You know it.. Brunell Thread.

[Syllable]

No straight out CUT HIM thread, but just a hint of reality here.

As a preface to all of this let me get this out. This is the first game with a new offense, Minni had the same problem except our defense couldnt even stop a 3rd and +7. Many things looked good, ARE involved and Moss with a buck that game. Portis played well dispite him not playing the whole 2nd half, which either he couldn't play it, or they see something in Betts that I don't see. We lost because of our Defense no way to go around it. These guys are vets and to leave a first day offense hanging like that, you dont expect much. The O had the spark, but with their Time of possesion we couldn't even get on the field.

Now on to the bash, or 'hints' to Brunell. It'll be like i'm talking to him.

Yo Mark the number one reason why we couldn't do anything in the redzone is, you ruined it almost everytime. The fumble was you, but thats reasonable. What isn't is not trusting your receivers enough. You have 3 good weapons and a Tight end. We should never see you throwing the ball away when your trying to grab a lead. Peyton Manning at least gives his receivers a shot and risks INTS but at least there is a chance of conversion. Throwing the ball away when we are up by a touchdown is management, throwing it away when we are trying to establish a lead is nothing short of wasting a drive, 3 points are nice, but you could at least try a safe pass.

There were deep plays called, what im seeing is that you are only passing deep when the guy is clearly wide open, I saw lloyd running throw the middle a couple plays with only one guy on him, while it is bad to do that at least trust your receivers to win the ball over. Its not allways good to just dump it off for 2 yards.. or throw it away.

Im not calling for a change in linup but these are some stuff I saw that need to be changed if we want to be the 21+ points a game. He NEEDS to take some risks. He is playing too conservative, there are times where you throw it away, or take a sack. But not every 3rd down to preserve the field goal. Some may say "Well 3 points is better than nothing" I'd rather have him take a safe pass or at least give our recievers a chance.

[ryflan47]

Well there are times when it is appropriate to be conservative and there are times when its appropriate to take a chance. I feel like Gibbs brought Brunell here to be conservative.

[Syllable]

You know who isnt conservative? Al Saunders. His offense relies on deep passes, and throwing the ball. If Brunell is going to say Conservative, he might as well join the republican party, cause that aint gonna cut it here.

[dj_stouty]

Yo Mark the number one reason why we couldn't do anything in the redzone is, you ruined it almost everytime.

How could anything be Brunell's fault in the Redzone. Only two passing plays were called in the Red Zone the entire game.

There were deep plays called, what im seeing is that you are only passing deep when the guy is clearly wide open

Prove it. Just because a guy runs down the field doesn't mean the play is designed for that route.

He NEEDS to take some risks.

Yeah...and if he took risks last night in a close game that turned into an INT or two or three, this thread would be demanding Jason Campbell to start. Jake Plummer took risks against the Rams, and look at what that got him.

[ryflan47]

You know who isnt conservative? Al Saunders. His offense relies on deep passes, and throwing the ball. If Brunell is going to say Conservative, he might as well join the republican party, cause that aint gonna cut it here.

LOL. Gibbs does have jurisdiction over Saunders though. I don't think we've even seen enough yet to decide. We need to see us against the girls.

[Syllable]

How could anything be Brunell's fault in the Redzone. Only two passing plays were called in the Red Zone the entire game.



Prove it. Just because a guy runs down the field doesn't mean the play is designed for that route.



Yeah...and if he took risks last night in a close game that turned into an INT or two or three, this thread would be demanding Jason Campbell to start. Jake Plummer took risks against the Rams, and look at what that got him.
1. Can I get the outcome of those 2 passing plays, Better yet dont worry I bet I know what they are.

2.What are you trying to say, that you were going throw all of saunders playcalls and knowing who the hot wideout was? I'm Just saying that that I did see people over 10 yards on man to man, that I can prove.

3. On the contrary He cant take risks and end up without any touchdowns and a lackluster 120 yards, tack on like 40 with the screens and you have 160, impressive.

If I wanted Jason Cambell in, I would simply made some JC thread and start yelling. This is a thread to point out errors in your qb, but then against Brunell is perfect and we are to get a 16-0 season... oh wait.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

The following is me talking to Tom Brady:

Yo, Tom, we need to sit down and have a little chit-chat here. I know you've got the whole Zoolander-esque "Is there more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good-looking?" thing going for you, and that it's hard to lift your hand with all those Super Bowl rings on it, but let's be clear - completing less than 50% of your passes in Week 1 just ain't gonna cut it anymore. If you're not gonna try to hit at least 2/3 of your throws right on the money, then I'm sorry, but we've got this guy who backed up Matt Leinart, and there's an outside chance he might be good if we start him over you.

Realistically, Tom, we know that a single game, especially Week 1, is a fantastic way to extrapolate the rest of the season. Just look at Denver's first game last year. Or the 31-0 shellacking you took from the Bills a couple years ago. Heck, I heard your buddy Mark Brunell didn't look too hot in last year's opening game - I bet you two enjoyed sitting on the couch come playoff time, huh?

I mean, for God's sake, you were outgained by J.P. Friggin' Losman. And that fumble on the first play of the game? Completely your fault. Don't give me any of that "Oh, but Takeo is so fast, and he came through unblocked" nonsense - get rid of the ball like a good NFL quarterback, or you're gonna find yourself on the bench faster than you can say "Drew Bledsoe." Mmkay, pumpkin?

(There probably isn't a person on this board who was more critical of Mark Brunell two years ago than I was, but that was after a long series of games that looked much worse than this one. Just like there's no reason to fire Al Saunders after one sub-par game, and there's no reason to fire Gregg Williams after Minnesota figured him out on third down, there's no reason to believe Brunell isn't the same healthy QB that looked really, really good until the Giants banged up his knee last year. He had no time on virtually any pass that wasn't a screen or three-step drop, and barely had a chance in the red zone. Let's not forget that he handled that one-minute drill situation about as well as an quarterback in football could. In other words, give things more than a week before smashing the Panic Button.)

[danny's stogie]

The second he throws a pick you'll whine about that too, let's just bring back Patrick Whamsey. :cry:

Without Brunell spending the whole offseason learning Saunders complex offense the Skins get shut out.

[BostonSkins]

He threw a nice ball to Santana in the back of the end zone that was jarred loose by a great hit. I thought that was one of his best balls of the day.

Sometimes you just have to tip your cap to the defense on a nice play and good coverage, I thought Minn had both in the red zone all night

[dj_stouty]

Syllable...i was wrong. Brunell had 4 attempts in the Red Zone.

1 completion
2 incompletions
1 drop

Anyway, a big reason we were still "in" the game last night to the very end was because of Brunell not turnign over the ball. We both know Brunell isn't getting any younger and this is probably his last year as a starter. Under those circumstances, we will probably have to play close games all season. I'll take 16 close, competitive games this season than a roller coaster season thanks to the risky play of our QB.

[Syllable]

Did I spell it out clear enough? The thread is about critquing his performance, not about asking for a change. Seriously you either dont know football or you are close to Brunell if you say his performance last night was what we wanted.

He took a step foreward, learning the offense. I simply stated what he needed to improve on, or are we too homerish to accept that fact that our starting qb has some problems to fix?

I meant this thread to be a critque(Sp?) on his gameplay lastnight and what he did wrong I put all the good in the preface and left some of my thoughts on the games performance.

Stouty thats exactly what I'm Saying This the the way Brunell WANTS to play, so there is nothing wrong with him playing close games, but playing safe every game wont get you far, we have been riding the defense for 2 years, its time to make some noise on the other side

On the Moss TD, yes he did get laid out but the pass was great, its not a question of arm strength he threaded the needle a couple of times, its how much he wants to risk, which in my oppinion is not enough.

[shally]

Did I spell it out clear enough? The thread is about critquing his performance, not about asking for a change. Seriously you either dont know football or you are close to Brunell if you say his performance last night was what we wanted.

He took a step foreward, learning the offense. I simply stated what he needed to improve on, or are we too homerish to accept that fact that our starting qb has some problems to fix?

I meant this thread to be a critque(Sp?) on his gameplay lastnight and what he did wrong I put all the good in the preface and left some of my thoughts on the games performance.

Stouty thats exactly what I'm Saying This the the way Brunell WANTS to play, so there is nothing wrong with him playing close games, but playing safe every game wont get you far, we have been riding the defense for 2 years, its time to make some noise on the other side

On the Moss TD, yes he did get laid out but the pass was great, its not a question of arm strength he threaded the needle a couple of times, its how much he wants to risk, which in my oppinion is not enough.

respectfully you are wrong about the endzone pass. the pass was perfect. the timing was perfect. the placement was perfect.. unfortunately, the defensive play was perfect. 1/2 second later and there is no window to get it in. 1/2 sec earlier and he has not cleared the db.. sometimes you just have to appreciate an all pro play against your team.. that is what sharper did..

[SkinsfaninNJ]

First I will grant that Brounell did not have a lot of time to throw, but he should have taken more than one shot downfield (counting the completion to Moss) for the following reasons:

1. The Vikes sat the starting free safety and blitzed early and often.
2. We have very good and fast receivers, who despite the height have proven the ability to go get the ball in the air.
3. The Minn. corners are good but not better than Carlos who was beat twice on long balls.

I just think at some point you have to take the chance, and no I would not have complained if we were at our own 40 and got picked off at their 20 trying to make something happen.

[Syllable]

first thing I did was call out credit to Sharper, I hope ST becomes better than what Sharper is right now, that would be an accomplishment.

[Axegrinder]

Does every player deserve his own thread?
Couldn't this all be dealt with in one of the post game threads?

[LATrueRedskin]

First I will grant that Brounell did not have a lot of time to throw, but he should have taken more than one shot downfield (counting the completion to Moss) for the following reasons:

1. The Vikes sat the starting free safety and blitzed early and often.
2. We have very good and fast receivers, who despite the height have proven the ability to go get the ball in the air.
3. The Minn. corners are good but not better than Carlos who was beat twice on long balls.

I just think at some point you have to take the chance, and no I would not have complained if we were at our own 40 and got picked off at their 20 trying to make something happen.

