The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

cvillehog wrote:Oh, so i should be psychic and know you meant "since Brunell arrived in DC?" You said "Brees has out produced Brunell."

No, you should read everyone's posts so you know what we are talking about. Why on God's green earth would we care about Brunell's years in Jacksonville when we are having a debate about Campbell and Brunell for 2006?

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Oh, so i should be psychic and know you meant "since Brunell arrived in DC?" You said "Brees has out produced Brunell."

No, you should read everyone's posts so you know what we are talking about. Why on God's green earth would we care about Brunell's years in Jacksonville when we are having a debate about Campbell and Brunell for 2006?

Maybe the same reason that Brees would be brought into the discussion?

I say lets bring back Jeff George.

i'm not sure what all the arguing is about, but let's just say that brees/rivers is not at all a similar situation to brunell/campbell.

brees is still young. he should have many good years left until he gets past his prime. brunell on the other hand is old as dirt and way past his prime. halfway through a season he can't even throw the ball anymore.

people who want to stick with brunell next year: do you really think we can win the superbowl with him? if you don't think so, but still want him just so we don't lose too much with a young QB, that is the attitude of a coward. losing in the playoffs is not the point of football. we can be thrilled at the progress we made this year but duplicating the same result next year would be a failure. we are never going to take a significant step forward until we have a fresher body at the QB position. we have to suck it up and take whatever lumps may come with campbell, so we can get that big step forward made sooner.

Blah Blah Blah, I believe that criticism sounded more like this last year "We will never win games with Mark Brunell." "We will never go to the playoffs with Mark Brunell."

Here is the bottom line.

Matt Hasselbeck: Completed 294 of 449 passes for 3459 yds, 24 TD and 9 Ints.

Mark Brunell: Completed 262 of 452 passes for 3050 yds, 23 TD and 10 int.

Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Mark Brunell played top ranked defenses and ONLY HAD TWO REAL RECEIVERS who could get open. Despite our more conservative offense, the fact that we played a tough defensive schedule, and the lack of any other wide receivers...Brunell STILL ONLY HAD ONE LESS TD and ONE MORE INT, than did the NFC PRO-BOWL STARTER.

Please get off of the Brunell stinks campaign...the argument simply doens't hold water to anyone who pays attention.

Blah Blah Blah, I believe that criticism sounded more like this last year "We will never win games with Mark Brunell." "We will never go to the playoffs with Mark Brunell."

Here is the bottom line.

Matt Hasselbeck: Completed 294 of 449 passes for 3459 yds, 24 TD and 9 Ints.

Mark Brunell: Completed 262 of 452 passes for 3050 yds, 23 TD and 10 int.

Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Mark Brunell played top ranked defenses and ONLY HAD TWO REAL RECEIVERS who could get open. Despite our more conservative offense, the fact that we played a tough defensive schedule, and the lack of any other wide receivers...Brunell STILL ONLY HAD ONE LESS TD and ONE MORE INT, than did the NFC PRO-BOWL STARTER.

Please get off of the Brunell stinks campaign...the argument simply doens't hold water to anyone who pays attention.

Very nice use of stats in your argument, except for the fact that you left out a bunch of stats that more accurately tell the story.

QB RATING:
Hasselbeck: 98.2
Brunell: 85.9

Completion %
Hasselbeck: 66.9
Brunell: 57.7

Turnovers
Hasselbeck: 4 fumbles
Brunell: 11 fumbles

So lets see, Brunell had a lower qb rating, lower completion percentage, less completions, less yards, and less td's....so your point is??

Well lets look at some more stats.

