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

Brunell played greatl after that first interception. He wasn't perfect, but he played extremely well. Putting up 36 points against a defense like Jacksonville says a lot. Let's hope we can continue to build on this in New York.

Mursilis wrote:

JPFair wrote:

Mursilis wrote:I've bashed him, and I'll praise him when he plays a solid game, like today. He was good today, with a 117 passer rating vs. the No. 3 defense in the league - impressive stuff. Still, some of that credit has to go to the WRs, who had phenomenal YACs (yards after catch). I heard the announcers say that Brunell didn't complete a pass deeper than 19 yards through the air, but it was Moss and company making big plays after the catch which boosted Brunell's numbers into the stratosphere.

Too many people say stuff like "Brunell didn't throw a ball in the air past nine yards against Houston" and now they're saying the media are probably going to say the same thing over his performance against Jacksonville. BIG DEAL!!! If that's what the game plan calls for, why not? People just wanna see those long arching bombs for the television viewers, but does it really matter how the yards pile up, as long as they pile up? Saunders has said it many times that his goal is to 'get the ball in the hands of playmakers' and let them make plays'. That's what he did today, and last week against Houston. I think if anything it shows how good Saunders and Gibbs can game plan cuz they utilize the strengths of the playmakers and do whats necessary. I personally don't care whether the ball travelled ninety yards in the air or five yards, if it's a "play", then I'm satisfied!! Last I checked, there's no statistic or prize for which QB makes the ball travel the most in the air. The end result is what counts, and not how far the ball travelled in the air.

I don't disagree with any of that - points are points, and I'm not arguing with how they were earned. However, I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

Absolutely!! I mean, Moss showed EVERYONE today that he's a playmaker, a BIG TIME playmaker. The WR's definitely deserve a LOT of credit, as does the O-line, Brunell, John Hall, the Coaching Staff, Rock Cartwright, and many others. But, when the Redskins don't have a great offensive day, not a lot of people say that the WR's didn't have a great day because they weren't getting open or didn't run the right routes, it always falls back on the QB. But, today the WR's and Brunell were in sync and Brunell I'm sure, is aware that Moss, Lloyd, ey, et. all have the ability to make plays once the ball gets into their hands and that's exactly what he did. Part of his job is to simply get the balls into their hands and let them do what they're good at, and that's making big time plays. Last year Moss showed that he's a big time playmaker, and this year he's going to do it again.

Remember the chat MB did on ES?

He said it's funny how fans call you old when you lose and experienced when you win...

We're doing just that. Of course, most of us have been calling him experienced all along.

My first post on the Hogs.net. Great site. Anyway, the Skins are a TEAM and to place all the praise or blame on one guy, the QB, is short sighted. We have great playmakers on this team, and all the Skins need is a QB to get them the ball with room to move. Brunell did that today; and of course Portis is the main cog in the offense. He showed that today as well. Did anyone see when Samuels pumped his arms in the air after a hard nosed Portis run? That gets those big guys fired up. I think the announcers also said at one point the O-line knocked the DT 10 yards off the line of scrimmage. That is hard nosed football, and if the running game can stay healthy and the players can continue to make strides learning the offense (and keep the penatlies down which they did today) the Skins are going to be dangerous. If Brunell can get the ball to the playmakers and let them run, who cares if he dinks and dunks all game long. I also like the way the rest of the team blocks, and they way Rock takes kickoffs. The Special Teams have come a long way. Of course, the deffense needs to buckle down and stop the big play, which they have not done yet, but they are making progress as well. They got to the QB today and if Springs was healthy, they would be playing better.

All said, Good Game Skins!

rbrhett wrote:My first post on the Hogs.net. Great site. Anyway, the Skins are a TEAM and to place all the praise or blame on one guy, the QB, is short sighted. We have great playmakers on this team, and all the Skins need is a QB to get them the ball with room to move. Brunell did that today; and of course Portis is the main cog in the offense. He showed that today as well. Did anyone see when Samuels pumped his arms in the air after a hard nosed Portis run? That gets those big guys fired up. I think the announcers also said at one point the O-line knocked the DT 10 yards off the line of scrimmage. That is hard nosed football, and if the running game can stay healthy and the players can continue to make strides learning the offense (and keep the penatlies down which they did today) the Skins are going to be dangerous. If Brunell can get the ball to the playmakers and let them run, who cares if he dinks and dunks all game long. I also like the way the rest of the team blocks, and they way Rock takes kickoffs. The Special Teams have come a long way. Of course, the deffense needs to buckle down and stop the big play, which they have not done yet, but they are making progress as well. They got to the QB today and if Springs was healthy, they would be playing better.