Well, that's kind of a problem. If you don't have time in the pocket to allow deep plays to develop, you can't really throw the ball deep. Our offensive line showed that they could only hold back defenders for a short period of time, thus the shorter routes and screen plays. I'm sure Brunell would love to throw 60 yard TD bombs every play, but it can't happen if you don't have the time.

[Syllable]

To Axe

Most seem to be honoring players or something about some dude named Yoder.

LATrueRedskin Brings up a point, our pressure was nowhere to be found which gave williamson A chance to run deep.

Elaborating he also brings up another great point, What if williamson made those catches, Do you think Brunells play would have changed? Or fan Reaction? It would have been a field day if Brunell was pressured into Clutch Decisions and failed.

I'm Going to point out 3 good things though since I only posted bad:

1. He did Make a Successfull 2 minute drill happen.. Actually 1 minute but good enough.
2. He does make good decisions when he passes, even if they are dump of passes. Think of it if Cooley and Portis were there to receive those dumpoffs?
3. I dont know what most reporters are saying about an "ON" button, he came out there and showed everyone that this offense works, whoever expects us to score 41 points againsts a defensive team on our first try can go find a job at SI.

[dj_stouty]

Stouty thats exactly what I'm Saying This the the way Brunell WANTS to play, so there is nothing wrong with him playing close games, but playing safe every game wont get you far, we have been riding the defense for 2 years, its time to make some noise on the other side

I disagree. I think this is they way GIBBS wants him to play. We saw how long Patrick Ramsey lasted into last season (19 minutes) playing risky football. I'm sorry to inform you, but Gibbs doesn't coach the kind of football you desire. He REQUIRES his QBs to toss the ball away when the WRs can't get open.

It seems to me that you may want to start critiqing Gibbs on this matter.

[Spence]

Anyone who was at the game last night could see that Brunell was running the offense sent in to him. It's not easy to see it on TV because of the limited and truncated camera shots they use, but at the game you can see that the wideouts simply didn't run deep routes last night. The game plan was for the passing game to be contained within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Bigger gains were to come from missed and broken tackles, not from using the speed of Moss and the elusiveness of ARE and the size of Lloyd to get past defenders and into the open secondary. Brunell threw the passes he was instructed to throw. He was not missing open wideouts downfield. THERE WERE NO WIDEOUTS DOWNFIELD.

[PA Skins Girl]

At what point in the game last night did you feel it warranted raising the risk level we should have been taking? I thought the risk level was appropriate for the back and forth game that it was.

[Syllable]

So getting closelined = risky. As for the Gibbs comment about him being conservative, he is conservative. But if this was Gibbs decision it would be more like last year, when we did go deep for most pass playes, Hence the high amount of 20+ yard catches we had last year.

PA Skins Girl: 3rd quarter, when our defense was getting tired and we went 3 and out. Honestly Gibbs offense last year was a ball control team, this one isnt. More fast pace offense so that you get off the field. Especially with Portis not in 100% to carrly the load. This means that we have to go in for 4 minutes and play conservitive 3 point drives, while they go for 6-8 mins and drive and drive and get 3 points along with a couple missed opportunities that could have been 6.

Why people think that saying something bad against Mark Brunell is blasphemy I have no idea.

[dj_stouty]

So getting closelined = risky. As for the Gibbs comment about him being conservative, he is conservative. But if this was Gibbs decision it would be more like last year, when we did go deep for most pass playes, Hence the high amount of 20+ yard catches we had last year.

This was only one game. Its not like Gibbs will NEVER call deep shots. I agree with PASkinsGirl and Spence that the gameplan didn't call for it for week one.

[BurgundyNGold]

This was only one game. Its not like Gibbs will NEVER call deep shots. I agree with PASkinsGirl and Spence that the gameplan didn't call for it for week one.
I also think that they might've only show about half the playbook. After all, we play Dallass next week. That's a divisional game against our most hated foe.

[PA Skins Girl]

Anyone who was at the game last night could see that Brunell was running the offense sent in to him. It's not easy to see it on TV because of the limited and truncated camera shots they use, but at the game you can see that the wideouts simply didn't run deep routes last night. The game plan was for the passing game to be contained within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Bigger gains were to come from missed and broken tackles, not from using the speed of Moss and the elusiveness of ARE and the size of Lloyd to get past defenders and into the open secondary. Brunell threw the passes he was instructed to throw. He was not missing open wideouts downfield. THERE WERE NO WIDEOUTS DOWNFIELD.
Exactly. And after studying film for several weeks, that is what our coaches thought gave us the best chance to win. Anyone here that thinks they know more about putting together a game plan should submit their resume to Redskin Park.

[PA Skins Girl]

So getting closelined = risky. As for the Gibbs comment about him being conservative, he is conservative. But if this was Gibbs decision it would be more like last year, when we did go deep for most pass playes, Hence the high amount of 20+ yard catches we had last year.

PA Skins Girl: 3rd quarter, when our defense was getting tired and we went 3 and out. Honestly Gibbs offense last year was a ball control team, this one isnt. More fast pace offense so that you get off the field. Especially with Portis not in 100% to carrly the load. This means that we have to go in for 4 minutes and play conservitive 3 point drives, while they go for 6-8 mins and drive and drive and get 3 points along with a couple missed opportunities that could have been 6.

Why people think that saying something bad against Mark Brunell is blasphemy I have no idea. We were very conservative in game 1 last year too, if you recall. We squeaked out with a 9-7 victory.

[Syllable]

Exactly. And after studying film for several weeks, that is what our coaches thought gave us the best chance to win. Anyone here that thinks they know more about putting together a game plan should submit their resume to Redskin Park.

: ) Almost as if people perposely change the subject, were talking about Brunell Playing soft and throwing it out of bounds on third down plays. All I have been seeing is people talking about how conservative gibbs is at coaching.


We were very conservative in game 1 last year too, if you recall. We squeaked out with a 9-7 victory.

last year was 2005, last year our defense stopped them every drive just about. Last year Ram was playing that game.

This may sound harsh toward the skins. But Playing it close against a rookie headcoach, no matter how much he did and a subpar receiving core will not cut it against the Girls, nor will it against more than half the others who have an established teams who DONT make mistakes. They made plenty with drops and miscues of a young team.

[dj_stouty]

I also think that they might've only show about half the playbook. After all, we play Dallass next week. That's a divisional game against our most hated foe.

Great point. Technically the Dallas defensive backfield has no tape to gameplan from.

[LATrueRedskin]

So getting closelined = risky. As for the Gibbs comment about him being conservative, he is conservative. But if this was Gibbs decision it would be more like last year, when we did go deep for most pass playes, Hence the high amount of 20+ yard catches we had last year.

PA Skins Girl: 3rd quarter, when our defense was getting tired and we went 3 and out. Honestly Gibbs offense last year was a ball control team, this one isnt. More fast pace offense so that you get off the field. Especially with Portis not in 100% to carrly the load. This means that we have to go in for 4 minutes and play conservitive 3 point drives, while they go for 6-8 mins and drive and drive and get 3 points along with a couple missed opportunities that could have been 6.

Why people think that saying something bad against Mark Brunell is blasphemy I have no idea.

It's not that, it's just that Brunell played pretty well. In my opinion, our problems on offense were in playcalling and personell miscues, not Brunell's play.

About Brunell throwing the ball away, that's what you want in a QB if nothing's there, lead or no lead. If no one's open, no one's open. There's no point in throwing an INT because everybody is covered. As he showed, if tucking it and running it were available, he did and would have done it. Brunell is usually super smart with the ball, which is a great plus with him in my mind.

[dj_stouty]

: ) Almost as if people perposely change the subject, were talking about Brunell Playing soft and throwing it out of bounds on third down plays. All I have been seeing is people talking about how conservative gibbs is at coaching.

Again. Gibbs is the one who requires Brunell to throw it out of bounds on 3rd down instead of possibly throwing an INT. He would rather kick a FG or punt for field position than bank on a high risk, low probability play.

[Syllable]

It's not that, it's just that Brunell played pretty well. In my opinion, our problems on offense were in playcalling and personell miscues, not Brunell's play.

About Brunell throwing the ball away, that's what you want in a QB if nothing's there, lead or no lead. If no one's open, no one's open. There's no point in throwing an INT because everybody is covered. As he showed, if tucking it and running it were available, he did and would have done it. Brunell is usually super smart with the ball, which is a great plus with him in my mind.

Yea but there are plays like fades and stuff that are usually either the wideout catches it or incomplete. Ditching 3rd downs is my main concern.

[LATrueRedskin]

Yea but there are plays like fades and stuff that are usually either the wideout catches it or incomplete. Ditching 3rd downs is my main concern.

Well then it's on Coach Saunders. Brunell runs the play, he doesn't call it. Coach Saunders needs to call fade routes if that's what he wants.

[Syllable]

Cant really change the thread name since Saunders made Betts look like a half good runner out there and what I see in his running game Is something I will appreciate for years to come.

He also led a no sack/int game.

Another thing that got me was how he only had 120 yards maybe 160 if those screen players were added. Which they shouldnt be because in the NFL if you cant throw a quick screen your in trouble. Brunell roughly had around 100 yards, first game thats fine. But Screens against Freaks like Ware and :Sob: (cheater, bad at coverage, terrible, and overated) Roy Williams we might have to go deep this game, and I expect we will.

[whistleandthumb]

This thread gets my vote for most asinine ever.

Mark Brunell isn't Peyton Manning, but he's also not Charlie Frye. He took us to the freakin' playoffs last year, and played a pretty solid game last night. He's the best chance we have to win. Period. End of discussion.

[Syllable]

So a conversation on how he can improve is just way over then just because hes over 30. And I do beleive that he is higher than what most people rate him, his arm looked Strong, Its just how last year he didn't have these weapons and was forced to either throw it to Taylor Jacobs which resulted in an int or throw it into coverage, It will take him time to grow chemistry with these receivers.

