How Long For Brunell?

[cowboykiller89]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

So for the people who believe Brunell's way past his prime (which in my opinion isn't too far from the truth), who would you all be interested in seeing at QB that you believe could finally carry the team to a Super Bowl or at least deep into the playoffs?

And for the folks who think Brunell is capable of helping to carry the team, whats stopping us from actually gelling together?

I believe Mark Brunell can and will do it under this new offensive philosophy. Besides Joe Theismann, what other star Quarterbacks did we ever have? None, but we still managed to win two more Superbowls with two other semi-satisfactory quarterbacks (Mark Rypien and Doug Williams). It's not always about the quarterback people, you can't lay the entire burden on Mark, it was the team who dropped the bomb, the defense allowing 3rd down conversions over and over again, the dropped td catch by Santana Moss in the end zone after a perfect pass from Mark, the missed field goal by John Hall, the two 15 yard penalties by Sean Taylor, etc, etc.....

[budw38]

Originally Posted by CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR

we will see i hope your right but i wouldnt bet on it. Listen were all skins fans but maybe i have stop drinking the Danny Coolaid, i have seen the real world

What up boy ! We need to stick with that running game , Don't ya think ! I say ,, RUN ,,, RUN ,,, RUN some more , when they bring there safeties up ,,, go deep !!!

[skinsguy]

Brunell helped us get back to the playoffs last year. I think I'll take my chances with him for now until I see that our team is sitting home watching the playoffs.

[MTK]

If you look at his career numbers year by year, it's quite obvious that 2004 sticks out as the real "fluke".

Regardless, as always Brunell takes the brunt of the blame for any loss. I really didn't see him as the main problem on Monday night.

As an offensive unit they were out of sync and didn't play well enough to win. That's not all on his shoulders.

Everyone needs to improve right now, MB included.

But if you think plugging in Campbell is going to radically change things in a positive manner you're sadly mistaken.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If you look at his career numbers year by year, it's quite obvious that 2004 sticks out as the real "fluke".

Regardless, as always Brunell takes the brunt of the blame for any loss. I really didn't see him as the main problem on Monday night.

As an offensive unit they were out of sync and didn't play well enough to win. That's not all on his shoulders.

Everyone needs to improve right now, MB included.

But if you think plugging in Campbell is going to radically change things in a positive manner you're sadly mistaken.

Matty, I hear what you're saying. And no matter what anybody thinks of Brunell, there can be no doubt that if there was a better option, Gibbs would play him. That should answer any question regarding our situation with quarterbacks. Brunell gives us the best chance to win. Personally, I have so far steered clear of making a big stink about QB play.

That said, I think it's legitimate to question how better this offense could operate if there was a quarterback who might have attempted a throw to a tightly covered receiver if he had more confidence in his abilities, instead of throwing the ball out of bounds when he thinks there's nothing there.

You'll never hear Brunell make such an admission. But the question MUST be asked. Defenders of Brunell will point to his astute decision making, i.e. throwing the ball away instead of throwing a pick. Don't the critics also have a point by saying that a younger, more talented, and a more confident quarterback might be able to make this offense better by making the throws that Brunell is afraid to make?

Still, Gibbs, right or wrong, apparently doesn't believe there is such a quarterback on this team. Shouldn't that also be a sign of concern?

[gibbsisgod]

Last year at this time I had a gut feeling that we would be better off with #8 at qb instead of #11 against Dallas. It turned out that Gibbs made the right decision after all and we all know how that ended up.

This year I almost have the same feeling about starting #17 this week, but then common sense gets the better of me. I think #8 starts this week and next but look for #17 by week 4 against Jacksonville.

[MTK]

With a young QB like Campbell I really wonder if people would be prepared to take the bad along with the good. Would he force some throws that Brunell wouldn't attempt? He probably would, but how much of that would be due to inexperience rather than a more aggressive mentality?

I would say at this point his inexperience would hurt us more than help. Perhaps if he didn't have to digest his 6th new offense in 6 years it would be a different story right now. It's been well documented that Brunell hasn't had very much fun learning the new system and he's a veteran. Just imagine what Campbell has gone through. Not only has he had to learn another new system, an insanely in-depth one at that, but he's had to continue working on his mechanics and footwork.

I know there are some that are already blowing off Campbell as a bust since he's not playing in his second year and I think that's utterly ridiculous and very ignorant considering the circumstances.

Next year will be the time to expect big things from him. Right now he's just got too much going on to be able to step in and do a better job than Brunell.

People need to chill the heck out and realize we have 15 games to go. Some of these reactions lately have been comical to put it nice.

[RiggoRules]

During 2004, I was a front runner in wanting to see #8 on the bench. I still believe he was injured during most of that season. 2005 was different. Ramsey lost the job and MB kept it which I didn't expect. I've also been pretty open about my feeling that our stretch run last year was in spite of our passing game, not because of it.

In other words, I don't have a #8 jersey in my closet.

