Brunell

EA7649 · Post by **EA7649** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:56 pm

He has stepped up 2 consecutive 300+ Yard Games.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:51 pm

The most important thing, to me, is how well he's spreading the love. Unlike last season, there's no specific WR to focus on.
Here's to hoping "Jurassic Mark" can keep it up.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 am

tcwest10 wrote:The most important thing, to me, is how well he's spreading the love. Unlike last season, there's no specific WR to focus on.
Here's to hoping "Jurassic Mark" can keep it up.

Great name.....and maybe he can, with a little help from Bob Dole. :wink:

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:43 am

Champsturf wrote:Great name.....and maybe he can, with a little help from Bob Dole.

I'm not that clever. I read it in an interview at ExtremeSkins.

Some guy named Leonard came up with it.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:47 am

give Leonard props then....I love it

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:11 am

Right now, I am looking like I am one of the legions that have got it wrong about Brunell. It looks like the O-Line is starting to really gel and give him protection and "Big Al" up in the booth is calling plays that work to his strengths. It looks like this team is behind him so I guess we need to roll with it, good or bad.

Let's hope that we can keep this up and continue to improve. We desperately need Springs back....

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:32 am

I still don't think Brunell is our guy. again, if we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton why not let Campbell do that? No one can explain that to me.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:38 am

cleg wrote:I still don't think Brunell is our guy. again, if we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton why not let Campbell do that? No one can explain that to me.

That would be difficult to explain given that Brunell is doing more than "just throwing screens and handing off" ... it's a tough sell when you close your eyes for big chunks of the game.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:39 am

cleg wrote:I still don't think Brunell is our guy. again, if we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton why not let Campbell do that? No one can explain that to me.

uh, well, then that was a helluva 68 yard TD "screen" pass.

Do you really think that it's that easy? That this offense simply requires the QB to "hand it off" to Portis or "throwing screens"?

Brunell showed incredible composure, made some very wise decisions (with the exception of the one INT early in the game), and provided the leadership that such a game requires. Brunell, while clearly not the only player that deserves credit, showed exactly why HE is in there instead of Campbell right now. No disrespect to Campbell, but I doubt very much at this juncture of his career, that he would have been able to maintain the poise, composure, and leadership skills necessary to pull out a W like yesterday. A quality opponent like Jacsonville, who managed to come back from ten points town late in the game, is very difficult for a rookie QB to do. Why take a chance on him now, when what's required is the mental toughness that Brunell displayed? We already know that Brunell has the mental toughness to pull out these type of games, so THAT'S why he's in there now.

And, contrary to your assertion, we are NOT simply "handing it off to Portis" and "throwing screen passes".

I mean no disrespect, but your post is quite laughable.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:41 am

cleg wrote:I still don't think Brunell is our guy. again, if we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton why not let Campbell do that? No one can explain that to me.

If then statements. . .If A is true, then B follows.

"If we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton," THEN "why not let Campbell do that?"

In this case, A is not a true statement. . .the position of QB for the Redskins can (in no way) be summed up with "throwing screens and handing off to Clinton."

However, I'd hate to be guilty of the 'denying the antecedent' fallacy, so I won't say that it somehow follows that Campbell couldn't be playing QB for us. Perhaps he could, and perhaps he could play as well as Brunell has performed.

But before we make up our minds here, consider: It is clear that the QB position right now demands much more than simple short throws (as we have seen the past couple of weeks). It also seems that Gibbs is most confident in Brunell's ability to handle the responsibility of the position, and that Brunell is performing quite well when given the chance. I'd say the burden of proof lies with making the argument that Campbell should play. . .not the other way around.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:31 pm

It was a great game for Brunell. All things considered, it might have been his best game as a Redskins. And if it weren't for that first interception, it would definitley be his finest.

However, a lot of the concern surrounding Brunell is his ability to stay healthy. Coming into the season, the question wasn't can Brunell be effective in Week 4, but can he be effective in Week 14, Week 17, Week 21?

I'm not convinced he will, but I like to think he has a good shot. With the offensive line playing well and the team making a strong commitment to the run - along with minimizing five and seven step drops, Brunell should be well protected.

Two things I'd like to see them do: Rest him as much as possible during the week. That's tough with him still learning a new offense, but if he can play this well every week without practicing until Friday, that's something they ought to consider doing on a regular basis. Second, when we do get a big lead (up 21 against the Texans), please put Campbell in. He needs the reps, and Mark Brunell doesn't.

Paralis · Post by **Paralis** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:37 pm

I agree with everything you said. Upgrades at wide receiver are great, having Portis back is a great help, but as long as Gibbs is intent on sticking with Brunell come hell or high water, the team's going to live or die by his arm. Which is what makes the coming weeks so interesting (both with hope and dread). Last week was a demonstration of everything we've been led to believe Brunell can and can't do. This week blew those expectations out of the water. The questions going forward are what the coaching staff can do to get these performances out of him on a consistent basis, and if that's even possible going down the stretch of the season.

