Brunell is Bad

[#56fanatic]

I can not believe this is even a discussion. The man had the best year he has had probably ever. Over 3000 yards, 22 tds and 5,6 ints. The offense was 11 in the NFL. A 1400 almost 1500 yard receiver. His experience to throw the ball away when there was nothing open is what Gibbs wants. he does not want turnovers, of any kind. Especially with our D, you dont need to force things. What else would you want out of your QB? If those stats aren't good enough for you, then I dont know what you think is acceptable.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I can not believe this is even a discussion. The man had the best year he has had probably ever. Over 3000 yards, 22 tds and 5,6 ints. The offense was 11 in the NFL. A 1400 almost 1500 yard receiver. His experience to throw the ball away when there was nothing open is what Gibbs wants. he does not want turnovers, of any kind. Especially with our D, you dont need to force things. What else would you want out of your QB? If those stats aren't good enough for you, then I dont know what you think is acceptable.

obviously you haven't read the other things I have written. Yes, he produced statistically, my point is there are many QB's who could step in and do that same job with the same or better results. why don't you refer to my previous post and tell me which QB's are better or worse.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.

But isn't your point that Brunell is bad? I wouldn't put ANY of these quarterbacks in the category of bad.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.

i'd argue with plummer brooks and farve cause they historically can't do what's asked of them, and i don't think frye bledsoe or eli are as good, we haven't sseen campbell and johnson wouldn't work well with moss cause his arm is totally dead.

that said, we don't have any of the above QBs nor will we next year so that question is completely bogus. no one is saying brunell is a top 5 QB, just that he got the job done. we're not getting brady, so however good he may be, its pointless conjecture cause he's not an actual realistic or viable option for the skins for either the 2005 or 2006 season.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.

Yeah that's great.

What's your point?

None of those guys are in a Redskins uniform so who cares?

Nobody has ever said Brunell is the best QB in the league... why don't you mail this list to Gibbs because I'm sure he could use such valuable info.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i'd argue with plummer brooks and farve cause they historically can't do what's asked of them, and i don't think frye bledsoe or eli are as good, we haven't sseen campbell and johnson wouldn't work well with moss cause his arm is totally dead.

that said, we don't have any of the above QBs nor will we next year so that question is completely bogus. no one is saying brunell is a top 5 QB, just that he got the job done. we're not getting brady, so however good he may be, its pointless conjecture cause he's not an actual realistic or viable option for the skins for either the 2005 or 2006 season.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah that's great.

What's your point?

None of those guys are in a Redskins uniform so who cares?

Nobody has ever said Brunell is the best QB in the league... why don't you mail this list to Gibbs because I'm sure he could use such valuable info.

My point is that Brunell and his statistics are easily replaced.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.

Well on the flipside it doesn't warrant saying "Brunell is bad".

The numbers just don't support your claim. 3050 yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. 10 regular season wins and a playoff win. 11th ranked offense.

Nobody is praising Brunell like he's the 2nd coming of Marino, but you're the one that started up a thread that just bashes him for no good reason and from the sounds of it your not willing to give him any credit at all.

Everyone was quick to pile on the blame in 2004 but now those same people aren't willing to give him his proper credit for 2005. You can't have it both ways, he was responsible for the poor offense in '04 and he was just as responsible for the offensive turnaround in '05.

If you have an axe to grind against Brunell just admit it and let's move on. Admit your biased and I can at least accept that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

My point is that Brunell and his statistics are easily replaced.

So is anybody's, seriously what is your point?

You're really drifting out to left field with this one.

[#56fanatic]

Replaced? replaced by whom? Ramsey, Campbell because that is the option we had. And to say someone could have put up the same or better numbers is moot. We dont have a choice of a Manning, Palmer, Farve ect. Brunell did exactly what a 35 year old veteran was suppose to do last year. Not lose games. and win some if you can. I doubt Ramsey or Campbell could have thrown two prettier balls than the two he threw in Dallas, or run the 25 on 3rd and 27. Brunell made so many plays that go un noticed. The scramble out of bounds for no gain, instead of getting sacked for 7 to 10 yard loss. Dump off to cooley or betts for 4 or 5 instead of incomplete or int down field. People would complain when we would do the int or imcomplete, now we get something positive and its still not good enough. Dude, unless Campbell comes out and burns down Redskin Park with his arm and inteligence this offseason, Brunell is going to be the started next year, so get use to it.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Well on the flipside it doesn't warrant saying "Brunell is bad".

