Mark Brunell

[budman]

link : : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5781908

6. Mark Brunell, quarterback, Redskins

In the first half of the 2005 season, the Redskins lefty was among the NFL's more efficient quarterbacks. In the second half of the season, he was an eye sore. Brunell's play down the stretch was rather abysmal.And the oft-injured quarterback missed a portion of mini-camp in 2006 after fracturing a finger on his throwing hand.

Washington is loaded with offensive talent after adding Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle El to Santana Moss, Clinton Portis, Chris Cooley, and a sturdy starting five on the offensive line. And the most significant pickup Washington made this off-season was bringing Al Saunders on board to calls plays. If Brunell can execute the Saunders playbook, the Redskins are a Super Bowl threat. If he can't keep himself on the field, they aren't a playoff team. (For the record, I love Jason Campbell's upside, but he might have to go through some growing pains if forced to play)."

[PA Skins Girl]

The "oft-injured" label is getting old.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I think these articles are completely useless. Please explain what is the difference between the QB situation between us, Dallas, NY, and Philly? In any case, if the QB is injured or has a very poor season, the team in going to struggle. Actually we might have the best depth at QB in our division...
And this applies to almost all the teams..if Brady or Manning go down, NE and the Colts are screwed..

[FanFromArizona]

I actually think Jason Campbell is going to have a similar situation that Ben Rothlisberger (sp?) had when he entered the league: a run-dominated, excellent receiver core, and we even have one of those players playing for us now.

Depth wise I think we have the best depth at QB amongst the NFC East teams, I would have us with a tie with Philly when rating QB depth.

My only concern with Mark is protecting his knees, if we can do that we should be able to expect a SB bound team. Mark struggled after that hit to his knees. His dropoff in productivity should be attributed to lack of playmakers after Moss, Cooley were adequately covered and the predictability of guessing when a running play was coming. That is no longer the case with our FA acquisitions. If Mark's KNEES
hold up, we'll be on the A-train to Miami this year.

[shally]

The "oft-injured" label is getting old.

given his history the last several years (not just with the skins, but with the jags as well) how else would you describe brunell?

honestly, job 1 this year is going to be for the offensive line to keep defenders off of brunell. if they cannot do that all the lofty expectations for this season are going to be put at major risk

[FanFromArizona]

Amazingly enough, this article makes no mention of Brunell:

Top Ten Players who must get it done in 2006 (http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9550200)

It seems everyone is saying the key to our success is with Brunell, so why is Brunell not listed here? [hint: because there *ARE* no worries?]

[redskinz#1fan]

I actually think Jason Campbell is going to have a similar situation that Ben Rothlisberger (sp?) had when he entered the league: a run-dominated, excellent receiver core, and we even have one of those players playing for us now.

Depth wise I think we have the best depth at QB amongst the NFC East teams, I would have us with a tie with Philly when rating QB depth.

My only concern with Mark is protecting his knees, if we can do that we should be able to expect a SB bound team. Mark struggled after that hit to his knees. His dropoff in productivity should be attributed to lack of playmakers after Moss, Cooley were adequately covered and the predictability of guessing when a running play was coming. That is no longer the case with our FA acquisitions. If Mark's KNEES
hold up, we'll be on the A-train to Miami this year.

You must have read my notes that I was writing last night about our QB situation. I hate to say this, but I don't think Brunell is going to make it through the season. I hope he does, but I just have this bad feeling. Now I do believe that if he has to play, we'll be very surprised by how well JC plays and manages the game. He just seems to have this quiet confidence about him. He will make mistakes, but our team won't drop off the face of the earth like some people assume!

[FanFromArizona]

You must have read my notes that I was writing last night about our QB situation. I hate to say this, but I don't think Brunell is going to make it through the season. I hope he does, but I just have this bad feeling. Now I do believe that if he has to play, we'll be very surprised by how well JC plays and manages the game. He just seems to have this quiet confidence about him. He will make mistakes, but our team won't drop off the face of the earth like some people assume!


