Post-Game Brunell discussion thread

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:45 pm

i'm sorry but it's a very simple fact: good QBs don't need everything around them to be perfect.

dcd, you've made a lot of nonsensical posts in your time, but this one takes the biscuit!! So, are you saying that all the Super Bowl winners over the years didn't have great players around them, and that it was the QUARTERBACK that brought them there, and won it for them?

Total nonsense!

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:53 pm

He has good and bad days just like anyone else, but our losses this year cannot be blamed on him.

The problem is that he has more bad days than good. 3 bad games this season, 2 good ones (1 against the Texans). That's not a very good ratio. Of all the qb's that started today, Brunell/Pennington/Harrington/Losman were the only ones that didn't account for a td. Not very good company to be keeping if you're Brunell, especially when you're playing against a team with the 29th ranked pass defense. Even Leinart (first career start) and Vince Young (2nd career start) had better days than Brunell. I understand that the team as a whole was terrible, but Brunell didn't make a single big play all day. He came closer to throwing a int than a td. You can say the oline was terrible (they were) but there were lots of other qb's today that made plays when they were under pressure.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:58 pm

JPFair wrote: How do you know any other QB would have thrown for 100 yards?

I was bored, so looked up the numbers - granted, NYG has only played 3 other teams, but those other QBs had at least twice as many yards as Brunell had against this defense, and had 1, 2, and 2 TDs each. Make of that what you will.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:59 pm

dcd, you've made a lot of nonsensical posts in your time, but this one takes the biscuit!! So, are you saying that all the Super Bowl winners over the years didn't have great players around them, and that it was the QUARTERBACK that brought them there, and won it for them?

Total nonsense!

That's not at all what he is saying. What he and others (myself included) are saying is that for Brunell to have a good game everything around him has to be perfect. The running game has to be good and he has to have almost no pressure. If the running game struggles or if there is pressure then Brunell usually stinks. That's not what you expect your qb to do. McNabb was under pressure all day today and he had 3 td's. The Chargers right now can't run the ball and Rivers (4th career start) has been under pressure all day and he is making plays and just led his team on a td drive. As soon as Brunell is pressured he panics and either throws the ball away or misses his receivers. That's just not gonna cut it.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:01 pm

JPFair wrote:
i'm sorry but it's a very simple fact: good QBs don't need everything around them to be perfect.

dcd, you've made a lot of nonsensical posts in your time, but this one takes the biscuit!! So, are you saying that all the Super Bowl winners over the years didn't have great players around them, and that it was the QUARTERBACK that brought them there, and won it for them?

Total nonsense!

Obviously it's a team sport, but great QBs elevate teams - look at Brady in New England. It's been a revolving door of receivers up there, but he's managed to have an incredible record as a starter, despite all the personnel changes.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:04 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
dcd, you've made a lot of nonsensical posts in your time, but this one takes the biscuit!! So, are you saying that all the Super Bowl winners over the years didn't have great players around them, and that it was the QUARTERBACK that brought them there, and won it for them?

Total nonsense!

That's not at all what he is saying. What he and others (myself included) are saying is that for Brunell to have a good game everything around him has to be perfect. The running game has to be good and he has to have almost no pressure. If the running game struggles or if there is pressure then Brunell usually stinks. That's not what you expect your qb to do. McNabb was under pressure all day today and he had 3 td's. The Chargers right now can't run the ball and Rivers (4th career start) has been under pressure all day and he is making plays and just led his team on a td drive. As soon as Brunell is pressured he panics and either throws the ball away or misses his receivers. That's just not gonna cut it.

I have to agree. Im not going to bash Brunell but it seems that things have to be too perfect for him to succeed at this point.

jru37726 · Post by **jru37726** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:05 pm

Yes Dan Marino didnt win a Super Bowl.....but i can guarantee you he was a damn good leader and he made some special plays to win some games.....you all can stick up for Mark all you want....i am not saying he is the only reason we lost today....but i am saying he is one of the reasons when in fact it would be nice every once in a while if he could help our team win.....everyone thinks he played well last week....but lets go back...

He threw a 6 yd pass to Santana.....and Moss made an incredible play for the rest of the 50 yds.

He threw into double coverage in OT and thank goodness we have Santana Moss who went up between 2 guys and then ran the rest of the 45 yds....after Brunell actually threw it about 20....thankyou Santana.

Oh yeah....and in the Texans game, Marky mark trew a 2 yd shovel pass and went 74 yds down to the 5....

So even though he didnt make any mistakes, he wasnt as great as everyone thinks.

And to answer anothers question....i have NO IDEA if Jason Campbell can lead us to a super bowl....ive never had the chance to watch him play.

