Post Dallas Mark Brunell Thread

[Irn-Bru]

If Brunell isn't physically capable of running 3 or 4 yards for a first down then he shouldn't be in there.

That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.

Brunell's play wasn't great but it wasn't half as bad as the descriptions that I've seen on the board in the past week. Funny how Brunell criticizers lived off of statistics until about week 3-4 of this year, and since then their arguments have gotten weaker. . .

I think that the same thing applies to this week that applied to last week. If the coaches plan on starting Brunell--and it appears that they are--then (necessarily) Brunell gives us the best chance to win unless BOTH of the following conditions are true:

(1) The coaches are wrong about Campbell AND
(2) Campbell's chances of being a solid QB right away are pretty good.

Who gives us the best chance to win this upcoming week? I'd say Brunell, since I reject both of the points above.

[SkinzCanes]

That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.

We'll see how important mobility is when Brunell faces Philly's front 4 on Sunday. And it wasn't just once that Brunell failed to run for a first down. He did it twice in key situations against Dallas. If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.

Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).

When ST went down, the clock read 00:00, and we were on the 45.

Perhaps, we should start thanking Cowboys, since not one of our players had a role in our wins, eh Joe??

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

First of all, we aren't winning the Super Bowl this year.

Preserved for posterity.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.

Memo to SC: WE WON!!!!!

[Irn-Bru]

That's a poor criterion for choosing a starting QB. Brunell made a poor decision but thought that he had a better chance of throwing it in than running on that play. It's also pointless to ask the "what if" in this situation, since the Redskins had a 1st and goal on the 2 in our first drive, and couldn't punch it in with 4 tries. To blame Brunell for one play as the almost-deciding-factor is absurd.

We'll see how important mobility is when Brunell faces Philly's front 4 on Sunday. And it wasn't just once that Brunell failed to run for a first down. He did it twice in key situations against Dallas. If it was just the throw in the first quarter it wouldn't bother me. But later in the game he just ran out of bounds instead of trying for a first. No excuse for that imo.

Still don't think mobility is a crucial indicator for who should be starting. While it would be nice to have someone with Jason's ability to move in there, game management, decision-making, familiarity with the offense, and timing with receivers are all probably more important to the coaches in picking their starting QB. Mobility is certainly a factor, but it simply can't be the reason why you choose a starter in this case (unless all of those other factors are equal).

[nuskins]

Run for a first down? Your joking right?

Mark Brunell won't even run to avoid a sack, he just curls into the fetal position when the defender is yards away! The vast majority of his passes float high and hangs his WR's up in the air b/c he is throwing off his heels, or they thud into the turf about 5 yrds behind the target.

His play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.

[SkinsJock]

...I think that the same thing applies to this week that applied to last week. If the coaches plan on starting Brunell--and it appears that they are--then (necessarily) Brunell gives us the best chance to win unless BOTH of the following conditions are true:

(1) The coaches are wrong about Campbell AND
(2) Campbell's chances of being a solid QB right away are pretty good.

Who gives us the best chance to win this upcoming week? I'd say Brunell, since I reject both of the points above.

FFA has asked this before and I have not seen it answered or countered - can someone please explain how this simple position is not clear to them?

If that is the case then can we not just support our QB in this game this week?


There are a number of us who only want our team to be successful and if Gibbs thinks that Brunell gives him the best shot at that, then IMO, we or those of us who are fans AND want our team to succeed (there are some who obviously do not) should support the team.

It is really strange to hear some claim to be a fan and say that it is a shame we beat the pukes because somehow they think that means we will continue to "suffer" with Brunell as our QB - IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE - Gibbs and Saunders will put in Campbell when he gives them the best chance to win and BTW - you are not a true fan if you do not support your team

[PulpExposure]

Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.

Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).

Well, to be fair, out of 9 drives that started in our territory (and ignoring the end of half/end of game/safety ones), we only sustained 3 of them past 41 yards. We were incredibly inconsistent, and I had really no faith that we would be able to sustain a 60+ yard drive to score a field goal.