I actually think the coaches are MANAGING the situation nicely, Mark is getting older, and they need to see what they have in Jason, that Training Camp is going to managed like it's Spring Training for baseball: Get the starters the time to fine-tune mechanics and getting timing patterns down, but it's probably going to be a 25%/50%/25% time allocation between Brunell, Campbell and Collins.

They will allow Brunell the time he needs to prepare for the regular season and keep him rested and the possibility of being exposed to injury minimized. The key to Mark's success unfortunately is in his knees, he needs to set and be at full strength to be the deadly QB that we got last year. His performance tanked coincidentally after the injury [he played because he had to because he was our best chance at the time].

Keep him and his knee protected and we are on the way to Miami. His age has nothing to do with it.

[shally]

I actually think the coaches are MANAGING the situation nicely, Mark is getting older, and they need to see what they have in Jason, that Training Camp is going to managed like it's Spring Training for baseball: Get the starters the time to fine-tune mechanics and getting timing patterns down, but it's probably going to be a 25%/50%/25% time allocation between Brunell, Campbell and Collins.

They will allow Brunell the time he needs to prepare for the regular season and keep him rested and the possibility of being exposed to injury minimized. The key to Mark's success unfortunately is in his knees, he needs to set and be at full strength to be the deadly QB that we got last year. His performance tanked coincidentally after the injury [he played because he had to because he was our best chance at the time].

Keep him and his knee protected and we are on the way to Miami. His age has nothing to do with it.

not just his knees, but his legs in general.. he was bad with a hamstring problem also because it affected his throwing ability... i sure hope he spent the off season working on his leg conditioning and stretching... the rest will be on the o line

[SonnyandSam]

Don't these idiots check the data before they write their drivel?

Mark's second half was as good if not better than his first half of the season!! He threw for less yardage because Portis was outstanding in many of those games. But his QB rating was probably better in the second half of the season.

He played poorly in two of our last three games. That is not the second half of the season. And part of the problem was we had no real running game. If you cannot run, you often cannot pass, either. One sets up the other.

Mark's last game against Seattle was fairly decent.

And injuries were not a problem last year. He had injury problems in two years out of his 13 years.

Mark will be find. And I think Jason will be a pleasant surprise should we need him.

[shally]

Don't these idiots check the data before they write their drivel?

Mark's second half was as good if not better than his first half of the season!! He threw for less yardage because Portis was outstanding in many of those games. But his QB rating was probably better in the second half of the season.

He played poorly in two of our last three games. That is not the second half of the season. And part of the problem was we had no real running game. If you cannot run, you often cannot pass, either. One sets up the other.

Mark's last game against Seattle was fairly decent.

And injuries were not a problem last year. He had injury problems in two years out of his 13 years.

Mark will be find. And I think Jason will be a pleasant surprise should we need him.

respectfully, i would disagree with you. brunell's accuracy was not the same after his knee was injured. clearly his mobility was not the same until the end as well. there were other factors as you pointed out, but i do not think he was the same qb after his knee was injured last year.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

respectfully, i would disagree with you. brunell's accuracy was not the same after his knee was injured. clearly his mobility was not the same until the end as well. there were other factors as you pointed out, but i do not think he was the same qb after his knee was injured last year.
Yeah, but he injured his knee against the Giants, so that's 3 and a half games out of 18...nowhere near half..and he had a 125.6 qb rating the week before against Dallas..and at least statistically, he played a pretty good game against the Seahawks, especially considering we basically had 1 WR..

[shally]

Yeah, but he injured his knee against the Giants, so that's 3 and a half games out of 18...nowhere near half..and he had a 125.6 qb rating the week before against Dallas..and at least statistically, he played a pretty good game against the Seahawks, especially considering we basically had 1 WR..

i think his performance against seattle was definitely subpar.. but as you said, he was down to one wideout.. and one td was on a tip and a prayer.

my point overall is that it is critical for the o line to protect him if our dreams of a superbowl appearance are going to be realized

[whitskins]

Also something that the media isn't pointing out is that the hit that Mark took that injured him is also illegal now. It was a straight dive with the helmet to the knee. Big Ben and Carson Palmer each sustained pretty significant injuries off of similar hits.

