cleg wrote:I DO blame Brunell for everything because he cannot get the balls to the receivers with consistency, he barely can hand the ball off without tripping over himself, he cannot read defenses anymore and gets sacked too much, he does not keep the offense on the field long enough for the defense to get rested, he is scared of the rush, he has no fire in his belly. So, yeah, I blame him.
Sacked too much? He's one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL. Lemme guess, you're like 13 right?
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. and watch.
Be careful what you wish for...there are several teams in the league with QB's playing worse than Brunell.
My concern is our defense. If we had a defense that could say stop anyone....Brunell would be more than adequate...
We won the game without Santana Moss in there...we only had 3 receivers dress...and you're still complaining?
cleg wrote:I DO blame Brunell for everything because he cannot get the balls to the receivers with consistency, he barely can hand the ball off without tripping over himself, he cannot read defenses anymore and gets sacked too much, he does not keep the offense on the field long enough for the defense to get rested, he is scared of the rush, he has no fire in his belly. So, yeah, I blame him.
Sacked too much? He's one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL. Lemme guess, you're like 13 right?
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. and watch.
Be careful what you wish for...there are several teams in the league with QB's playing worse than Brunell.
My concern is our defense. If we had a defense that could say stop anyone....Brunell would be more than adequate...
We won the game without Santana Moss in there...we only had 3 receivers dress...and you're still complaining?
because i don't agree with your point you assume i am a child? that assumption seems childish on your part - you see, grown-ups can disagree sometimes. i am 32.
Chris ey "almost caught a 30 yarder down the middle which would have been another completion and another 30 yards to Brunell's total.
Brandon Lloyd had another 30 yarder called back on a penalty.
The throw that Brunell made to Lloyd was pathetic. He underthrew him by 4 yards and Lloyd made an amazing catch on that ball. I just don't quite understand how/why you are defeding Brunell when the guy almost threw 4 interceptions, 2 of which would've been in the endzone. Not only that but twice he could've run for first downs on 3rd down but instead ran out of bounds instead of taking a hit and picking up tough yardage. As Brian Mitchell said, the mistakes that he was making weren't indicative of a veteran qb. Romo was making better throws and better decisions than Brunell on Sunday. If anything, this game just reinforced my belief that Brunell needs to be replaced. You can't have a qb that lacks mobility and is afraid to take a hit and be succesful in the NFL. Romo made up for his lack of experience with his mobility on Sunday, and I think that Campbell could do the same thing.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
cleg wrote:I DO blame Brunell for everything because he cannot get the balls to the receivers with consistency, he barely can hand the ball off without tripping over himself, he cannot read defenses anymore and gets sacked too much, he does not keep the offense on the field long enough for the defense to get rested, he is scared of the rush, he has no fire in his belly. So, yeah, I blame him.
Sacked too much? He's one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL. Lemme guess, you're like 13 right?
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. and watch.
Be careful what you wish for...there are several teams in the league with QB's playing worse than Brunell.
My concern is our defense. If we had a defense that could say stop anyone....Brunell would be more than adequate...
We won the game without Santana Moss in there...we only had 3 receivers dress...and you're still complaining?
because i don't agree with your point you assume i am a child? that assumption seems childish on your part - you see, grown-ups can disagree sometimes. i am 32.
I was just kidding with you...but you did sound kind of immature by making such a broad conclusion that you blame Brunell for "everything"....c'mon, "everything" isn't his fault is it?
Chris ey "almost caught a 30 yarder down the middle which would have been another completion and another 30 yards to Brunell's total.
Brandon Lloyd had another 30 yarder called back on a penalty.
The throw that Brunell made to Lloyd was pathetic. He underthrew him by 4 yards and Lloyd made an amazing catch on that ball. I just don't quite understand how/why you are defeding Brunell when the guy almost threw 4 interceptions, 2 of which would've been in the endzone. Not only that but twice he could've run for first downs on 3rd down but instead ran out of bounds instead of taking a hit and picking up tough yardage. As Brian Mitchell said, the mistakes that he was making weren't indicative of a veteran qb. Romo was making better throws and better decisions than Brunell on Sunday. If anything, this game just reinforced my belief that Brunell needs to be replaced. You can't have a qb that lacks mobility and is afraid to take a hit and be succesful in the NFL. Romo made up for his lack of experience with his mobility on Sunday, and I think that Campbell could do the same thing.
