Brunell Bashers

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
jaw32
swine
Posts: 77
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: NW Florida

Brunell Bashers

Post by jaw32 »

I just read the whole game day thread. As I expected, a lot of Brunell haters, with limited football knowledge.

Game stats 25-43 325 yds 2 TD's 0 Int

Brunell played well. What most people are not realizing, is that there is not a lot of opportunity for the QB to accel with the current personnel and play scheme. It is difficult run 2 times and be successful on 3rd and long.

I realize Gibbs wants to play smash mouth football. Unfortunately, there is nobody to smash mouths. The O-Line is OK but nothing to write home about. Evidence:

1) Cannot get short yardage (or even move pile a little) in an obvious run situation. This has been true in every case so far this year.

2) Even with max protection philosophy there has been too many hits, and sacks.

Brunell throws the ball early resulting in throw aways and putting it where it can't be intercepted. It is frustrating to see Brunell throw the ball OB so much, but the other side of the coin is turn-overs.

Dropped balls are killing drives and Brunell's rhythm. Brunell has always been a rhythm guy; he has performed well in the no-huddle in the past. When the receivers start making plays for him, he will improve. For example, in the first quarter, they threw deep (the play we challeged and won), Coles jumped way early. Coles was well covered and the ball was up for grabs. The difference is that Coles wiffs, and Cowboy recievers made great catches in similar situations. The blatant drops are another story.

Another myth that I kept hearing is that Brunell has a weak arm and can't throw deep. That is pure BS. Brunell throws hard without it being "hard to catch" hard. He also threw a few nice deep balls tonight (That non call in the 4th in the end zone still has me PO's, that was money). I truley believe the "deep" problem is that we don't try it enough, and the WR's do not have "feared" speed. They have decent speed, but hey seem to only get open deep on double moves. Also, using max protection (which we need to do), there is only a few out running patterns leaving a lot of double coverage. Again, you want throw aways or interceptions?

Brunell was also blamed for clock management. One timeout the play came in way late, the other was Sellers no knowing the play.

I'm afraid the Redskins are only going to be successful when they pass when the defense thinks run and run when the defense thinks pass. In other words, we got no Hogs, we got to mix up the play calling, no smash mouth.

I still think there is hope. As long as a lot of fans on this board aren't coaching.

Gibbs will figure out his personnel and adjust.
redskinz4ever
******
******
Posts: 2630
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:55 pm
Location: charlotte nc

Post by redskinz4ever »

he looks a lot better than he did a week ago and his arm strenght looked pretty good to me.if our W.R.'S will catch the ball it would be nice BRUNELL did his part now everyone else needs to do there's .... oh and keep feeding PORTIS he looked like he is getting comfortable in the offense. :wink:
TOUCHDOWN .....WASHINGTON REDSKINS !!!!
gregory smith
Hog
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:30 pm

Post by gregory smith »

I agree, I think Brunell really looked good. Hopefully now Coach Gibbs will open up the playbook a bit. By doing that we get 8 men out of the box and Portis will start to pile up the yards.
joebagadonuts
Mmmm...donuts
Mmmm...donuts
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: How much text will they let me fit in this 'Location' space? I mean, can I just keep writing and wr

Post by joebagadonuts »

brunell looked horrible in most of the first half, dropped balls or not. i was thinking they should pull him until he started getting a rhythm on offense late in the first half and in the second half. i hope that carries through to next week.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.
Hill66
the Big Canuck
the Big Canuck
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, ON

Post by Hill66 »

Its very true. I'm happy to see Brunell finally start to look like he knows what he is doing. However, I must question his long ball ability, yeah he completed a couple, but the other three that were incomplete were really dangerous...
As for the O-line, I think they are doing a great job. Portis could've and SHOULD'VE had about 200+ yards rushing last night. But Gibbs just could not afford to waste that much clock.
Pete Kendall is a MAN and a half..
welch
Skins History Buff
Skins History Buff
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by welch »

I agree: Brunell looked sharp. Good arm, quick thinking, moved to avoid rushers (I loved that dance step to free himself for the TD pass), and never slumped emotionally.

I thought I saw him slip once in the 1st half, and he seemed to wince. His leg cannot have been 100%. So, add that.

Gibbs knows quarterbacking.
Scooter
scooter
scooter
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:58 am
Location: NM
Contact:

Post by Scooter »

Brunell played better after nearly being pulled. He didn't lose the game, neither did Coles. The Skins outplayed the Cowboys in all phases of the game - but the zebras owed money to their shylocks and couldn't afford the six large they'd bet on the Pokes. I think the defense played a very good game - including Smoot. This was a gift to the Cowboys - and we paid for it!
User avatar
REDEEMEDSKIN
~~
~~
Posts: 8496
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Post by REDEEMEDSKIN »

For us to be able to play the smashmouth football Joe wants, I think we will have to do the complete opposite. We're trying to run to set up the pass. Our attempts at that are average at best. Like Tennessee and Pittsburgh have done in recent years, I think we should try to set up the run with the pass. Yes, it sounds Spurrierific, but once this O-line becomes confident that it can open holes for Portis, it will be easier to start playing the smashmouth style we want. Again, the pass first, run second idea is a temporary one -- anything to get Clinton to be the explosive back he can be.