All said, Good Game Skins!

WELCOME!!

Very nice first post. Enjoy the site!

I felt the offense performed great. I'm just glad the refs blew the fumble call. Those three points proved to be very big for us today.

i don't care if every pass goes 40 yards backwards through the air if we end up with positive yardage on the RAC. whatever works works! my doubt last week was about whether that type of offense could work against a great D like the jags... i guess we know the answer now.

our offense in this game reminded me of the 2nd dallas game last year. just smacking people around all over. NASTY. teams looking at tape of this game are going to be scared to play us.

mulkey wrote:I felt the offense performed great. I'm just glad the refs blew the fumble call. Those three points proved to be very big for us today.

I dont know if it was a blown call. None of the camera angles could show if they ball started to come out before his knee hit. We all saw the ball spring up in the air but if it had been dislodged before it came up then you'd be singing a different tune.

I think the system did what it was supposed to do, the ref said it came out. They reviewed it, there wasnt substantial evidence to prove it differently and they allowed the refs call to stand.

cvillehog wrote:Keep proving us wrong, Mark, and we will love you forever!

Whatever, cville.

At the first bad pass, I'm sure plenty of posters will be looking at the bench. That post of yours is in the wrong forum, as it is truly "Hog Wash".

Mursilis wrote:...I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

How come it's "share the wealth" when we win, but it's "Brunell (and ONLY Brunell) Sucks" when we lose. You can't have it both ways, dude. Man up, eat your crow, and admit that without Brunell, Moss & co. probably don't have the same chances of making the plays. Period.

Champsturf wrote:

rbrhett wrote:My first post on the Hogs.net. Great site. Anyway, the Skins are a TEAM and to place all the praise or blame on one guy, the QB, is short sighted. We have great playmakers on this team, and all the Skins need is a QB to get them the ball with room to move. Brunell did that today; and of course Portis is the main cog in the offense. He showed that today as well. Did anyone see when Samuels pumped his arms in the air after a hard nosed Portis run? That gets those big guys fired up. I think the announcers also said at one point the O-line knocked the DT 10 yards off the line of scrimmage. That is hard nosed football, and if the running game can stay healthy and the players can continue to make strides learning the offense (and keep the penatlies down which they did today) the Skins are going to be dangerous. If Brunell can get the ball to the playmakers and let them run, who cares if he dinks and dunks all game long. I also like the way the rest of the team blocks, and they way Rock takes kickoffs. The Special Teams have come a long way. Of course, the deffense needs to buckle down and stop the big play, which they have not done yet, but they are making progress as well. They got to the QB today and if Springs was healthy, they would be playing better.

All said, Good Game Skins!

WELCOME!!

Very nice first post. Enjoy the site!

Yeah, it's exactly what we;ve been saying all along, right Champsturf?

Welcome, rbrhett.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

cvillehog wrote:Keep proving us wrong, Mark, and we will love you forever!

Whatever, cville.

At the first bad pass, I'm sure plenty of posters will be looking at the bench. That post of yours is in the wrong forum, as it is truly "Hog Wash".

Well, bad passes don't prove the doubters wrong. I'm just saying...

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:...I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

How come it's "share the wealth" when we win, but it's "Brunell (and ONLY Brunell) Sucks" when we lose. You can't have it both ways, dude. Man up, eat your crow, and admit that without Brunell, Moss & co. probably don't have the same chances of making the plays. Period.

Uh, sure, because the number of QBs in this league who can throw the WR screen is so small . . .