[whistleandthumb]

So a conversation on how he can improve is just way over then just because hes over 30. And I do beleive that he is higher than what most people rate him, his arm looked Strong, Its just how last year he didn't have these weapons and was forced to either throw it to Taylor Jacobs which resulted in an int or throw it into coverage, It will take him time to grow chemistry with these receivers.
Dude... he had 10 INT's last year, and 3 of those came against the Cards in a fluke bad game for Brunell. So 7 INT's in 15 games... that's pretty good. He threw for over 3000 yards, so he must've been hitting SOME open guys. Yes, it'll take time to develop chemistry with these receivers, but Mark is one of the smartest QB's in the league. He knows when to make throws, when to throw it away, when to take off and run with it, when to take a sack, etc.

Brunell isn't going to LOSE many games for us, and you're smart enough to know that Mark wasn't the one who lost that game for us last night. In fact, he made a few FANTASTIC throws to get us in position to even tie the game. If anything, we should be carrying him on our shoulders for his effort last night.

[Syllable]

When Patten went down our ints increased though. And Yet again..... I posted that to see on what he can improve to make him better. I didnt say force it in, but take a risk on a 1v1 wr play once.

[akhhorus]

Until Campbell can show that he won't implode when thrown out there(which he hasn't done yet), Brunell is our only option. That being said, if Brunell completely falls apart or is hurt badly, i think we should go to Campbell.

[NCskinsfanatic]

The second he throws a pick you'll whine about that too, let's just bring back Patrick Whamsey. :cry:

Without Brunell spending the whole offseason learning Saunders complex offense the Skins get shut out.
Agreed, he did nothing but manage the game with less of a running game and more pressure than Brad Johnson had to work with. I expected there to be kinks with a new play caller and offense, but it's ridiculus how people like to only blame Brunell. Year one he was banged up, his line was horrible, he had no Wrs to speak of and he looked bad because of it. Year two he had some rough moments here and there but overall looked like a playoff caliber QB. so far this year he has managed a ball game while under constant pressure, he had little run support and never turned it over, not once...plus if not for his poise and leadership Hall doesn't even get the chance to miss the 48yd FG.

[Syllable]

I clearly blammed the defense on 3rd downs. And to back what ankh said Untill Brunell Drastically Declines to a Bledsoe I dont see a change or want.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Cant really change the thread name since Saunders made Betts look like a half good runner out there and what I see in his running game Is something I will appreciate for years to come.

He also led a no sack/int game.

Another thing that got me was how he only had 120 yards maybe 160 if those screen players were added. Which they shouldnt be because in the NFL if you cant throw a quick screen your in trouble. Brunell roughly had around 100 yards, first game thats fine. But Screens against Freaks like Ware and :Sob: (cheater, bad at coverage, terrible, and overated) Roy Williams we might have to go deep this game, and I expect we will.
Ok this post makes absolutely no sense.
Point by point:
1)Betts: 8 carries for 22 yards. That's a whopping 2.75 yards per carry. So that not only sucks, but is way below his career average, so, if anything, Saunders "made" Betts play worse than usual.
2)The no sack/int. The sacks don't depend on either Brunell or Saunders. They depend on the line, which did a good job of not giving them up but a bad one of not giving Mark much time to throw. As for the ints, you have been saying for 3 pages that you would prefer ints to incomplete passes, so make up your mind.
3)Your stats are completely wrong. Brunell had 163 yards passing not counting the screens, 191 counting them, plus 7 yards on 2 carries. Not exactly sure where you are getting your stats from.

[Syllable]

Ok this post makes absolutely no sense.
Point by point:
1)Betts: 8 carries for 22 yards. That's a whopping 2.75 yards per carry. So that not only sucks, but is way below his career average, so, if anything, Saunders "made" Betts play worse than usual.
2)The no sack/int. The sacks don't depend on either Brunell or Saunders. They depend on the line, which did a good job of not giving them up but a bad one of not giving Mark much time to throw. As for the ints, you have been saying for 3 pages that you would prefer ints to oncomplete passes, so make up your mind.
3)Your stats are completely wrong. Brunell had 163 yards passing not counting the screens, 191 counting them, plus 7 yards on 2 carries. Not exactly sure where you are getting your stats from.
1.... Betts converted a third down and made some Good first down runs, his average was pulled down at the end of the game.
2. No matter how hard the oline plays playcalling has a huge impact on sacks and ints..
3. I counted the yards that werent given on screans or short flat passes. But then against some people call a quick dumpoff to betts and a nice second effort by blocking a remarkable play by the QB.

Thridly I have not said one thing about ints, playing aggressive doesnt make ints, your rant failed at this point horridly. Going deep so only your receiver can catch it or a fade pattern, or leading your receiver doesnt = ints. I actually said rather than throwing 3rd downs away try and do something find a check down give your receivers or running backs a chance. And thanks for prooving my point that if you call out Brunell the Holy Catholic Church is after you.

There is a difference, playing aggressive and playing stupid.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I think one of things that was lacking last night was giving our receivers a chance to make a play. Yes, there is more risk to that than always hitting the open receiver or throwing it away, but at some point, we have to give Moss, ARE et al a chance to show they can out run, out jump or out muscle the defender for the ball. Wasn't Moss one of the top receivers last year making huge plays in coverage? Isn't lloyd suppossed to be able to make catches that no one else can make?

I was watching the game thinking take the shot. Why not? I don't think there should be so much anger in this thread for some fans wanting Brounell to take the chance to make the big play, and if you don't think Saunders wants the big play than you are clearly not paying attention to what he has been saying since his arrival.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

1.... Betts converted a third down and made some Good first down runs, his average was pulled down at the end of the game.
2. No matter how hard the oline plays playcalling has a huge impact on sacks and ints..
3. I counted the yards that werent given on screans or short flat passes. But then against some people call a quick dumpoff to betts and a nice second effort by blocking a remarkable play by the QB.

Thridly I have not said one thing about ints, playing aggressive doesnt make ints, your rant failed at this point horridly. Going deep so only your receiver can catch it or a fade pattern, or leading your receiver doesnt = ints. I actually said rather than throwing 3rd downs away try and do something find a check down give your receivers or running backs a chance. And thanks for prooving my point that if you call out Brunell the Holy Catholic Church is after you.

There is a difference, playing aggressive and playing stupid.
1)These were Betts's runs:
(8:55) L.Betts left end to MIN 47 for 5 yards (F.Smoot).
(6:10) L.Betts left end to MIN 29 for no gain (K.Udeze).
(5:27) L.Betts right tackle to MIN 25 for 4 yards (N.Harris).
(4:04) L.Betts left guard to MIN 13 for 3 yards (R.Edwards, E.Henderson).
(10:00) L.Betts right end to MIN 41 for no gain (E.Henderson).
(14:48) L.Betts left end to WAS 26 for 1 yard (P.Williams).
(6:02) L.Betts right end to MIN 4 for 7 yards (A.Winfield).
(6:56) L.Betts left end to WAS 34 for 2 yards (F.Smoot).
He converted 0 first downs. His best run was his second-to-last. Still not exactly sure what you are talking about there.
2)??? How so? Do you mean the playcall is "take a sack" or "Throw it into double coverage"?
3)Any pass where the ball is thrown forward counts. I have no idea why they should not, whether it be a hail mary or a dumpoff to Portis or Betts. And when did anybody say Brunell had a remarkable day?

You said Peyton Manning risks the INT but gives his receiver a chance. And you have been saying for 3 pages that he should not throw it away but do something else with it, even though he is seeing nobody open. And how exactly do you "go deep so only your receiver can catch it"?
And by the way, the thing I was most arguing about your post was the first 2 points about Betts and the sack/int. Mine was not a rant, it's just that I don't like it when people argument their points using made up stats (like you have done twice in a row now).

[Syllable]

I think one of things that was lacking last night was giving our receivers a chance to make a play. Yes, there is more risk to that than always hitting the open receiver or throwing it away, but at some point, we have to give Moss, ARE et al a chance to show they can out run, out jump or out muscle the defender for the ball. Wasn't Moss one of the top receivers last year making huge plays in coverage? Isn't lloyd suppossed to be able to make catches that no one else can make?

I was watching the game thinking take the shot. Why not? I don't think there should be so much anger in this thread for some fans wanting Brounell to take the chance to make the big play, and if you don't think Saunders wants the big play than you are clearly not paying attention to what he has been saying since his arrival.
Nicely said, This may sound like suicide but hes gotta sometimes chuck it out there and let the receiver make a play on the ball.

[Syllable]

1)These were Betts's runs:
(8:55) L.Betts left end to MIN 47 for 5 yards (F.Smoot).
(6:10) L.Betts left end to MIN 29 for no gain (K.Udeze).
(5:27) L.Betts right tackle to MIN 25 for 4 yards (N.Harris).
(4:04) L.Betts left guard to MIN 13 for 3 yards (R.Edwards, E.Henderson).
(10:00) L.Betts right end to MIN 41 for no gain (E.Henderson).
(14:48) L.Betts left end to WAS 26 for 1 yard (P.Williams).
(6:02) L.Betts right end to MIN 4 for 7 yards (A.Winfield).
(6:56) L.Betts left end to WAS 34 for 2 yards (F.Smoot).
He converted 0 first downs. His best run was his second-to-last. Still not exactly sure what you are talking about there.
2)??? How so? Do you mean the playcall is "take a sack" or "Throw it into double coverage"?
3)Any pass where the ball is thrown forward counts. I have no idea why they should not, whether it be a hail mary or a dumpoff to Portis or Betts. And when did anybody say Brunell had a remarkable day?

You said Peyton Manning risks the INT but gives his receiver a chance. And you have been saying for 3 pages that he should not throw it away but do something else with it, even though he is seeing nobody open. And how exactly do you "go deep so only your receiver can catch it"?
And by the way, the thing I was most arguing about your post was the first 2 points about Betts and the sack/int. Mine was not a rant, it's just that I don't like it when people argument their points using made up stats (like you have done twice in a row now).

2. Calling a PA when your not supposed too... Maybe you didn't know a man we had before, by the name of Steve Spurrier, you were around back then right? I say you blammed all those sacks on Ramsey when He was calling shotgun on an allman blitz, and designing TE's on Simeon Rice, Gotcha. Playcalling has nothing to do with sacks.
3. Your saying things like he played a sound game and a smart one, which in all means he did, but your saying that ok we need a qb with talent to throw a hitch play and screans what he did most of the game. The Deep balls were Tallent which he has and wouldnt bad to do. Dumpoffs are far from a deep pass, Thats how Mcnabb gets his Chunkey Soup, he goes short flats all day then Airs it out.

