Someone Please Smack Brunell Upside the Head Too...

SkinsFanInHawai'i · Post by **SkinsFanInHawai'i** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:33 am

You think Defenses have figured out how to stop what ever we were doing earlier in the season?

Or maybe Brunell is hurt and can't get anything on his passes?

Or something else?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:38 am

SkinsFanInHawai'i wrote:You think Defenses have figured out how to stop what ever we were doing earlier in the season?

Or maybe Brunell is hurt and can't get anything on his passes?

Or something else?

According to that guy who saw the game its moreso us running HS routes. I even noticed it a tiny bit on one 3rd down play. I saw Taylor cut across the middle of the field right at the 1st down marker being shadowed by 2 LB's. It was a route straighout of Madden I lie to you not! :lol:

Let me find out Joe is playing Madden.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:46 am

i would love nothing more than to be given some reason to believe that gibbs hasn't lost it and that brunell isn't done, but after reading this i can't imagine one exists.

my biggest fear and suspicion has been that perhaps our offense is in fact still primitive in design, and will never evolve so long as gibbs is still here. if he didn't change it after how obvious it was last year that it SUCKED, how is there any hope? we are going to be mediocre for the next 2 or 3 years.

at least the brunell situation is easily remedied, if gibbs can get over his man-crush on him for long enough to realize that he sucks. if brunell is named the starter for 2006, i will personally organize a revolt to make sure that it doesn't happen, somehow. violence will be used if neccessary.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:28 am

Here is a post from another Skins forum. This is from a guy who attended the game.

.. 2 of Brunell's interceptions yesterday were literally thrown to a spot were our receivers weren't. Not even close.

Brunell is done.

We are going to get killed by the Cowboys.

Thank you for the post Chris - you always seem to find good info for us from other sources. :rock:

My only problem with this guy's opinion is that the reason he gives for Brunell's failure is that he implies that 2 of the 3 interceptions were due to the fact that the passes were thrown to the wrong spot. I thought that there was a general agreement that, of the 3 interceptions, 1 was because Cool

ey tipped the ball and 1 of the others was because the intended receiver ran the wrong route and was not where the ball was thrown. IF this is true, then this "observer" is just being vindictive.

I also think he's wrong in his assessment of this game - so that's 2 strikes.
I'm not buying this and still think (in spite of this article :puke:

) that we will be competitive this week.

I do think we have some problems on offense but I think it is more to do with the play calling and the offensive team than the QB. We have not played as well as we should have with this group.

We do have a good defense BUT we have not tackled well the last few games and we do need to make sure of our tackles this week. We are not getting pressure but we are not going to with this group.

We need to play sound defense, and be more aggressive on offense and we will win this game.

Anyone who thinks we are going to get "killed" does not know much about the game, this rivalry or our 2 head coaches.

pubdog · Post by **pubdog** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:49 am

Champsturf wrote: I sure hope either Ramsey or Campbell step it waaaaay up next preseason to dethrone him.

Ramsey won't be here next preseason to step up. Thank goodness.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:53 pm

Even if we pretend two of Brunell's interceptions were incompletions, his quarterback rating was still just 58.93. That's not going to cut these last three games.

But at the same time, he had quarterback ratings of 104.5 and 96.8 against St. Louis and San Diego, so I don't see how you can say he's fallen apart.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:55 pm

That is what happens when you get old, you loose it towards the end of the season. I still think we would have done better with Ramsey, I don't care what anyone says.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:37 pm

But at the same time, he had quarterback ratings of 104.5 and 96.8 against St. Louis and San Diego, so I don't see how you can say he's fallen apart.

He also didn't reach 200 yards in either one of those games. His passer rating doesn't mean anything if we're constantly competing worthless 3 and 4 yard outs. Brunell has completely stopped looking downfield, has lost all zip on his throws, is uneasy in the pocket and afraid to get hit....not a good recipe for qb success.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:58 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
But at the same time, he had quarterback ratings of 104.5 and 96.8 against St. Louis and San Diego, so I don't see how you can say he's fallen apart.

He also didn't reach 200 yards in either one of those games. His passer rating doesn't mean anything if we're constantly competing worthless 3 and 4 yard outs. Brunell has completely stopped looking downfield, has lost all zip on his throws, is uneasy in the pocket and afraid to get hit....not a good recipe for qb success.

While I agree that Brunell has stopped going downfield as often, yards per completion is factored into quarterback rating, so you can't just dismiss that statistic.

More importantly, the Redskins are 4-3 when Brunell hits the 200 yard mark and 3-3 when he doesn't (and 0-2 when he passes over 300+). On the other hand Brunell has posted an 88.19 rating in our victories, but just a 79.88 rating in our defeats. In terms of predicting outcomes, quarterback rating is a much more valuable statistic than raw passing yards.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:24 pm

While I agree that Brunell has stopped going downfield as often, yards per completion is factored into quarterback rating, so you can't just dismiss that statistic.

More importantly, the Redskins are 4-3 when Brunell hits the 200 yard mark and 3-3 when he doesn't (and 0-2 when he passes over 300+). On the other hand Brunell has posted an 88.19 rating in our victories, but just a 79.88 rating in our defeats. In terms of predicting outcomes, quarterback rating is a much more valuable statistic than raw passing yards.

6.62....that is Brunell's yards per completion. Good for 24th in the league-the only playoff eligble qb with a worse one is Michael Vick.