I am defending him because you are being irrational. Here's a hint. Tom Brady threw 4 ints...they lost. Grossman threw 3 Ints...they lost.
There's a difference between almost throwing an INt and actually throwing one....Brunell didn't do that...and guess what...we WON.
***For the record, I would take Brady any day over Brunell...but the point is that 'almost' means nothing. If we lived life in "almost" fase...John Kerry would be president, and Bin Laden would be in custody.
Last edited by The Hogster on Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cleg wrote:I DO blame Brunell for everything because he cannot get the balls to the receivers with consistency, he barely can hand the ball off without tripping over himself, he cannot read defenses anymore and gets sacked too much, he does not keep the offense on the field long enough for the defense to get rested, he is scared of the rush, he has no fire in his belly. So, yeah, I blame him.
Sacked too much? He's one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL. Lemme guess, you're like 13 right?
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. and watch.
Be careful what you wish for...there are several teams in the league with QB's playing worse than Brunell.
My concern is our defense. If we had a defense that could say stop anyone....Brunell would be more than adequate...
We won the game without Santana Moss in there...we only had 3 receivers dress...and you're still complaining?
because i don't agree with your point you assume i am a child? that assumption seems childish on your part - you see, grown-ups can disagree sometimes. i am 32.
I was just kidding with you...but you did sound kind of immature by making such a broad conclusion that you blame Brunell for "everything"....c'mon, "everything" isn't his fault is it?
well, greater societal problems certainly are not his fault.
cleg wrote:I DO blame Brunell for everything because he cannot get the balls to the receivers with consistency, he barely can hand the ball off without tripping over himself, he cannot read defenses anymore and gets sacked too much, he does not keep the offense on the field long enough for the defense to get rested, he is scared of the rush, he has no fire in his belly. So, yeah, I blame him.
Sacked too much? He's one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL. Lemme guess, you're like 13 right?
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. and watch.
Be careful what you wish for...there are several teams in the league with QB's playing worse than Brunell.
My concern is our defense. If we had a defense that could say stop anyone....Brunell would be more than adequate...
We won the game without Santana Moss in there...we only had 3 receivers dress...and you're still complaining?
because i don't agree with your point you assume i am a child? that assumption seems childish on your part - you see, grown-ups can disagree sometimes. i am 32.
I was just kidding with you...but you did sound kind of immature by making such a broad conclusion that you blame Brunell for "everything"....c'mon, "everything" isn't his fault is it?
well, greater societal problems certainly are not his fault.
If you live here in DC...the Skins are a greater societal problem.
I am defending him because you are being irrational. Here's a hint. Tom Brady threw 4 ints...they lost. Grossman threw 3 Ints...they lost.
There's a difference between almost throwing an INt and actually throwing one....Brunell didn't do that...and guess what...we WON.
Right but the throws that he made that were almost intercepted showed poor decision making and highlighted his physical limiatations. Brunell just looks nervous in the pocket and on atleast one of the near pics he could've run for a first down but that would've required taking a hit and I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team? You've got guys like Taylor and Marcus Washington throwing their bodies around trying to make plays and Burnell choses to run out of bounds instead of taking a hit at key points during the game? Brunell's former teammate and current coach, Ray Brown, even said in postgame that Brunell can't be succesful if there is any pressure on him and that he gets especially nervous in the pocket when there are defenders around his legs. Bring on Jason Campbell!
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
I am defending him because you are being irrational. Here's a hint. Tom Brady threw 4 ints...they lost. Grossman threw 3 Ints...they lost.
Grossman is in his first full/healthy year as a starter. I expect him to make some mistakes. I don't expect a 15 year veteran to throw 2 balls into the endzone that should've been intercepted. As for Brady, those 4 pics were an abberation for him. Mediocrity is the norm for Brunell.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
I am defending him because you are being irrational. Here's a hint. Tom Brady threw 4 ints...they lost. Grossman threw 3 Ints...they lost.