Just as a comparison, out of the Cowboys 10 drives, 6 went longer than 41 yards. They were able to sustain an offensive drive far better than us. If it went overtime, and the Cowboys won the flip, they win the game. If we won the flip, it'd honestly be a toss up in my opinion. So, I'd guess if it went into OT, the Cowboys win 66% of the time.

The big difference to me was QB play. Romo made a ton of plays, Brunell didn't. He didn't play awful, but he certainly wasn't the reason we won. And considering the poor play of our defense, we can't have a game manager at QB. We need a someone who can make plays and put points on the board, consistently, a playmaking QB. I don't know if JC is a playmaker, but I sure know that Brunell isn't.

[joebagadonuts]

Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.

Are you saying that because you've got a crystal ball that tells you Brunell would have completely stunk it up in overtime??? I don't get your thinking here. ST's "bailing" us out was more a product of the facemask penalty then anything (if you wanna nitpick).

I meant 'ST' as in Special Teams, not Sean Taylor. My fault for not being specific.

Based on MB's performance during the latter half of regulation, I didn't have a whole lot of confidence that he could win the game for us, no. He made a couple of very nice throws early on (the one to Thrash over the middle was perfect), but I didn't see much good stuff later on when the game was to be won or lost.

Perhaps, we should start thanking Cowboys, since not one of our players had a role in our wins, eh Joe??

I'll let my sig respond to that one.

[SkinsJock]

...Mark Brunell's play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.

And you base this on what - there are only a few "veterans" with better ratings? He is here - he is the best starter we have or Gibbs would have a different starting QB.

Brunell has not won any games and more importantly he has not lost any games - this is a team game and he is doing what Gibbs wants - that might be a problem for a lot of fans but it is what it is and I hope he plays well this week. If you want him to play badly so we can get Campbell then I have to question your loyalty to the other members of the team.


Fortunately for me and I think a lot of others here, we happen to believe that the players are all hoping the other players on this team play well even though that means many of them are not actually participating because of that. We even have some who claim to be fans and want some of our players to get injured - that is really revealing - these are the people that you should be upset with, not the players

[KazooSkinsFan]

...Mark Brunell's play is atrocious for a veteran starting QB in this league with so many years of experience.

And you base this on what - there are only a few "veterans" with better ratings? He is here - he is the best starter we have or Gibbs would have a different starting QB.

Brunell has not won any games and more importantly he has not lost any games - this is a team game and he is doing what Gibbs wants - that might be a problem for a lot of fans but it is what it is and I hope he plays well this week. If you want him to play badly so we can get Campbell then I have to question your loyalty to the other members of the team.


Fortunately for me and I think a lot of others here, we happen to believe that the players are all hoping the other players on this team play well even though that means many of them are not actually participating because of that. We even have some who claim to be fans and want some of our players to get injured - that is really revealing - these are the people that you should be upset with, not the players

His play is not atrocious becuase of the ratings, but because we see him sucking.

I do not agree he is doing what Gibbs wants. We saw Gibbs for 12 years and he did everything with QBs. He did not say "dump off or throw it away" to anyone before and I don't believe he's saying that to Brunell now.

Gibbs won Superbowls with 3 QBs who were very different. But all could complete passes downfield and not just when receivers are wide open or steal sure INTs from DBs like ey and Lloyd had to do.

[SkinsJock]

Like the doctor said - tune in for another disapointing win this week against the Eagles

[The Hogster]

...I can't respect an NFL player that is afraid of contact. Twice at crucial situations in the game Brunell chose to run out of bounds or make a bad throw instead of running for a first down. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the team?

Are you kidding?

The season is riding on Brunell's ability to lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl, and he's just getting over an injury that might have sidelined him, were it not for the extra week he got to rest, and you want him to go out there and potentially aggravate/worsen the injury???

Aside from just wanting to see JC in action, it makes no sense for Brunell to cut our season short by putting himself in harm's way, just so some fan can give him props on a message board.

Does it make sense to you?