Brunell has a solid line, an elite RB in Portis, an elite TE in ey, an elite WR in Moss, and three other WRs who all would be starters, maybe even No. 1's, on most teams in this league. If you can't roll up awesome numbers with that set-up, you don't belong in this league. Do you have any doubts that if, say, Peyton Manning were lining up behind center with our personnel, we wouldnt've lost to the Vikes or the Cowboys? David Carr in Houston has far less support (no real running game and a sieve for a line) and has posted a higher passer rating than Brunell. Chad Pennington has both more yards and a higher passer rating than Brunell, and that's throwing to a WR we rejected and a bunch of other nobodies. Plus, he's got no real running game for support - their best RB (Barlow) has only 143 yrds on the season - that's like one above-average game for Portis. There's at least 15 QBs in this league who could step into our offense, with our weapons, and be as good or better than Brunell has been so far. They're carrying him, but he has yet to show he can carry them.

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:...I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

How come it's "share the wealth" when we win, but it's "Brunell (and ONLY Brunell) Sucks" when we lose. You can't have it both ways, dude. Man up, eat your crow, and admit that without Brunell, Moss & co. probably don't have the same chances of making the plays. Period.

Uh, sure, because the number of QBs in this league who can throw the WR screen is so small . . .

Brunell has a solid line, an elite RB in Portis, an elite TE in ey, an elite WR in Moss, and three other WRs who all would be starters, maybe even No. 1's, on most teams in this league. If you can't roll up awesome numbers with that set-up, you don't belong in this league. Do you have any doubts that if, say, Peyton Manning were lining up behind center with our personnel, we wouldnt've lost to the Vikes or the Cowboys? David Carr in Houston has far less support (no real running game and a sieve for a line) and has posted a higher passer rating than Brunell. Chad Pennington has both more yards and a higher passer rating than Brunell, and that's throwing to a WR we rejected and a bunch of other nobodies. Plus, he's got no real running game for support - their best RB (Barlow) has only 143 yrds on the season - that's like one above-average game for Portis. There's at least 15 QBs in this league who could step into our offense, with our weapons, and be as good or better than Brunell has been so far. They're carrying him, but he has yet to show he can carry them.

Ladies and gentleman, your "I have trouble admitting I was wrong" post of the day

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:...I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

How come it's "share the wealth" when we win, but it's "Brunell (and ONLY Brunell) Sucks" when we lose. You can't have it both ways, dude. Man up, eat your crow, and admit that without Brunell, Moss & co. probably don't have the same chances of making the plays. Period.

Uh, sure, because the number of QBs in this league who can throw the WR screen is so small . . .

Brunell has a solid line, an elite RB in Portis, an elite TE in ey, an elite WR in Moss, and three other WRs who all would be starters, maybe even No. 1's, on most teams in this league. If you can't roll up awesome numbers with that set-up, you don't belong in this league. Do you have any doubts that if, say, Peyton Manning were lining up behind center with our personnel, we wouldnt've lost to the Vikes or the Cowboys? David Carr in Houston has far less support (no real running game and a sieve for a line) and has posted a higher passer rating than Brunell. Chad Pennington has both more yards and a higher passer rating than Brunell, and that's throwing to a WR we rejected and a bunch of other nobodies. Plus, he's got no real running game for support - their best RB (Barlow) has only 143 yrds on the season - that's like one above-average game for Portis. There's at least 15 QBs in this league who could step into our offense, with our weapons, and be as good or better than Brunell has been so far. They're carrying him, but he has yet to show he can carry them.

I knew something like this was coming!! Maybe it's their way of attempting to save face somehow, without having to eat crow. I don't care who the QB is, Manning, Pennington, or even Joe Montana, if they don't have a chemistry with the WR, they're not going to complete the pass. And, did you hear Moss's comments yesterday about how Brunell is his guy? About Brunell being our leader? I guess people conveniently tune out when they hear the very talent that they talk about, complimenting Brunell.

From page 2:

Irn-Bru wrote:JPFair, there will always be a "still," a "but," or a "however" attached to praise given to Brunell. . .when Brunell performs well, so does the rest of the offense. The chicken-egg element of this makes it so that praise (or blame!) can always be passed around. The "still"s, "but"s, and "however"s will continue, but in my opinion they hold little sway.

It's expected. . .no reason to argue against it, because I don't think any reasons are going to win a decidedly anti-Brunell fan over. . .