As for Brunell, I have a feeling he could well be the next great avatar picture!!!!
Last edited by REDEEMEDSKIN on Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Back and better than ever!
Brandon777
*********
*********
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Post by Brandon777 »

I also thought Brunell did well. From what I saw last night, he seems to be getting more comfortable with the scheme. For those saying he looked horrible, I just didn't see it. I worry about the RT spot. I also think we should use Betts at the goal line.
Let us all gather around and drink the Cooley-Aid of the Redskins.
Redskin in Canada
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
Posts: 10323
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:59 am
Location: Canada

Spurrierific

Post by Redskin in Canada »

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: Yes, it sounds Spurrierific, but once this O-line becomes confident that it can open holes for Portis, it will be easier to start playing the smashmouth style we want.


First, de-Spurrierized, now Spurrierific.

English is such a wonderful and inventive language! :D

By the way, nobody has told me how to do that: Hypnosys? Love? Threats? Fear? Fumigation?

I still do not believe that the OL is in sync with so much instability. But some have argued that it does not have all the members that it needs in this system. Sure, Jansen is out, but I am not sure that we either have had enough stability or that we have the staff that we need to play vintage Gibbs football.

So, we either adjust the system to the personnel we have or change the personnel. I feel the first is more manageable option at this point of the season.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
User avatar
REDEEMEDSKIN
~~
~~
Posts: 8496
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Spurrierific

Post by REDEEMEDSKIN »

Redskin in Canada wrote:
REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: Yes, it sounds Spurrierific, but once this O-line becomes confident that it can open holes for Portis, it will be easier to start playing the smashmouth style we want.


First, de-Spurrierized, now Spurrierific.


I'm an innovator and a born leader. What more can I say? :wink:
Back and better than ever!
NikiH
+++
+++
Posts: 4448
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:02 pm

Post by NikiH »

Ok I do not think Brunnell played great. He played better. But you cannot sit in the pocket for a full minute and not expect to be sacked. Those sacks were completely his fault. Well the ones where he was standing there just waiting for it anyway. I like Ramsey. I never wanted Brunnell here. I will support whatever decision Gibbs makes but I do not think you can praise Brunnell for his performance. It was medicore at best. Lack of disappointments does not make it a grand performance.
Whenever I start to get blue, I just breathe!

My favortie line from the Simpsons:

Flanders: "Looks like someone is having a pre-rapture party!"

Homer: "No Flanders, it's a meeting of gay witches for abortion , you wouldn't be interested!"
skinz74
aka Sarcastic Hog
aka Sarcastic Hog
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:47 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Brunell Bashers

Post by skinz74 »

jaw32 wrote:I just read the whole game day thread. As I expected, a lot of Brunell haters, with limited football knowledge.


I contributed a lot to the gameday thread and resent being referred to as "one with limited football knowledge." I also reside, like you, in Jax, FL...and have seen Brunell wear both uniforms. I just don't think he's the right QB if we're struggling and learning a new offense. If Ramsey is indeed the QB of the future...then get him in there now, let him have some OJT, and grow. Brunell will be lucky to survive the season...as YOU well know he is injury prone. And it's not as if we didn't give up 5 sacks last night. So why are we delaying the inevitable. I respect your opinion and can appreciate your loyalty to Brunell...but don't label others with a different opinion as football ignorant...it's just not kosher. I'd still feel the same way even if he was lighting up the scoreboard...because he's not the energizer bunny and will eventually have to pass the torch. I'd rather Patrick be comfortable with the offense sooner than later. My 2 cents
<~~~~~Runs with scissors X
(_E=mc2_)

“This is where I'm most comfortable, ... This is my life, where I work. I'm definitely glad to be back.” #21
User avatar
REDEEMEDSKIN
~~
~~
Posts: 8496
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Post by REDEEMEDSKIN »

NikiH wrote:But you cannot sit in the pocket for a full minute and not expect to be sacked. Those sacks were completely his fault.

He was working with a bum hammy, and I'm sure, at the beginning, he was tentative about running. I, too noticed that the sacks were "his fault", but, better he take the sack than commit a Ramsey-esque turnover which might have led to more points for the girls. Also, I'd take Brunell's decision making + his bad hammy over Patrick's indecision and lead feet anytime, until PRam shows the staff he is capable of leading THIS team (not last year's). Brunell made some smart decisions by throwing the ball away on several ocassions; Patrick might have thrown it to a receiver....