4. Throwing to a receiver who can only catch it is in so many plays.. Curl. Your in front of the ball so low chance of interception unless its a poorly thrown pass or the cb is in front of him. Deep Strike throw is so Moss is in a footrace with the cb, and either throw it so the wr can barely catch it or it goes way off. Or simply lead your receiver so he has to catch it with outstretched hands. And I highly doubt that there werent times when he didnt want to take a chance on a pass so he threw it away(which I agree is the right thing to do). What Im saying is that you have to take a chance on things. This doesnt mean that next game I want brunell to never throw it out of bounds and go deep every play, but on third down if you throw the ball away so many times or in the redzone while a game is close, sometime in that game your gonna have to make a difference to take the game and control it.

And yes, I dont know what game I was watching with those betts plays :-0

[SpicyMcHaggis]

2. Calling a PA when your not supposed too... Maybe you didn't know a man we had before, by the name of Steve Spurrier, you were around back then right? I say you blammed all those sacks on Ramsey when He was calling shotgun on an allman blitz, and designing TE's on Simeon Rice, Gotcha. Playcalling has nothing to do with sacks.
You really are comparing Gibbs and Saunders to Steve Spurrier?? Really??

3. Your saying things like he played a sound game and a smart one, which in all means he did, but your saying that ok we need a qb with talent to throw a hitch play and screans what he did most of the game. The Deep balls were Tallent which he has and wouldnt bad to do. Dumpoffs are far from a deep pass, Thats how Mcnabb gets his Chunkey Soup, he goes short flats all day then Airs it out.

I don't know where you are reading all this stuff that I'm saying, but I haven't said a word about Brunell's play. I've just said that he did not throw for 100 yards, but for 160+, and 190 if you count the screens. That's a fact. All the rest, honestly, I don't know where you are getting it...

4. Throwing to a receiver who can only catch it is in so many plays.. Curl. Your in front of the ball so low chance of interception unless its a poorly thrown pass or the cb is in front of him. Deep Strike throw is so Moss is in a footrace with the cb, and either throw it so the wr can barely catch it or it goes way off. Or simply lead your receiver so he has to catch it with outstretched hands. And I highly doubt that there werent times when he didnt want to take a chance on a pass so he threw it away(which I agree is the right thing to do). What Im saying is that you have to take a chance on things. This doesnt mean that next game I want brunell to never throw it out of bounds and go deep every play, but on third down if you throw the ball away so many times or in the redzone while a game is close, sometime in that game your gonna have to make a difference to take the game and control it.

Look, I understand your point. The problem is that not only is Brunell not gonna take those risks, but neither is Gibbs. He has proven time and time again that he won't. Especially in a game like last night's. So it's really a moot point.

And yes, I dont know what game I was watching with those betts plays :-0
Lol...no problem! :)

[csquared]

How ridiculous is this thread. If you think Jason Campbell would have done any better you are on some sort of dillusional drug. Why bash Brunell. Wasnt his fault Sharper drilled Moss. Perfect pass but as Shally said perfect defensive play by a veteran ( probably HOF) saftey. Brunell isnt calling the plays. He doesnt have the luxury to change plays like Peyton Manning. Complaining about him throwing the ball away is just plain idiotic. Would you rather him try to force throws in and throw picks like old #11 did? Brunell should be the last person you bash after a game like that. How about the O line? The one play in the redzone the dt practicaly handed Brunell the ball and sacked him.

ANYONE is there any way to not see anything Syllable types?? Like the ignore button?:sfight:

[whistleandthumb]

Syllable:

Mate, I'm sure you're in a rush when you're posting, but PRETTY PLEASE with sugar on top, proofread your posts or use spell check. Your posts are getting increasingly difficult to read, and I feel like you're trying to make some points, but I can't get through them because they are so difficult to read.

Thanks!

[csquared]

Syllable:

Mate, I'm sure you're in a rush when you're posting, but PRETTY PLEASE with sugar on top, proofread your posts or use spell check. Your posts are getting increasingly difficult to read, and I feel like you're trying to make some points, but I can't get through them because they are so difficult to read.

Thanks!
We should put together a class on proofreading. The Game and Syllable should be in the front row.

[rskinsfan10]

Anyone who was at the game last night could see that Brunell was running the offense sent in to him. It's not easy to see it on TV because of the limited and truncated camera shots they use, but at the game you can see that the wideouts simply didn't run deep routes last night. The game plan was for the passing game to be contained within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Bigger gains were to come from missed and broken tackles, not from using the speed of Moss and the elusiveness of ARE and the size of Lloyd to get past defenders and into the open secondary. Brunell threw the passes he was instructed to throw. He was not missing open wideouts downfield. THERE WERE NO WIDEOUTS DOWNFIELD.This thread could have ended with this post IMO.

[RicFlairOne]

The following is me talking to Tom Brady:

Yo, Tom, we need to sit down and have a little chit-chat here. I know you've got the whole Zoolander-esque "Is there more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good-looking?" thing going for you, and that it's hard to lift your hand with all those Super Bowl rings on it, but let's be clear - completing less than 50% of your passes in Week 1 just ain't gonna cut it anymore. If you're not gonna try to hit at least 2/3 of your throws right on the money, then I'm sorry, but we've got this guy who backed up Matt Leinart, and there's an outside chance he might be good if we start him over you.

Realistically, Tom, we know that a single game, especially Week 1, is a fantastic way to extrapolate the rest of the season. Just look at Denver's first game last year. Or the 31-0 shellacking you took from the Bills a couple years ago. Heck, I heard your buddy Mark Brunell didn't look too hot in last year's opening game - I bet you two enjoyed sitting on the couch come playoff time, huh?

I mean, for God's sake, you were outgained by J.P. Friggin' Losman. And that fumble on the first play of the game? Completely your fault. Don't give me any of that "Oh, but Takeo is so fast, and he came through unblocked" nonsense - get rid of the ball like a good NFL quarterback, or you're gonna find yourself on the bench faster than you can say "Drew Bledsoe." Mmkay, pumpkin?

(There probably isn't a person on this board who was more critical of Mark Brunell two years ago than I was, but that was after a long series of games that looked much worse than this one. Just like there's no reason to fire Al Saunders after one sub-par game, and there's no reason to fire Gregg Williams after Minnesota figured him out on third down, there's no reason to believe Brunell isn't the same healthy QB that looked really, really good until the Giants banged up his knee last year. He had no time on virtually any pass that wasn't a screen or three-step drop, and barely had a chance in the red zone. Let's not forget that he handled that one-minute drill situation about as well as an quarterback in football could. In other words, give things more than a week before smashing the Panic Button.)


Thank you, especially the last part. Brunell had no time last night. Also, Sentinel mentioned about Saunders throwing deep balls. Brunell's arm is as good as Trent Green's arm. The Chiefs had the best o-line in football and Tony Richardson blocking on running plays for Priest / LJ. Several of Brunell's passes had good zip on them last night.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

I also think that they might've only show about half the playbook. After all, we play Dallass next week. That's a divisional game against our most hated foe.
I kind of agree, but this is week 1!!! It is said that Saunders doesn't show the same play for 4 games... so I truly feel we should have opened the playbook a lot more and take more chances downfield. That's what we wanted when we brought in Lloyd and ARE, didn't we?

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

How ridiculous is this thread. If you think Jason Campbell would have done any better you are on some sort of dillusional drug. Why bash Brunell. Wasnt his fault Sharper drilled Moss. Perfect pass but as Shally said perfect defensive play by a veteran ( probably HOF) saftey. Brunell isnt calling the plays. He doesnt have the luxury to change plays like Peyton Manning. Complaining about him throwing the ball away is just plain idiotic. Would you rather him try to force throws in and throw picks like old #11 did? Brunell should be the last person you bash after a game like that. How about the O line? The one play in the redzone the dt practicaly handed Brunell the ball and sacked him.

ANYONE is there any way to not see anything Syllable types?? Like the ignore button?:sfight:
Calm down... I haven't read the whole thread, but he didn't say "Bench Brunel, play Campbell" or something like that. A lot of players and some coaches can be blamed for the loss last night IMO, and I think Brunell is one of them. He was not definitely our worst player, but I do think he can play much better... maybe he needs to get used to the offensive system or something

[santanadasavior]

Anyone who was at the game last night could see that Brunell was running the offense sent in to him. It's not easy to see it on TV because of the limited and truncated camera shots they use, but at the game you can see that the wideouts simply didn't run deep routes last night. The game plan was for the passing game to be contained within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Bigger gains were to come from missed and broken tackles, not from using the speed of Moss and the elusiveness of ARE and the size of Lloyd to get past defenders and into the open secondary. Brunell threw the passes he was instructed to throw. He was not missing open wideouts downfield. THERE WERE NO WIDEOUTS DOWNFIELD.

That is good info for those of us at home. Another thing that I would like to point out is that we didn't really need to go deep. Maybe have two or so plays with a designed route deep but we didn't need that. Right now, other teams not having true film on our offense they expect us to go deep. With Moss, ARE, and Lloyd going deep seems logical. We were able to exploit that last night. The same way you have to run to set up the pass, you have to pass short to set up the pass long. That is how Moss got that catch after being knocked out of bounds. The defender bit on the short route and we burned him deep. We need to make teams respect the short pass, like the screen, the quick underneath passes to ARE, and the curls before we can throw the bombs. I actually think that we should have a play where we fake the WR screen with all of the blocks coming out and go deep to Lloyd on the other side. We did what we needed to do. Sometimes progress doesn't come in a win.

[Syllable]

Calm down... I haven't read the whole thread, but he didn't say "Bench Brunel, play Campbell" or something like that. A lot of players and some coaches can be blamed for the loss last night IMO, and I think Brunell is one of them. He was not definitely our worst player, but I do think he can play much better... maybe he needs to get used to the offensive system or something
Hey look someone read my post instead of skipping to the final post.