Brunell persevered and only missed half a game. He's really tough, it's going to take a serious injury to get him off the field this year and if he does have to play hurt we'll at least have many more weapons for him to use, as well as the best play caller in the game.

[shally]

Also something that the media isn't pointing out is that the hit that Mark took that injured him is also illegal now. It was a straight dive with the helmet to the knee. Big Ben and Carson Palmer each sustained pretty significant injuries off of similar hits.

Brunell persevered and only missed half a game. He's really tough, it's going to take a serious injury to get him off the field this year and if he does have to play hurt we'll at least have many more weapons for him to use, as well as the best play caller in the game.

but as far as i can understand, the saunders offense relies on precision timing and accuracy. the ball is thrown to a spot before the receiver makes his cut. when brunell is injured or cannot get his legs into the throw his accuracy drops and he is high on a lot of throws. that is going to be a major detriment to the saunders offense. they need to keep him healthy-- that is all i can say.

[SonnyandSam]

respectfully, i would disagree with you. brunell's accuracy was not the same after his knee was injured. clearly his mobility was not the same until the end as well. there were other factors as you pointed out, but i do not think he was the same qb after his knee was injured last year.

The guy's quote was In the second half of the season, he was an eye sore. Brunell's play down the stretch was rather abysmal.

No way he was that bad. First, he led the team to a 5-3 record in the last 8 games. His QB rating was over 90 in 4 of those games and his completion percentage was over 60 percent in 6 of the 8 games. (By comparison, Brunell was only over 60 percent completion in 3 of the first 8 games....so much for him being less accurate.)

He had one horrible game against Arizona that no one knows why he threw all those interceptions. His game against Philly was equally as bad. 2 bad games out of 8 does not make for abysmal play.

The biggest difference between the first half and the second half for Brunell were the number of pass attempts per game. In his first 8 games, he attempted 32 passes per game on average. During the second half of the season, he averaged only 25 passes. The difference was not Mark Brunell. The difference was Joe Gibbs. Portis ran the ball more and our offense became more conservative. And teams started double and triple covering Moss. That did not make Brunell a horrible quarterback in the second half of the season.

Anyone looking at the game numbers can easily see Brunell was no "eye sore" nor did he play abysmally.

The quality of his play in the second half was no worse than the first half.

[SonnyandSam]

but as far as i can understand, the saunders offense relies on precision timing and accuracy. the ball is thrown to a spot before the receiver makes his cut. when brunell is injured or cannot get his legs into the throw his accuracy drops and he is high on a lot of throws. that is going to be a major detriment to the saunders offense. they need to keep him healthy-- that is all i can say.

In that respect, the Saunders offense is no different than the Gibbs offense or virtually every other offense for that matter. Timing patterns are the bread and butter of virtually every NFL offense.

We can agree that keeping Brunell healthy is important to the Redskins playoff hopes. But then that can be said of virtually every starting quarterback on a playoff potential team. Take away Manning, Brady, McNabb, Bledsoe, Manning jr., etc, and few if any of their teams are going to the playoffs without them.

So I consider these Brunell Health arguements by the mediots specious at best.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

In that respect, the Saunders offense is no different than the Gibbs offense or virtually every other offense for that matter. Timing patterns are the bread and butter of virtually every NFL offense.

We can agree that keeping Brunell healthy is important to the Redskins playoff hopes. But then that can be said of virtually every starting quarterback on a playoff potential team. Take away Manning, Brady, McNabb, Bledsoe, Manning jr., etc, and few if any of their teams are going to the playoffs without them.

So I consider these Brunell Health arguements by the mediots specious at best.
Exactly S&S..I couldn't agree more..maybe the Falcons are the only team that would not suffer from a QB injury..all the others would..look at the Steelers' record over the past 2 years in the games Big Ben didn't play..
And in fact, I can't think of many teams that have a first-round pick from 2 years ago as the back-up..that sounds like good depth to me..what if Brunell goes down, Campbell comes in and has a Big Ben-type season?