There's a difference between almost throwing an INt and actually throwing one....Brunell didn't do that...and guess what...we WON.
Right but the throws that he made that were almost intercepted showed poor decision making and highlighted his physical limiatations. Brunell just looks nervous in the pocket and on atleast one of the near pics he could've run for a first down but that would've required taking a hit and I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team? You've got guys like Taylor and Marcus Washington throwing their bodies around trying to make plays and Burnell choses to run out of bounds instead of taking a hit at key points during the game? Brunell's former teammate and current coach, Ray Brown, even said in postgame that Brunell can't be succesful if there is any pressure on him and that he gets especially nervous in the pocket when there are defenders around his legs. Bring on Jason Campbell!
You should be a politician. He said that referring to the Offensive Line ( whom he was brought in to consult with) needing to protect the guy.
There is no quarterback in the league who is comfortable with Greg Ellis, Demarcus Ware, and Bradie James in their earhole while trying to throw the ball.
The Pukes had the 4th ranked Defense coming into that game...guess what...the guys on the other side of the ball get paid too. What do you want him to do?? That team just beat the Panthers on the road. They are pretty good on defense.
You should be a politician. He said that referring to the Offensive Line ( whom he was brought in to consult with) needing to protect the guy.
The question from Mitchell to Brown was something to the extent of, "When coaching the line do you tell that they need to make sure that they give Brunell 6 seconds to throw?" Brown responded by saying that while they dont tell the line that they have to block for a certain amount of time, they understand that they need to give Brunell as much time as possible because for him to be effective he can't have any pressure around him. He also mentioned that for Brunell to step up in the pocket he cant have any defenders down around his legs because tha makes him uncomfortable.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
I want him to not run out of bounds or make a bad throw in key situations during a game when he could run for a first down. I want him to show some heart and take a hit to help his team win a game. You think that Portis, Moss, or ey would run of out bounds instead of picking up a first down because they dont want to get hit?
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
Chris ey "almost caught a 30 yarder down the middle which would have been another completion and another 30 yards to Brunell's total.
Brandon Lloyd had another 30 yarder called back on a penalty.
The throw that Brunell made to Lloyd was pathetic. He underthrew him by 4 yards and Lloyd made an amazing catch on that ball. I just don't quite understand how/why you are defeding Brunell when the guy almost threw 4 interceptions, 2 of which would've been in the endzone. Not only that but twice he could've run for first downs on 3rd down but instead ran out of bounds instead of taking a hit and picking up tough yardage. As Brian Mitchell said, the mistakes that he was making weren't indicative of a veteran qb. Romo was making better throws and better decisions than Brunell on Sunday. If anything, this game just reinforced my belief that Brunell needs to be replaced. You can't have a qb that lacks mobility and is afraid to take a hit and be succesful in the NFL. Romo made up for his lack of experience with his mobility on Sunday, and I think that Campbell could do the same thing.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:If you still disagree, point to the plays he caused or any individual efforts that led to the win.
How bout the intangibles, like helping to keep the offense together despite all his "shortcomings" and playing from behind? Or how about (don't laugh), the GREAT play fake prior to the pitch to CP on his touchdown run.
The team executed the play flawlessly, and, one great B. Lloyd block later, CP was in for 6.
There are more intangibles in the game, but I don't wanna go back and forth on what he's done. I'll let the record speak for itself: 3-1 vs. the Pukes, since he "Reversed the Curse". Obviously, he's doing something right. Period.
That's classic. I ask what he did to win the game and you give me a list of "intangibles."
Given he's a QB, doesn't that make you concerned if you can't come up with tangible contributions.
Love the effort though, and thanks for cracking me up.
I want him to not run out of bounds or make a bad throw in key situations during a game when he could run for a first down. I want him to show some heart and take a hit to help his team win a game. You think that Portis, Moss, or ey would run of out bounds instead of picking up a first down because they dont want to get hit?
Thats just plain silly. You want your 36 year old qb to run smack into Roy Williams, Bradie James, Greg Ellis and Demarcus Ware....risk fumbling, and/or killing himself.
Yeah, thats why you're the fan, and he's a long time veteran.