Maybe I didnt make it clear, but I was just concerned about Brunell's Overconservative play. Nothing about benching and nothing about bashing gibbs or saunders. All I did was just point out some things that could improve. But I guess all this thread got covered was an addition to the post count of a couple of members.

Lets give a round of applause to csquared for trying to start a JC controversy which was never there, and trying to correct small Grammar problems over the internet.

[csquared]

Hey look someone read my post instead of skipping to the final post.

Maybe I didnt make it clear, but I was just concerned about Brunell's Overconservative play. Nothing about benching and nothing about bashing gibbs or saunders. All I did was just point out some things that could improve. But I guess all this thread got covered was an addition to the post count of a couple of members.

Lets give a round of applause to csquared for trying to start a JC controversy which was never there, and trying to correct small Grammar problems over the internet.
Complaining about Brunell will insinuate a change does it not? Would you rather Todd Collins go in? What you said is for Brunell to just chuck it up right? Kinda like old #11 used. Look where that got him. The only person this thread padded post for was you. You should also check to see who asked you to proofread your post. Sure wasnt me. Again looks like somebody skipped past posts and saw what they wanted to see.

[hail2skins]

This thread is funny, I can't believe I'm just getting here. I read the entire thread and you want us to critique Brunell's performance. You said he didn't take enough risks and give his receivers a chance to make a play. Ok, let's say he takes some risk and thows 3 ints. What then? Another thread critique'ing his bad play for throwing 3 int's. Oh, but you'll be happy because he gave his receivers a chance to make a play. We get blown away because of the turnovers but you're happy with Brunell's play because he took some risks.

You mentioned earlier that someone didn't know football. I've come to realize it's you. Spence covered this very well earlier in the thread and if you don't believe him, go on over to Redskins.com and listen to the players being interviewed and them saying how the Vikes played to take the deep game away. You'll hear the coach say it well. There's a little saying that "sometimes you have to take what the defense gives you". The Redskins did that yesterday because the Vikes played their safeties deep to prevent the long pass. Anybody at the game could see that.

I'm also a little suspect about your knowledge of the team according to your comments because everyone knows Gibbs has given Brunell an order that the ball is to be thrown away when the play isn't there. How could you have missed that. You want him to go against his coach's wishes. Interesting.

I'd bet you'd be a little more pissed if they had taken risks to get a TD and failed in that last drive when they only needed a field goal to tie it. As I've said before, the Skins are Damned If They Do and Damned If They Don't.

[hail2skins]

Now, no one here is saying Mark is a saviour or anything but he wasn't the reason we lost. You want to critique some performances, here's a list for you.

The defense
- No pressure on the QB (where was Carter)
- Gave up 6 explosive plays (according to Gibbs)

The offense
- Oline pass blocking
- Not sustaining their assignments/blocks
- Betts (on one of those screens, he should have scored)

The next time you wanna post when you're mad, think about it a lot longer and make rational comments. And yes, please pay attention to grammar and spelling. We do want to try to understand what it is you're saying.

[hail2skins]

and trying to correct small Grammar problems over the internet.He shouldn't have to correct them. You should.

[smoak]

This thread is funny, I can't believe I'm just getting here. I read the entire thread and you want us to critique Brunell's performance. You said he didn't take enough risks and give his receivers a chance to make a play. Ok, let's say he takes some risk and thows 3 ints. What then? Another thread critique'ing his bad play for throwing 3 int's. Oh, but you'll be happy because he gave his receivers a chance to make a play. We get blown away because of the turnovers but you're happy with Brunell's play because he took some risks.

Exactly!!! The LAST thing we need to do with this offense is take unnecessary risks. Brunell played a very solid game IMO and people are looking for someone to be the target of their frustration. I promised myself I wouldn't read this thread at all b/c I didn't want to get mad at people.

As I've said before, the Skins are Damned If They Do and Damned If They Don't.

I don't know who has said what b/c I won't read the thread, but you are spot on with that statement. Its insane really. Sometimes a loss is just a loss and there doesn't need to be someone vilified b/c of it. Imagine if we fired/released/benched someone after EVERY loss las season. Relax folks.

[Patrick]

Im not calling for a change in linup but these are some stuff I saw that need to be changed if we want to be the 21+ points a game. He NEEDS to take some risks. He is playing too conservative, there are times where you throw it away, or take a sack. But not every 3rd down to preserve the field goal. Some may say "Well 3 points is better than nothing" I'd rather have him take a safe pass or at least give our recievers a chance.

After reading your opening post a couple of times - above pretty much sums up what you really want to convey OR better yet - VENT about. This has been echoed in other threads and you probably could have stated this in anyone of them in lieu of creating this thread.......... I do understand your frustrations though.

[hailj]

No straight out CUT HIM thread, but just a hint of reality here.

As a preface to all of this let me get this out. This is the first game with a new offense, Minni had the same problem except our defense couldnt even stop a 3rd and +7. Many things looked good, ARE involved and Moss with a buck that game. Portis played well dispite him not playing the whole 2nd half, which either he couldn't play it, or they see something in Betts that I don't see. We lost because of our Defense no way to go around it. These guys are vets and to leave a first day offense hanging like that, you dont expect much. The O had the spark, but with their Time of possesion we couldn't even get on the field.

Now on to the bash, or 'hints' to Brunell. It'll be like i'm talking to him.

Yo Mark the number one reason why we couldn't do anything in the redzone is, you ruined it almost everytime. The fumble was you, but thats reasonable. What isn't is not trusting your receivers enough. You have 3 good weapons and a Tight end. We should never see you throwing the ball away when your trying to grab a lead. Peyton Manning at least gives his receivers a shot and risks INTS but at least there is a chance of conversion. Throwing the ball away when we are up by a touchdown is management, throwing it away when we are trying to establish a lead is nothing short of wasting a drive, 3 points are nice, but you could at least try a safe pass.

There were deep plays called, what im seeing is that you are only passing deep when the guy is clearly wide open, I saw lloyd running throw the middle a couple plays with only one guy on him, while it is bad to do that at least trust your receivers to win the ball over. Its not allways good to just dump it off for 2 yards.. or throw it away.

Im not calling for a change in linup but these are some stuff I saw that need to be changed if we want to be the 21+ points a game. He NEEDS to take some risks. He is playing too conservative, there are times where you throw it away, or take a sack. But not every 3rd down to preserve the field goal. Some may say "Well 3 points is better than nothing" I'd rather have him take a safe pass or at least give our recievers a chance.

read this :

Washington

Team observers say the Redskins’ QB concerns have yet to be answered. Mark Brunell, now in his 14th season, turns 36 on Sept. 17 and is at the mercy of his offensive line. Though the line generally blocked well for Brunell last season, the preseason performance left something to be desired, and depth and age are concerns. Three of the five starters — OTs Chris Samuels and Jon Jansen and ORG Randy Thomas, who are the team’s best three linemen — have suffered major injuries in the past three seasons. And other than OT Todd Wade, who was signed after being released by the Texans, few of the reserves have any tangible starting experience. The backup QB spots offer concern, as well. Head coach Joe Gibbs named Todd Collins and Jason Campbell co-No. 2s. Basically, Collins will be the No. 2 on game days and will enter a game if Brunell goes down. But if Brunell were to miss any significant time, Campbell would be groomed the following week to be the starter.

( http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=nfceast )

[shally]

read this :

Washington

Team observers say the Redskins’ QB concerns have yet to be answered. Mark Brunell, now in his 14th season, turns 36 on Sept. 17 and is at the mercy of his offensive line. Though the line generally blocked well for Brunell last season, the preseason performance left something to be desired, and depth and age are concerns. Three of the five starters — OTs Chris Samuels and Jon Jansen and ORG Randy Thomas, who are the team’s best three linemen — have suffered major injuries in the past three seasons. And other than OT Todd Wade, who was signed after being released by the Texans, few of the reserves have any tangible starting experience. The backup QB spots offer concern, as well. Head coach Joe Gibbs named Todd Collins and Jason Campbell co-No. 2s. Basically, Collins will be the No. 2 on game days and will enter a game if Brunell goes down. But if Brunell were to miss any significant time, Campbell would be groomed the following week to be the starter.

( http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=nfceast )

brunell was not the problem in game 1... nothing else need be said

[whistleandthumb]

This thread is funny, I can't believe I'm just getting here. I read the entire thread and you want us to critique Brunell's performance. You said he didn't take enough risks and give his receivers a chance to make a play. Ok, let's say he takes some risk and thows 3 ints. What then? Another thread critique'ing his bad play for throwing 3 int's. Oh, but you'll be happy because he gave his receivers a chance to make a play. We get blown away because of the turnovers but you're happy with Brunell's play because he took some risks.

You mentioned earlier that someone didn't know football. I've come to realize it's you. Spence covered this very well earlier in the thread and if you don't believe him, go on over to Redskins.com and listen to the players being interviewed and them saying how the Vikes played to take the deep game away. You'll hear the coach say it well. There's a little saying that "sometimes you have to take what the defense gives you". The Redskins did that yesterday because the Vikes played their safeties deep to prevent the long pass. Anybody at the game could see that.

I'm also a little suspect about your knowledge of the team according to your comments because everyone knows Gibbs has given Brunell an order that the ball is to be thrown away when the play isn't there. How could you have missed that. You want him to go against his coach's wishes. Interesting.

I'd bet you'd be a little more pissed if they had taken risks to get a TD and failed in that last drive when they only needed a field goal to tie it. As I've said before, the Skins are Damned If They Do and Damned If They Don't.

:honor: :goodpost:

[becky]

read this :

Washington

Team observers say the Redskins’ QB concerns have yet to be answered. Mark Brunell, now in his 14th season, turns 36 on Sept. 17 and is at the mercy of his offensive line. Though the line generally blocked well for Brunell last season, the preseason performance left something to be desired, and depth and age are concerns. Three of the five starters — OTs Chris Samuels and Jon Jansen and ORG Randy Thomas, who are the team’s best three linemen — have suffered major injuries in the past three seasons. And other than OT Todd Wade, who was signed after being released by the Texans, few of the reserves have any tangible starting experience. The backup QB spots offer concern, as well. Head coach Joe Gibbs named Todd Collins and Jason Campbell co-No. 2s. Basically, Collins will be the No. 2 on game days and will enter a game if Brunell goes down. But if Brunell were to miss any significant time, Campbell would be groomed the following week to be the starter.

