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

It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

Well said. I totally agree. Unless the running game is hitting on all cylinders and the line is giving him all day Brunell can't get anything done. He got pressured a lot in the second half but in the first he had time. He overthrew a number of receivers and made really bad reads and decisions. When he has all day he does well but as soon as there is any pressure whatsoever he starts to panic and looks unsure. In an ideal world Brunell would have all day to throw. But that's not realistic. A qb needs to be able to stand in the pocket in the face of pressure, step up and make a throw. Brunell just cant do that at this point. Was today all his fault? Ofcourse not. But whereas other qb's would've stepped up and made some plays, he didn't and was as mediocre as the rest of the team.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

I said that last week, and was destroyed for it. This week, I'll just say Brunell's numbers were 12/22, 109 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, for a 68 rating. Discuss amongst yourselves.

thaiphoon wrote:DCD - VERY true...however, with our O-line not blocking well. It ain't gonna happen. Eli had all the time in the world to throw and picked us apart.

Simply put, our O-line and defense let us down today. Brunell is a decent veteran QB who can win us games if the game-plan is executed by the offensive players around him. At this point, we're better off keeping him in and making sure our O-line blocks better, our defense plays better and the coaches call a better game. The play calling was pathetic

you make a good point as well, i know the stuff around him was flat-out bad today and that sure makes it hard for him to be good. but i guess i put so much emphasis on him because it's so much easier to think of changing that ONE player, instead of changing a whole O-Line. we know we have no one else to go to there, we're stuck with that.

it's not "fair" to brunell but it seems like the only wiggle room we have.

thaiphoon wrote:DCD - VERY true...however, with our O-line not blocking well. It ain't gonna happen. Eli had all the time in the world to throw and picked us apart.

Simply put, our O-line and defense let us down today. Brunell is a decent veteran QB who can win us games if the game-plan is executed by the offensive players around him. At this point, we're better off keeping him in and making sure our O-line blocks better, our defense plays better and the coaches call a better game. The play calling was pathetic

I took it on the chin from half the membership last week but don't feel like playing payback with those whose opinions are faith based. Instead, I'll just say the obvious. Brunell is too old and cannot take us where we want to go. He can look good for a while, but cannot last or play hurt or tired.

Unfortunately, Gibbs is in denial and still paying dearly for it. The contrast between him and Manning today was really painful, especially in regard to throwing downfield. The Gints were able to bring up about everybody into the box to bottle up Portis, concentrate on stopping dinks, and rush at will.

Brunell's best downfield shot probably set an altitude record.

There is no question the Skins were out-coached today. The play calling was horrendous and the OL seemed to lose motivation at the first sign of another Brunell bad day.

We've got receivers and running backs who must be out of their minds with frustration.

Mursilis wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

I said that last week, and was destroyed for it. This week, I'll just say Brunell's numbers were 12/22, 109 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, for a 68 rating. Discuss amongst yourselves.

a QB's numbers should only be this bad if they are playing the fricking '85 bears or something. but we see it time and time again from brunell. the excuses are running very, very thin.

I am wondering why Eli can stand in the pocket, take a brutal hit, and still be able to make a long completion, BEFORE the run after the catch and our saavy veteran cannot. Any ideas?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

Mark looked as bad as the rest of the team did.

However, I think he should shoulder MOST IF NOT ALL of the blame on the poor tackling by our defense, and poor footwork that our secondary displayed today. And lets not forget, he's the REAL reason Shawn Springs was out today.

On that touchdown to Burress, CLEARLY Mark was outt of position.

P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

Mark looked as bad as the rest of the team did.

And that's a good thing, since he's "our leader" ?

P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

Right. Dressing up in costume on Thursday has so much to do with playing well on Sunday. As for your previous comments on Brunell. The D has sucked this season, no question. But over the past 2 or 3 seasons we have seen the defense pick up the offense time and time again. Wouldn't it be nice if on just one occasion the offense could pick up the D?? And as the qb, that would start at the top with Brunell. So sure the D sucked but I'm not going to trash them too much because they are usually the ones that keep us in games. We have won plenty of games with the D dominating and O sucking. When was the last time that we won a game when the D sucked and the O dominated???

Hey! On a side note....tune in to the Cowboy/Eagle game....I think that's what a division battle should look like...

Champsturf wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It seems that games need to be too perfect for Brunell to be effective. If the offense is not clicking he wont be effective. I dont think thats a good thing.

Mark looked as bad as the rest of the team did.

And that's a good thing, since he's "our leader" ?

Hey, and I'm alright with that.

The Skins stunk today. Period.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

SkinzCanes wrote:

P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

Right. Dressing up in costume on Thursday has so much to do with playing well on Sunday.

Hey, he deserves the criticism, as much as Brunell does. Clinton didn't get the job done in NYC, AGAIN. He should woory less about SE Jerome when he goes up there, and focus on remaining upright and finding running lanes.

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Anyway, this is about Brunell, so I'll let the "critics" continue...

Sorry for the temporary reality distraction.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Anyway, this is about Brunell, so I'll let the "critics" continue...

Sorry for the temporary reality distraction.

If you're going to play that game, compare the stats for Eli and Mark. Who completed more passes, more TD passes, and for more yards? Get back to me when you get that figured out.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Anyway, this is about Brunell, so I'll let the "critics" continue...

