How Long For Brunell?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[DaveyFoSho]

where was duckett??????

[Dogtag]

How long for MB?

ALL THE WAY

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

I will go there any time I feel like it!

Obviously your hung up on who knows what and can't seperate the two. But I will do it for you, Ramsey regardless of happy feet would hang in the pocket and take the hit to complete the pass.

It's good to know you're finally admitting that you agree with me. But, why take the hit if you can make the play without doing so? Just to say you took the hit? That's ignorant. You'd rather the QB force the ball into double coverage than to do the smart thing and throw the ball away? Why? That's playing dumb. Sure, out of 50 INTs, you might complete the pass, but how does that improve anything? It doesn't. By the way, how well did Ramsey do this past week?

[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.

[DaveyFoSho]

seriously tho...where was duckett?? i thought we got him for redzone...why didnt he pound it in there

[LadyT]

Originally Posted by cowboykiller89

As far as I am concerned, Mark Brunell won the most important and the most memorable game of all, last year in Dallas to break the painful losing streak we had with the Cowgirls! Not only that, he lead the way in their second meeting at FedEx Field, a critical game which was important to both teams. Needless to say, you know the outcome. Give him some more respect! I think Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders know a little more than you do when it comes to deciding on who should be the starter!

All I know is what I see and what I see is that the weakest link on the offense is QB and has been for some time. It's a sad state of affairs when all you can credit the QB with is two games in a 16-game season. I'll repeat - he's rarely if ever the reason we win games and, for a QB, that's pathetic. I don't want a QB who mostly "doesn't lose games for us". QBs should be game breakers and control the flow of the game for their team. Brunell might do that 2 or 3 games a year, at best.

Problem is - there's no one else on the bench who's ready to take us all the way right now. Campbell may become that QB, but he's untested. I've seen all I want to see of what Brunell has to offer and it is game after game where we score 9, 10, 12, maybe 16 or 17 points. Again, pathetic, given the talent that surrounds him.

[MTK]

Funny how eating crow for some people never gets old.

I guess it must be tasty.

[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.