Time to bench Brunell? (Mega Man Merge)

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Ummm... I know sarcasm is tough to pick up over the internet, but try to follow the context of the comment a little bit, before slamming someone.

Good call Southpaw-that sarcasm thing

[Monkeydad]

Well this thread went silent.

[MTK]

10-6 proved enough to me, but oh well.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

10-6 proved enough to me, but oh well.

C'mon - this is the NFL. It's not about what you have done, it's about what you can do. MB did exactly what was asked of him against Houston, and he did an incredible job for the most part. However, you can't seriously suggest that Saunders asked a lot of MB's arm. That's still the unknown, and that's what has been missing for the past 5 games (plus pre-season, which I know you don't count for some reason).

[MTK]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

C'mon - this is the NFL. It's not about what you have done, it's about what you can do. MB did exactly what was asked of him against Houston, and he did an incredible job for the most part. However, you can't seriously suggest that Saunders asked a lot of MB's arm. That's still the unknown, and that's what has been missing for the past 5 games (plus pre-season, which I know you don't count for some reason).

History plays a valid part in evaluating a player. The haters sure do love to throw 2004 in our faces, that's for sure.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

C'mon - this is the NFL. It's not about what you have done, it's about what you can do. MB did exactly what was asked of him against Houston, and he did an incredible job for the most part. However, you can't seriously suggest that Saunders asked a lot of MB's arm. That's still the unknown, and that's what has been missing for the past 5 games (plus pre-season, which I know you don't count for some reason).

And what better way to see what an expierenced player can do than by looking at what he has done?

[illdefined]

did the Texan game say more about them or us? have we grown, or have they regressed?

really can't say anything till next week. let's put this thread on hold until then.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by illdefined

did the Texan game say more about them or us? have we grown, or have they regressed?

really can't say anything till next week. let's put this thread on hold until then.

Well said.

[onlydarksets]

OK, I give up. It's like arguing with Ramsey apologists. I'll leave it at this - it's very hard to credibly argue that Brunell played well enough to win games against teams with defenses not as god-awful as the Texans. I'm not saying he isn't capable, but I think we have to take his performance for what it is - a step.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

uh...no. Please read my entire post. I have reposted the most important point (which you didn't address) below.

Alrighty... Your post has been read, and re-read... and then I took a deep breath to symbolize the long arduous journey of responding ahead... and alas.. i've reached some conclusions...

1) I did read your post, but obviously left out important information.... so here we go.

A quarterbacks job, regardless of where he is, is to follow a gameplan and execute it to perfection. Whereas I mentioned that winning involves following that gameplan, you assumed I meant we were going to stick to the same gameplan against all over teams (not the case) or that Brunell can only perform in the non-downfield passing variety.
Brunell can throw downfield, and if you pay attention you'll remember why.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

um...ok, why not?

Why can't you use the first two games to judge Brunells deep throw ability?

Because my friend, In the first two games our leading rusher only managed 39 & 40 yards respectively. That means your not forcing any safeties to come into the box. And in football, when the safety stays in cover 2 (meaning two safeties deep in coverage) the downfield ball doesn't really play as a factor. Brunell simply would read the coverage and dump it off to a number 2 or 3 read, given appropriate blocking and minimal pressure. Did you watch the game? Did they even try for Moss deep? Now you know why. Finally, the offensive line was less than spectacular. Brunell was running for his life, and no-one should rush to judgement on his play based on the circumstances. Let us not forget 2005. Bear with me... I promise I'm almost done. (not really)

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

If he were 29 and healthy, then I would agree. He's not. He struggled at the end of last season, and for all of this season, with anything over 10-15 yards. (I'm not even bringing up the preseason since whether or not it "counts" in evaluating players' abilites is a debate unto itself)

You've got me one there. Brunell isn't 29. Your absolutly right. He isn't even 33. However he is healthy.

Oh, and remember who our receivers were last season towards the end? Little refresher.... Santana Moss, Antonio Brown, and Jimmy Farris. James Thrash had a hurt thumb. Patten was out. So what does a defense do? Double-team Moss and stifle Chris Cooley. So what is a Quarterback to do? Drop back and run everytime... No, he did (while injured) the best he could and it was pathetic. If Mark Brunell (or any other quarterback for that matter) was productive in that offense it would have been heroic given the circumstances. Do yourself a favor and go back and watch those playoff games. You'll see what I'm talking about. They're not pretty. If your going to point a finger, make sure you know what your talking about.