[PA Skins Girl]

The guy's quote was

No way he was that bad. First, he led the team to a 5-3 record in the last 8 games. His QB rating was over 90 in 4 of those games and his completion percentage was over 60 percent in 6 of the 8 games. (By comparison, Brunell was only over 60 percent completion in 3 of the first 8 games....so much for him being less accurate.)

He had one horrible game against Arizona that no one knows why he threw all those interceptions. His game against Philly was equally as bad. 2 bad games out of 8 does not make for abysmal play.

The biggest difference between the first half and the second half for Brunell were the number of pass attempts per game. In his first 8 games, he attempted 32 passes per game on average. During the second half of the season, he averaged only 25 passes. The difference was not Mark Brunell. The difference was Joe Gibbs. Portis ran the ball more and our offense became more conservative. And teams started double and triple covering Moss. That did not make Brunell a horrible quarterback in the second half of the season.

Anyone looking at the game numbers can easily see Brunell was no "eye sore" nor did he play abysmally.

The quality of his play in the second half was no worse than the first half.
This is true. Brunell's numbers did decrease somewhat in the second half of the season, but primarily for the reason you stated: we didnt throw the ball as much. The one thing that did change in the second half though was his TD/INT ratio. In the first half it was a steller 12 TD/2 INT ratio. That was one of the best ratios in the league at the time. In the second half it was a very normal 11 TD/7 INT (helped by the 3 INT game against Arizona). Here are the numbers:

First Half of Season:
comp att yds TD INT
8_____14 70 0 0
20____34 291 2 0
20____36 226 2 1
30____53 322 2 0
25____41 331 3 0
13____20 252 3 0
11____28 65 0 1
21____29 224 0 0
148 255 1781 12 2 Record 5-3
Ave: 32 att/game; 223 yds/game; 58.0%; 7.0 yds/attempt; 12.0 yds/comp


Second Half of Season:
comp att yds TD INT
23___35 226 2 2
14___32 155 0 0
17___27 194 1 0
14___21 156 1 0
18___28 122 0 3
12___20 163 4 0
7____11 112 2 1
9____25 141 1 1
114 199 1269 11 7 Record 5-3
Ave: 25 att/game; 159 yds/game; 57.3%; 6.4 yds/attempt; 11.1 yds/comp

As a side note,
Clinton Portis averaged 77.5 yds/game in the first half of the season and 112.0 yds/game in the second half of the season.

[colkurtz]

Excellent analysis Pa Skins Girl!

Brunell had a few things going against him last season:

1) Played too much in the pre-season. He played a lot to prove his supremacy over Ramsey. His season was too long.

2) After mid-season the team had a one WR program. It shows the abilities of Moss and Cooley that we even had the production in the second half that we did.

3) Play calling was average at best. Often predicatable and redundant.

4) Injury - Brunell is very tough and doesn't complain. Still he suffered some loss of ability with the leg injury. Same problem with other QB's who are hurt.

Brunell is an older, still mobile QB who plays good to excellent football. He's not going to be a 100+ rated QB, but will play in the 85ish range. With this offense and Al Saunders - that will be more than enough.

[WarEagle]

On Brunell in the second half of last season-

Didn't the Skins' Defense score a bunch in the latter part of last season? I think they basically won two or three games there in the home stretch, because our O couldn't find the end zone.

Maybe I'm wrong.

[bgforever]

On Brunell in the second half of last season-

Didn't the Skins' Defense score a bunch in the latter part of last season? I think they basically won two or three games there in the home stretch, because our O couldn't find the end zone.

Maybe I'm wrong.

The final Eagles game was a tad bit hairy for a moment, as ST came through.

[shally]

The final Eagles game was a tad bit hairy for a moment, as ST came through.

i still keep thinking that if only rogers had held onto that pick in the seattle game we would have been up 10- zip and the crowd would have been totally out of it..
if if if if....

[BostonSkins]

I agree that his second half wasn't that bad. Brunell was definitely an "eyesore" in the two playoff games though. But, you gotta dance with the girl that got you to the party, or something like that. He kept us in games, but never made any plays to win games. The reason we couldn't run in the Seattle game is because they knew Brunell was toast and stacked the box daring him to throw and he still couldn't get the ball downfield. If he stays healthy I like our chances this year because he makes good decisions with the ball, and I'm not a big Brunell guy.