Sorry for the temporary reality distraction.

Shame on you, Redeemed. Portis is not an easy target - please redirect any anger towards Brunell in future. Thanks.

Hey, he deserves the criticism, as much as Brunell does. Clinton didn't get the job done in NYC, AGAIN. He should woory less about SE Jerome when he goes up there, and focus on remaining upright and finding running lanes. :twocents:

Are you insane?? Seriously. Portis had 19 carries for 76 yards, an average of 4 yards per carry. That is right there with his average of 4.5 ypc this season and 4.3 per carry from last year. Brunell only had 33 more passing yards than CP did running yards and only 1 yard more (5 yards per completion) per play than Portis (4 per carry). So if you look at who had a worse game it is clearly your boy Boonell. On top of that Brunell's longest completion was only 2 yards longer than CP's longest run (17 to 15). Not to mention the fact that Portis got dinged on several occasions and came back every time to deliever some vicious blocks.

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Anyway, this is about Brunell, so I'll let the "critics" continue...

Sorry for the temporary reality distraction.

If you're going to play that game, compare the stats for Eli and Mark. Who completed more passes, more TD passes, and for more yards? Get back to me when you get that figured out.

And, while we're at it, let's compare stats for defensive linemen, offensive linemen, cornerbacks, tight ends and grass cutters. Then we might reach a balanced view of what caused this defeat.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Anyway, this is about Brunell, so I'll let the "critics" continue...

Sorry for the temporary reality distraction.

Where's the reality in that?

Did Tiki play better than CP? Sure, but I actually thought Cp ran hard and played well... he wasn't getting a lot of room to run.

Did Eli play better than Brunell? Sure.

Did the Giants o-line play better than the Redskins' ? Sure.

In fact, why don't you tell me what 'element' or player from the Redskins was better today than their Giants counterpart?

We got flat out out-played from stem to stern. Blaming it on CP to deflect blame from Brunell is no less fact-based than blaming it squarely on Brunell.

It was a team effort... or lack thereof... and I would think that someone that walks around preaching it from the rafters to everyone would be a little more careful to not make such a hypocritical stand.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote: P.S. "The Black Chuck Norris" laid big fat egg today. No more dress up for Portis, por favor.

That's BS! 4yds/attempt is not laying an egg! Portis did all he could do this game. And I believe the Giants rush defense was far better than its pass defense headed into this game.

Tiki did better, did more for his team, and his team won. Coincidence? Methinks not.

Take out "Tiki" and put in "Eli" and you have something more approaching reality. Eli the wunderkind made the kinds of throws Brunell couldn't. If Brunell had played better, we'd have at least scored more than 3 points. Am I calling for his head? Not really, but you can't come on here and pretend that Brunell played fine and the team lost anyway. The offense did nothing to stay on the field, often as the result of plays Brunell couldn't make, and the defense did nothing to get NY off the field. However, if Brunell and the offense could've put a drive together, that would have kept the Giants on defense as well.

SkinzCanes wrote:

Hey, he deserves the criticism, as much as Brunell does. Clinton didn't get the job done in NYC, AGAIN. He should woory less about SE Jerome when he goes up there, and focus on remaining upright and finding running lanes. :twocents:

Are you insane?? Seriously. Portis had 19 carries for 76 yards, an average of 4 yards per carry. That is right there with his average of 4.5 ypc this season and 4.3 per carry from last year. Brunell only had 33 more passing yards than CP did running yards and only 1 yard more (5 yards per completion) per play than Portis (4 per carry). So if you look at who had a worse game it is clearly your boy Boonell. On top of that Brunell's longest completion was only 2 yards longer than CP's longest run (17 to 15). Not to mention the fact that Portis got dinged on several occasions and came back every time to deliever some vicious blocks.

Seriously! I just can't believe someone is actually calling out CP!! I can't remember a single game where I thought CP was giving less than 100% or holding the team back. He's a true 'skin.

mark brunell is the most timid qb in the nfl.

=

hailskins666 wrote:mark brunell is the most timid qb in the nfl.

=

THANK GOD SOMEONE ELSE SAW THAT.

He is still not comfortable in this offense. I said earlier that Brunell cannot take the team on his shoulders. If CP doesn't do it, its not going to get done. Why does everything across the board have to be 100% in-sync for Brunell to play well?

We're 2-3....Im pissed.

Brunell threw the ball to Moss last week in OT. Moss told him, throw me the ball and Ill do something with it. Where was that today? Brunell doesnt seem to feel comfortable allowing our WR's to make plays on the ball. He doesnt have the confidence to do so.

We run 3 WR sets a lot. 3 WR's plus ey, THEY CAN'T ALL BE DOUBLE TEAMED.

don't get me wrong, he's not the only reason we lost.

but when has brunell actually won a game for us? the guy has no stones.

hailskins666 wrote:don't get me wrong, he's not the only reason we lost.

but when has brunell actually won a game for us? the guy has no stones.

I agree 100% I said the same thing in my previous post, Brunell cannot take the game on his shoulders and win it. He has yet to do so when we are in a slump.

Please dont mention 2005 Dallas game, get over it.

Brunell is a nice safe QB, but we need a playmaker at that position.