Brunell Question

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I'm posting this out of the debate thread because I don't want to debate about it. I just want a yes or no answer. It'll get lost in that 460+ post monstrosity, so I'd like to keep it seperate. If someone higher up wants to merge the two thread, well, hey, I'll shut my mouth and figure out some other way to do this.

Any-who, the whole point of that was to get around to asking this question to the Brunell supporters (or, if you get really agitated about that term, the "Gibbs'-decision-to-play-Brunell supporters):

If Brunell plays absolutely horribly against Green Bay (less than 50%, at least one turnover, no more than 150 yards passing), but we win due to incredibly strong defense and another huge day from Portis, do you at all re-think your position?

Again, don't really want much debate here, just trying to figure out if the play of Brunell at all matters if we win.

[LATrueRedskin]

I don't think so. I'm for playing either one really, but if Brunell's in and were winning, it's a go for me. Our passing game can't get any worse, and while were winning, it will get better as the season goes on. I think Ramsey's the better player, but I'm not a fan of benching a quarterback after a win unless it's under really odd or extreme purposes.

[Spence]

Sure, I rethink my position. I rethink my position on things often. Doesn't mean I change my mind, though. Again, I hate to come back to it, but the truth is that I'd only support replacing Brunell if I thought someone else on the roster would play better. It's not a simple matter of deciding you think the starting QB should play better. You then have to decide which QB gives the team the best chance to win.

In general, though, I lean against changing quarterbacks after a victory. If the team is winning, it follows inevitably that the QB is playing well enough to win.

[rskinsfan10]

I personally would rather Brunell stay the QB this entire year, win or lose. It's my personal belief that Ramsey can only benefit from sitting and watching. If it turns out that Brunell is making mistakes, and he and he alone is the culprit of the passing game woes, then I think that Ramsey is better served watching those mistakes, and figuring out what he would do differently when he is put in those exact same situations.

[hail2skins]

If I thought Brunell was the only player causing the offense to play badly, then yes I would say sit him. If we're winning I don't make the change.

[GibbsRules!]

If Brunell plays absolutely horribly against Green Bay (less than 50%, at least one turnover, no more than 150 yards passing), but we win due to incredibly strong defense and another huge day from Portis, do you at all re-think your position?

Again, don't really want much debate here, just trying to figure out if the play of Brunell at all matters if we win.
If you go back to the Ravens Super Bowl season, Trent Dilfer did just enough to not lose. I think at this point, that is all Gibbs can ask for. Right now the Redskins have a smothering D - like the Ravens did, a potentially overpowering running game - again like the Ravens did, and a mediocre QB. Brunell doesn't have to be great, he just needs to be efficient. The big plays will come. You've gotta believe in GIBBS!!

[funnyperson1]

I would much rather have Ramsey or Hasselbeck behind center, but thats just me. As long as Brunell doesn't throw picks he will probably start.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

it really depends on how he plays. if his incompletions are due to drops or throwaways, then i'll give him a pass. if he over throws guys and makes bad reads and decisions, then i'd think its time for ramsey.

[ShaggySkins]

Until this team starts to lose and you can SOLELY blame Brunell for those losses then you don't sit him. The pass protection has been poor and by putting Ramsey back there to get killed again does him or us no good. If the Skins win then I continue to keep Brunell in. He could throw for -100 yards and 15 interceptions as long as we win I'll be happy with whomever is back there.

[tbfoster1]

WHEN we win on sunday I'm sure gibbs will stay with brunell no matter how bad he plays.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

WHEN we win on sunday I'm sure gibbs will stay with brunell no matter how bad he plays.
If we lose(which I don't think we will)Gibbs will stay with Brunell no matter
how bad he plays.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

i truly believe that brunell is going to have his best game as a redskin this season. green bay's D isnt very good IMO.

BTW- LOVE the avatar Tb!

[PA Skins Girl]

I'll support whatever Coach Gibbs thinks is best. The coaches see these guys every day. We see them for a few hours on Sunday.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

i truly believe that brunell is going to have his best game as a redskin this season. green bay's D isnt very good IMO.

BTW- LOVE the avatar Tb!
He "SHOULD" have his best game as a redskin Sunday.

[rskinsfan10]

The coaches see these guys every day. We see them for a few hours on Sunday.

A very simple fact that seems to get lost on a great number of people/fans.

[LuvSkins17]

Gotta stay with Mark under center and get the running game working. When teams favor the run, its gonna open up the pass. Gibbs and Co. also have a extra week to game plain for this one. Mark should do better. We have a great game against the Cowgirls to look at.

[sdredskinsfan]

Sure, I rethink my position. I rethink my position on things often. Doesn't mean I change my mind, though. Again, I hate to come back to it, but the truth is that I'd only support replacing Brunell if I thought someone else on the roster would play better. It's not a simple matter of deciding you think the starting QB should play better. You then have to decide which QB gives the team the best chance to win.