The numbers just don't support your claim. 3050 yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs. 10 regular season wins and a playoff win. 11th ranked offense.

Nobody is praising Brunell like he's the 2nd coming of Marino, but you're the one that started up a thread that just bashes him for no good reason and from the sounds of it your not willing to give him any credit at all.

Everyone was quick to pile on the blame in 2004 but now those same people aren't willing to give him his proper credit for 2005. You can't have it both ways, he was responsible for the poor offense in '04 and he was just as responsible for the offensive turnaround in '05.

If you have an axe to grind against Brunell just admit it and let's move on. Admit your biased and I can at least accept that.

Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.

So I guess all the good years he put in Jacksonville was a product of the system too. Are you kidding? He was injured in 2004, and played through the pain all year. That shows the confindence he has in an injured Brunell and a 100% healthy Ramsey. To say his productivity is due to the system is off, way off. Brunell has been through out his career, a good QB. QB rating of 80 a far better completion percentage than anyone playing and TD to INT ratio. Give it a rest.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.

I'm sorry, but brunell iss clearly above average. if we had harrington or orton, we would have tanked horribly, so he played his part and (until the last weeks) did well.

career stats:
total reg season: 74 wins - 64 losses
total post season: 5-5

84.1 rating, 3 pro bowls (1 MVP) 189 TDs, 129 Turnovers (Fumbles lost + Ints)

average QBs TD-TO ratio is below 1, his is almost 1.5... he's not peyton, but he's clearly not bad. in 2005 he had 23 TDs, 16 TOs an a 11-7 record. i'm sure peyton or brady would have had better numbers, but we don't have (nor will we have) either, so that arguement is stupid. finding above average QBs is hard, and by definition, at least 15 teams would like to have had the production of ours last season. He won't be above average much longer, but bashing him for 2005 isn't really logical.

he brought in campbell because brunell is 35 and his legs aren't going to get faster and his arm isn't going to get stronger... and on rypien and williams, maybe those guys weren't that bad either, since they did win super bowls and the did alright on the TD-TO ratio.

[12thMan]

Dude, bottom line - you're full of it. I think you've shaken this rug enough.
I think you're insightful enough to know that this is truly a bogus argument.


Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God
Believe it or not, I am not biased. I like Brunell' character and personality and he comes across as a good guy. I thought Brunell was the best QB on our roster last season(means nothing). And I don't think '04 was his fault at all. I blame the OL and new team scheme. Giving him credit for last's turn around is irresponsible. We have all seen Gibb's ability to plug components into his system and find success(Rypien and Williams). My point is brunell is a component in an already successful scheme that needed one year to re-tool. The offense is working well together and that is the result of gibb's teaching not brunell's leadership. I think my perspective is much like gibb's right. he brought brunell in to run the offense. he brought in a rookie to be taught. he got what he needed out of brunell but wishes it had been a little more.

Gibb's knows Brunell sucks, that is why he drafted Campbell and that's why campbell will be our opening day starter.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

The only thing I am doing is trying to get people to realize that Brunell's success last year does not warrant the praise you throw upon him. The one phrase that seems to keep popping up is, "he got it done." I am not arguing against a 10-6 record. I am arguing that Brunell played a miniscule role in getting it done.

Isn't the whole goal of being a professional athlete to "get it done"?

Portis "got it done" rushing for over 1500 yards.
Both Moss and Portis "got it done by receiving and rushing for Redskins team highs.
Mark Brunell "got it done" by throwing a personal best in touchdown passes last year.

If you're a PRO you're supposed to get it done, if you're crap, you get benched. Can you SERIOUSLY argue that he didn't deserve a Pro-Bowl this year?