Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel like I've done this 100 times, but I'd definately calling the BS here.

If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006. That 9th was even more impressive when you realize that it was done while we f'ed around with the Brandon Lloyd freakshow, and a bunch of poor games from a still-learning Randle El.

Presumably, Campbell is going to achieve more here than Brunell did, and Collins was successful in limited time also. But the guys who preceeded MB were Ramsey, Matthews, Wuerffel, Tony Banks, and Jeff George. Any objective (and I mean any) measure will show you that Brunell was far better than any of those players here.

He was as successful as Brad Johnson was, and you can keep going back, and back in time and find that our QB production was pretty terrible prior to 2005. Since 2005, we've been incredibly stable, and certainly Collins and Campbell deserve their credit for that, but Brunell has played more snaps than either of those guys as a Redskin.

So, yeah, saying he's one of the worst QBs we've had makes about as much sense as saying that Patrick Ramsey deserved eight more shots at the starting job here. No matter how much objective evidence can be addressed, some people just won't give up the point.

While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.

If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.

As I wrote in my first, post, I cannot and do not fault Mark for taking the redskin's bid. The point of my first statement was simply, while MB wasn't horrible from a playing perspective (though even in his good year, he wasn't healthy enough for the playoffs, so really, what good did it do? Ask the eagles) he was not a good choice given the investment (both financial and the opportunity cost associated with not trying someone younger and more able)- fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

As I wrote in my first, post, I cannot and do not fault Mark for taking the redskin's bid. The point of my first statement was simply, while MB wasn't horrible from a playing perspective (though even in his good year, he wasn't healthy enough for the playoffs, so really, what good did it do? Ask the eagles) he was not a good choice given the investment (both financial and the opportunity cost associated with not trying someone younger and more able)- fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.

Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.

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...

[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.

[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.