In general, though, I lean against changing quarterbacks after a victory. If the team is winning, it follows inevitably that the QB is playing well enough to win.


Exactly. It seems that a lot of people on this board automatically assume you are Brunell supporter per se if you argue in favor starting Brunell.

With respect to DaSchmoe's question, if Brunell misses open receivers on a regular basis, with adequate pass protection, then Gibbs will have a serious decision to make. However, I really hope that does not happen because it will probably mean a loss to GB and the virtual end of playoff hopes with both a poor record and Ramsey on the horizon. I just don't see Ramsey coming in and all of sudden cutting down on his boneheaded mistakes. I could see him improve to the point where he would be a valuable contributor next season though.

[frenchskinsfan]

I wouldn't change a winning team's depth chart.

[#1SkInSfAn]

I'm not a fan of benching a QB after a win but I say the first time a loss rolls around and brunell has another sub-par gamewe bench him. Though at this point do you want ramseys picks or hasslebecks inability to throw the deep pass?

[NamVet4]

When we win on Sunday, Brunell stays as QB. Why ? Because right now there is nothing that indicates the Coaching staff sees a better option at QB.
They run the show, we watch, the players perform. That's the game of football on a Sunday afternoon in the Fall.
:)

[CarMike]

i truly believe that brunell is going to have his best game as a redskin this season. green bay's D isnt very good IMO.

BTW- LOVE the avatar Tb!

You mean he might actually hit the 100 yard mark? Woo Hoo! :D

j/k....

[Patrick]

You know it's not a matter of who I'd like to see play. As pointed out so well by PA Skins Girl, coach see his players every day and see the O operate during practice. He knows what is best for the team.

YES - I want to see Patrick become one of the all-time best for the Skins but I respect Coach Gibbs too much to second guess him.

[dj_stouty]

With respect to DaSchmoe's question, if Brunell misses open receivers on a regular basis, with adequate pass protection, then Gibbs will have a serious decision to make.

Well, Brunell isn't missing wide open receivers on a regular basis, and he certainly isn't getting adequate pass protection on a regular basis. Are there times in which he botches an easy throw? YES. Are there times in which there isn't adequate protection. YES. Are there times in which Brunell scrambles from the defense and our wide receivers are not open? YES

There are a lot of broken parts to this offense, of which, Brunell is only ONE of them.

That being said....if we win this week, and start a 2-game winning streak that leads us to a 3-4 record, then Brunell gets the nod no matter how bad he plays.

[Ohiofan]

Before we crown ourselves the Ravens of 2004-05, and assume we can win with just defense & rushing, I would like to see us shut down a really good offense. So far none of the teams we have played has been known as an offensive powerhouse. We have lost to Kurt Warner, Vinny Testeverde, Jeff Garcia and Kyler Boyler, none of whom will be going to the Pro Bowl this year. I agree D has played great so far, but I woudl like to see how we do against an elite offensive team. In their Superbowl year, the Ravens shut down everybody.

[Keino]

Only a loss would make me re-think my position. If we lose this week and Brunell plays like he did against Chi-town, then I am on board with playing Ramsey.

I suspect Brunell knows that he is playing for his job.

[NCskinsfanatic]

I personally would rather Brunell stay the QB this entire year, win or lose. It's my personal belief that Ramsey can only benefit from sitting and watching. If it turns out that Brunell is making mistakes, and he and he alone is the culprit of the passing game woes, then I think that Ramsey is better served watching those mistakes, and figuring out what he would do differently when he is put in those exact same situations.
Ditto......as we continue to agree on this subject.

[dj_stouty]

In their Superbowl year, the Ravens shut down everybody.

You just tossed up a mighty big softball on this one...

The Ravens didn't shut down everyone that year. In fact, in the Raven's game against the Jags, Mark Brunell put up 39 points against them, including 386 passing yards and 3 TDs.

Funny how this stuff comes back full circle, isn't it?

[dukeuch]

If you go back to the Ravens Super Bowl season, Trent Dilfer did just enough to not lose. I think at this point, that is all Gibbs can ask for. Right now the Redskins have a smothering D - like the Ravens did, a potentially overpowering running game - again like the Ravens did, and a mediocre QB. Brunell doesn't have to be great, he just needs to be efficient. The big plays will come. You've gotta believe in GIBBS!!

I disagree that it's OK for the QB to just "not lose". Why the heck did we go out and get Coles if not because he was a gamebreaker, which he will never be w/Brunell under center. And the key word regarding our running game is "potentially". Our D HAS been great, and we are 2-4. We need more O.

I think that with our great D, we can overcome mistakes a guy like Ramsey might make and benefit tremendously from the "big play" upside.

