Give Props to Brunell

[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).

[rotahe39]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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
.

Interesting stat i like it

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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).

the running game also got a lot better at the end of the year

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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

Honestly I'm not sure how much information you can derive from that stat. It's kind of stating the obvious.

When teams are losing (and therefore more likely to lose the game) they pass more. When a team is winning (and therefore more likely to win the game) they run more.

If you averaged all the games played by all the teams in the past 10 years, you'd find a similar stat.

Not trying to be a naysayer, just thought I'd make that point. It really doesn't say anything about Brunell in particular, just that we pass more when we're down, and we usually lose games in which we were down.

[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.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.

so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.

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.

then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.

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.

thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.

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.

YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.

again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.

just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?

yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

relying on stats, any stats, was your bag, not mine. i spoke about the KINDS of passes he throws, from frequent observation, something no official stat, including your FO stats keep track of.

so because its not a recognized stat it's not relevant? sacks weren't always a recognized stat, but they sure were relevant, and not at all subjective.




then i could argue everyone's garbage time is alot less than Brunells. regardless that wasn't a serious point, when you often refer to your stats, you very frequently refer to our offense as the x number league in efficiency. you do this very often.



thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.



YOU asked why Brunell's YPA was up so we answered you. because we have two of the best punt returners in the game - which make a career of YAC - for wide recievers. whether screens are the best use of them is another matter, but we answered your question.

again, you call our arguments baseless because Passes Thrown Outside The Numbers doesn't happen to be a stat. nor Passes Thrown Before the Marker. etc. etc.

just because they aren't doesn't make them irrelevant or even subjective (Aikman had a nice graphic and everything). don't you think the KINDS of passes Brunell makes effects other parts of the offense? don't you think how defenses react to Brunell's tendencies affects our running game? (how are Portis's numbers this year btw). how many times has the 'Gibbs wins every time when they get 100yds rushing' stats been debunked as near meaningless?

yes, stats are a REPRESENTATION of performance, but they aren't the whole picture (that many people in the NFL say they see - not just Rat and i) which you dismiss complelety simply because it's not numerical.

The reason I say "the Redskins rank 6th in offensive efficency" is because if I were to say "Washington is plus 12.5% DVOA through 8 games (true statement)," about three people on this fourm would know what the f I'm saying. Don't get me wrong, thats a very general 6. Just because we rank 1 spot ahead of the Patriots doesn't mean a person who says the Pats have a better offense is wrong...its too close to be certain.

I actually agree with your post up to a certain point, but I'm afraid you missed the main part of my point again. I'm not trying to call you out or anything. Let me simplify everything for a second. We are going to take Mark Brunell out of the equation. Lets examine this situation from the start.

Quarterback B is producing good stats this year, in a YAC based offense. Quarterback B played in a different, also YAC based offense in 2005. Quarterback B argueably should have been a pro bowler in 2005 due to a weak NFC QBing class. Quarterback B's numbers (in a different offense, but certainly no more YAC-based) have improved in 2006 over his fairly impressive 2005.

Some fans still think Quarterback B should be benched.

All of the above statements are either facts, or very reasonable assumptions. Now, it can be argued that I'm oversimplifying a situation. But no matter how bad the situation is being simplified, the final sentence seems to make absolutely no sense given the above statements. There is always going to be some reasoning to explain it, like offensive additions of godly talent at the wide receiver position that make Santana Moss look like a camp scrub, or that maybe the new offense is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the playcalling is made by Albert Einstein's son.

But no matter what you say, the final statement will still seem (and is of course) somewhat obsured. Maybe less obsured once you get the whole picture i.e. haven't missed a Redskin game since September 2003 like me, or much earlier like some of you. But obsured none the less.

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Theres strong statistical evidence to suggest Jason Campbell will become one of the better QBs in the NFL. But what can't be predicted is how he will play in his first few starts, which is what we are talking about when we say "bench Brunell." Espicially when Brunell is doing everything that's asked of him so far.

thats all our points, that Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense, which simply isn't cutting it this season in the position we're in.

It's this kind of statement that hurts me when I read it. This is supposed to be your big knockout punch to me...and its reliant on the fact that I completely and utterly assume you correct when you say "Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense". Granted all the limitations are assumed ones (I would argue that they arent actually limitations at all), and YOU, illdefined, are giving reasoning that only Mark Brunell himself knows for sure (and maybe the coaches if there is a mass conspiracy going on). You simply don't have the knowledge necessary to make this statement. Thats not a personal attack, I don't either, as likely no one on this fourm does. But if that's your evidence for him "not cutting it", so be it...I have hundreds of relatively unbiased observations (just as good as yours) and a few key stats that says he is "cutting it".

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's ridiculous to think benching Brunell would improve the team. If you have the coaches tape, this would most likely be apparent. But we don't so all we have is live game coverage when our emotions are at the strongest and our judgement is most clouded. Not saying our eyes decieve us, but you shouldn't make assumptions about what he is/isn't doing. Some things will be obvious, most won't. But stats are stats. For everyone. It's the only thing we have that's consistent with what the coaches have.

Are you saying that your assumptions are better than our assumtions?

Niiiiice.

Here's a hypothetical for you. A team with a struggling but proven Vet decides to bench said Vet. They go on to win their first game with their well versed but essentially 'new' QB. The next game they play away and come close to another victory. Was that a good decision? Should they go back to Bledsoe...bugger, I meant the hypothetical QB.

If anyone (other than the coaching staff, and please try to remember coaches can get it wrong) can truthfully say that Brunell is the only option for winning that we have I'd like to see their evidence. I don't want stats, you can make stats say anything and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring.