As a die hard 30 yr season ticket holder and avid Gibbs backer, i can't understand what is going thru his mind right now. He isnt gonna be around much longer and it is painfully obvious Mark Brunell is not gonna lead this team to where it needs to be.

jru37726 · Post by **jru37726** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:09 pm

I agree as well......the fork was stuck in #8 car long ago and i think he is a great guy. I just think he oughta be a coach right now instead of trying to actually play. Coach up#17....Doug Williams the 2nd :-)

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:11 pm

And to answer anothers question....i have NO IDEA if Jason Campbell can lead us to a super bowl....ive never had the chance to watch him play.

No way that Campbell can lead us to the Super Bowl this season. But neither can Brunell. This team has too many question marks right now to be considered a Super Bowl contender. Defense is a joke, oline is inconsistant. Special teams is inconsistant. But atleast Campbell would get some much needed experience and would be able to learn and get ready to be the starter next season. He is the future, not Brunell.

jru37726 · Post by **jru37726** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:15 pm

Can you imagine seeing a big, strong young guy actually running out of the pocket and making plays? It would be so nice.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:28 pm

The Redskins are in a bad spot IMO...

This year looks bad, but we can improve next season with the same personell just by having a better grasp of the playbook.

Still when you have a bad year (which is where we're headed barring some big adjustments) then owners and GM's feel too much pressure to mess with personell changes.

Keep going on the same course, add a nice player in the draft, and give this team a big chance in 2007. We're really close to a Superbowl.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:43 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
dcd, you've made a lot of nonsensical posts in your time, but this one takes the biscuit!! So, are you saying that all the Super Bowl winners over the years didn't have great players around them, and that it was the QUARTERBACK that brought them there, and won it for them?

Total nonsense!

That's not at all what he is saying. What he and others (myself included) are saying is that for Brunell to have a good game everything around him has to be perfect. The running game has to be good and he has to have almost no pressure. If the running game struggles or if there is pressure then Brunell usually stinks. That's not what you expect your qb to do. McNabb was under pressure all day today and he had 3 td's. The Chargers right now can't run the ball and Rivers (4th career start) has been under pressure all day and he is making plays and just led his team on a td drive. As soon as Brunell is pressured he panics and either throws the ball away or misses his receivers. That's just not gonna cut it.

thank you, SkinzCanes. that is exactly what i meant, which i thought was pretty clear, but JP chose to put words into my mouth that clearly weren't expressed. yes, it would be nonsense to say superbowl QBs didn't have great players around them, that's why i didnt' say it. but last time i checked, the following are great or at least very good players:

santana moss
clinton portis
mike sellers
chris cooley
antwaan randle el
brandon lloyd

the offensive line may not be great but it's not horrible either. a great O-Line makes everything easier, but i'm sure there has been a superbowl winner or two that didn't have a dominant o-line.

there are QBs all around the league who would KILL to be surrounded by this kind of talent, yet are still getting it done with less to work with.

the excuses are all used up. it's time to move on.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:49 pm

dcd, your posts get more and more ridiculous with each post. It's not even worth the waste of time. Give it up and go buy "Football for Dummies" by Joe Theissmann. it'll teach you everything you obviously need to know about football. Go ahead, buy it, it might help you become a better fan.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:30 am

JPFair wrote:dcd, your posts get more and more ridiculous with each post. It's not even worth the waste of time. Give it up and go buy "Football for Dummies" by Joe Theissmann. it'll teach you everything you obviously need to know about football. Go ahead, buy it, it might help you become a better fan.

what is ridiculous is your refusal to offer an intelligent response to the crippling point-by-point case made against your defense of brunell. not just by me but many other posters. saying my post is "ridiculous" doesn't magically make it so and refute the points made in it.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:36 am

die cowboys die wrote:
JPFair wrote:dcd, your posts get more and more ridiculous with each post. It's not even worth the waste of time. Give it up and go buy "Football for Dummies" by Joe Theissmann. it'll teach you everything you obviously need to know about football. Go ahead, buy it, it might help you become a better fan.

what is ridiculous is your refusal to offer an intelligent response to the crippling point-by-point case made against your defense of brunell. not just by me but many other posters. saying my post is "ridiculous" doesn't magically make it so and refute the points made in it.

Crippling points? The only thing crippling about it was how I was crippled with laughter every time I read one of your posts.

First of all, it's not a case of me offering a "defense" of Brunell, it's a case of you saying that the whole team revolves around him. You seem to think that the Quarterback is the be all and the end all of any team. Do you remember the Redskins teams of the 80's (I doubt your age allows you to)? Was Theismann a GREAT Quarterback? I wouldn't say "GREAT", but his Offensive line sure was good, as were his defenses, his WR's, and his RB's. My point is, for a team to get to the Super Bowl, they have to be firing on ALL cylinders, not just at QB.

You say that Santana Moss is a great player, but how many times did you see him get wide open against the Giants? Do you know if he ran the proper routes? I didn't see too many replays where he was wide open, and even if he was, our O-line didn't give our QB enough time to throw the ball.