Hasselbeck in the first 8 games of the season:
164-256, 1881 yards, 64.1 completion %, 10 td's, 5 int's, 91.0 rating

Hasselbeck in games 9-16:
130-193, 1578 yards, 67.4 completion %, 14tds, 4 ints, 107.8 rating

Hasselbeck in 1 playoff game:
16-26, 215 yards, 61.5 completion %, 1td, 0 int, 100.6 rating

Brunell in games 1-8:
148-255, 1781 yards, 58 compeltion %, 12tds, 3ints, 90.3 rating, 73 rushing yards

Brunell in games 9-16
114-199, 1269 yards, 57.3 completion %, 11td, 7ints, 80.2 rating, 38 rushing yards

Brunell in 2 playoff games
29-52, 283 yards, 55.8 completion %, 1td, 1int, 69.6 rating

So Hasselbeck got better as the season progressed and kept up his high play going into the playoffs and so far in the playoffs....that is what you need from your qb to be a succesul playoff team. Brunell on the other hand, started strong, got worse as the season progressed, and tanked down the stretch and in the playoffs....exactly what you DONT need from your qb. Brunell did an admirable job for a guy that is 35 years old but at this point he is best suited as a backup. Campbell needs to take his lumps at some point so better for it to happen sooner rather than later. With Campbell starting we would likely take a step back next season but it would give us a chance to compete for a Super Bowl in the upcoming seasons. With Brunell at qb we would just be spinning our wheels and just postponing Campbell's inevitable struggles and his growth as a qb.

The Hogster wrote:Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Of course, Hasselbeck did deliver in the playoffs (without Alexander) against a defense that we all believe is pretty good, while Brunell couldn't muster more than 10 points despite three Seattle turnovers.

The Hogster wrote:Please get off of the Brunell stinks campaign...the argument simply doens't hold water to anyone who pays attention.

You might be paying attention, but anyone who is watching the games objectivley can see that Brunell just isn't a championship caliber quarterback anymore. Brunell didn't really give us anything in six games this season, including the playoffs. That kind of inconsistency just isn't going to cut it - and as Brunell gets older (he turns 36 in September), it's only going to get worse.

He may not stink (yet), but if we are going to get to the next level, we need an upgrade at the position.

I agree with SkinzCanes, I assume your a canes fan, nice because thats my team and school. You are right and the stats don't lie, good research. You guys might think I am crazy but when we had Hasselbeck jr. I thought he was our best QB a couple of years ago. The few times I saw him play he looked pretty good.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Of course, Hasselbeck did deliver in the playoffs (without Alexander) against a defense that we all believe is pretty good, while Brunell couldn't muster more than 10 points despite three Seattle turnovers.

Solid point. And I'd argue that the receiving corps (WRs and TEs) in Seattle are no better (in fact, probably worse) than what we've got here. And yet Hasselbeck put up better numbers. I'd have to agree w/ those who state that Brunell's done as a starter - he just can't last a full season as a consistent QB. Time to start Campbell.

Mursilis wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Of course, Hasselbeck did deliver in the playoffs (without Alexander) against a defense that we all believe is pretty good, while Brunell couldn't muster more than 10 points despite three Seattle turnovers.

Solid point. And I'd argue that the receiving corps (WRs and TEs) in Seattle are no better (in fact, probably worse) than what we've got here. And yet Hasselbeck put up better numbers. I'd have to agree w/ those who state that Brunell's done as a starter - he just can't last a full season as a consistent QB. Time to start Campbell.

Yup!

The Hogster wrote:Blah Blah Blah, I believe that criticism sounded more like this last year "We will never win games with Mark Brunell." "We will never go to the playoffs with Mark Brunell."

Here is the bottom line.

Matt Hasselbeck: Completed 294 of 449 passes for 3459 yds, 24 TD and 9 Ints.

Mark Brunell: Completed 262 of 452 passes for 3050 yds, 23 TD and 10 int.

Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Mark Brunell played top ranked defenses and ONLY HAD TWO REAL RECEIVERS who could get open. Despite our more conservative offense, the fact that we played a tough defensive schedule, and the lack of any other wide receivers...Brunell STILL ONLY HAD ONE LESS TD and ONE MORE INT, than did the NFC PRO-BOWL STARTER.

Please get off of the Brunell stinks campaign...the argument simply doens't hold water to anyone who pays attention.

One of the better posts I've read this week!!

Brunell doesn't stink. The caveat is he's not an advantage for the Redskins when he's not 100 percent.