We need to start Campbell. That's a fact.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Are you saying that your assumptions are better than our assumtions?

No. Thanks for asking though!

Niiiiice.

Really, you thought so? You don't say...

Here's a hypothetical for you. A team with a struggling but proven Vet decides to bench said Vet. They go on to win their first game with their well versed but essentially 'new' QB. The next game they play away and come close to another victory. Was that a good decision? Should they go back to Bledsoe...bugger, I meant the hypothetical QB.

Did Dallas make the right decision for them? Absolutely. Romo is growing into that QB roll. Don't even try comparing Bledsoe's season to Brunell's. It's not even remotely close.

If anyone (other than the coaching staff, and please try to remember coaches can get it wrong) can truthfully say that Brunell is the only option for winning that we have I'd like to see their evidence. I don't want stats, you can make stats say anything and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring.

If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm'..ill get to that later), and while you would be correct in saying that statistics cannot isolate intangibles from talent, you'd be a fool to think a guy's intangibles don't play a huge part in his overall statistical production. If that wasn't true, how could a guy like Chad Pennington, who has a weak arm and no leg speed and a serious rotator cuff injury, put up good numbers year in and year out? Statistics look at the player as a whole, not a bunch of parts. Since you can't put Pennington's head on Favre's body anyway, it doesn't do any good to break a player's game down to the level of "cannon-arm". If you have a cannon-arm and are good, the stats will show it. If you have a cannon-arm and suck, then you are Rob Johnson.

Speaking of cannon-arm, wtf makes that an intangible. Intangibles are usually mental things if I'm not mistaken. I would describe cannon-arm as more of a tool. And if tools were the most important thing in a QB, every team would put their best athlete at that position.

We need to start Campbell. That's a fact.

No. That's an opinion. I learned that one in 4th grade (I was 10).

We aren't retarding his growth by not starting him, but for all intents and purposes, we would be conceeding the season.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you could, in fact, make stats say anything, that means you can make a statistical arguement that Brunell is a crappy QB...right? Hell, go for it. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

3-5. There, that was easy.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Intangibles are very important for a QB (way, way more than 'cannon-arm' <SNIP>

OK, you missed the point ( I learned Not missing the point in Kindergarten) of what I was saying was an intangible.

Quote: ....and it doesn't show the intangibles like what a charge having a cannon-arm in at QB would bring


Bringing in a QB that would give the team a charge. That's the intangible. Remember how Fed Ex felt when we started Ramsey? The place came alive, the team look re-energized. THAT'S the 'intangible' I'm talking about. Can't measure it (yet) but you can see the effect.

[RobH4413]

At first glance, you'd think we just gave Brunell 20 pages of props....


so sad....


But seriously... why don't we all just agree to disagree?

A debate lasting mabye 4-5 pages.... makes sense... but 20!?!?... I'll admit I got sucked in back on page 16-17 area... but man.. this is nuts...

[illdefined]

if you've been reading my earlier posts, i have reluctantly conceded that Brunell shouldn't be benched soon because of the truly disheartening fact Jason Campbell hasn't even trained with the first team in consecutive days since he's been a Redskin. utterly tragic. i becried that sad little fact last week before the Dallas game. i was also impressed with Mark throwing over the middle and putting his INT ratio on the line to actually beat our hated rival last week.

so i hope that clears that up, but your last point, which seems kind of a sore point is a tough one. seems like you are all too cognizant of Brunell's limitations. please reconcile these last two statements by you.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's this kind of statement that hurts me when I read it. This is supposed to be your big knockout punch to me...and its reliant on the fact that I completely and utterly assume you correct when you say "Brunell's limitations are what MAKE him a small role-player in this offense". Granted all the limitations are assumed ones (I would argue that they arent actually limitations at all), and YOU, illdefined, are giving reasoning that only Mark Brunell himself knows for sure (and maybe the coaches if there is a mass conspiracy going on). You simply don't have the knowledge necessary to make this statement. Thats not a personal attack, I don't either, as likely no one on this fourm does. But if that's your evidence for him "not cutting it", so be it...I have hundreds of relatively unbiased observations (just as good as yours) and a few key stats that says he is "cutting it".

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

No arguement here, in fact this is a great point. Saunders' system seems to be pretty universal, but its a far cry from the Gibbs/Musgrave system which taylored to Brunells strengths. I mean how often these days do you see Brunell throw that godly accurate touch pass? Pretty much never.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

so i hope that clears that up, but your last point, which seems kind of a sore point is a tough one. seems like you are all too cognizant of Brunell's limitations. please reconcile these last two statements by you.

Was going to give up the arguement, hopefully can do it after this post.

Those were two completely seperate points. In one I comment that last year we had a system built around Brunell. This year we have a system that has been successful with a different QB, and on the surface it appears that he's actually improved even though the offense isn't built for his strengths. This is based 100% on observation and really isn't saying anything on its own, just adding to that guy's playcalling point, which I agree with.

The other one is simply addressing what is an inconsistency between what you believe and what evidence says. You say that Brunells limitations are what make him a small-role player in the offense. But the offense itself on the surface appears to be unchanged. Therefore the QB role would be the same whether or not it is him or someone else. It is certainly not Brunell that makes the system. You drew up the point that his limitations make him a small role player to cover the gap in your belief that his stats are 100% product of system. I just can't see anyway that's probable, so I pointed that out. You stat it as if it was fact...but in reality I don't think its an even realistic statement.

That's the problem though. Without statistics, it's going to be my word vs your word.