As for those Brunell stats....they don't really show anything. The relevant stat as to our wins and losses is our ability to run the ball. In our 7 wins Portis is averaging 96 yards and 1 td. In our losses he is averaging 85 yards and .16 td's. Some more Brunell stats. His completion % ranks 22 in the NFL, he's 15th in total yards and qb rating. So in essence Brunell is arguably one the worst performing qb's on a team that is still alive for the playoffs.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:29 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
While I agree that Brunell has stopped going downfield as often, yards per completion is factored into quarterback rating, so you can't just dismiss that statistic.

More importantly, the Redskins are 4-3 when Brunell hits the 200 yard mark and 3-3 when he doesn't (and 0-2 when he passes over 300+). On the other hand Brunell has posted an 88.19 rating in our victories, but just a 79.88 rating in our defeats. In terms of predicting outcomes, quarterback rating is a much more valuable statistic than raw passing yards.

6.62....that is Brunell's yards per completion. Good for 24th in the league-the only playoff eligble qb with a worse one is Michael Vick.

As for blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

As far as I'm concerned, if the man QBs the team to another victory over the hated Pukes, he deserves to go into the ring of honor, no questions asked.

THE RIVALRY IS BACK!!!! :rock:

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:33 pm

As far as I'm concerned, if the man QBs the team to another victory over the hated Pukes, he deserves to go into the ring of honor, no questions asked.

THE RIVALRY IS BACK!!!! punkrocka.gif

When we beat Dallas on Sunday it's going to be because of Portis' legs and the defense, not Mark Brunell.

Dallas sucks!!!

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:44 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:6.62....that is Brunell's yards per completion. Good for 24th in the league-the only playoff eligble qb with a worse one is Michael Vick.

As for blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Well, that's actually Brunell's yards per attempt. And that is balanced by his 2.0 interception percentage, which is good for fifth in the league. If only there was some way to combine all these statistics into one, easy-to-use number. Oh right, that's quarterback rating.

Brunell is what he is; a smart quarterback who doesn't take a lot of chances or make many mistakes. No one ever claimed he was perfect. My only point is that there isn't a lot of evidence showing that he is a significantly different quarterback in Week 15 than he was in Week 5.

EDIT: I should add that you are 100% correct that this team's ability to move the ball is based on the running game.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:51 pm

Brunell is what he is; a smart quarterback who doesn't take a lot of chances or make many mistakes. No one ever claimed he was perfect. My only point is that there isn't a lot of evidence showing that he is a significantly different quarterback in Week 15 than he was in Week 5.

I see what you're saying about the stats but it's pretty clear to anybody that watches the games that he isn't the same qb. He has no zip on his throws, isn't moving as well, has stopped looking downfield, and is afraid of contact (likely a result of all his fumbles). Ealry in the season he looked confident in the pocket and was making solid throws with lots of zip downfield and you just don't see that from him anymore.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:51 pm

I think that we need to play clean, mean, and tough. We need to have the O-line make gaping holes for CP and have our WR's blocking downfield. Lets stretch it out and have Sellers, Cool

ey, and word on the street is James Thrash will be back, to complete the Right Side blocking for CP.

Chiefjag · Post by **Chiefjag** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:10 pm

I always thought Mark needed to be more involved with calling the plays. When he was in Jacksonville he was unstoppable in the 2 minute offense when he was able to call the plays he had confidence to run. He's a smart, veteran QB and he knows who's getting beat on the O-line and how to counteract the defense.

But I know QB's are not allowed to call their own plays anymore.....shame.

REgards,
Chiefjag

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:25 am

SkinzCanes wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, if the man QBs the team to another victory over the hated Pukes, he deserves to go into the ring of honor, no questions asked.

THE RIVALRY IS BACK!!!! punkrocka.gif

When we beat Dallas on Sunday it's going to be because of Portis' legs and the defense, not Mark Brunell.

Dallas sucks!!!

The pukes I hate to admit are pretty good at stopping the run. So I think we either have to be patient and keep going with the run till we break one. If the run dosent work for us then I know we have to depend on brunell so it comes down to this for me. Just take care of buisness fellas bring home the bacon......

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:39 am

...then fry it up and have it for breakfast, baby !!

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:27 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:
SkinzCanes wrote:
While I agree that Brunell has stopped going downfield as often, yards per completion is factored into quarterback rating, so you can't just dismiss that statistic.

More importantly, the Redskins are 4-3 when Brunell hits the 200 yard mark and 3-3 when he doesn't (and 0-2 when he passes over 300+). On the other hand Brunell has posted an 88.19 rating in our victories, but just a 79.88 rating in our defeats. In terms of predicting outcomes, quarterback rating is a much more valuable statistic than raw passing yards.

6.62....that is Brunell's yards per completion. Good for 24th in the league-the only playoff eligble qb with a worse one is Michael Vick.

As for blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

As far as I'm concerned, if the man QBs the team to another victory over the hated Pukes, he deserves to go into the ring of honor, no questions asked.

THE RIVALRY IS BACK!!!!

How soon can we have a nameplate made for the Ring of Honor????? :wink:

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:05 pm

brunell had a qb rating of 125.6 yesterday.... 8-[

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:32 am

No one needs to smack him upside the head anymore.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:28 am

No someone smack him on his helmet for playing a smart game.