SkinzCanes wrote:

Blah Blah Blah, I believe that criticism sounded more like this last year "We will never win games with Mark Brunell." "We will never go to the playoffs with Mark Brunell."

Here is the bottom line.

Matt Hasselbeck: Completed 294 of 449 passes for 3459 yds, 24 TD and 9 Ints.

Mark Brunell: Completed 262 of 452 passes for 3050 yds, 23 TD and 10 int.

Difference? Matt Hasselbecks team was coasting through the weakest schedule in the league, and he had the top scoring running back in league history.

Mark Brunell played top ranked defenses and ONLY HAD TWO REAL RECEIVERS who could get open. Despite our more conservative offense, the fact that we played a tough defensive schedule, and the lack of any other wide receivers...Brunell STILL ONLY HAD ONE LESS TD and ONE MORE INT, than did the NFC PRO-BOWL STARTER.

Please get off of the Brunell stinks campaign...the argument simply doens't hold water to anyone who pays attention.

Very nice use of stats in your argument, except for the fact that you left out a bunch of stats that more accurately tell the story.

QB RATING:
Hasselbeck: 98.2
Brunell: 85.9

Completion %
Hasselbeck: 66.9
Brunell: 57.7

Turnovers
Hasselbeck: 4 fumbles
Brunell: 11 fumbles

So lets see, Brunell had a lower qb rating, lower completion percentage, less completions, less yards, and less td's....so your point is??

Well lets look at some more stats.

Hasselbeck in the first 8 games of the season:
164-256, 1881 yards, 64.1 completion %, 10 td's, 5 int's, 91.0 rating

Hasselbeck in games 9-16:
130-193, 1578 yards, 67.4 completion %, 14tds, 4 ints, 107.8 rating

Hasselbeck in 1 playoff game:
16-26, 215 yards, 61.5 completion %, 1td, 0 int, 100.6 rating

Brunell in games 1-8:
148-255, 1781 yards, 58 compeltion %, 12tds, 3ints, 90.3 rating, 73 rushing yards

Brunell in games 9-16
114-199, 1269 yards, 57.3 completion %, 11td, 7ints, 80.2 rating, 38 rushing yards

Brunell in 2 playoff games
29-52, 283 yards, 55.8 completion %, 1td, 1int, 69.6 rating

So Hasselbeck got better as the season progressed and kept up his high play going into the playoffs and so far in the playoffs....that is what you need from your qb to be a succesul playoff team. Brunell on the other hand, started strong, got worse as the season progressed, and tanked down the stretch and in the playoffs....exactly what you DONT need from your qb. Brunell did an admirable job for a guy that is 35 years old but at this point he is best suited as a backup. Campbell needs to take his lumps at some point so better for it to happen sooner rather than later. With Campbell starting we would likely take a step back next season but it would give us a chance to compete for a Super Bowl in the upcoming seasons. With Brunell at qb we would just be spinning our wheels and just postponing Campbell's inevitable struggles and his growth as a qb.

you have taken their idea of using stats and used it against them to irrefutably prove the point about brunell not lasting the season. thank you!

skinsRin wrote:The few times I saw him play he looked pretty good.

You must have missed the Dallas game where he ended it with a 0.0 passer rating

You guys are a bunch of whiners. What you so cleverly leave out is that Hasseleck played these defenses:

49ers x2
Rams x2
Cards x2
Houston
Tennessee

And still only threw 1 more TD than did Brunell. He also only threw for 20 more yds/game and against the WORST pass defenses in the league, that is to be expected.

And he runs a West Coast offense spread with 3 and 4 receivers. They throw the ball differently than we do. The throw slants, hitches, and intermediate routes to move downfield. But of course that fact doesn't support your statement so you leave it out.

Even still, Hasselbeck only threw for 1 more TD...1 MORE...not 10 more 1 more. The way you guys tell the story, Brunell can't come close to his level. We had our chances to win that game and we didn't for normal reasons. We couldn't establish the run and we didn't capitalize in the Red Zone. And your boy John Hall choked again.