It's easy to blame the QB anytime we lose, cuz all you wanna see are long arching bombs, 89 yard pass plays, etc....., without looking at what it really takes for this football team to win. We play the hand that we're dealt, and right now, Brunell is our hand, so for us to win we need the rest of the team to be firing on all cylinders. And, if you can say that they ARE firing on all cyliders, then you must be watching a different team.

As I said, this is not a defense of Brunrell, this is about what it would take for THIS team to get to the playoffs. It amazes me how all you seem focused on is the QB position, and about who's going to "lead" us to the Super Bowl. If you listen to any of the players talk, you hear them say things like "Brunell's our guy and I support him" or "Marks the guy that keeps us going". These are things that the PLAYERS themselves say, so if it smells like a dog, barks like a dog, and acts like a dog, it probably IS a dog. Who do you think would have a better understanding about who our "leader" is, YOU or Santana Moss? YOU, or Joe Gibbs? YOU or Clinton Portis?

You may choose to believe that Brunell ISN'T a leader of this team, but all voices coming out of Redskin Park say otherwise. And, no disrespect, but I'd believe Santana Moss over you any day!! I'd believe Joe Gibbs over you any day. I'd believe Clinton Portis over you any day!!

dcd, you change direction more times than a cockroach does! We win, you say how great everyone BUT Brunell was, we lose, you say how awful Brunell was, but not the rest of the team. Do you not realize that it takes OTHER people to win a ballgame than just the QB? Then again, you're more predictable than I thought.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:31 am

I'm going to honor my self-imposed restriction and keep my mouth shut in terms of negative comments about Brunell and the team (although frank assessments of the past games don't fall in this category IMHO).

I will have more to say at our bye week. But suffice to say, so far I agree with some of you. Which ones? You'll learn that after the bye week.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:07 am

Brunell did not lose this game... THE DEFENSE DID! Of course if you watched the Steelers/Chargers game you would have seen a very young QB with very little experience out play a Superbowl winning QB. Brunell won't lose too many games, but he is incapable of winning games that aren't going perfectly.

Yesterday:
The defense was horrible
The offense was just not too good and if the defense had ever gotten the Giants off the feield, maybe they would have come around.
AA played a better game than Taylor - Taylor had one of his worst games as a Redskin.
The same goes for the entire linebacking core.
Could someone please teach Carlos how to catch! I thought the old # 28 had a hard time catching a ball, but Carlos couldn't catch a cold in Antartica!
Note to Saunders; the sweep to the left hasn't worked all year! Also, you are allowed to use trick plays two weeks in a row.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:28 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:Brunell did not lose this game... THE DEFENSE DID!

Last week they had 30 points scored on them.
This week we had 16 points scored on us.
What was the difference between last week and this week?

skinsfan#33 wrote:Yesterday:
The defense was horrible
The offense was just not too good and if the defense had ever gotten the

So its the defense's fault that the offense couldn't put 2 TD's together?
Its the defenses fault that we missed a FG?

Here we go again, everyone expects a shutout every game and you're going to be sorely dissapointed every time.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:45 am

This week we had 16 points scored on us.

Where did the other three points come from then? Did we spot them a three point lead? I could have sworn the final score was 19-3.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:46 am

What does the Offense have to do with the fact that the D couldn't get the Giants off the field for OVER AN HOUR! If you started a stop watch when the Giants started their drive before the half and when they ended their drive at the beginning of the second half more than an hour would have passed! AN HOUR! Yeah, 15 minutes was half time but the Giants still ran 31 plays for drives of 4:28 and 8:05, that is almost a full quarter of the game.

The difference between last week and this week was third down convertion. The Skins could not stop the Giants from converting them. And by the way the D didn't play a very good game last week, or the week before, or all season. They have played OK in the Texans and Jags game, but those two game were won by the Offense, inspite of the D, not because of the D!

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:47 am

JPFair wrote:
This week we had 16 points scored on us.

Where did the other three points come from then? Did we spot them a three point lead? I could have sworn the final score was 19-3.

As if that changes his point.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:49 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:What does the Offense have to do with the fact that the D couldn't get the Giants off the field for OVER AN HOUR! If you started a stop watch when the Giants started their drive before the half and when they ended their drive at the beginning of the second half more than an hour would have passed! AN HOUR! Yeah, 15 minutes was half time but the Giants still ran 26 plays for drives of 4:28 and 8:05, that is almost a full quarter of the game.

The difference between last week and this week was third down convertion. The Skins could not stop the Giants from converting them. And by the way the D didn't play a very good game last week, or the week before, or all season. They have played OK in the Texans and Jags game, but those two game were won by the Offense, inspite of the D, not because of the D!