So there's that, and when he had healthy receivers? HE DID NOT STRUGGLE ANYTHING ABOVE 15-20 YARDS. In fact he excelled. Brunell threw 36 times for 20+ yards or more, and 9 times for 40+ yards. Let us also not forget him passing for over 3000 yards, 23 TD and 10 INT. Granted alot of them were screen passes, in which it still disproves your claim that short passes won't work, since clearly if he's thowing short screens with those numbers, the offense is rolling. So let me jump through time to the year 2006. Mabye there IS a reason we got all speedy little receivers after all (heavens open upon onlydarksets). Oh and for a comparative statistic Carson Palmer threw 43 passes 20+ and 9 for 40+. (that's 7 more 20+ plays...and 0 more 40+ if your not good at math). I'm really almost done this time.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Why should the entire pressure be on Moss and Randle El and Lloyd to turn a screen pass into a 30 yard gain? It's on Brunell to make the play sometimes. Yesterday, Brunell did not make any big plays with his arm. He had one pass to Patton over the middle, and he strung Patton out (who made a fantastic catch). I think that goes straight to your point - Patton made the play, not Brunell. Why shouldn't Brunell be on the hook?

Brunell isn't on the hook because he completed 22 passes in a row, and helped amass almost 500yds in total offense. Brunell made plays. Brunell let his receivers make plays (ie Randel El). That is why he's off the hook. He didn't perform well in the first two games, but we already know why don't we. (re-read post if necessary)

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

We'll see - if he can't get the ball to receivers because they are more than five yards away, then perhaps there are better options. I think he proved himself enough in this game to have support for the next game, but it's really hard to credibly argue that he showed off his accuracy and decision making yesterday. It was an incredibly safe gameplan that relied on the receivers, RBs, and O-line to make plays. He did exactly what was asked of him, and that's fantastic (hey, it's a win after all!).

However, and this is the part that everyone who quotes my posts on this subject seems to conveniently ignore, this gameplan will not beat anyone else on our schedule, with the possible exception of the Titans. So, yes, Brunell executed this gameplan very well. Great, but who cares? This gameplan probably isn't going to work against anyone else.

True we did play the texans, and I'm not buying a non-refundable plane ticket to Miami based on the results of the game. But give credit where credit is due. We performed the way good teams are supposed to. Mark Brunell played a great game, and as far as the game plan goes, I think Mr. Saunders would agree with you, that this gameplan won't work on everyone. I'm pretty sure there is a reason coaches have different gameplans to attack different defenses. And we already know Brunell can throw downfield don't we.
---------------------------
So there it is, my longest post ever... I just got home from class and saw that my post had been picked apart (gasp) with the latest "quote" technology and felt compelled to respond. I'm going to go anticipate a million more quoted responses while I dream tonight. Goodnight- HTTR.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Alrighty... Your post has been read, and re-read... and then I took a deep breath to symbolize the long arduous journey of responding ahead... and alas.. i've reached some conclusions...

1) I did read your post, but obviously left out important information.... so here we go.

A quarterbacks job, regardless of where he is, is to follow a gameplan and execute it to perfection. Whereas I mentioned that winning involves following that gameplan, you assumed I meant we were going to stick to the same gameplan against all over teams (not the case) or that Brunell can only perform in the non-downfield passing variety.
Brunell can throw downfield, and if you pay attention you'll remember why.


Why can't you use the first two games to judge Brunells deep throw ability?

Because my friend, In the first two games our leading rusher only managed 39 & 40 yards respectively. That means your not forcing any safeties to come into the box. And in football, when the safety stays in cover 2 (meaning two safeties deep in coverage) the downfield ball doesn't really play as a factor. Brunell simply would read the coverage and dump it off to a number 2 or 3 read, given appropriate blocking and minimal pressure. Did you watch the game? Did they even try for Moss deep? Now you know why. Finally, the offensive line was less than spectacular. Brunell was running for his life, and no-one should rush to judgement on his play based on the circumstances. Let us not forget 2005. Bear with me... I promise I'm almost done. (not really)


You've got me one there. Brunell isn't 29. Your absolutly right. He isn't even 33. However he is healthy.

Oh, and remember who our receivers were last season towards the end? Little refresher.... Santana Moss, Antonio Brown, and Jimmy Farris. James Thrash had a hurt thumb. Patten was out. So what does a defense do? Double-team Moss and stifle Chris Cooley. So what is a Quarterback to do? Drop back and run everytime... No, he did (while injured) the best he could and it was pathetic. If Mark Brunell (or any other quarterback for that matter) was productive in that offense it would have been heroic given the circumstances. Do yourself a favor and go back and watch those playoff games. You'll see what I'm talking about. They're not pretty. If your going to point a finger, make sure you know what your talking about.

