumption that he doesn't throw deep has some legitimacy towards it. I think it was my homie tafkas that released the deep ball spread sheet, I'll look for it in a second.

He is however looking better as of late. That extra weak of rest definitly helped him out. He doesn't play well injured ever, and I think he's looking pretty sharp now.

Theres a difference between not throwing deep and not throwing deep as often as so and so. If you make a comparison, then you may have a point. But if you say "doesn't throw deep", then all I have to do is show one example and said person is wrong.

It's nitpicky I know, but if you use qualifiers and comparisions, we have a discussion. If you don't, I use stats...and then we have whiny baseless rebuttles.

I hate to be stingy like this (I really do), but if people don't back up their posts with evidence, they shouldn't be able to dismiss stats.

Remember, I don't think the way I do because of the stats, I only use them to reinforce my opinion.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough. Your point is very objective, although a bit undefended. Heres why:

This year his numbers have been stellar. People have made excuses for his numbers, usually fairly subjective reasoning, but then act like these excuses completely dismiss his numbers. Like the short easy passes explain the massive jump in completion %, but then seem to directly conflict the jump in yards per attempt. No one to date has been able to explain the jump in MB's yards per attempt because theres an assuption (an incorrect one) that he never throws deep.

while i am aware that Brunell's completion percentage is up yoy, I admit to not knowing the exact numbers associated with an increase in Yards per attempt. I would love to see them. I would suspect that if you were to look at his passes, most would be in the under 10 yards range- with significant yards coming from his recievers gaining YAC. I would not take anything away from Brunell for such plays- as getting the ball to the open man 5 yards away who runs for 20 there after is just as important as tossing for 25. I cannot however, agree that Mark Brunell's numbers have been stellar. What is the basis for comparison? I would argue that you should compare him to other QBs in the league (more specifically- those that aren't in danger of losing their jobs- ie winning). (i have a feeling some will tout the numbers of plummer and mcnair as comparisions- fair enough- but we don't have anyhting close to Broncos or Raven's D). That said, it is entirely possible that we just disagree on the definition of stellar.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

while i am aware that Brunell's completion percentage is up yoy, I admit to not knowing the exact numbers associated with an increase in Yards per attempt. I would love to see them. I would suspect that if you were to look at his passes, most would be in the under 10 yards range- with significant yards coming from his recievers gaining YAC. I would not take anything away from Brunell for such plays- as getting the ball to the open man 5 yards away who runs for 20 there after is just as important as tossing for 25. I cannot however, agree that Mark Brunell's numbers have been stellar. What is the basis for comparison? I would argue that you should compare him to other QBs in the league (more specifically- those that aren't in danger of losing their jobs- ie winning). (i have a feeling some will tout the numbers of plummer and mcnair as comparisions- fair enough- but we don't have anyhting close to Broncos or Raven's D). That said, it is entirely possible that we just disagree on the definition of stellar.

The part I have bolded is a very important part of the equation. Your statement is 100% correct. As the leader of the offense, Mark Brunell should not be penalized for finding his best player in open space, simply because the pass was short. Simple logic says that if he throws the ball underneath and the back gets 10 yards yac, there probably (as in not every time) was not a better throw to make. The 7.24 yards/attempt figure ranks 7th in the NFL. Rivers, Brees, Huard, Bulger, Peyton Manning, and McNabb are the only QBs who rank ahead of him. Does Brunell have better run after catch recievers than every other QB in the NFL? I'm guessing no. For every Moss and Randle El, There's an Owens and Glenn, or a Walker and Rod Smith (and David Kircus!), or an Ocho Cinco and a Championship. But are passing game out produces those, because we get more yards per attempt then they do which last time I looked was the goal of passing.

I don't remember saying stellar and if I did I was surely refering to THIS game only on his measly 23 attempts. To put it in perspective, in each of the 8 games this year, the opposing QB has thrown 25 or more passes against us despite the 3-5 record. In fact only once were we thrown on less than 29 times. 23 attempts is nothing, and with little YAC help and a lot of drops, Brunell threw for nearly 200 yards. But thats why you use Y/A instead of yards. Even the dudes who developed the weak QB Rating formula figured that one out.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough. Your point is very objective, although a bit undefended. Heres why:

This year his numbers have been stellar. People have made excuses for his numbers, usually fairly subjective reasoning, but then act like these excuses completely dismiss his numbers. Like the short easy passes explain the massive jump in completion %, but then seem to directly conflict the jump in yards per attempt. No one to date has been able to explain the jump in MB's yards per attempt because theres an assuption (an incorrect one) that he never throws deep.