( http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=nfceast )



Now there is some awful journalism. This is all they have to talk about after Week 1?

[hailj]

Now there is some awful journalism. This is all they have to talk about after Week 1?

some folks are kind of quick on that panic button.

[becky]

some folks are kind of quick on that panic button.


Yeah seriously. But since our QB is still healthy and our o-line is still healthy.. you'd think they'd have something better to discuss.

[Patrick]

Now there is some awful journalism. This is all they have to talk about after Week 1?

Another issue of note ......... AGE - why is Burnell at 36 always memtion in a negitive and Brad Johnson at 38 is all positive. I think Burnell age is way over stated and really a non issue.

[bergiemoore]

Wow, what an excitable bunch!

Seriously, Brunell could have taken a few more chances on a couple of those 3rd downs, but I don't blame him for lofting the ball into the bench. There was one play where he rolled left and had Cooley right in front of him, but still threw it out of bounds. I couldn't see the coverage that was behind Cooley. It very well may have been that Cooley was only at the line of scrimmage and a reception would have gone for 0 yards. I don't know. (I really would love to see alternate camera angles for these games. I HATE the TV production for these games, not showing the field, showing the idiots in the announcer's box until .5 seconds before the ball is snapped, not showing crucial replays.... Maybe this could be it's own thread?)

All that being said, it was clear to me, sitting at home, that we were still in the game up until the last 17 seconds. Brunell has room for improvement, and he will as the new offense has time to gel. Al Saunders is also adjusting to this team, trying to determine where his strengths and weaknesses are, etc. I am very comfortable w/ Brunell pulling the trigger for this offense. I have confidence that this team will come together and start putting up 30+ points per game. (And yes, I do drink heavily.)


Let's all take a deep breath now.... Innnn...... and Ouuuuutt......

There, feel better?

[Warpath23]

Couple of things I've noticed about Brunell. He drops back too far & hardly ever steps up in the pocket allowing the play to continue. He always flushes to the left & ends up throwing the ball away or throwing off the back of his foot risking INT. He causes the pressure by panicing & rolling into the pass rush. Once that happens the whole play breaks down & he doesnt have the wheels to make things happen after that.

[Lavar703]

I agree. I dont think brunell Could have played that much better. He didnt throw any picks, and didnt put are defense in bad spots at all with poor decisions. The way i look at it is like this, without Brunell we never would have made the playoffs last year. Hes one hell of a leader and is willing to take the blame for a loss. THis game was not lost because of brunell, the game was lost because of a poor team effort. But come on, were 0-1 just like Dallas and New York, theres 15 games to go, and dont forget we lost to the raiders at home last year and we still ended up in the second round of the playoffs.
PLEASE BACK AWAY FROM THE PANIC BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!

[Syllable]

I created this thread for the following reasons.

1. This is Brunells first True performance under this system, so I wanted to see what everyone thought of it and how he could improve

2. First time he has had at 3 dependable options to throw too.

3. The 100 and some yards of passing.

I saw things right and things wrong, some things you miss because you expect them to be right.

[Fathead]

I think it was a year ago this week that there was another big thread about Brunell.



That turned out ok.

[smoak]

I agree. I dont think brunell Could have played that much better. He didnt throw any picks, and didnt put are defense in bad spots at all with poor decisions. The way i look at it is like this, without Brunell we never would have made the playoffs last year. Hes one hell of a leader and is willing to take the blame for a loss. THis game was not lost because of brunell, the game was lost because of a poor team effort. But come on, were 0-1 just like Dallas and New York, theres 15 games to go, and dont forget we lost to the raiders at home last year and we still ended up in the second round of the playoffs.
PLEASE BACK AWAY FROM THE PANIC BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!

Can it be a voice of reason!? Post of the year right there folks.

[Syllable]

His Passer rating was around 58.2 also, would have jumped to the 8's to 9's with a couple completions and a touchdown.

Its his first week with the system, but 58.2 isnt going to cut it no matter how you look at it.

[smoak]

His Passer rating was around 58.2 also, would have jumped to the 8's to 9's with a couple completions and a touchdown.

Its his first week with the system, but 58.2 isnt going to cut it no matter how you look at it.

WHAT!!!???

Brunell's passer rating was around 78 and besides, stats really are not the "end all be all" in football. Mark had an ok game and completed over 60% of his passes. HE SIMPLY WAS NOT THE ISSUE. He'll get better as the team has more time together and I really don't get the point of this thread at all.

ARGH!!!!

The board can be really annoying after a loss. I am signing off to work on my preview of dallass.

[dj_stouty]

His Passer rating was around 58.2 also, would have jumped to the 8's to 9's with a couple completions and a touchdown.

Its his first week with the system, but 58.2 isnt going to cut it no matter how you look at it.

Click here (http://www.hailredskins.com/CloserLook.htm)for all of Brunell's passing stats. Smoak was correct...it was around 77 for the entire game...not 58.2. 58.2 was his passer rating on 3rd down, when defenses knew the Skins were going to pass. It was 93.9 on 1st and 2nd downs....

[stonebraker]

I like this thread! Here's my turn talking to Mark Brunell:

Yo Mark man, throw touchdowns. Right now youre on pace to start 16 games and not throw a touchdown pass. this is simply unacceptable. On more than a few occasions on Monday, you threw the ball away to avoid a sack or turnover. Next time, take that opportunity, and throw a TOUCHDOWN BABY. Also, I noticed a few times you completed passes that weren't touchdowns. In the future you should also consider throwing Touchdowns.

DSF:NWE: OGNIWE:IOEGN :NKIQ:WOINMC AINIOW:FN:EWWEV

[lakewinola]

Here is how I judge this. Given Monday nights game. How many other NFL starting QB's inserted in our lineup would have had a much better game, scored more points for us and won the game? My answer to that is probably 20. And that is the problem.

[dj_stouty]

I like this thread! Here's my turn talking to Mark Brunell:

Yo Mark man, throw touchdowns. Right now youre on pace to start 16 games and not throw a touchdown pass. this is simply unacceptable. On more than a few occasions on Monday, you threw the ball away to avoid a sack or turnover. Next time, take that opportunity, and throw a TOUCHDOWN BABY. Also, I noticed a few times you completed passes that weren't touchdowns. In the future you should also consider throwing Touchdowns.

DSF:NWE: OGNIWE:IOEGN :NKIQ:WOINMC AINIOW:FN:EWWEV

If Mark Brunell is on pace to throw 0 touchdowns this season, then Cooley is on pace for -48 receiving yards this season. :rolleyes:

Bad logic...

[dj_stouty]

Here is how I judge this. Given Monday nights game. How many other NFL starting QB's inserted in our lineup would have had a much better game, scored more points for us and won the game? My answer to that is probably 20. And that is the problem.

Can you also insert Ed Reed, Champ Bailey, Steve Hutchinson, Dwight Freeny, Walter Jones, Ladaian Tomlinson, Larry Fitzgerald, Jeff Saturday, Zach Thomas, Jonathan Vilma, Chad Johnson, Rhonde Barber, and Sean Merriman into your hypothetical lineup so we can see what the score would have been against Minnesota?

Oh yeah...and I'll take the Virginia Pick 6 as well, as long as the crystal ball is still warmed up.

[Syllable]

WHAT!!!???

Brunell's passer rating was around 78 and besides, stats really are not the "end all be all" in football. Mark had an ok game and completed over 60% of his passes. HE SIMPLY WAS NOT THE ISSUE. He'll get better as the team has more time together and I really don't get the point of this thread at all.

ARGH!!!!

The board can be really annoying after a loss. I am signing off to work on my preview of dallass.
er sorry I read what Dj posted and I wasnt clear on whether it was 3rd down, whoops.

[smoak]

er sorry I read what Dj posted and I wasnt clear on whether it was 3rd down, whoops.

No problem. I just thought you were making things up. :D

[RedskinsDave]

Here is how I judge this. Given Monday nights game. How many other NFL starting QB's inserted in our lineup would have had a much better game, scored more points for us and won the game? My answer to that is probably 20. And that is the problem.

I had a problem with the lack of downfield passes but this statement is crazy. You did notice ZERO turnovers right? Ask the Cowboys which they would have preferred Sunday.

[Syllable]

Really Bledsoe is a Gunslinger from Day one, sorta what Ramsey would have been if he continued to start. He would get TDS and alot of Yards, but when it comes to it he will start slinging and getting sacked. Its a style of play, you can compare Bledsoe's and Ramseys play with Brett Favre and how he used to play. Except Favre was just good.

[hail2skins]

Really Bledsoe is a Gunslinger from Day one, sorta what Ramsey would have been if he continued to start. He would get TDS and alot of Yards, but when it comes to it he will start slinging and getting sacked. Its a style of play, you can compare Bledsoe's and Ramseys play with Brett Favre and how he used to play. Except Favre was just good.Interesting comment you have there in your sig. If you believe that is the case, you're wrong. Members here don't go blindly blaming people for losses when it wasn't their fault. They don't post out of sheer fustration. They take time to think about what they want to say before posting it. There are homers on every board but for you to say we are at 99% is just ridiculous.

[Syllable]

It has a separate meaning.

my 666th post :0

[LATrueRedskin]

I had a problem with the lack of downfield passes but this statement is crazy. You did notice ZERO turnovers right? Ask the Cowboys which they would have preferred Sunday.

Agreed. I'll take no turnovers over a lack of deep passes. We still had some solid gains, and held on to the ball. Our problem was not scoring in the redzone, not the deep ball. We got into the redzone pretty effectively without throwing a 60-yard bomb.

[hail2skins]

It has a separate meaning.

my 666th post :0Really, how can it be seperate.

[dj_stouty]

I wonder what things would be like today had Santana held onto that ball.

I don't blame him...as the defender simply made an outstanding play. But I wonder what the Brunell sentiment would be had they connected.

