Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

Fair point. I guess I just feel that if the rest of the NFL "knew" he couldn't really hack it as a starter any more, why didn't we? (that was the prevailing sentiment when we signed him). As a result, i do blame his age and mileage for his injuries...

Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.

Rather than debate you point for point since we are on polar opposites of the Brunell bandwagon, I'll just say this.. The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG.. Bottom line, he had one decent season, 2005. He was terrible and benched in 2004. He was terrible (outside of the Houston game) and benched in 2006. I know the entire offense isn't all on him and it's not his fault entirely that we struggled mightily on that side of the ball for years but for what we paid for him in picks, money and time he was an unmitigated bust in DC.

The reason that QB is the most valued and highest paid position in the NFL is because the buck stops there. RB get to make excuses about blocking in front of them. WR get to make excuses about not getting the ball thrown their way. DB get to make excuses about officiating or not being in the right scheme. QB are paid to do one thing, win.

I'm sure he's a great guy and a wonderful teammate but he didn't get the job of winning football games done well enough, bottom line.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG..

I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.

You're right, if you're comparing grapes to grapefruits.. Campbell's career is just beginning and Brunell's was over before he got here so that's a brilliant conclusion that Campbell's career is over. C'mon dude, use common sense in making your point or refuting mine..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

You're right, if you're comparing grapes to grapefruits.. Campbell's career is just beginning and Brunell's was over before he got here so that's a brilliant conclusion that Campbell's career is over. C'mon dude, use common sense in making your point or refuting mine..

Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'll just say this.. The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG.. bottom line.

Your words, not mine.

I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard. Bottom line...

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

Your words, not mine.

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.

Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement, but I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is to say that all you care about is wins. First of all, you have too much rep on this site for that to be true.

Secondly, as I posted (edited) above I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard...all of which suggest that Campbell is far beyond where Ramsey was at that point in his career.

I'm trying to give you a hard time here. Not because you didn't respect what Brunell did here, I could care less. Only because you resorted to oversimplifying an intelligent argument, and that's a pet peeve of mine.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.

Very solid points across the board. Hindsight is 20/20 (easy for me to sit here in 2008 and play 2004 GM) - your well reasoned alternative views were refreshing...Note- there is very little chance I can be convince that Brunell wasn't a failure (wins, losses, salary, opportunity costs, stats, firmness of handshake, etc)- but i don't think we have much left to dispute- I'm not sure we we couldn't sign him without a lesser pick or on the open market- but that is semantics.