Tripp, it's been explained ad infinitum. it's YAC - that's a stat, so start doing some serious subtraction. maybe if Distance Thrown was a stat, you would pay attention. maybe if stats only applied when In Contention (and not garbage time) you would stop basing Brunell's HOF application based on his 'stellar' numbers.

beware the number crunchers.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Tripp, it's been explained ad infinitum. it's YAC - that's a stat, so start doing some serious subtraction. maybe if Distance Thrown was a stat, you would pay attention. maybe if stats only applied when In Contention (and not garbage time) you would stop basing Brunell's HOF application based on his 'stellar' numbers.

beware the number crunchers.

not only that, when i looked at the deep throw chart TAFKAS threw up, guys like peyton threw 50% more deep passes and completed 50% more as well as having a lower int % on deep balls. if you go through the play by plays, they keep track of deep passes and shorter passes that go for big gains.

sometimes it seems like GTripp doesn't even bother watching the games, and just looks at the stat lines instead.

and GT, you're arguement that the lack of possessions is what's making the offense look bad is crap. brunell has more attempts this year (in 8 games) than he had in 9 in 2004 (with a great defense), and he's on track to have more than he had in 2005 (with a good defense), and he'll be sacked less too.

and before you project out how this year's stats will be better than last years - they won't. brunell fades down the stretch, and when we started winning last year, it was in part because we took the ball out of his hands and ran it more...


first 8 starts in 2005: 34.8 passes per game, 4-4 record
-------------------- 320+ yards twice, 220+ 5 times
next 8 starts: 22.4 passes per game, 6-2 record
---------------- under 200 yards EIGHT times (under 160 6 times)

when brunell throws 27 times or less per game: 11-2
otherwise: 5-14

and no shit it's somewhat self-serving, but that doesn't seem to bother you (that whole correlation != causation thing).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

Tripp, it's been explained ad infinitum. it's YAC - that's a stat, so start doing some serious subtraction. maybe if Distance Thrown was a stat, you would pay attention. maybe if stats only applied when In Contention (and not garbage time) you would stop basing Brunell's HOF application based on his 'stellar' numbers.

beware the number crunchers.

So you want all QB yardage to be calculated by how far the ball traveled? Figures as much. Then you'd have all the West Coast QBs with really shitty Y/A stats simply because of the system. Then you wouldn't really know anything about the guy except what kind of system he plays in. It would not go in any way toward getting you closer to the "why do teams win/lose?" answer (the ONLY reason for statistical analysis). But it'd make Brunell's stats look like what you think they should be, so thats cool I guess.

You could cut the stats at the point when garbage time starts, and it would make the numbers ever so slightly more accurate, or you could just leave EVERYONES garbage time in and understand that what you are given is a general representation of how well a player has performed. So you can say Brunell sucks, I can show you his stats, you can make any dann excuse you want to, and I'll say fair enough, but in general Brunell has played well. Someone who is doing poorer than him in all major categories is not playing as well. Obviously. QB Rating puts him at #8 in the NFL. You will never hear me refer to him as the 8th best QB. That's not general enough. Conventional stats aren't that accurate.

QBing is all about doing your role in the offense. Some QBs have bigger roles than others. Brunell's is actually quite small, and he does it well. Stats are not what made me come to this conclusion, its what allows me to make an arguement thats actually something and not nothing.

Back to your YAC point, stats aren't going to seperate the QB from the offense (FO's stats try to but that seems a bit advanced for you), but even if you change the QB he still won't be seperated from the offense. So you accept the YAC as part of the offense, and you move on. You don't worry about it skewing the stats. We aren't talking about Brunell moving to another team here.

Which brings me back to my main point. There is no present reason good enough to replace Mark Brunell. People who agree with me: Joe Gibbs, Al Saunders, among others. People who (at least seem to) disagree: Illdefined, RedskinRat, among others.

Here's what's been explained ad infinitum. I've given countless reasons why MB SHOULDN't be benched. You've given baseless reasoning to why he SHOULD, and then have given at least relevant reasoning to why my stats are not all they are cracked up to be. They are what they are. A general representation of how well a player has performed.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

POINT is that Brunell is our QB and will remain so the remainder of the year, so why do we have to talk about this week in and week out. He's not going anywhere, and to those of us that like enjoying a WIN, it gets old listening to the same crap over and over and over again from the bashers.

I was feeling that same way in 2004 when Brunell was being called everything except what his mother named him. Sometime during that period I felt sort of out of place being only one of the few who supported him. Compare what was being said about him then, with what's being said about him now from basically the same people. I have come to the conclusion that for Brunell, his situation is going to go back and forth, week after week depending on whether the team wins or looses, It's just that simple. The fact we won ten games and made the playoffs last year with Brunell still dosen't make up for/or off-set some of the things that were said about the man, and "You heard it right here".