|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
View Poll Results: Is it time to bench Brunell? | |||
Yes | 141 | 61.84% | |
Give him another week | 37 | 16.23% | |
Give him a few more weeks | 35 | 15.35% | |
No | 15 | 6.58% | |
Voters: 228. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-19-2006, 02:04 AM | #346 |
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega-merge)
Seriously? That's awesome.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
Advertisements |
09-19-2006, 02:08 AM | #347 |
Swearinger
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
I have mixed feelings on benching Brunell. He has looked awful, to say the least. But he can still put some zip on the ball, and is pretty good at not turning it over. I think we need to leave him in there until he gets some decent pass protection and #26 comes back to bolster the running game. I can say with conviction that we cannot put the ball in Brunell's hands and say, "hey Mark, go win the game." That just won't happen. If we can RUN the damn ball to set up the passing game, then I believe he can still be effecient. But with no Portis, no pass blocking, and only 16 friggin running plays a game, we're aren't going anywhere. Where is our vaunted O-line? Can't Buges get these "dirtbags" to knuckle up a bit? We made the Cowboys D-line look way better than they are.
And on that note, WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE RUNNING IT MORE???? Down the stretch last year when we ripped off the last 5 regular season games, we ran it 35-40 times per contest. That's what won Coach Gibbs three Super Bowls in his first stint, and that has been the biggest determinant of his success this time around. RUN RUN RUN, and the field will open up for the pass!!!!! Although you have to convert 3rd downs first I guess.... |
09-19-2006, 02:12 AM | #348 |
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
I think there are several reasons we aren't running more. But the two main ones are that a.) the gap between Portis and Betts talentwise is a lot bigger than many perhaps originally thought, and b.) stupid penalties on 1st and 2nd down are forcing 3rd and longs. I think it's time for Duckett to move up a spot in the depth chart. I mean is Betts still hurt, because he doesn't look so great. No one does, but he especially just looks really slow
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
09-19-2006, 02:20 AM | #349 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,836
|
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega-merge)
Quote:
Anyway, my point is that there is a difference between saying that all of our problems this season can be attributed to him (they cant) versus saying that, given our many smaller problems, at quarterback we have a big problem, which is what I think the more intelligent posts in this thread argue. Like it or not Brunell is the quarterback, but are you seriously saying you are comfortable with this, at least as of right now? Trotting out his stats from the first 14 games of last season proves nothing, because we are now going on, what, 9 straight wobbly games from him? It hurts to face it, but this team just might have problems at qb that are too big to overcome. Curse at us all you want, but I think Brunell's performance so far this season at least warrants questioning. |
|
09-19-2006, 02:21 AM | #350 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 44
Posts: 3,813
|
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega-merge)
Sorry if anyone else posted something similar but I don't feel like reading through 35 pages of posts so here goes:
I almost started to say yes but I think with as huge as this playbook is, he should get another week. Normally there shouldn't be any major position changes barring injury but Brunell looks like an old Patrick Ramsey w/o the arm. He looked so lost and flustered last night that if I hadn't known better, I would have thought him to be a fresh rookie getting thrown to the lions. He panicked when he had protection and he couldn't throw it away or run when the pressure got close. He consistently was throwing behind his target and was always throwing off his back foot. He never attempted anything downfield even when replays showed he had a reciever with a step on the dbs. This season has too much invested in it to keep giving someone who hasn't produced in his last 8 games dating back to last year's playoffs and including the preseason. And there's something about the way Al Saunders has said that if a switch were to be made, they would bypass Collins and immediately go to Campbell and that speaks a lot of the coaching staffs belief in Campbell's abilities to me. But Brunell does deserve a full game of a healthy Portis and they MUST get Cooley and Moss involved early and often. I honestly think the team can bounce back from this rough start and be the team we all thought they could be, but someone must inject some life and energy into this team because thus far they have played like a team with no heart and desire.
__________________
"Ahhh, so you're stupid in 3 languages?" |
09-19-2006, 02:22 AM | #351 |
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,836
|
Re: Time to bench Brunell? (Mega-merge)
|
09-19-2006, 02:27 AM | #352 |
Swearinger
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
Tafkas, I agree that Betts doesn't look as good as I've seen him in the past, but Duckett didn't look like he was exactly ramming it in there either. He (Ducektt) did have that one nice 15 yard run to the outside, but we've gotta get Portis back. As far as Duckett being #2 on the depth chart, I think he probably would be if he had been with the team for more than a few days of training camp.
But don't you agree that running the ball on first and second down sets the tempo and controls both the clock and the pace of the game?? We're trying to do too many things on offense. Apparently the cowboys were playing a cover 2 that involved a few d-backs staying way back in coverage to prevent any successful deep routes. Running consistently would bring more men in the box and open up the pass. Anyone knows that. I want to believe that Gibbs brought Saunders in large part becuase of his success pounding that rock (see Priest and Larry Johnson). I scream and yell at the TV to RUN THE DAMN BALL. So do we give Brunell a game against a traditionally bad team to turn it around? With Portis likely back this week and the track record of the Texans, don't you think Brunell deserves to give it one more go?? |
09-19-2006, 02:32 AM | #353 |
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
Yeah I was just saying that I think they put themselves in situations where they couldn't run especially on second downs. There's no question we need Portis back.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
09-19-2006, 02:43 AM | #354 |
Swearinger
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
I am really tired of having to deal with bitching about the quarterback position. We have a constant carousel year in and out, controversies year in year out, and discussions like one pretty much on a consistent basis. Never shoulda let Brad Johnson go....
|
09-19-2006, 03:30 AM | #355 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: VA
Age: 42
Posts: 17,553
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
Quote:
|
|
09-19-2006, 04:07 AM | #356 |
Special Teams
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 322
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
We had 16 first downs before the last 2 possessions (where they picked up a whole bunch of "free" yards. Results:
8 pass plays: 5/7, 47 yards, 1 sack. First down obtained on 6 of 8 of these series. 8 run plays: First down obtained on 2 of 8 of these series. When they run the ball on first down, the'yre usually stuck with 2nd and long, and then we know what's going to happen. They SHOULD run the ball, all things NOT considered. But when we consider how bad our rushing is (not placing blame, but plenty to go around) it's leaving us in a hole. So, until it's fixed, we need to pass more frequently on first down, at least to keep them guessing. (For the first downs in the second half in the above analysis, we passed once and ran 4 times, thus eliminating ourselves from the game.) |
09-19-2006, 08:41 AM | #357 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
The solution to me seems obvious. Throw more short passes and spread the ball around. Get Cooley involved again. Throw the ball to the RBs, we've had great success doing it so far. Lots of screens and slants and curls to the WRs. And then, run your best back up the gut.
I have not been impressed by Saunders playcalling thus far, and even though he has a great track record doing so and will get the ship righted, I think it was a mistake in hindsight for Gibbs to give up the offense. |
09-19-2006, 08:44 AM | #358 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
He's prone to inaccuracy. So is McNabb, but people love him. It's a relatively harmless flaw in his game that when pressured in the pocket he throws low.
|
09-19-2006, 09:31 AM | #359 |
Special Teams
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 322
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
No screens for now. That assumes they have someone blocking. But with the blockers blocking like cardboard cutouts, every time they throw one there's a heat-seeking missile coming through untouched.
|
09-19-2006, 10:29 AM | #360 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 60
Posts: 15,817
|
Re: Benching Brunell may not be the answer.
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|