Even Brunell haters will be happy fans as long as he's winning, and fortunately for us that's what we've got right now. Otherwise, I may have had a long night moderating yesterday

JPFair wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:...I think the WRs need to be credited with turning short passes into big gains; it wasn't just Brunell out there.

How come it's "share the wealth" when we win, but it's "Brunell (and ONLY Brunell) Sucks" when we lose. You can't have it both ways, dude. Man up, eat your crow, and admit that without Brunell, Moss & co. probably don't have the same chances of making the plays. Period.

Uh, sure, because the number of QBs in this league who can throw the WR screen is so small . . .

Brunell has a solid line, an elite RB in Portis, an elite TE in ey, an elite WR in Moss, and three other WRs who all would be starters, maybe even No. 1's, on most teams in this league. If you can't roll up awesome numbers with that set-up, you don't belong in this league. Do you have any doubts that if, say, Peyton Manning were lining up behind center with our personnel, we wouldnt've lost to the Vikes or the Cowboys? David Carr in Houston has far less support (no real running game and a sieve for a line) and has posted a higher passer rating than Brunell. Chad Pennington has both more yards and a higher passer rating than Brunell, and that's throwing to a WR we rejected and a bunch of other nobodies. Plus, he's got no real running game for support - their best RB (Barlow) has only 143 yrds on the season - that's like one above-average game for Portis. There's at least 15 QBs in this league who could step into our offense, with our weapons, and be as good or better than Brunell has been so far. They're carrying him, but he has yet to show he can carry them.

I knew something like this was coming!! Maybe it's their way of attempting to save face somehow, without having to eat crow.

One good game, one good game (unless you want to count that bad college team we played last weekend). What has Brunell done without Portis carrying most of the load?

I don't care who the QB is, Manning, Pennington, or even Joe Montana, if they don't have a chemistry with the WR, they're not going to complete the pass.

If chemistry's so important, how does a back-up like Damon Huard, making only his second start in 6 years, finish yesterday with a higher QB rating and higher completion percentage than Brunell, despite being a career back-up until two weeks ago?

And, did you hear Moss's comments yesterday about how Brunell is his guy? About Brunell being our leader? I guess people conveniently tune out when they hear the very talent that they talk about, complimenting Brunell.

Of course Moss is going to support his QB - he's a class act. There's no TO on this team.

Mursilis, every bit of success still is attributable to something else. Houston's a bad college team (who, by the way, won their game this week). Brunell has too many weapons not to do well. Moss wasn't really praising Brunell for Brunell's sake--it's only because he has class! (That last one is unbelievable in my opinion).

At least admit that Brunell can't be the good guy under your scrutiny. The best Brunell can do is live up to your expectation that "he'd better" be able to do well. Any victory will be immediately attributed to those who are around him. Any loss will be an obvious case of Brunell screwing up a perfect setup.

Come on, at least admit for us that, according to how you see things, he can't win. That way we'll be making some headway in this conversation.

Mursilis wrote: If chemistry's so important, how does a back-up like Damon Huard, making only his second start in 6 years, finish yesterday with a higher QB rating and higher completion percentage than Brunell, despite being a career back-up until two weeks ago?

By playing the 49ers.

But let me get this straight... you discredit a Brunell performance because it was against the Texans but you use Huard's performance against the 49ers to do so?

What a joke.

Irn-Bru wrote:Mursilis, every bit of success still is attributable to something else. Houston's a bad college team (who, by the way, won their game this week). Brunell has too many weapons not to do well. Moss wasn't really praising Brunell for Brunell's sake--it's only because he has class! (That last one is unbelievable in my opinion).

At least admit that Brunell can't be the good guy under your scrutiny. The best Brunell can do is live up to your expectation that "he'd better" be able to do well. Any victory will be immediately attributed to those who are around him. Any loss will be an obvious case of Brunell screwing up a perfect setup.

Come one, at least admit for us that, according to how you see things, he can't win. That way we'll be making some headway in this conversation.

I've said nice things about him in the past - like, he was better in '05 than he was in '04, when I said he was done (and I was wrong - see, I can admit it ). Still, you have to admit the players we have at the skill positions are among the best in the league. Right now, I can't think of a single team that has as much talent at RB/WR/TE as we do right now.