HELLO! McFLY! The offense did nothing to STAY on the field. Do you think that might have had something to do with the loss? Or is it just the defense's job to give the offense endless 3-and-out opportunities? :roll:

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:54 am

cvillehog wrote:
JPFair wrote:
This week we had 16 points scored on us.

Where did the other three points come from then? Did we spot them a three point lead? I could have sworn the final score was 19-3.

As if that changes his point.

Do you ever do anything but run around the internet looking for reasons to stand up for your younger folk? You wouldn't be named Foley, would you?

I'm sure CLL is quite capable of making his own point, which was the defense. Our defense had EVERYTHING to do with the loss. Look at the time of possesion battle, and you'll see that our Offense didn't have much of a chance. When they're not on the field, they can't make plays. If our defense hadn't given up so many long plays, or stopped them on all their 3rd down conversions, our chances of the Offense making plays would have increased because they would have had more chances. Instead, when you only have a limited amount of chances, you have a limited amount of points.

What did Rumph do? NOTHING!!
What about Taylor? NOTHING!!
What about Wright? NOTHING!!
Archuleta? NOTHING!!!!

They did as much to lose this game for us as the offense did.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:05 am

JPFair wrote:
cvillehog wrote:
JPFair wrote:
This week we had 16 points scored on us.

Where did the other three points come from then? Did we spot them a three point lead? I could have sworn the final score was 19-3.

As if that changes his point.

Do you ever do anything but run around the internet looking for reasons to stand up for your younger folk? You wouldn't be named Foley, would you?

I'm sure CLL is quite capable of making his own point, which was the defense. Our defense had EVERYTHING to do with the loss. Look at the time of possesion battle, and you'll see that our Offense didn't have much of a chance. When they're not on the field, they can't make plays. If our defense hadn't given up so many long plays, or stopped them on all their 3rd down conversions, our chances of the Offense making plays would have increased because they would have had more chances. Instead, when you only have a limited amount of chances, you have a limited amount of points.

What did Rumph do? NOTHING!!
What about Taylor? NOTHING!!
What about Wright? NOTHING!!
Archuleta? NOTHING!!!!

They did as much to lose this game for us as the offense did.

Wow, you really do like to put words in people's mouths. Your "argument" against CLL was that he got the final score wrong. That is a non-argument, but such things have come to be expected, haven't they?

Tell me, oh wise one, what did Brunell do? Oh, right, he led the team to a whopping 3 points. The defense may have had a rough game, but when it came down to it, they held NY to field goals rather than touch downs, and they kept us in the game. What did Brunell do to keep us in the game?

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:12 am

cvillehog wrote:
JPFair wrote:
cvillehog wrote:
JPFair wrote:
This week we had 16 points scored on us.

Where did the other three points come from then? Did we spot them a three point lead? I could have sworn the final score was 19-3.

As if that changes his point.

Do you ever do anything but run around the internet looking for reasons to stand up for your younger folk? You wouldn't be named Foley, would you?

I'm sure CLL is quite capable of making his own point, which was the defense. Our defense had EVERYTHING to do with the loss. Look at the time of possesion battle, and you'll see that our Offense didn't have much of a chance. When they're not on the field, they can't make plays. If our defense hadn't given up so many long plays, or stopped them on all their 3rd down conversions, our chances of the Offense making plays would have increased because they would have had more chances. Instead, when you only have a limited amount of chances, you have a limited amount of points.

What did Rumph do? NOTHING!!
What about Taylor? NOTHING!!
What about Wright? NOTHING!!
Archuleta? NOTHING!!!!

They did as much to lose this game for us as the offense did.

Wow, you really do like to put words in people's mouths. Your "argument" against CLL was that he got the final score wrong. That is a non-argument, but such things have come to be expected, haven't they?

Tell me, oh wise one, what did Brunell do? Oh, right, he led the team to a whopping 3 points. The defense may have had a rough game, but when it came down to it, they held NY to field goals rather than touch downs, and they kept us in the game. What did Brunell do to keep us in the game?

He did a hell of a lot more than Kenny Wright did. He did a lot more than Mike Rumph did. He did a lot more than Adam Archuleta did. But, then again, if he had more time on the field, he would have had more opportunities to help them win, oh wise one!! Brunell did not have a great game, but when the rest of the team isn't performing, it's hard to put up points. The O-line was TERRIBLE, as were the receivers. They didn't get open, so they couldn't make plays.

Look again at the time of possesion. If we wer to cut in half the time off the clock that the Giants used in the last drive of the first half, and the first drive of the second half, 4 minutes + and 8 minutes plus, respectively, then that gives the Offense that much more time to be on the field and make plays. But, since the defense kept allowing the Giants to convert on 3rd down, and keep the Giants offense on the field, and the Redskins offense OFF the field, then how could ANYONE do anything on offense to help us win? It's quite simple, for the offense to make plays, they have to be on the field.