The lesson of yesterday is that the NFC is wide open right now. Even with the poor playoff picture already (giving up tiebreakers early to two potential wildcard teams is, sadly, huge), the Skins showed yesterday exactly what they can do against a very good team. They'll be able to go as far as Brunell can take them. Here's hoping he can look more like Week 4 than Week 2 in December.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:40 pm

I am not worried at all about Mark B's ability to stay healthy. If he misses a game, etc. we have great depth at QB IMO.

Paralis · Post by **Paralis** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:49 pm

I don't think any Skins fan is worried about Brunell missing a game. What's scary is the games he doesn't miss. A lot of football players can play hurt. Brunell seems like he can't anymore--it's all or nothing.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:52 pm

Paralis wrote:I don't think any Skins fan is worried about Brunell missing a game. What's scary is the games he doesn't miss. A lot of football players can play hurt. Brunell seems like he can't anymore--it's all or nothing.

Didn't he play most of the Houston game with a lacerated elbow? And, didn't he have to wear a protective bandage on it for the Jags game? Wasn't he held out of practice for a few days during the week? I disagree, I think that Brunell not only can he play with an injury, if he has to, but he will, as long as it's not a detriment to the team.

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:00 pm

JPFair wrote:I think that Brunell not only can he play with an injury, if he has to, but he will, as long as it's not a detriment to the team.

Actually, in 2004 he DID play with an injury, to the detriment of the team.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:12 pm

I would also add that apart from his elbow injury, the coaching staff have indicated that, in deference to both his experience/age and his health/stamina the decision was to rest Brunell as much as possible during this season. I believe this was because Gibbs has indicated that he thinks it will help keep Brunell fresh and also Brunell indicated something similar in the post game interview.

I think we are now seeing why Gibbs was so high on Brunell in the first place and also what Saunders was indicating he was seeing in practice sessions prior to the season. This is still a team game and Brunell is just a part of a group that is starting to show why Saunders is so highly regarded.

This is a very special team and I have a feeling that they are going to be even better.

That was a really great effort on the ground (and in the air) against one of the better defenses in the NFL so far this year. This offensive line is starting to look like we thought it could and we are seeing some very good results from some guys that members of the THN staff mentioned during training camp.

I am so looking forward to this weekend - I really believe we are a team that believes in itself and I think the boys in NY who are favored by almost a TD (or were!) are in for a surprise.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:36 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
cleg wrote:I still don't think Brunell is our guy. again, if we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton why not let Campbell do that? No one can explain that to me.

If then statements. . .If A is true, then B follows.

"If we are just throwing screens and handing off to Clinton," THEN "why not let Campbell do that?"

In this case, A is not a true statement. . .the position of QB for the Redskins can (in no way) be summed up with "throwing screens and handing off to Clinton."

However, I'd hate to be guilty of the 'denying the antecedent' fallacy, so I won't say that it somehow follows that Campbell couldn't be playing QB for us. Perhaps he could, and perhaps he could play as well as Brunell has performed.

But before we make up our minds here, consider: It is clear that the QB position right now demands much more than simple short throws (as we have seen the past couple of weeks). It also seems that Gibbs is most confident in Brunell's ability to handle the responsibility of the position, and that Brunell is performing quite well when given the chance. I'd say the burden of proof lies with making the argument that Campbell should play. . .not the other way around.

Thanks for presenting your opinion in a nice way instead of railing me for thinking Brunell is not our guy.

The pass to Moss to end the game was about 20 yds with Moss running the other 48 - a nice throw indeed.

However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted. Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills through experience in a season in which a championship is a long shot?

BTW, until this season I did not realize how good Portis is. He is a beast.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:41 pm

cleg wrote:However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted.

Wow, 90% certainty? I didn't realize we were able to calculate numbers like that. Do we know the standard deviation?

Where is my sarcasm emotion?

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:43 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
cleg wrote:However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted.

Wow, 90% certainty? I didn't realize we were able to calculate numbers like that. Do we know the standard deviation?

Where is my sarcasm emotion?

Ohhhhhhh ... you beat me to it ... I know with 90% certainty that you stole the thought from my head ... what a ridiculous "stat"

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:49 pm

However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted. Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills through experience in a season in which a championship is a long shot?

Really? Will you post the link that shows that we know with 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough? If so, who do your sources say are going to the Super Bowl? With 90% odds, I'd say you should head to Vegas and put a few C-notes on whoever your sources say are going to win the big one.

