|
|
News flash everyone, in case you didn't realize it offiss is a Brunell hater.
None of our success this year can be attributable to Brunell. Yeah I know, a 3000 yard passer with 23 TDs and only 10 INTs has to be given some credit, right?
Nope.
Don't look at the stats... yeah I know that's a common way to measure a player but you have to ignore the facts here and trust that we somehow managed to win 10 regular season games and a playoff game with absolutely no meaningful contribution from the QB position whatsoever.
Don't look at the entire season either as a gauge for Brunell's success. Forgot about those 8 games in which he posted a 90 or better QB rating. Instead, let's judge his season on his worst 3 performances when the entire offense was struggling and serveral key players including Brunell himself was banged up. That's where you see the true measure of a QB, that's where you see what kind of QB Mark Brunell is.
offiss 01-20-2006, 04:26 PM Exactly my point, it is ridiculous. For the record, I think Brady's a better QB.
I do, however, find it interesting and funny how you make allowances for Brady and the Pats, but you make none for Brunell.
Again ridiculous, you fall right back into the same nonesense, are you saying you can't see the difference between the 2.
Brady plays to win, Brunell plays not to lose.
Brady attacks, Brunell leaves it for the defense.
Basically what you want to hear is if Brady wins and throws for 350 yards a 4 td's and beats the Steelers 28-24, and Brunell throws for 49 yards, and the defense scores 2 TD's and we beat the 49ers 14 nothing, I should give Brunell Brady type status because they both won? :frusty:
12thMan 01-20-2006, 04:36 PM Again ridiculous, you fall right back into the same nonesense, are you saying you can't see the difference between the 2.
Brady plays to win, Brunell plays not to lose.
Brady attacks, Brunell leaves it for the defense.
Basically what you want to hear is if Brady wins and throws for 350 yards a 4 td's and beats the Steelers 28-24, and Brunell throws for 49 yards, and the defense scores 2 TD's and we beat the 49ers 14 nothing, I should give Brunell Brady type status because they both won? :frusty:
Actually your whole argument is ridiculous.
If you read your previous post. You mentioned how the Pats defense was banged up and wasn't stellar until the end of the year, but you wouldn't give Brunell the same benefit of the doubt when he was in a very similiar situation.
Again my issue isn't trying to compare Brunell v. Brady, as much as I'm trying to show you how much you reall don't like him, though you will never say that. It seems you pick and choose your facts to suit your argument, when you really need to admit Mark Brunell had a good year.
TheMalcolmConnection 01-20-2006, 05:03 PM News flash everyone, in case you didn't realize it offiss is a Brunell hater.
None of our success this year can be attributable to Brunell. Yeah I know, a 3000 yard passer with 23 TDs and only 10 INTs has to be given some credit, right?
Nope.
Don't look at the stats... yeah I know that's a common way to measure a player but you have to ignore the facts here and trust that we somehow managed to win 10 regular season games and a playoff game with absolutely no meaningful contribution from the QB position whatsoever.
Don't look at the entire season either as a gauge for Brunell's success. Forgot about those 8 games in which he posted a 90 or better QB rating. Instead, let's judge his season on his worst 3 performances when the entire offense was struggling and serveral key players including Brunell himself was banged up. That's where you see the true measure of a QB, that's where you see what kind of QB Mark Brunell is.
Brunell hater or Ramsey lover? Does Ramsey live in New Jersey? Sometimes I think so... ;)
I normally don't chime in, but I enjoy reading and laughing. :insane:
#56fanatic 01-20-2006, 05:06 PM Actually it's nobody's offense right now, and we defiently took a turn towards the west coast offense around the 4th or 5th game because of the futility on offense, and that was Musgraves influence, Gibbs was probably calling most of the play's, but theres a reason Saunders is being brought in, and it's not because everyone is trying to take credit for our offensive output this past season.
No way did we run any resimblence to a west coast offense. 50 gut and diesel 40 gut all that crap is not west coast. We ran no quick slants, drags anything like that. The screens are part of every NFL offense. I just dont see where you get we ran any thing resembling west coast offense. but that doesn't matter, Gibbs and Saunders learned from each other so they are going to be on the same page.
SmootSmack 01-20-2006, 05:36 PM Just for the hell of it, here are Brady and Brunell's stats versus comparable opponents this year.