But I've gotta tell you, I am nothing short of stunned by this thread. Exactly what game where you people watching? Of all the broken pieces and parts, why are you discussing QB play at all?

For example:

Betts: 8/22 yards, 1 Fumble (how come no one is calling for his head?)
3rd Down Defense: 9/17
3rd Down Offense: 4/13
Secondary play: Enough said.

Compare that with what MB did:

17/28/163 with 0 fumbles, sacks or INTs.

Sure, not Peyton like numbers, but he sure wasn't the reason why we lost.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

Betts: 8/22 yards, 1 Fumble (how come no one is calling for his head?)
3rd Down Defense: 9/17
3rd Down Offense: 4/13
Secondary play: Enough said.

Compare that with what MB did:

17/28/163 with 0 fumbles, sacks or INTs.

Sure, not Peyton like numbers, but he sure wasn't the reason why we lost.

First of all, the more knowledgeable among us already know that Betts isn't starter material. I've personally stated that he's not the "bruising power runner" that a lot of people seem to think he is, so his perfomance is about what I expected.

As far as pointing out Brunells' numbers; all but maybe one of the third down plays were passes, so the 4/13 on third down was mostly him throwing it away.

And as far as Campbell playing, I don't think that's a good idea just yet. While I think the offense will far more dynamic with him running the show, there will still be a learning curve, and if he doesn't perform well by his second start, everyone will be screaming that he was a wasted pick. The only way Campbell will see the field is if Brunell gets injured, or if he's still playing in week nine, like he played Monday, and there's no chance for a playoff run. At that point, I could see Gibbs making the switch.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

But I've gotta tell you, I am nothing short of stunned by this thread. Exactly what game where you people watching? Of all the broken pieces and parts, why are you discussing QB play at all?

For example:

Betts: 8/22 yards, 1 Fumble (how come no one is calling for his head?)
3rd Down Defense: 9/17
3rd Down Offense: 4/13
Secondary play: Enough said.

Compare that with what MB did:

17/28/163 with 0 fumbles, sacks or INTs.

Sure, not Peyton like numbers, but he sure wasn't the reason why we lost.

When did Betts fumble? Either way, it was not a fumble lost. Brunell and Portis did fumble an exchange, but they recovered it. Unless I've missed something, we had no turnovers against the Vikings.

Now, as to Brunell, regardless of his final stats, the type of play we saw isn't going to win games. The point is that by and large, you need dynamic quarterback play if you expect to go anywhere in the NFL today. Brunell wasn't dynamic in '05 -- far from it. Our defense and the running game was what got us to the divisional playoff round.

No, Brunell wasn't the sole reason we lost. But you cannot dismiss the fact that a better quarterback might have able to complete some throws into tight coverage and keep some drives going. Isn't Brunell a part of the 3rd down stats and red zone offense?

It's still hard to knock Brunell and his arm though...considering the Super Bowl winning QBs who were/are not known for arm strength: Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer...

Not a good comparison. I would submit that Dilfer and Johnson were playing at a higher level than Brunell is now. Not only that, the strength of the Ravens and Buccaneers in their Super Bowl seasons was the defense. Dilfer was better than people give credit for, ditto for Johnson. Right now, Brunell is playing like a very average quarterback.

Here's the thing, you can throw the ball away, and you can be good at avoiding interceptions, and still be ineffective as a quarterback.

As you guys have posted above he did throw for over 60% Monday night and did not get sacked or throw a pick. Which kept us in the game.

What kept the game close were Viking mistakes, nothing else. Throwing for 60% means nothing when there's only 16 points and failed red zone trips to show for it.

Let me say again, I am in no way calling for Brunell's head, nor am I calling for Campbell to start. Brunell is the best quarterback we have right now.

And that's the problem.

[DaveyFoSho]

where was duckett??????

[Dogtag]

How long for MB?

ALL THE WAY

[DaveyFoSho]

Well i agree with you skins guy....but there were a couple plays where he looked at his 1 receiver and then just threw the ball away when he still had a little time....

[skinsguy]

It's still hard to knock Brunell and his arm though...considering the Super Bowl winning QBs who were/are not known for arm strength: Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer.... I think the whole point in thinking this thread is silly to begin with is that there were so many things wrong with our team's play this past Monday, that people would rather dedicate one thread to trashin' Brunell - who wasn't really a big part of why we lost that game. Heck....our offense, with the exception of the red zone, was a bright spot in the game.

[scowan]

My only probelm with Mark is that he feels the pressure more now than he probably use to and is quicker to throw it away that we would all like to see. However, As you guys have posted above he did throw for over 60% Monday night and did not get sacked or throw a pick. Which kept us in the game. The Skins lost the time of posession battle, which was a big deal in a tight game and I was unimpressed by our Defenses ability to get off the field on 3rd down. Mark is not the reason the Skins lost. Not getting more pressure on Brad was a big problem and the Skins rushing game was bad. If both of those a re better Sunday night, the Skins can and should beat Dallas.