...with a blue star on the side of his helmet.


Sarcastic Hog wrote:I'd rather Patrick be comfortable with the offense sooner than later.

I'm sure Joe and his offensive staff feel the same way; unfortunately, Ramsey has yet to do it in practice for the staff to feel comfortable about starting him over Brunell.
Back and better than ever!
K19
piglet
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:13 pm

Post by K19 »

I'm not sure why theres all the hate with Ramsey. Heres what I see on the outside looking in. He was put in a very bad position during the Spurrier regime because he had limited protection due to the amount of receivers you guys used. Pressure causes bad plays and by putting a young QB in that position you are basically setting him up to fail. Third year in the league, 2 in a joke of an offense and he still had a QB rating in the mid 70's and threw more TD's then picks. IF he is the future of the team shouldnt people be a bit more positive? A 34 year old QB with a lifetime rating of 82.7 is no more the future of the skins then our 40 year old qb with and his 80.5 rating
Cowboys fan since '71
'Boys 24 'Skins 17
NikiH
+++
+++
Posts: 4448
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:02 pm

Post by NikiH »

Thank you K19. Seriously Redeemed if his hammy was bothering him, he should have been a man and taken a seat on the bench. He was just afraid that it'd be a repeat of last year and his injury would cost him the starting job all year long. Doesn't sound like much of a team player to me. Oh and on the throwing the ball away, he had several near interceptions and an intentional grounding penalty. It was not smart tossing the ball away. It was thank goodness the Cowboys missed that one.
Whenever I start to get blue, I just breathe!

My favortie line from the Simpsons:

Flanders: "Looks like someone is having a pre-rapture party!"

Homer: "No Flanders, it's a meeting of gay witches for abortion , you wouldn't be interested!"
User avatar
REDEEMEDSKIN
~~
~~
Posts: 8496
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Post by REDEEMEDSKIN »

NikiH wrote:Seriously Redeemed if his hammy was bothering him, he should have been a man and taken a seat on the bench. He was just afraid that it'd be a repeat of last year and his injury would cost him the starting job all year long.

No, it was the coach's decision to play Mark, who gave the team THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN. Maybe Joe "should have been a man" and not coached this week. I mean, what an awful decision to let the better quarterback sit. :roll:
Doesn't sound like much of a team player to me.
You can't be serious. Brunell signed a contract to play for the team and the coach has the nerve to ask him to fulfill the contract(!!!). The man spends all last week at Redskins Park getting treatment so he can do the "selfish" thing of trying to help the team win. Yup, that about sums it up. Cut Brunell now!! :roll:
Back and better than ever!
Scooter
scooter
scooter
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:58 am
Location: NM
Contact:

Post by Scooter »

Ramsey would be the QB if I had the call to make. No offense to Brunell, he played a good second half. Still, he took sacks that he shouldn't have taken and missed badly on some throws. Some drops and some outstanding plays by Gardner balanced out. Brunell may become a better QB too. Don't forget he's been out of the game for a year and is in a new system. Still, I'd play Ramsey and let him learn the system - you need 2 QB's in today's NFL. I'd like to have 2 with recent game experience.
Brandon777
*********
*********
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Post by Brandon777 »

With all due respect to those saying it was Brunell's fault for those sacks, that is completely wrong. Brunell got sacked because the Cowboys rush poured through our line without much resistance. He wasn't standing there holding the ball like Ramsey. Brunell hardly had any time to react.
Let us all gather around and drink the Cooley-Aid of the Redskins.
jaw32
swine
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: NW Florida

Post by jaw32 »

Some of you guys are tough critics (and yes some ignorant, sorry). It's not like Brunell is out there in the shotgun with Harrison on one side and Wayne on the other.
He is being asked to run a conservative offensive scheme.

It was difficult to see everytime on TV but many times the receivers are not open, and there isn't always time to scan both sides of the field and make a throw, especially running play action.

When the Skins opened up the offense Brunell played well.

Come on 325 yards, 0 Int, 2 TD's (with a 3rd TD chance that should have been interference and first down at the one). Admit it, he played well.

Side note: On the play that roughing was called, Brunell threw a flair over Portis's head. Portis complained bitterly but no flag. The announcers said nothing and no replay, but I could have sworn the LB grabbed Portis's jersey. I think that play could have gone for some serious yards. Anyone remember what I'm talking about?
User avatar
hkHog
Hog
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:06 pm

Re: Brunell Bashers

Post by hkHog »

jaw32 wrote:I just read the whole game day thread. As I expected, a lot of Brunell haters, with limited football knowledge.

Game stats 25-43 325 yds 2 TD's 0 Int

Brunell played well. What most people are not realizing, is that there is not a lot of opportunity for the QB to accel with the current personnel and play scheme. It is difficult run 2 times and be successful on 3rd and long.