[Redskin4Life]

I agree that his second half wasn't that bad. Brunell was definitely an "eyesore" in the two playoff games though. But, you gotta dance with the girl that got you to the party, or something like that. He kept us in games, but never made any plays to win games. The reason we couldn't run in the Seattle game is because they knew Brunell was toast and stacked the box daring him to throw and he still couldn't get the ball downfield. If he stays healthy I like our chances this year because he makes good decisions with the ball, and I'm not a big Brunell guy.
I thought the main reason why we lost the Hawks game wasn't cause Brunell choked it away but more of the fact that Seattle triple and quadruple teamed Moss, stacked the box for Portis/Betts and manned up on Cooley. The other WRs choked when given the opportunity to shine... I remember SEVERAL dropped passes. But then again, it's such a painful memory that I try to forget it...

[BostonSkins]

I thought the main reason why we lost the Hawks game wasn't cause Brunell choked it away but more of the fact that Seattle triple and quadruple teamed Moss, stacked the box for Portis/Betts and manned up on Cooley. The other WRs choked when given the opportunity to shine... I remember SEVERAL dropped passes. But then again, it's such a painful memory that I try to forget it...

I didn't mean to imply that Brunell choked. I thought he looked injured and couldn't put any zip on the ball. There definitely were some bad drops that made a bad situation worse, but there were also some awful throws.

[colkurtz]

I didn't mean to imply that Brunell choked. I thought he looked injured and couldn't put any zip on the ball. There definitely were some bad drops that made a bad situation worse, but there were also some awful throws.

The whole offense had run out of steam by that game. We just didn't have any production at all from WR's #2-4 and they just stuffed Moss, Cooley and Portis.

No WR threat, except for Moss. No real pass rush from our DE's. Two huge problem areas which were exploited at the upper levels of the playoffs.

Things will be different this season.

[Patrick]

MB's problems towards the end of the season had more to do with lack of options than it did with injury. REGARDLESS - that is now history. This year is an entire different story. A NEW offense will be set in motion and IMO it will be one that will improve all aspects. Portis and Burnell's production should benifit greatly from it.

[Redskin4Life]

The whole offense had run out of steam by that game. We just didn't have any production at all from WR's #2-4 and they just stuffed Moss, Cooley and Portis.

No WR threat, except for Moss. No real pass rush from our DE's. Two huge problem areas which were exploited at the upper levels of the playoffs.

Things will be different this season.
I don't blame the pass rush too much since there was bad footing later in the game from the rain but the lack of production from the remaining WRs (Patten, Thrash were done for the season and Moss was BLANKETED) was definitely our downfall. Later in the game, Brunell seemed to step it up and got us our late TD to Moss.

[Redskin4Life]

I didn't mean to imply that Brunell choked. I thought he looked injured and couldn't put any zip on the ball. There definitely were some bad drops that made a bad situation worse, but there were also some awful throws.
I don't know if I'm remember the game wrong (it's quiet possible since I got completely hammered that night)... I was pretty sure that Brunell had a decent game (much better than the week before) but definitely not a game-winning performance. I honestly would put it on the same level with the pre-TO playoff games by McNabb.

[Red Bear]

I don't know if I'm remember the game wrong (it's quiet possible since I got completely hammered that night)... I was pretty sure that Brunell had a decent game (much better than the week before) but definitely not a game-winning performance. I honestly would put it on the same level with the pre-TO playoff games by McNabb.

brunell had a decent 4th quarter in Seattle, but by then it was too late

[3644Skins]

The difference was not Mark Brunell. The difference was Joe Gibbs. Portis ran the ball more and our offense became more conservative. And teams started double and triple covering Moss. That did not make Brunell a horrible quarterback in the second half of the season.

Anyone looking at the game numbers can easily see Brunell was no "eye sore" nor did he play abysmally.

The quality of his play in the second half was no worse than the first half.


You also have to take account the 2 horrible playoff games he had, I know they're including those in there.