So there's that, and when he had healthy receivers? HE DID NOT STRUGGLE ANYTHING ABOVE 15-20 YARDS. In fact he excelled. Brunell threw 36 times for 20+ yards or more, and 9 times for 40+ yards. Let us also not forget him passing for over 3000 yards, 23 TD and 10 INT. Granted alot of them were screen passes, in which it still disproves your claim that short passes won't work, since clearly if he's thowing short screens with those numbers, the offense is rolling. So let me jump through time to the year 2006. Mabye there IS a reason we got all speedy little receivers after all (heavens open upon onlydarksets). Oh and for a comparative statistic Carson Palmer threw 43 passes 20+ and 9 for 40+. (that's 7 more 20+ plays...and 0 more 40+ if your not good at math). I'm really almost done this time.


Brunell isn't on the hook because he completed 22 passes in a row, and helped amass almost 500yds in total offense. Brunell made plays. Brunell let his receivers make plays (ie Randel El). That is why he's off the hook. He didn't perform well in the first two games, but we already know why don't we. (re-read post if necessary)

True we did play the texans, and I'm not buying a non-refundable plane ticket to Miami based on the results of the game. But give credit where credit is due. We performed the way good teams are supposed to. Mark Brunell played a great game, and as far as the game plan goes, I think Mr. Saunders would agree with you, that this gameplan won't work on everyone. I'm pretty sure there is a reason coaches have different gameplans to attack different defenses. And we already know Brunell can throw downfield don't we.
---------------------------
So there it is, my longest post ever... I just got home from class and saw that my post had been picked apart (gasp) with the latest "quote" technology and felt compelled to respond. I'm going to go anticipate a million more quoted responses while I dream tonight. Goodnight- HTTR.

Well stated. I would actually argue that he played pretty well in the first game, looking purely at the stats. The defense was torn up at home by Minnesota. A few points would have been nicer, but all the QB can do is move the ball.

Dallas is a completely different story, but take away any teams best offensive weapon and send them into Dallas, and pretty much everyone would lose.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Alrighty... Your post has been read, and re-read... and then I took a deep breath to symbolize the long arduous journey of responding ahead... and alas.. i've reached some conclusions...

1) I did read your post, but obviously left out important information.... so here we go.

A quarterbacks job, regardless of where he is, is to follow a gameplan and execute it to perfection. Whereas I mentioned that winning involves following that gameplan, you assumed I meant we were going to stick to the same gameplan against all over teams (not the case) or that Brunell can only perform in the non-downfield passing variety.
Brunell can throw downfield, and if you pay attention you'll remember why.


Why can't you use the first two games to judge Brunells deep throw ability?

Because my friend, In the first two games our leading rusher only managed 39 & 40 yards respectively. That means your not forcing any safeties to come into the box. And in football, when the safety stays in cover 2 (meaning two safeties deep in coverage) the downfield ball doesn't really play as a factor. Brunell simply would read the coverage and dump it off to a number 2 or 3 read, given appropriate blocking and minimal pressure. Did you watch the game? Did they even try for Moss deep? Now you know why. Finally, the offensive line was less than spectacular. Brunell was running for his life, and no-one should rush to judgement on his play based on the circumstances. Let us not forget 2005. Bear with me... I promise I'm almost done. (not really)


You've got me one there. Brunell isn't 29. Your absolutly right. He isn't even 33. However he is healthy.

Oh, and remember who our receivers were last season towards the end? Little refresher.... Santana Moss, Antonio Brown, and Jimmy Farris. James Thrash had a hurt thumb. Patten was out. So what does a defense do? Double-team Moss and stifle Chris Cooley. So what is a Quarterback to do? Drop back and run everytime... No, he did (while injured) the best he could and it was pathetic. If Mark Brunell (or any other quarterback for that matter) was productive in that offense it would have been heroic given the circumstances. Do yourself a favor and go back and watch those playoff games. You'll see what I'm talking about. They're not pretty. If your going to point a finger, make sure you know what your talking about.

So there's that, and when he had healthy receivers? HE DID NOT STRUGGLE ANYTHING ABOVE 15-20 YARDS. In fact he excelled. Brunell threw 36 times for 20+ yards or more, and 9 times for 40+ yards. Let us also not forget him passing for over 3000 yards, 23 TD and 10 INT. Granted alot of them were screen passes, in which it still disproves your claim that short passes won't work, since clearly if he's thowing short screens with those numbers, the offense is rolling. So let me jump through time to the year 2006. Mabye there IS a reason we got all speedy little receivers after all (heavens open upon onlydarksets). Oh and for a comparative statistic Carson Palmer threw 43 passes 20+ and 9 for 40+. (that's 7 more 20+ plays...and 0 more 40+ if your not good at math). I'm really almost done this time.