Hasselbeck played as we would expect him to at HOME in a playoff game with a week of rest.

Brunell had to go on the ROAD to the #1 defense and then on the ROAD to the #1 seeded team in the NFC.

So now you compare every aspect of their statistics rather than the bottom line just to try and support your fledgling argument? Pathetic.

You mentioned earlier what the 'attitude of a coward is"...you guys who are now crapping on Brunell are the epitomy of it.

The season is over, and Brunell played well for us...we won 11 games this year and came within 2 games of the Superbowl and you NOW come out again to crap on ONE GUY...Mark Brunell.

I hope you never have and never will play team sports, because you would be an example of the type of player that needs to be cut, released or jettisoned away.

Is Brunell 35? Yes
Is his time running out? Yes

All of these are valid points, but to say that it's his fault that we lost is so foolish its beyond words.

When WE lose you say it's because of Brunell, when we win you say its because of something else.

Everytime you say that you prove to the whole board you have no idea what TEAM means.

The Hogster wrote:Is Brunell 35? Yes
Is his time running out? Yes

That's all I'm saying. And when he gets injured, he's a noticeably worse quarterback. At 36 next year, he's going to get injured at some point.

He's more than fine when healthy, however. But knowing he's going to get injured at some point, and then our offense will tank, makes planning on him as our starting QB next year a very chancy proposition, no?

but to say that it's his fault that we lost is so foolish its beyond words.

I don't think you can blame Brunell for this loss. Who is saying that?

He didn't play well at all the last few weeks, but that's a product of his leg being busted imho.

PulpExposure wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Is Brunell 35? Yes
Is his time running out? Yes

That's all I'm saying. And when he gets injured, he's a noticeably worse quarterback. At 36 next year, he's going to get injured at some point.

He's more than fine when healthy, however. But knowing he's going to get injured at some point, and then our offense will tank, makes planning on him as our starting QB next year a very chancy proposition, no?

but to say that it's his fault that we lost is so foolish its beyond words.

I don't think you can blame Brunell for this loss. Who is saying that?

He didn't play well at all the last few weeks, but that's a product of his leg being busted imho.

Okay, so you prepare your young guy as the #2 and when his time comes he will go in there and perform. Or you have an open competition in camp and if Campbell outperforms Brunell then go with him. (ala Cincinatti)

You don't just blame everything on one guy after A GREAT season...that is groundless. You prepare for the future just as Gibbs has been doing.

Remember..Gibbs is the one who traded for Campbell when everyone else jeered and criticized him. Now all of the same people are saying PUT IN CAMPBELL. It's almost comical how delusional people can be.

Gibbs of all people wants Campbell to do well, but at the right time and when he is ready. Not just because some complaining fans on a message board hate Brunell.

I uh think we're saying the same thing?

The Hogster wrote:Okay, so you prepare your young guy as the #2 and when his time comes he will go in there and perform. Or you have an open competition in camp and if Campbell outperforms Brunell then go with him. (ala Cincinatti)

Cincinnati was not an open competition. Lewis announced Palmer was the starter before training camp, despite the fact that Kitna was coming off a career year (not much unlike Brunell's renaissance 2005). If we are doing things "a la Cincinnati", Campbell would be declared the starter in August.

The Hogster wrote:Remember..Gibbs is the one who traded for Campbell when everyone else jeered and criticized him. Now all of the same people are saying PUT IN CAMPBELL. It's almost comical how delusional people can be.

We complained about the trade because of the draft picks we gave up, not because we didn't like the selection of Campbell. What's comical is your selective memory.

The Hogster wrote:Gibbs of all people wants Campbell to do well, but at the right time and when he is ready. Not just because some complaining fans on a message board hate Brunell.

Sitting a quarterback for two full seasons is almost unheard of. If Campbell isn't ready to start taking some NFL snaps in 2006, he'll never be ready.