I realize Gibbs wants to play smash mouth football. Unfortunately, there is nobody to smash mouths. The O-Line is OK but nothing to write home about. Evidence:

1) Cannot get short yardage (or even move pile a little) in an obvious run situation. This has been true in every case so far this year.

2) Even with max protection philosophy there has been too many hits, and sacks.

Brunell throws the ball early resulting in throw aways and putting it where it can't be intercepted. It is frustrating to see Brunell throw the ball OB so much, but the other side of the coin is turn-overs.

Dropped balls are killing drives and Brunell's rhythm. Brunell has always been a rhythm guy; he has performed well in the no-huddle in the past. When the receivers start making plays for him, he will improve. For example, in the first quarter, they threw deep (the play we challeged and won), Coles jumped way early. Coles was well covered and the ball was up for grabs. The difference is that Coles wiffs, and Cowboy recievers made great catches in similar situations. The blatant drops are another story.

Another myth that I kept hearing is that Brunell has a weak arm and can't throw deep. That is pure BS. Brunell throws hard without it being "hard to catch" hard. He also threw a few nice deep balls tonight (That non call in the 4th in the end zone still has me PO's, that was money). I truley believe the "deep" problem is that we don't try it enough, and the WR's do not have "feared" speed. They have decent speed, but hey seem to only get open deep on double moves. Also, using max protection (which we need to do), there is only a few out running patterns leaving a lot of double coverage. Again, you want throw aways or interceptions?

Brunell was also blamed for clock management. One timeout the play came in way late, the other was Sellers no knowing the play.

I'm afraid the Redskins are only going to be successful when they pass when the defense thinks run and run when the defense thinks pass. In other words, we got no Hogs, we got to mix up the play calling, no smash mouth.

I still think there is hope. As long as a lot of fans on this board aren't coaching.

Gibbs will figure out his personnel and adjust.


Wow, all I can say is that this has to be one of the most sane posts I have read in a really long time, particularly on this topic. I agree with all of the above.
owa
piggie
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:53 am

Post by owa »

Yeah, I thought Brunell did a great job after a somewhat shaky start. The rollouts were great and having a QB that can throw on the run is a big plus. The slight juke and then zipping the TD was beautiful. Even though we lost I can't wait until next week to see if it continues. I'm at least starting to get excited about the offense now and having Portis starting to find his way is even better.

I agree about the sacks, at least on one of them. One of the TV replays showed the view from behind the QB and it was pretty obvious he had no where to throw the ball. There was a crowd of Cowboys around every receiver.
Last edited by owa on Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
skinz74
aka Sarcastic Hog
aka Sarcastic Hog
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:47 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Post by skinz74 »

I will admit that he finished the game off strongly. But (ignorant me) how many times are we gonna have to watch the offense sputter before he "gets it." I would rather have growing pains with the future of our franchise than with a veteran who may very well be a swell guy...but his career is on the downward slope. You don't sit on a boat and wait for the wind to blow...you grab a paddle and haul @ss. Ramsey is the paddle...he just needs proper guidance.
<~~~~~Runs with scissors X
(_E=mc2_)

“This is where I'm most comfortable, ... This is my life, where I work. I'm definitely glad to be back.” #21
User avatar
hkHog
Hog
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:06 pm

Post by hkHog »

owa wrote:Yeah, I thought Brunell did a great job after a somewhat shaky start. The rollouts were great and having a QB that can throw on the run is a big plus. The slight juke and then zipping the TD was beautiful. Even though we lost I can't wait until next week to see if it continues. I'm at least starting to get excited about the offense now and having Portis starting to find his way is even better.

I agree about the sacks at least on one of them. One the TV replays showed the view from behind the QB and it was pretty obvious he had no where to throw the ball. There was a crowd of Cowboys around every receiver.


Yeah and then people blast him for throwing the ball out of bounds when he has no where to go. You can't have it both ways. I am looking forward to next week too. Our skill guys seem to be clicking a little more. That was the best I have ever seen Gardner play. Just gotta get that O-line going and Portis is going to be running rampant. I am amazed he almost got 100yds behind that line last night! Ooh, it's Cleveland too! I am not unconditionally picking a win or anything but they are not renowned for their run D.
welch
Skins History Buff
Skins History Buff
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by welch »

I agree with hkHog. Thanks jaw32.

Someone wrote
I'm not sure why theres all the hate with Ramsey.


I don't think people hate Ramsey. I don't hate him. I think that Ramsey is not yet a good enough QB to start, and there are times when I wonder if he has the in-game mental quickness ever to start.

But hate?? No way. I would be delighted if Ramsey eventually plays well for the Redskins. Right now, he looks unready, and Brunell looks very good.
Post Reply