But how aren't the pro-Brunell people mirror images of how you see me? When Brunell does poorly, it's "the team has struggled, WRs weren't getting open/dropping balls/running the wrong routes, the O-line wasn't giving him time, there was no running game", etc. When the team wins, it's all "Brunell played great, Brunell won it for us, we were right all along", etc. - not much different. But it's a long season (including playoffs for us), so we'll have this discussion again in a few weeks. Hopefully, we'll see more games which give fuel to the Brunell apologists - I lose too much sleep otherwise!





Oh, and I know Houston won this week, but did you see who they beat?

BossHog wrote:

Mursilis wrote: If chemistry's so important, how does a back-up like Damon Huard, making only his second start in 6 years, finish yesterday with a higher QB rating and higher completion percentage than Brunell, despite being a career back-up until two weeks ago?

By playing the 49ers.

But let me get this straight... you discredit a Brunell performance because it was against the Texans but you use Huard's performance against the 49ers to do so?

What a joke.

The 49er's D is actually only allowing .2 yrds/play more than ours. They're significantly better than the Texans, who continued their lock-hold on the Worst Defense in the League title, both in yrds/game and yrds/play.

BossHog wrote:

Mursilis wrote: If chemistry's so important, how does a back-up like Damon Huard, making only his second start in 6 years, finish yesterday with a higher QB rating and higher completion percentage than Brunell, despite being a career back-up until two weeks ago?

By playing the 49ers.

But let me get this straight... you discredit a Brunell performance because it was against the Texans but you use Huard's performance against the 49ers to do so?

What a joke.

Darn, you beat me to it!!! That was a pretty bad analogy to make. Huard had a good day against the 49'ers, but Brunell had a good day against a College team? Some people are just never satisfied, no matter what happens.

It's not even a case of the "pro-Brunell" people vs the 'anti Brunell' people, as much as the anti-Brunell people like to perceive it that way. In reality, it's about being in this together, as Gibbs has often said that is the case. It's about supporting the decisions, and lending support for the team that is put on the field by the Coaches. Simple as that. Not to say that the people who don't like Brunell are any less of a fan than those that do want him to play, but, and it might be just me, but I find it a lot easier to enjoy the Redskins when there's a sense of support and confidence in the Coaching staff, and having that support become confidence in the team. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience to be supportive and confident, than to be angry, bitter, and arguementative about what players are on the field. It's one thing to torch a guy cuz he had a bad day, or blew a coverage on a set of downs, but to constantly lack confidence and support with any one player or Coache(s) must be an awful way to enjoy football.

Mursilis wrote:

BossHog wrote:

Mursilis wrote: If chemistry's so important, how does a back-up like Damon Huard, making only his second start in 6 years, finish yesterday with a higher QB rating and higher completion percentage than Brunell, despite being a career back-up until two weeks ago?

By playing the 49ers.

But let me get this straight... you discredit a Brunell performance because it was against the Texans but you use Huard's performance against the 49ers to do so?

What a joke.

The 49er's D is actually only allowing .2 yrds/play more than ours. They're significantly better than the Texans, who continued their lock-hold on the Worst Defense in the League title, both in yrds/game and yrds/play.

Boss pretty much obliterated your line of argument, and you come back with some pretty weak stats. Should I point out that the Texans won their game yesterday while San Fran suffered their worst shut-out ever?

Mursilis wrote:But how aren't the pro-Brunell people mirror images of how you see me? When Brunell does poorly, it's "the team has struggled, WRs weren't getting open/dropping balls/running the wrong routes, the O-line wasn't giving him time, there was no running game", etc. When the team wins, it's all "Brunell played great, Brunell won it for us, we were right all along", etc. - not much different.

I can't speak for all the "Brunellmaniacs", but, for me, I get a kick outta the responses from peeps like you who complain that we give Brunell too much credit for a WIN. OF COURSE I know it's a team effort out there, and the WRs played lights out (except for lloyd ), but it's kinda fun to watch you all squirm when you're given a taste of your own medicine.

We're all winners cause our team wins, but some of you get outta line too far and end up putting your feet in your mouths. Some of us enjoy rounding you back into the flock.

BTW - It's rarely personal when we hand out crow to those who deserve it, but those who are called out (in the right forum) are guilty as charged and deserve the public flogging.