[Syllable]

Agreed. I'll take no turnovers over a lack of deep passes. We still had some solid gains, and held on to the ball. Our problem was not scoring in the redzone, not the deep ball. We got into the redzone pretty effectively without throwing a 60-yard bomb.
Which came into my mind. Some people say that I am saying this so that we can get intercepted everytime in the redzone, but we could have done much better w/o Marks indecision in the RedZone. We have way to many tools to just be throwing it away on 3rd, but then against it was the first day.

[LATrueRedskin]

I wonder what things would be like today had Santana held onto that ball.

I don't blame him...as the defender simply made an outstanding play. But I wonder what the Brunell sentiment would be had they connected.

Exactly. Mark threw a perfect touchdown pass that Darren Sharper just made a huge play on.

I wouldn't call Mark "indecisive" in the redzone, I'd say the OLine failed to block (against good defenders) and our backs failed to get in. If there's anyplace you don't want to force the ball into a place that's not there, it's in the redzone.

[hail2skins]

Which came into my mind. Some people say that I am saying this so that we can get intercepted everytime in the redzone, but we could have done much better w/o Marks indecision in the RedZone. We have way to many tools to just be throwing it away on 3rd, but then against it was the first day.These are the type of comments people aren't understanding. His indecision? So now he was indecisive in the redzone. Maybe, just maybe there was no one open for him to throw to.

[dj_stouty]

These are the type of comments people aren't understanding. His indecision? So now he was indecisive in the redzone. Maybe, just maybe there was no one open for him to throw to.

Plus, he only threw FOUR times inside the Red Zone. lol

Not a lot of opportunities to label the guy anything!

[Syllable]

These are the type of comments people aren't understanding. His indecision? So now he was indecisive in the redzone. Maybe, just maybe there was no one open for him to throw to.
Indecision as in he couldn't make a decision who to pass to so he threw it out of bounds. Indecision is basicly a synonym for Throwing it away. He couldn't make a decision, either there was no one open, or the pass looked risky. So he threw it away.

[csquared]

No indecision means your not sure what to do. Here is a link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indecision&x=42&y=23) for you just in case you think im lying. So if he saw nobody open or thought the pass was too risky that means he was aware. So your comment still makes no sense. Also feel free to use that link in the future. :banghead:

[csquared]

Interesting comment you have there in your sig. If you believe that is the case, you're wrong. Members here don't go blindly blaming people for losses when it wasn't their fault. They don't post out of sheer fustration. They take time to think about what they want to say before posting it. There are homers on every board but for you to say we are at 99% is just ridiculous.
How quick that sig changed!! :lol1:

[BurgundyNGold]

Indecision as in he couldn't make a decision who to pass to so he threw it out of bounds. Indecision is basicly a synonym for Throwing it away. He couldn't make a decision, either there was no one open, or the pass looked risky. So he threw it away.
That, by definition, is a decision. I thought Cooley was open in the endzone on one play but Brunell decided to throw it away instead of risk points. It might not be the right one to you, me or whoever, but it is a decision.

Now Ramsey was indecisive. That's why he held the ball so long and took so many sacks.

[smoak]

Indecision as in he couldn't make a decision who to pass to so he threw it out of bounds. Indecision is basicly a synonym for Throwing it away. He couldn't make a decision, either there was no one open, or the pass looked risky. So he threw it away.

Ok now I am fired up again. Throwing the ball away is NOT indecision. It is a specific decision based on the factt that nothing was there. I know specifically on about three throw aways I clapped. A guy like Bledsoe would have forced the issue and had the ball going the other way.

[Syllable]

By all means it is an indecision, we could go rambling on about the definition of the word and how it is used, but Im saying things like Ok I cant make a decision on who to pass to so I will throw it away instead of throwing it out there.
The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

I decided to get some of KC's last year game highlights, and its amazing. Saunders revitilized Trent Green and Make Mediocre receivers get great stats.

One thing that caught my eye and that really makes me think Brunell will fit in this system, is the lack of qb scrambling that was going on in those games. From last game, you can tell that Brunell isnt what he used to be in terms of running.

Something also that I cant wait to see is the speed of our Receivers. While checking out Highlights of his Deep passes over the years, KC's WRs allways got chased down by some fat CB, we definitly have the speed there.

If brunell can get more opportunities to go deep, and he hits some strikes, we would be talking about the number of touchdowns he is getting.

On the sig issue, I think my inbox is full so you guys can stop now : )

[BurgundyNGold]

Ok now I am fired up again. Throwing the ball away is NOT indecision. It is a specific decision based on the factt that nothing was there. I know specifically on about three throw aways I clapped. A guy like Bledsoe would have forced the issue and had the ball going the other way.
I dispute that "fact" in some cases. Others might say nothing was there, but in the end zone I still think Cooley was open for 6 if Brunell had pulled the trigger on it.

[smoak]

I dispute that "fact" in some cases. Others might say nothing was there, but in the end zone I still think Cooley was open for 6 if Brunell had pulled the trigger on it.

It is your opinion (just as my comment is mine), but I specifically remember one where I was glad he didn't throw to Cooley in the end zone. Probably different plays. Plus, I'm sure it is easier to see the field sitting in the upper deck.... Again, I'm NOT saying Brunell was great. I just thought he played an overall decent game... Which reminds me. Where is the QB approval thread?? I approve.

The way I watch football is too animated and emotional to be as objective and analytical as you are... Hence why I usually watch the tape before commenting. This time, I forgot to tape it. :banghead:

[BurgundyNGold]

It is your opinion (just as my comment is mine), but I specifically remember one where I was glad he didn't throw to Cooley in the end zone. Probably different plays. Plus, I'm sure it is easier to see the field sitting in the upper deck.... Again, I'm NOT saying Brunell was great. I just thought he played an overall decent game... Which reminds me. Where is the QB approval thread?? I approve.

The way I watch football is too animated and emotional to be as objective and analytical as you are... Hence why I usually watch the tape before commenting. This time, I forgot to tape it. :banghead:
Should I do a QB approval thread this season? I don't know that anybody wants one.

[smoak]

Should I do a QB approval thread this season? I don't know that anybody wants one.


Oh, I thought you already said it was happening. If we were to lose this Sunday, people would disapprove of MB even if he threw three TDs.

[shally]

It is your opinion (just as my comment is mine), but I specifically remember one where I was glad he didn't throw to Cooley in the end zone. Probably different plays. Plus, I'm sure it is easier to see the field sitting in the upper deck.... Again, I'm NOT saying Brunell was great. I just thought he played an overall decent game... Which reminds me. Where is the QB approval thread?? I approve.

The way I watch football is too animated and emotional to be as objective and analytical as you are... Hence why I usually watch the tape before commenting. This time, I forgot to tape it. :banghead:

i thought brunells game management was excellent.. it is the calls that i had a problem with, as well as the pressure that brunell was under much of the time..
he did not force a single pass and made some excellent throws..

[Syllable]

I was all for the way he managed the game. Without me being on the field and the bad angles. To me it looked like he either wasn't hitting anyone deep, or there wasn't anyone going deep.

If thats the case, thats more on saunders shoulders now. We SHOULD have taken advantage of the suspended safety and hit their other safety. Was Blue starting opposite of Sharper? We could have made something of that.

Any Mods want to Rename this to an approval thread? It sounds like a good idea, all we are doing is discussing the Ups and Downs of his play.

[shally]

Oh, I thought you already said it was happening. If we were to lose this Sunday, people would disapprove of MB even if he threw three TDs.


those folks would be irrational.. if we lose for some other reason than brunell's performance it is ridiculous to blame him

[Syllable]

Blame him? I clearly blamed the Defense, this is Brunells first game with the new offense how can you blame him for that? But how can you not have any problems on your first game?

[LATrueRedskin]

By all means it is an indecision, we could go rambling on about the definition of the word and how it is used, but Im saying things like Ok I cant make a decision on who to pass to so I will throw it away instead of throwing it out there.
The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

I decided to get some of KC's last year game highlights, and its amazing. Saunders revitilized Trent Green and Make Mediocre receivers get great stats.

One thing that caught my eye and that really makes me think Brunell will fit in this system, is the lack of qb scrambling that was going on in those games. From last game, you can tell that Brunell isnt what he used to be in terms of running.

Something also that I cant wait to see is the speed of our Receivers. While checking out Highlights of his Deep passes over the years, KC's WRs allways got chased down by some fat CB, we definitly have the speed there.

If brunell can get more opportunities to go deep, and he hits some strikes, we would be talking about the number of touchdowns he is getting.

On the sig issue, I think my inbox is full so you guys can stop now : )

His decision is nobody is open. It's not, "I can't make a decision on who's open," it's "Nobody's open, I have to throw it away."

BnG said it best. Ramsey was indecisive, patting the ball and stutter stepping, then getting sacked so many times. Throwing it away is a decision-making throw, and a smart one 9 out of 10 times.

[Syllable]

His decision is nobody is open. It's not, "I can't make a decision on who's open," it's "Nobody's open, I have to throw it away."

BnG said it best. Ramsey was indecisive, patting the ball and stutter stepping, then getting sacked so many times. Throwing it away is a decision-making throw, and a smart one 9 out of 10 times.

Yup in the footsteps of Bledsoe taking sacks and throwing errent(sp?) passes.

[hail2skins]

By all means it is an indecision, we could go rambling on about the definition of the word and how it is used, but Im saying things like Ok I cant make a decision on who to pass to so I will throw it away instead of throwing it out there.
The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

I decided to get some of KC's last year game highlights, and its amazing. Saunders revitilized Trent Green and Make Mediocre receivers get great stats.

One thing that caught my eye and that really makes me think Brunell will fit in this system, is the lack of qb scrambling that was going on in those games. From last game, you can tell that Brunell isnt what he used to be in terms of running.

Something also that I cant wait to see is the speed of our Receivers. While checking out Highlights of his Deep passes over the years, KC's WRs allways got chased down by some fat CB, we definitly have the speed there.

If brunell can get more opportunities to go deep, and he hits some strikes, we would be talking about the number of touchdowns he is getting.