Thats just plain silly. You want your 36 year old qb to run smack into Roy Williams, Bradie James, Greg Ellis and Demarcus Ware....risk fumbling, and/or killing himself.
Yeah, thats why you're the fan, and he's a long time veteran. Rolling Eyes Confused
Well if he's too old/fragile to take a hit then he shouldn't be playing anymore. I don't think that it's too much to ask of your starting qb to run for a first down with a game against a division rival on the line. Do you think that Brett Favre would've run out of bounds instead of trying to pick up those first downs? Call me crazy but I seriously doubt it.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
I want him to not run out of bounds or make a bad throw in key situations during a game when he could run for a first down. I want him to show some heart and take a hit to help his team win a game. You think that Portis, Moss, or ey would run of out bounds instead of picking up a first down because they dont want to get hit?
Thats just plain silly. You want your 36 year old qb to run smack into Roy Williams, Bradie James, Greg Ellis and Demarcus Ware....risk fumbling, and/or killing himself.
Yeah, thats why you're the fan, and he's a long time veteran.
Didn't a QB hurdle a defender this week to get into the endzone? I think it was against the Giants.
Granted, Mark is 36 and I can't be too mad at him but aside from that play he is afraid to get hit. This stuff isn't being made up. His throws are short because he's not stepping up in the pocket. The stuff they said they'd work on during the bye is still somewhat of an issue.
Mark basically fell on the ground in the face of an impending sack. Im sorry but if he's scared to get hit then he needs to give it up. We're in a do or die situation. I believe that Mark has to go out there and make stuff happen. People complain that he's not helping nor is he going against but if we're going to win these games he's going to have to step up.
The Hogster wrote:You want your 36 year old qb to run smack into Roy Williams, Bradie James, Greg Ellis and Demarcus Ware....risk fumbling, and/or killing himself.
I want my starting QB to do whatever it takes to win. If that means risking his health to get a key first down late in the game, then yes, I want him to run smack into Roy Williams. If he's afraid of getting hurt, then it's time to hang 'em up. Plus, think of what might happen if MB actually inspired his teammates with his play. If I were an O-lineman, and I saw him take a tough hit to get a first down, that might actually inspire me to play a bit harder for a guy who is willing to get hurt for the team. Some might even classify such an act as 'leadership'. But Brunell's the expert, right?
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.
Let's not forget that Brunell was nursing a rib injury. I am of the camp that he should have run for the first instead of making the pass that showed B. Lloyd's CB skills, but I do understand the concept of self-preservation.
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
SkinzCanes wrote:...I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team?
Are you kidding?
The season is riding on Brunell's ability to lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl, and he's just getting over an injury that might have sidelined him, were it not for the extra week he got to rest, and you want him to go out there and potentially aggravate/worsen the injury???
Aside from just wanting to see JC in action, it makes no sense for Brunell to cut our season short by putting himself in harm's way, just so some fan can give him props on a message board.
JansenFan wrote:Let's not forget that Brunell was nursing a rib injury. I am of the camp that he should have run for the first instead of making the pass that showed B. Lloyd's CB skills, but I do understand the concept of self-preservation.
My bad, I didn't read your post before I submitted mine. I wasn't jocking your style, JF.
SkinzCanes wrote:..Right but the throws that he made that were almost intercepted showed poor decision making and highlighted his physical limiatations. Brunell just looks nervous in the pocket and on atleast one of the near pics he could've run for a first down but that would've required taking a hit and I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team? You've got guys like Taylor and Marcus Washington throwing their bodies around trying to make plays and Burnell choses to run out of bounds instead of taking a hit at key points during the game? Brunell's former teammate and current coach, Ray Brown, even said in postgame that Brunell can't be succesful if there is any pressure on him and that he gets especially nervous in the pocket when there are defenders around his legs. Bring on Jason Campbell!
Jason Cambell will be starting for the Redskins soon. Gibbs and Saunders will decide or Brunell will be injured. BUT if Campbell starts and he does what you are advocating he will be benched immediately. Gibbs will never tolerate a QB putting himself at risk and especially when you consider the back-up is Collins if Brunell is injured.
That is a very very bad idea - you are really showing how much you know about how a QB plays for Gibbs.