And no one hates Brunell, but the reality is that we need improved play out of our quarterback. The odds that Brunell will be able to maintain his 2005 performance in the coming years, much less improve upon it, aren't all that great.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Sitting a quarterback for two full seasons is almost unheard of. If Campbell isn't ready to start taking some NFL snaps in 2006, he'll never be ready.
.

He'll "NEVER" be ready? Are you some sort of psychic or something? So is Phillip Rivers never gonna be ready?? What about the majority of other QB's who get drafted and don't see action until the starter is injured? Will they never be ready because they didn't make your time limit for QB success? ..uh doubt it.

Haha...just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't make it "unheard of"...try this. Most quarterbacks drafted don't see meaningful action for a few years. Only a few so-called franchise QB's come in as a starter. Not sitting is the rarity so Im not quite sure what you are talking about.

Most first round QB's come in and sit and only see some mop up duty in blowout games. That couldn't happen for us because Campbell was behind Patrick Ramsey and was the 3rd string QB.

Likely that Ram will not be here next year, so Campbell's first actino will come either due to injury to Brunell as the starter, in mop up duty, or he will beat out Brunnel in training camp.

Campbell will not sit for two consecutive years. He will likely be the #2 or #1 next year where he will see regular season action.

The point I am making is that you guys cry and moan about how bad Brunell is after we lost, but you don't give him any credit for leading this team to it's first playoff victory in 6 years.

Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

The Hogster wrote:Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

On a side line, however, Gibbs is extremely loyal to his veteran qbs. Do you remember why Theismann was replaced by Shroeder in 1985? It wasn't because Theismann sucked (and he did...quite badly), it was because of injury.

Joey T had 8 TDs and 16 INTs...and his play was killing us.

PulpExposure wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

On a side line, however, Gibbs is extremely loyal to his veteran qbs. Do you remember why Theismann was replaced by Shroeder in 1985? It wasn't because Theismann sucked (and he did...quite badly), it was because of injury.

Joey T had 8 TDs and 16 INTs...and his play was killing us.

I think that is precisely what makes Gibbs a great coach. You need stability and you can't keep flip flopping QB's hoping one will be better than the other. Yes, I remember that season, but you don't have to even look that far.

Remember last season?? Gibbs yanked Brunell when he was stinking it up then. Even though our offense was not as good as it is now, he still pulled the trigger. (We had 50/50 and "The Toe" at receiver, no John Jansen or Casey Raybach and a rookie H-Back)

That year when Shcroeder came in, we won games and finished 10-6 and still missed the playoffs, but when you are a coach of a football team, you are going to go with the guy who has been there and done that. Gibbs wants to win, and he will do what it takes to win.

The year Doug Williams won the Superbowl, he came into the season as a backup.

Mark Rypien was also benched earlier in his career for turnovers.

Gibbs has not been loyal to a fault. He has made decisions to bench people who are underperforming, it's just the fans who are impatient who want him to keep making changes.

Not sure if I was clear. I like Ramsey and Campbell, not Brunell.

My "analogy" was that Brees went through his early years with lots of people, including myself, ranting on how bad he was and how he'd never be a reliable QB. He had an arm, but couldn't make a read, and was throwing into traffic and taking bad sacks (sounds familiar but not coincidental for young QBs). I recall Chargers fans pleading for the older man, in this case not injury prone and winning more games, to get in the game. Although I believe Flutie was a better at that point, they stuck with the person who wasn't the best but who had the potential.

So my support was to have Campbell and Ramsey compete for it, although it may be tough to keep Ramsey around. I think it's clear in this day of free agency you win by looking long-term, not taking a stab at it, cause if you fail, you have to start all over again. Going with Brunell is that stab that might turn out into a disappointing although successful year (playoff first round loss), but could slow down the progression of this team by 2-3 years. Let a young gun get started while this team has some confidence and something to build on. Let's take a small chance and possibly get in a good situation like the Chargers, where we're aiming to win for years, not just next year.

If Brunell is that only hope for success in the next couple of years, do we really have a team that's good enough for a Super Bowl? Let's roll the dice and maybe we get a Drew Brees-Philip Rivers situation, have a Carson Palmer in grooming or maybe even an immediate star like Tom Brady.