And, what makes you say that a Championship is a long shot? Did we not just beat one of the top teams so far this year in the AFC? That's an indicator that we're a "long shot"? News to me!!!

Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills now? Becaue we're very much in the hunt in the NFC East, and to put Campbell in right now would be a mistake to both the Redskins and to Campbell himself. Irrespective of what's best for Campbell, the Redskins right now need experience, leadership, and someone who the coaches have confidence in not to lose games by making mistakes at the QB position. Brunell may not be the passer he once was, but he's by no means losing games because of mental errors. Unfortunately, with Ben Roethlisberger being the exception to the rule, rookie QB's almost universally make numerous mental mistakes during their first few games, if not for an entire season. Witness Troy Aikman in his first year. John Elway. Joe Montana, and on and on.

Jason Campbells time will come, but for now, the Redskins need an experienced QB who knows what it takes, and what it's like to go far in the playoffs.

It's important, I think, that people that want Campbell in there should realize that curiosity alone is not a strong enough reason to throw a Rookie QB right into the starting role in place of the incumbent starter, especially when the team that he's playing for is in the middle of a marathon race that could end up in the playoffs. It just doesn't make sense to replace an experienced veteran after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 games with a Rookie QB. If, after 7 or 8 games we're 2-6 and pretty much out of the running in the NFC East, then, I think, it might be a good idea to start thinking about putting Campbell in there. Until then, let's see what Brunell can do for us.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:49 pm

JPFair wrote:
However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted. Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills through experience in a season in which a championship is a long shot?

Really? Will you post the link that shows that we know with 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough? If so, who do your sources say are going to the Super Bowl? With 90% odds, I'd say you should head to Vegas and put a few C-notes on whoever your sources say are going to win the big one.

And, what makes you say that a Championship is a long shot? Did we not just beat one of the top teams so far this year in the AFC? That's an indicator that we're a "long shot"? News to me!!!

Why not let Campbell begin to develop these skills now? Becaue we're very much in the hunt in the NFC East, and to put Campbell in right now would be a mistake to both the Redskins and to Campbell himself. Irrespective of what's best for Campbell, the Redskins right now need experience, leadership, and someone who the coaches have confidence in not to lose games by making mistakes at the QB position. Brunell may not be the passer he once was, but he's by no means losing games because of mental errors. Unfortunately, with Ben Roethlisberger being the exception to the rule, rookie QB's almost universally make numerous mental mistakes during their first few games, if not for an entire season. Witness Troy Aikman in his first year. John Elway. Joe Montana, and on and on.

Jason Campbells time will come, but for now, the Redskins need an experienced QB who knows what it takes, and what it's like to go far in the playoffs.

It's important, I think, that people that want Campbell in there should realize that curiosity alone is not a strong enough reason to throw a Rookie QB right into the starting role in place of the incumbent starter, especially when the team that he's playing for is in the middle of a marathon race that could end up in the playoffs. It just doesn't make sense to replace an experienced veteran after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 games with a Rookie QB. If, after 7 or 8 games we're 2-6 and pretty much out of the running in the NFC East, then, I think, it might be a good idea to start thinking about putting Campbell in there. Until then, let's see what Brunell can do for us.

He never got the job done in Jax with some pretty good teams and at the time a very weak AFC conferance - he was aweful his first year here and totally ran out of gas last year. Why do we think he is going to be better with age? I agree he has more football knowledge than Campbell but he is not a rookie. Look at Phillip Rivers and the job he is doing with San Diego.

Brunell alone cost us the game agaisnt the Vikes and it won't be the last one I fear. He did this last year where the team got hot and made plays from his dink and dunk passes but when it truely counted in the playoffs agaisnt truly good teams it does not work.

I am not sure why folks are so mad at me for this??? I guess I missed the tray of Kool Aid that went around.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:55 pm

cleg wrote:I am not sure why folks are so mad at me for this??? I guess I missed the tray of Kool Aid that went around.

It's because you pulled a number out of your rear and presented it as fact:

cleg wrote:However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted.

That's your opinion. And while you may be right, presenting it as fact is just ridiculous. Adding a number like 90% (what does that even mean?) is asanine.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:56 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
cleg wrote:I am not sure why folks are so mad at me for this??? I guess I missed the tray of Kool Aid that went around.

It's because you pulled a number out of your rear and presented it as fact:

cleg wrote:However, we know with about 90% certainty that Brunell is not good enough to take this team to a Super Bowl and the advantages of his leadership and experience is wasted.

That's your opinion. And while you may be right, presenting it as fact is just ridiculous. Adding a number like 90% (what does that even mean?) is asanine.

Ok, so we know with some certainty that Brunell will not lead this team to a Championship. "Your posts sounds jerk-ish to me :wink:

"

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:01 pm

Another one bites the dust!!