If we lose because we can't move the ball and score points at critical points, doesn't THAT cut our season short? And don't give me 'But we won!', because that's avoiding the point. Had ST not bailed us out at the end (which had very little to do with MB), you wouldn't be able to use that argument.

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

[SkinzCanes]

Still don't think mobility is a crucial indicator for who should be starting. While it would be nice to have someone with Jason's ability to move in there, game management, decision-making, familiarity with the offense, and timing with receivers are all probably more important to the coaches in picking their starting QB. Mobility is certainly a factor, but it simply can't be the reason why you choose a starter in this case (unless all of those other factors are equal).

That makes sense except for the fact that Brunell's game management isn't very good for a veteran qb and he hasn't really grasped the offense. There have been several articles about Brunell's struggles understanding the offense. I remember reading one is which the author cited several coaches as saying that Brunell wasn't reacting quickly enough after the snap and that's why he was having to throw underneath to his running backs isntead of downfield to his receivers. I could understand the argument if Brunell exhibited the charactersitcs of verteran qb: consistancy, leadership, good decision make, strong understanding of the offense, etc. But I haven't seen any of that from him yet this season.

[Irn-Bru]

That makes sense except for the fact that Brunell's game management isn't very good for a veteran qb and he hasn't really grasped the offense. There have been several articles about Brunell's struggles understanding the offense. I remember reading one is which the author cited several coaches as saying that Brunell wasn't reacting quickly enough after the snap and that's why he was having to throw underneath to his running backs isntead of downfield to his receivers. I could understand the argument if Brunell exhibited the charactersitcs of verteran qb: consistancy, leadership, good decision make, strong understanding of the offense, etc. But I haven't seen any of that from him yet this season.

I'll bold each term as I come to it. . .

Remember that Brunell doesn't have to be a great game manager to be our best shot at winning, but only better than any other QBs on the roster. In this respect I think that he is. Notice how all we've had to talk about in recent weeks are some "near" interceptions from this past game? He might dump off too much, but the man is not being reckless with the ball, and he even completes passes downfield every now and then.

Brunell has played consistently this season--obviously not consistently great, but we've been able to expect about the same performance from him each week. Notice how you can't point to him as being the ingredient that lost, or won, many (if any) games for us.

As for leadership, do you see a lockerroom mutiny in progress? The coaches and players stand behind Brunell, and our team doesn't win in spite of him. Winning and leadership are not the same things, and every indication that I've seen suggests that Brunell is helping bring cohesion to the squad rather than division.

Good decision making has been shown in his stats--which have been consistently good--and especially his lack of sacks and interceptions. When Mark drops back you can't count on his abilities to sling our way to touchdowns, but his decision making itself has been fine.

And, finally, his understanding of this offense has been reported to be the best out of the quarterbacks on the roster. (I point to any of Gibbs' statements, B. Lloyd's personal interview with JansenFan, and just about every other indication that we as fans have had access to). Another category where Brunell doesn't have to be a superstar to start but only the best on the roster. . .which he appears to be.

[joebagadonuts]

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

Under 18 points a game would put us ranked 7th in defense in the NFL. So what you're basically arguing is that the defense has to play well above average to make up for the offense's deficiencies. In fact, the offense didn't even score 18 points against Dallas (or Minnesota or Dallas or the Giants or Indy).

And I've never given the D a 'pass'. In fact, I've stated several times that I think they've played pretty poorly (duh). It just seems as though several members of this board are not willing to recognize that when the defense fails, we need a QB who has the ability to win games for us. MB doesn't seem capable of maximizing the potential the offense seems to have.

What's frustrtating is that no matter what MB does not do to win games, the BDers always have an excuse (the defense, the O-line, it's a team game, etc.). You don't seem to be able to simply admit that perhaps Mark Brunell, no matter how much you might like him, no matter how much the defense has underperformed, is not performing well enough this year to lead us to the playoffs.