Tom Brady
SD (L 17-41) 19-32, 224 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 78.1 rating
DEN (L 20-28) 24-26. 299 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 79.9 rating
KC (L 16-26) 22-40, 248 yards, 1 TD, 4 INTs, 42.5 rating
TB (W 28-0) 20-31, 258 yards, 3 TDs,0 INT, 122.8 rating
Mark Brunell
SD (L 17-23) 17-27, 194 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 1 Fumble, 96.8 rating
Den (L 19-21) 30-53, 322 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 1 Fumble, 87.1 rating
KC (L 21-28) 25-41, 331 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT, 2 Fumble, 110,9 rating
TB (L 35-36) 23-35, 155 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INT, 2 FUmbles, 79.0 rating
offiss 01-20-2006, 05:37 PM Actually your whole argument is ridiculous.
If you read your previous post. You mentioned how the Pats defense was banged up and wasn't stellar until the end of the year, but you wouldn't give Brunell the same benefit of the doubt when he was in a very similiar situation.
Again my issue isn't trying to compare Brunell v. Brady, as much as I'm trying to show you how much you reall don't like him, though you will never say that. It seems you pick and choose your facts to suit your argument, when you really need to admit Mark Brunell had a good year.
How on earth do you figure he deserves the same benefit as Brady??????
Your talking in circles, I just said Brady won without a defense for most of the year, Brunell had a great defense for most of the year, and defiently down the stretch, so in hindsite he should have outperformed Brady because he had a better D, but he didn't. but I know you wont get that either. I see nothing similar between their circumstances, nothing. Brady can put a team on his back, Brunell is sitting in a cart yelling pull mule.
skinsguy 01-20-2006, 05:42 PM News flash everyone, in case you didn't realize it offiss is a Brunell hater.
None of our success this year can be attributable to Brunell. Yeah I know, a 3000 yard passer with 23 TDs and only 10 INTs has to be given some credit, right?
Nope.
Don't look at the stats... yeah I know that's a common way to measure a player but you have to ignore the facts here and trust that we somehow managed to win 10 regular season games and a playoff game with absolutely no meaningful contribution from the QB position whatsoever.
Don't look at the entire season either as a gauge for Brunell's success. Forgot about those 8 games in which he posted a 90 or better QB rating. Instead, let's judge his season on his worst 3 performances when the entire offense was struggling and serveral key players including Brunell himself was banged up. That's where you see the true measure of a QB, that's where you see what kind of QB Mark Brunell is.
Hahahaha!!! Pwned!
12thMan 01-20-2006, 05:47 PM Just for the hell of it, here are Brady and Brunell's stats versus comparable opponents this year.
Tom Brady
SD (L 17-41) 19-32, 224 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 78.1 rating
DEN (L 20-28) 24-26. 299 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 79.9 rating
KC (L 16-26) 22-40, 248 yards, 1 TD, 4 INTs, 42.5 rating
TB (W 28-0) 20-31, 258 yards, 3 TDs,0 INT, 122.8 rating
Mark Brunell
SD (L 17-23) 17-27, 194 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 1 Fumble, 96.8 rating
Den (L 19-21) 30-53, 322 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 1 Fumble, 87.1 rating
KC (L 21-28) 25-41, 331 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT, 2 Fumble, 110,9 rating
TB (L 35-36) 23-35, 155 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INT, 2 FUmbles, 79.0 rating
Well, I'm sure there's some perfectly good explanation as to why Brunell has a higher rating than Brady against comparable oppenents.
Oh wait, Brady's numbers are supressed because he has his team on his back, and Brunells' aren't because he has mule pulling him.
offiss 01-20-2006, 06:02 PM News flash everyone, in case you didn't realize it offiss is a Brunell hater.
None of our success this year can be attributable to Brunell. Yeah I know, a 3000 yard passer with 23 TDs and only 10 INTs has to be given some credit, right?
Nope.
Don't look at the stats... yeah I know that's a common way to measure a player but you have to ignore the facts here and trust that we somehow managed to win 10 regular season games and a playoff game with absolutely no meaningful contribution from the QB position whatsoever.
Don't look at the entire season either as a gauge for Brunell's success. Forgot about those 8 games in which he posted a 90 or better QB rating. Instead, let's judge his season on his worst 3 performances when the entire offense was struggling and serveral key players including Brunell himself was banged up. That's where you see the true measure of a QB, that's where you see what kind of QB Mark Brunell is.
Your forgetting about the rest of his lowsey performances, I think he's had 4 real nice games in 2 years, but he's the man!
As if you wouldn't throw him under the truck like you did with Ramsey the second Gibbs makes a switch.
[Matty72wrote]Brunell thinks he can still start, problem for him is who would want him as their starter?? If he demands a trade, do you think anybody would be willing to take on his salary?
Obviously Matty you would. :hater:
|