Gibbs will prepare Campbell to be a great QB but one of the first things he will impress on him after making sure he knows the value of not turning the ball over is to make sure you are able to play effectively and being injured trying to make something happen is a mark of immaturity.
We do not need Brunell to be superman - we need this offense to not lose games by making stupid mistakes like so many offenses are doing and that is costing their team games. For example when a WR sees that Brunell has thrown a ball that can get intercepted it is his job to make sure that does not happen - in the Cincy game Johnson made no effort to catch a slightly overthrown ball - an interception in that case is the receiver's fault, unless your last name is Brunell
But thanks for demonstrating your knowledge of what Gibbs wants and expects from his QB
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
SkinzCanes wrote:...I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team?
Are you kidding?
The season is riding on Brunell's ability to lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl, and he's just getting over an injury that might have sidelined him, were it not for the extra week he got to rest, and you want him to go out there and potentially aggravate/worsen the injury???
Aside from just wanting to see JC in action, it makes no sense for Brunell to cut our season short by putting himself in harm's way, just so some fan can give him props on a message board.
Does it make sense to you?
If we lose because we can't move the ball and score points at critical points, doesn't THAT cut our season short? And don't give me 'But we won!', because that's avoiding the point. Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.
Jason Cambell will be starting for the Redskins soon. Gibbs and Saunders will decide or Brunell will be injured. BUT if Campbell starts and he does what you are advocating he will be benched immediately. Gibbs will never tolerate a QB putting himself at risk and especially when you consider the back-up is Collins if Brunell is injured.
That is a very very bad idea - you are really showing how much you know about how a QB plays for Gibbs.
Gibbs will prepare Campbell to be a great QB but one of the first things he will impress on him after making sure he knows the value of not turning the ball over is to make sure you are able to play effectively and being injured trying to make something happen is a mark of immaturity.
We do not need Brunell to be superman - we need this offense to not lose games by making stupid mistakes like so many offenses are doing and that is costing their team games. For example when a WR sees that Brunell has thrown a ball that can get intercepted it is his job to make sure that does not happen - in the Cincy game Johnson made no effort to catch a slightly overthrown ball - an interception in that case is the receiver's fault, unless your last name is Brunell Wink
Gibbs wont be the one preparing Campbell, Saunders will. It's very obvious that Gibbs and Saunders have a differnce of opinion when it comes to turnovers. Gibbs tries to avoid them at all costs, while Saunders is willing to tolerate them because of the way he has designed his passing plays. Go back and look at the types of throws that Trent Green made under Saunders and the number of interceptions that he threw. A qb in Saunders' system has to throw downfield, into tight coverage, and accross the middle. These types of throws naturally lend themselves to more interceptions. Saunders has tailored his offense this season to accomodate Brunell's shortcomings. Once he gets a strong-armed qb in there you will see him go back to calling passing plays the way he did in KC.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
The season is riding on Brunell's ability to lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl, and he's just getting over an injury that might have sidelined him, were it not for the extra week he got to rest, and you want him to go out there and potentially aggravate/worsen the injury???
Aside from just wanting to see JC in action, it makes no sense for Brunell to cut our season short by putting himself in harm's way, just so some fan can give him props on a message board.
Does it make sense to you?
First of all, we aren't winning the Super Bowl this year.
Second of all, how do you expect to win games when you're qb isn't physically capable of making the plays necessary to win? We played a hard fought game on Sunday, but in the end we were lucky that Dallas had their field goal blocked. If Brunell had run for a first down in the first quarter instead of almost throwing a pick in the endzone we would've had a chace to put more points on the board and the game might not have even come down to the field goals late in the game. If Brunell isn't physically capable of running 3 or 4 yards for a first down then he shouldn't be in there. Like I said in another post, I doubt that Bret Favre would've been afraid to take a hit for a first down.
"Archuletta on the sidelines is a plus for Redskins fans" - Brian Mitchell
Take a chill pill. Mark Brunell is 3-1 vs the Pukes over the last two seasons and the only loss came without Portis....relax. 
and watch.
ey "almost caught a 30 yarder down the middle which would have been another completion and another 30 yards to Brunell's total.