Brunell isn't on the hook because he completed 22 passes in a row, and helped amass almost 500yds in total offense. Brunell made plays. Brunell let his receivers make plays (ie Randel El). That is why he's off the hook. He didn't perform well in the first two games, but we already know why don't we. (re-read post if necessary)

True we did play the texans, and I'm not buying a non-refundable plane ticket to Miami based on the results of the game. But give credit where credit is due. We performed the way good teams are supposed to. Mark Brunell played a great game, and as far as the game plan goes, I think Mr. Saunders would agree with you, that this gameplan won't work on everyone. I'm pretty sure there is a reason coaches have different gameplans to attack different defenses. And we already know Brunell can throw downfield don't we.
---------------------------
So there it is, my longest post ever... I just got home from class and saw that my post had been picked apart (gasp) with the latest "quote" technology and felt compelled to respond. I'm going to go anticipate a million more quoted responses while I dream tonight. Goodnight- HTTR.

F- it, if a bunch of you are going to jump on a brother while he's down, then I'm going to keep posting.

RobH4413:
For what it's worth, I don't think I disagree with anything you stated (it was kinda long, so I might have missed something). I think we both agree that:
1. Saunders called a great game.
2. Brunell executed the plan to near perfection, and he played a great game given what was asked of him.
3. The game plan used against the Texans will not win against most other teams in the league.
4. We have to have a long ball option.

Please, correct me if I have misstated your position at all.

All that leaves us with is whether or not Brunell can throw the long ball now. I recognize that the team has more offensive threats now than it did last year. I have never said that it's Brunell's fault that the long ball options haven't been there. Obviously, more offensive threats equals more options for Brunell.

My concern is with the throws he has made and the throws he could have attempted but backed off of. Sunday's game didn't test Brunell's arm, so, IMO, the jury is still out on that issue. He showed he could get it there last year. However, he's old enough that each year makes a difference, and he tends to run down.

If you (or the others who chimed in) feel 100% confident in Brunell's ability to thow the long ball, then I guess we do disagree. Otherwise, if you would like to see Brunell actually throw deep a few times before passing judgment, then I think we're probably on the same page (scary as that is to me and you).

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

F- it, if a bunch of you are going to jump on a brother while he's down, then I'm going to keep posting.

RobH4413:
For what it's worth, I don't think I disagree with anything you stated (it was kinda long, so I might have missed something). I think we both agree that:
1. Saunders called a great game.
2. Brunell executed the plan to near perfection, and he played a great game given what was asked of him.
3. The game plan used against the Texans will not win against most other teams in the league.
4. We have to have a long ball option.

Please, correct me if I have misstated your position at all.

All that leaves us with is whether or not Brunell can throw the long ball now. I recognize that the team has more offensive threats now than it did last year. I have never said that it's Brunell's fault that the long ball options haven't been there. Obviously, more offensive threats equals more options for Brunell.

My concern is with the throws he has made and the throws he could have attempted but backed off of. Sunday's game didn't test Brunell's arm, so, IMO, the jury is still out on that issue. He showed he could get it there last year. However, he's old enough that each year makes a difference, and he tends to run down.

If you (or the others who chimed in) feel 100% confident in Brunell's ability to thow the long ball, then I guess we do disagree. Otherwise, if you would like to see Brunell actually throw deep a few times before passing judgment, then I think we're probably on the same page (scary as that is to me and you).

I'm a worrier, that's what I do. I don't go to sleep at night feeling totally confident that Mark Brunell is going to play like Peyton Manning. I can say that he hasn't disproved himself as of yet, so there really is no reason to doubt him. My only point was that there is no reason to say the sky is falling based on Brunell's play. There will always be reason to worry no matter what.

[mooby]

It's hard to try the deep ball when teams play the cover 2 deep all the time. That's what opens up the underneath passing game. All three opponents we've played used the cover 2 to prevent the big gains, and that's why we stuck with the dinks and dunks against the texans, and they couldn't stop it or figure out what we were doing. The reason they were playing the cover 2 in the first place was because Portis wasn't in there, and they didn't think our running game could exploit the cover 2's weaknesses.

[onlydarksets]

No worries - I was thinking the same about your assumptions. All is well (assuming Brunell can throw the long ball, of course ).

"Brothers gotta hug!" - Thomas 'Tommy' Callahan III