What times in history has someone like a Brunell ever had a happy ending? I remember the Chiefs thinking that Joe Montana could come in to a playoff team and taking them to the promise land. Let's just say Schottenheimer has learned from his mistake that starting old men isn't the answer.

dlc wrote:Not sure if I was clear. I like Ramsey and Campbell, not Brunell.

My "analogy" was that Brees went through his early years with lots of people, including myself, ranting on how bad he was and how he'd never be a reliable QB. He had an arm, but couldn't make a read, and was throwing into traffic and taking bad sacks (sounds familiar but not coincidental for young QBs). I recall Chargers fans pleading for the older man, in this case not injury prone and winning more games, to get in the game. Although I believe Flutie was a better at that point, they stuck with the person who wasn't the best but who had the potential.

So my support was to have Campbell and Ramsey compete for it, although it may be tough to keep Ramsey around. I think it's clear in this day of free agency you win by looking long-term, not taking a stab at it, cause if you fail, you have to start all over again. Going with Brunell is that stab that might turn out into a disappointing although successful year (playoff first round loss), but could slow down the progression of this team by 2-3 years. Let a young gun get started while this team has some confidence and something to build on. Let's take a small chance and possibly get in a good situation like the Chargers, where we're aiming to win for years, not just next year.

If Brunell is that only hope for success in the next couple of years, do we really have a team that's good enough for a Super Bowl? Let's roll the dice and maybe we get a Drew Brees-Philip Rivers situation, have a Carson Palmer in grooming or maybe even an immediate star like Tom Brady.

What times in history has someone like a Brunell ever had a happy ending? I remember the Chiefs thinking that Joe Montana could come in to a playoff team and taking them to the promise land. Let's just say Schottenheimer has learned from his mistake that starting old men isn't the answer.

yes, I agree. A bunch of ppl don't feel that way

The Hogster wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Sitting a quarterback for two full seasons is almost unheard of. If Campbell isn't ready to start taking some NFL snaps in 2006, he'll never be ready.
.

He'll "NEVER" be ready? Are you some sort of psychic or something? So is Phillip Rivers never gonna be ready?? What about the majority of other QB's who get drafted and don't see action until the starter is injured? Will they never be ready because they didn't make your time limit for QB success? ..uh doubt it.

Haha...just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't make it "unheard of"...try this. Most quarterbacks drafted don't see meaningful action for a few years. Only a few so-called franchise QB's come in as a starter. Not sitting is the rarity so Im not quite sure what you are talking about.

Most first round QB's come in and sit and only see some mop up duty in blowout games. That couldn't happen for us because Campbell was behind Patrick Ramsey and was the 3rd string QB.

Likely that Ram will not be here next year, so Campbell's first actino will come either due to injury to Brunell as the starter, in mop up duty, or he will beat out Brunnel in training camp.

Campbell will not sit for two consecutive years. He will likely be the #2 or #1 next year where he will see regular season action.

The point I am making is that you guys cry and moan about how bad Brunell is after we lost, but you don't give him any credit for leading this team to it's first playoff victory in 6 years.

Joe Gibbs has forgotten more about football than you or I will ever know. So quit crying and moaning as if you are some sort of QB Guru. Gibbs is the coach and he watched the film and the players in practice. He knows who is ready and who gives us the best chance to win.

Once you figure out that Gibbs knows more than you, then you can accept the plan he has in place as probably better than yours.

Just a couple of quick comments:

I think SSIII was saying that most FIRST round QB's start their second year at the latest. The Rivers situation is a little dicey. Brees stepped his play WAY up when he was drafted and it would be stupid to pull him at this point. They have plenty of cap space, so keeping Rivers isn't a big deal.

As far as dumping on Brunell for us losing, I am one of them. I am also one that ate crow about midseason and gave him his props. As for him winning that Tampa game..are you serious? Our offense had NOTHING to do with winning that game. Give all of your props reserved for Brunell and give them where they belong...to the DEFENSE.