I'm willing to admit that he HAS played well at times this year. He was in the zone in Houston. The first half of the recent Dallas game and the Indy game he was sharp, and looked confident about where he was throwing. In fact, I could point to some nice throws in almost every game this year. But he can't seem to do it consistently, nor can he seem to step it up when we need points to win or seal a game. If he were to play consistently better, or make a play where we could say, 'Brunell won that game for us', I'd be in favor of him continuing to start.

[joebagadonuts]

Remember that Brunell doesn't have to be a great game manager to be our best shot at winning, but only better than any other QBs on the roster.

If our best can only lead us to a 3-5 record, then we're in deep doo doo.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That makes sense except for the fact that Brunell's game management isn't very good for a veteran qb and he hasn't really grasped the offense. There have been several articles about Brunell's struggles understanding the offense. I remember reading one is which the author cited several coaches as saying that Brunell wasn't reacting quickly enough after the snap and that's why he was having to throw underneath to his running backs isntead of downfield to his receivers. I could understand the argument if Brunell exhibited the charactersitcs of verteran qb: consistancy, leadership, good decision make, strong understanding of the offense, etc. But I haven't seen any of that from him yet this season.

I have a hard time with the Brunell hasn't "grasped the offense" line. We're not in big disagreement, we see other issues, I'm just talking about that one. Basically, he can't throw. If he could and were struggling I could buy that point. But throwing innacurate passes and ducks isn't the offensive scheme. He was the same way 2 years ago under a different scheme.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

What are you talking about? Everyone is ripping the D, and deservedly so. Who gives them a pass?

They are consistent, they make everyone look good. Pro-bowlers like Manning, veteran jurneymen like Brad Johnson, first year starters like Romo and rookies like Young. Every QB gets to be a pro-bowler the week they play us.

[joebagadonuts]

Every QB gets to be a pro-bowler the week they play us.

It's like fantasy camp!

[die cowboys die]

It is really strange to hear some claim to be a fan and say that it is a shame we beat the pukes because somehow they think that means we will continue to "suffer" with Brunell as our QB - IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE - Gibbs and Saunders will put in Campbell when he gives them the best chance to win and BTW - you are not a true fan if you do not support your team

(*emphasis added)


CONGRATULATIONS! you are the winner of the award for
DUMBEST POST OF THE YEAR!!!


while many other posts were nominated (i'm sure many nominated some of my own posts, in fact), yours was the hands-down winner. this is due to the fact that you have chosen to take the Official Pissing Contest to unprecedented heights... er, lows.

pathetic. absolutely pathetic.
yeah, we all come on here every day and make hundreds/thousands of posts out of our passion for the team, because we're not fans.
outrageous. asinine.

the Anti-Brunellians could easily make the argument that "if you are not against brunell, you are not a fan" since we firmly believe that brunell is a destructive force to the redskins. but have you ever seen such an accusation? get over yourself. you are not a "better fan" than anyone else on this board.

[The Hogster]

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

Under 18 points a game would put us ranked 7th in defense in the NFL. So what you're basically arguing is that the defense has to play well above average to make up for the offense's deficiencies. In fact, the offense didn't even score 18 points against Dallas (or Minnesota or Dallas or the Giants or Indy).

And I've never given the D a 'pass'. In fact, I've stated several times that I think they've played pretty poorly (duh). It just seems as though several members of this board are not willing to recognize that when the defense fails, we need a QB who has the ability to win games for us. MB doesn't seem capable of maximizing the potential the offense seems to have.

What's frustrtating is that no matter what MB does not do to win games, the BDers always have an excuse (the defense, the O-line, it's a team game, etc.). You don't seem to be able to simply admit that perhaps Mark Brunell, no matter how much you might like him, no matter how much the defense has underperformed, is not performing well enough this year to lead us to the playoffs.

I'm willing to admit that he HAS played well at times this year. He was in the zone in Houston. The first half of the recent Dallas game and the Indy game he was sharp, and looked confident about where he was throwing. In fact, I could point to some nice throws in almost every game this year. But he can't seem to do it consistently, nor can he seem to step it up when we need points to win or seal a game. If he were to play consistently better, or make a play where we could say, 'Brunell won that game for us', I'd be in favor of him continuing to start.