On the sig issue, I think my inbox is full so you guys can stop now : )You know what, your logic is totally BS. I'm calling it now because you're just reaching and grasping for anything. He didn't know which receiver he wanted to throw it to. That is basically dumb logic. dumb dumb dumb.

Dude, learn about football before you come on a board and start throwing out stuff. Each and every post of yours is getting worst and worst. Give us a break.

[rskinsfan10]

Wow....

[Syllable]

You know what, your logic is totally BS. I'm calling it now because you're just reaching and grasping for anything. He didn't know which receiver he wanted to throw it to. That is basically dumb logic. dumb dumb dumb.



Eh? Grabbing wording errors. I'll break it down as simple as I can then Im off this since this hasnt bean a thread within its whole 100+ life.

The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

here is what I meant "No one was open so he didnt want to force it in."

[hail2skins]

Eh? Grabbing wording errors. I'll break it down as simple as I can then Im off this since this hasnt bean a thread within its whole 100+ life.

The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

here is what I meant "No one was open so he didnt want to force it in."Let me break it down for you. Which play are you talking about? Describe it in full detail so we'll know. Which receivers were on the field and what routes did they run? That way we can all come to an agreement on whether or not he couldn't make a decision.

You know, you may want to hang in the Hopi Forum forum for awhile.

[X-Factor13]

I thought that Brunell had a better game than Brad Johnson did. Honestly. Our defense bailed minni out of every jam they had even moreso than their penalties did for us. For now i am going to say that the reason our O wasn't quite together is because my boy CP wasn't in the lineup consistently. How many carries did he get? 10? Wait until we start seeing a 25-30 carry performance from portis and see how good it makes brunell look.

[ConradCountry]

He is useless he can manage a game but he can't win one.

[X-Factor13]

Eh? Grabbing wording errors. I'll break it down as simple as I can then Im off this since this hasnt bean a thread within its whole 100+ life.

The way I used the word was during the play when he couldnt make a decision on who to pass to so he decided not to try anything and he threw it away.

here is what I meant "No one was open so he didnt want to force it in."


isn't that the play you're supposed to make when no one is open and you're a 36 year old starting nfl qb? Brett Farve forces passes when no one is open and look at his amazing stats as of late. Trent Green tried to make something happen when no one was open and look at how much a mess he is. Something tells me that we should be thankful he isn't "forcing it"

[hail2skins]

He is useless he can manage a game but he can't win one.Brunell? He won 10 last season.

[ryflan47]

Sunday needs to come faster...

[Axegrinder]

I thought that Brunell had a better game than Brad Johnson did. Honestly. Our defense bailed minni out of every jam they had even moreso than their penalties did for us. For now i am going to say that the reason our O wasn't quite together is because my boy CP wasn't in the lineup consistently. How many carries did he get? 10? Wait until we start seeing a 25-30 carry performance from portis and see how good it makes brunell look.
I agree with most of this comment.I'm not sure if he had as good a game as Johnson though.Johnson was on the money,but his receivers dropped a lot of balls.
The rest of your statement is dead on.

As for this thread,I'm surprised that it's had as many posts as it does.It's only game 1 and Brunell is being called out.Unbelievable.
Well,there goes our perfect season too.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

He is useless he can manage a game but he can't win one.
This is a sarcastic statement right?

[smoak]

He is useless he can manage a game but he can't win one.

I love you CC but that opinion is uninformed, incorrect, and wrong.

[IllinoiSkinFan]

I was on the whole "Cut Brunell" thing two seasons ago. But he looked much better last year. Now there is now way I can say that he is a top 5 QB right now, but he is our best chance at this point.

He biggest problem last game was that the O-Line wasnt giving him a chance.
As far as not throwing downfield, I dont think that is his decision.

[lakewinola]

Brunell? He won 10 last season.

I think that was more the result of the Defense and CP. Brunell did an outstanding job of not losing games last year. But if it rests on his shoulders, I'm worried that he can't be that game breaking QB over the entire season. Hopefully CP will be 100% ASAP, and Williams figures out our defensive problems....

[hail2skins]

I think that was more the result of the Defense and CP. Brunell did an outstanding job of not losing games last year. But if it rests on his shoulders, I'm worried that he can't be that game breaking QB over the entire season. Hopefully CP will be 100% ASAP, and Williams figures out our defensive problems....Game 2 against Dallas.

[smoak]

I think that was more the result of the Defense and CP. Brunell did an outstanding job of not losing games last year. But if it rests on his shoulders, I'm worried that he can't be that game breaking QB over the entire season. Hopefully CP will be 100% ASAP, and Williams figures out our defensive problems....

All we need Brunell to do is manage the game and play smart football. This game will be won or lost based on the pressure we are able to generate on Bledsoe.

[lakewinola]

Game 2 against Dallas.
I said an entire season

[lakewinola]

All we need Brunell to do is manage the game and play smart football. This game will be won or lost based on the pressure we are able to generate on Bledsoe.

That is exactly correct. This is what we are asking Brunell to do. But if our defense breaks down and CP is banged up. It is Brunell who will probably have to throw for 300 yds and some scores. That is my concern... can he do that consistently.

[hail2skins]

I said an entire seasonWho cares. As smoak said we just need him to manage a game. We don't want our season to fall on the shoulders of any one player.

[smoak]

That is exactly correct. This is what we are asking Brunell to do. But if our defense breaks down and CP is banged up. It is Brunell who will probably have to throw for 300 yds and some scores. That is my concern... can he do that consistently.

But you are arguing "ifs"??? CP is not banged up, and defense has not broken down. Is Brunell Peyton Manning? No, but he is a smart as hell veteran QB who is absolutely capable of putting up 300 yard games. Thankfully football is a team sport and he isn't needed to do that week in and week out. What he is asked to do is win football games and since coming here he has done that more often than not.

[redskinz#1fan]

I said an entire season


Whenever we have needed Brunell to step up and move our team down the field, he has. You must forget how he always manages to scramble (well maybe limp with quickness) to get us the yards that we need when no one is open. He did this several times last year, which in turn resulted in us winning the game. Brunell is put in to manage the game, and not make mistakes. But he is still a very good QB that can take over a game with his veteran skills if need be. We just have so much talent surrounding him now, that I don't think we'll ever have to see that.

[dj_stouty]

Whenever we have needed Brunell to step up and move our team down the field, he has. You must forget how he always manages to scramble (well maybe limp with quickness) to get us the yards that we need when no one is open. He did this several times last year, which in turn resulted in us winning the game. Brunell is put in to manage the game, and not make mistakes. But he is still a very good QB that can take over a game with his veteran skills if need be. We just have so much talent surrounding him now, that I don't think we'll ever have to see that.

Exactly. I'd like to point to the final drive for proof. 54 seconds on the clock with NO timeouts and Brunell throws 3 completions out of 4 for 32 yards to set up the FG.

I'll argue that is the type of QB who does more than just "manage the game".

[Fathead]

3rd and 27 last year in dallas.
OT against Seattle.
For goodness sake, we had to get to endzone against denver to have a shot, Brunell leads us there, but the 2 point conversion failed. But we still scored the TD to at least have a chance.

There was only one game last year where Brunell played so poorly we had no shot to win. The first Giants game, and everyone on the team played like garbage.

[smoak]

3rd and 27 last year in dallas.
OT against Seattle.
For goodness sake, we had to get to endzone against denver to have a shot, Brunell leads us there, but the 2 point conversion failed. But we still scored the TD to at least have a chance.

There was only one game last year where Brunell played so poorly we had no shot to win. The first Giants game, and everyone on the team played like garbage.

Exactly. I think I am going to ban myself from this thread.... I am getting a headache.

Exactly. I'd like to point to the final drive for proof. 54 seconds on the clock with NO timeouts and Brunell throws 3 completions out of 4 for 32 yards to set up the FG.

I'll argue that is the type of QB who does more than just "manage the game".

I couldn't agree more, but it is his most valuable asset IMO. He is capable of being a QB that goes deep more often, but I am willing to bet an entire paycheck that the coaching staff wants him to only take calculated risks. You simply can't have your QB pulling an "Bledsoe" and throwing of his back foot into double coverage. Ask dallass if they'd like to have a QB that could get outside the pocket and throw a few away rather than force them.

ARGH!!! I'm out of here.

[Syllable]

I appologize. I went a little to far on this thread, expecting to see a 41 point performance but I didn't so went looking on what he could improve on when we need to improve as a unit and not one player.

[ryflan47]

All we need Brunell to do is manage the game and play smart football. This game will be won or lost based on the pressure we are able to generate on Bledsoe.
If that's the case, the defense really needs to step it up. I'm starting to see the same problem we had last year during the slump, where the front 4 generated NO pressure whatsoever. They need to pick up the slack.

[smoak]

If that's the case, the defense really needs to step it up. I'm starting to see the same problem we had last year during the slump, where the front 4 generated NO pressure whatsoever. They need to pick up the slack.

You're talking to the wrong person b/c I am very old school in my thinking that football is always won and lost at the LOS and because of turnovers. Those two things more than anything else in the world are what wins and loses football games IMO and why I said we were in for a fight against the Vikes.

[Syllable]

You're talking to the wrong person b/c I am very old school in my thinking that football is always won and lost at the LOS and because of turnovers. Those two things more than anything else in the world are what wins and loses football games IMO and why I said we were in for a fight against the Vikes.
Definitly with Betts who sometimes looks like a Bulldozer, but on the other hand Has the "Stephen Davis" Syndrom. If someone touches his ankles he falls to the floor.

[stonebraker]

You know what, your logic is totally BS. I'm calling it now because you're just reaching and grasping for anything. He didn't know which receiver he wanted to throw it to. That is basically dumb logic. dumb dumb dumb.

Dude, learn about football before you come on a board and start throwing out stuff. Each and every post of yours is getting worst and worst. Give us a break.

LOL at hR owner ripping this guy

to quote hail2skins, this thread is getting WORST AND WORST

[hail2skins]

LOL at hR owner ripping this guy

to quote hail2skins, this thread is getting WORST AND WORSTThis isn't an hR Owner ripping this guy thing. This is a member to member discussion. Titles have nothing to do with it.