[Skins57]

I am with most here that say, if I thought Mark was the only problem then I would bench him now but I do not believe he is.
Now
What happens if Brunell throws 2 touchdowns 280 yards but the defense finally gets beat up on and gives up 35 points to Favre and the Pack, and we lose, would you justify benching Mark then?

[dj_stouty]

What happens if Brunell throws 2 touchdowns 280 yards but the defense finally gets beat up on and gives up 35 points to Favre and the Pack, and we lose, would you justify benching Mark then?

I would certainly hope they would call for the benching of the entire defense! ;)

[kempcolts]

I have to say I'll still stick with Brunell, there's a lot of "ifs" with this offense i.e. if the running games on, if the recievers don't drop passes, if the blocking holds up, if the running back picks up the blind side blitz. its the differnce between 4-2 and 2-4. I believe we have a better chance of winning with Brunell.

[RdsknBill]

IT seems to me that MB should stay in. As others have pointed out, the losses can't be blamed soley on Brunell (Bad fumbles by Portis, and lack of protection on his blind side).

That being said, Ramsey is definately the better option to stretch the field, and allow the deep ball, which is an important component of Coach Gibbs' offense. Yes, he threw those picks against the Gnats, when he came in cold for Brunell, but I also saw flashes of that great arm of his. I still believe that he is still shell shocked from the beating that he took last year while running the "Chuck and Duck" under Spurrier

I guess my position is that if Brunell doesn't cause losses, and continues to do an adequate enough job to get wins, than he shouldn't be benched.

[Keino]

This really needs to be merged. JDS I know you weren't expecting 1 word answers on the most hotly debated subject on these boards.

[Avg Joe]

I want to see more than 2 receivers going out before I'm ready to bench him. There are times where the offense looks good. Actually I'd like to see the offense not give up any points, then we could see how a game plays out.

[dj_stouty]

Actually I'd like to see the offense not give up any points, then we could see how a game plays out.

I also wouldn't mind seeing our Special Teams and Defense get us a TD sometime! The Skins are one of only 8 teams in the league not to have a either a defensive TD or punt/kick return TD.

[Avg Joe]

I also wouldn't mind seeing our Special Teams and Defense get us a TD sometime! The Skins are one of only 8 teams in the league not to have a either a defensive TD or punt/kick return TD.

That too!

[CarMike]

I also wouldn't mind seeing our Special Teams and Defense get us a TD sometime! The Skins are one of only 8 teams in the league not to have a either a defensive TD or punt/kick return TD.

Too bad our defense doesn't face our offense. We've let four teams return a TO for TDs this year....ughh

[The Skinsinator]

From what I've seen thus far, I am in favor of Ramsey getting the nod over Brunnel. Brunnel has not been productive up to this point. Ramsey could come in there and stink it up. However, put Brunnel back in there and let him get his weak 100 yds. 6 games is enough. I have no confidence Brunnel can turn it around. Ramsey will move the ball. Yes, he will throw some picks, but most good qbs do, ocassionaly. As I always say, if he sucks get him out & put Mark or Tim back in there. Brunnel's gotta go. With all this being stated, I hope I am flat-out wrong about Brunnel and he throws for 300 yds. on Sunday. But, I've seen more than enough to know better.

HAIL SKINS!!!!

[JoeDaSchmoe]

This really needs to be merged. JDS I know you weren't expecting 1 word answers on the most hotly debated subject on these boards.

Yeah, my finger's getting itchy for the merge button.... I'll give it a bit more time to see where it goes.

[Wild Bore]

Gibbs has said all along that he doesn't believe it is all Brunnel's fault, that there is a lot of different reasons. Sometimes those reasons are rather obvious (eg Bett's bone head block, interceptions off deflected passes, etc.). Other times it may not be so obvious, but only discovered by using the rewind tape a thousand times at a thousand different angles. That's what the coaches do. Gibbs will say its a lot of things.

Some of those things you know were Rasby and K. Jones.

[ConradCountry]

I'm posting this out of the debate thread because I don't want to debate about it. I just want a yes or no answer. It'll get lost in that 460+ post monstrosity, so I'd like to keep it seperate. If someone higher up wants to merge the two thread, well, hey, I'll shut my mouth and figure out some other way to do this.

Any-who, the whole point of that was to get around to asking this question to the Brunell supporters (or, if you get really agitated about that term, the "Gibbs'-decision-to-play-Brunell supporters):

If Brunell plays absolutely horribly against Green Bay (less than 50%, at least one turnover, no more than 150 yards passing), but we win due to incredibly strong defense and another huge day from Portis, do you at all re-think your position?

Again, don't really want much debate here, just trying to figure out if the play of Brunell at all matters if we win.

No he still sucks and we are going to have a hard time beating the packers without attacking their weak secondary. We can not rely on Portis to caryy the offence every week or teams will start playing a 6-5 defence {6 d-linemen and 5 LBs}