Uh. I dunno where ya been for the past 2 years, but being ranked 7th in the league is not a stretch. We were ranked 3rd in GW's first year, and 9th last year. We supposedly added players at "need positions" in Carter, Rocky McIntosh and Arch...so anticipating a defense that was commensurate with what we have had for the past few years is not an irrational expectation. In fact, I'd bet that more people would have thought that being ranked 7th more likely than 30th??? So I'm not sure your point is well made.

It's not making up for inefficiencies. Thats an inappropriate way to look at a team. I could easily say that the offense has to "make up for the defensive ineptitude"...but that would be fingerpointing.

All I am saying is that all of this Brunell hate would not be happening if we were not asking him to suddenly play like Donovan McNabb, sling for 300 yds and 3 TD's EVERY game.

A good running game and great defense can make any QB look good. That doesn't mean that the QB IS that good, but it soothes the fans who disproportionately blame the QB of a team that has little to no run game or defense.

Just be realistic is all I'm saying. This logic that Brunell is the source of our problems is just plain wrong.

[The Hogster]

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

What are you talking about? Everyone is ripping the D, and deservedly so. Who gives them a pass?

They are consistent, they make everyone look good. Pro-bowlers like Manning, veteran jurneymen like Brad Johnson, first year starters like Romo and rookies like Young. Every QB gets to be a pro-bowler the week they play us.

Youngster...you've come in at the tail end of a discussion...I'm talking to specific fellow fans on here (that have been around expressing opinions longer than you) who have either 1) consistenly blamed Brunell 2) consistenly not criticized our defense this year

Thanks.

[The Hogster]

Uh..we're scoring enough points....everyone gives the defense a pass, but dude their darned near last in every category. If we praise the D and crap on the Offense 2 years ago, we have to do the same now. If the D could hold our opponents under 18 points per game, we'd be in great shape.

Under 18 points a game would put us ranked 7th in defense in the NFL. So what you're basically arguing is that the defense has to play well above average to make up for the offense's deficiencies. In fact, the offense didn't even score 18 points against Dallas (or Minnesota or Dallas or the Giants or Indy).

And I've never given the D a 'pass'. In fact, I've stated several times that I think they've played pretty poorly (duh). It just seems as though several members of this board are not willing to recognize that when the defense fails, we need a QB who has the ability to win games for us. MB doesn't seem capable of maximizing the potential the offense seems to have.

What's frustrtating is that no matter what MB does not do to win games, the BDers always have an excuse (the defense, the O-line, it's a team game, etc.). You don't seem to be able to simply admit that perhaps Mark Brunell, no matter how much you might like him, no matter how much the defense has underperformed, is not performing well enough this year to lead us to the playoffs.

I'm willing to admit that he HAS played well at times this year. He was in the zone in Houston. The first half of the recent Dallas game and the Indy game he was sharp, and looked confident about where he was throwing. In fact, I could point to some nice throws in almost every game this year. But he can't seem to do it consistently, nor can he seem to step it up when we need points to win or seal a game. If he were to play consistently better, or make a play where we could say, 'Brunell won that game for us', I'd be in favor of him continuing to start.

Have you ever played a team sport? Aside from Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Montana....NO QUARTERBACK IN THE LEAGUE CAN WIN GAMES ALONE.

McNabb is either first or tops in the league in most passing categories. They have the #1 offense in the NFL...but guess what "They're 4-4". Even the greatest QB can't do it every week.

Look at Brett Favre, put him on several teams, including ours and he'de be winning games, but he's not. Why? It's not because he's not a great player...but because not even a HOF'er can do it alone game in and game out.

I DON'T LOVE BRUNELL. Ive gone on record as saying he's too old...but I'm realistic in the blame I attribute to him. The stuff some of you say is just downright nonsensical and unrealistic to expect him to do stuff that we all know that most Quarterbacks can't do every week.