Will Saunders Affect Our QB Situation?

You should define records, those were team records, not NFL. If you only throw to 2 guy's that will happen.

Of coarse we improved on offense, but I think it was down right impossible to go backwards.

Of course it's possible to go backwards, there is at least 32 teams in the NFL if I remember correctly. We were ranked #30, which means we could have been ranked worse.


Our offensive performance in the last 3 games is what makes my statement correct,

Right! You'd rather dwell on three games out of the 18 we played this year and ignore the rest.



Laying the blame on Portis in the Seattle game is ridiculous, did you watch that game, Seattle was sending 7 guys at him where ever he went with no caution to misdirection, why you ask? Could it be they didn't have any real worries about Brunell beating them downfield?

How so? Portis didn't perform well. Why not blame him? You're quick to pick Brunell apart when he doesn't play well, regardless of the reason. By your logic, it's just as correct to blame Portis. How is it that Brunell can't get the ball down the field? Go back and watch the highlight films of this season. Brunell doesn't have a problem with getting the ball downfield.

You are not going to run the ball I don't care who you are if you become 1 dimensional, you have to be able to beat a team in the air if they over committ to the run, Brunell never did that.

It's not Brunell's fault that Portis couldn't establish the run. Our offensive philosophy is a run first to set up the pass philosophy. Logically, you must establish the running game to open up the passing game. We couldn't establish the running game, therefore, our passing game suffered as well. When you're put in a position where the majority of the plays have to be pass plays, then the defense can double your ONE receiver down the field. It's not that hard to figure out.

No, they didn't give Brunell three turnovers, they gave are offense three turnovers.

And I'd bet money you wouldn't take Simms or McMahon over Brunell.


Your kidding with that statement right? Who runs the offense? So I guess when Brunell throws an INT it's not really him it's the offense, interseting way of looking at things you have there. I guess if you don't understand that the QB is going to get the credit and the blame for the up's and downs of an offense this is kind of a dead end discussion.


I will bet as much money as you can muster that I would take Simms over Brunell.

Your kidding with that statement right? Who runs the offense? So I guess when Brunell throws an INT it's not really him it's the offense, interseting way of looking at things you have there. I guess if you don't understand that the QB is going to get the credit and the blame for the up's and downs of an offense this is kind of a dead end discussion.


I will bet as much money as you can muster that I would take Simms over Brunell.

Yeah, it is a very interesting way seeing that 10 other guys line up with Brunell. You're right, it's a very interesting way to see that.

Perhaps this is a dead end discussion.

So I guess unless you're setting league records you're not doing a good job?

I guess only Shaun Alexander had a good season then.

If you go from the bottom 1/3 of the league in offense to the top 1/3, that's a pretty damn good improvement not matter what way you try to spin it.

So I guess unless you're setting league records you're not doing a good job?

I guess only Shaun Alexander had a good season then.

If you go from the bottom 1/3 of the league in offense to the top 1/3, that's a pretty damn good improvement not matter what way you try to spin it.

Maybe that story doesn't spin good enough for Offiss.

So I guess unless you're setting league records you're not doing a good job?

I guess only Shaun Alexander had a good season then.

If you go from the bottom 1/3 of the league in offense to the top 1/3, that's a pretty damn good improvement not matter what way you try to spin it.


Thank you!! :point:

Of course it's possible to go backwards, there is at least 32 teams in the NFL if I remember correctly. We were ranked #30, which means we could have been ranked worse.



Right! You'd rather dwell on three games out of the 18 we played this year and ignore the rest.




How so? Portis didn't perform well. Why not blame him? You're quick to pick Brunell apart when he doesn't play well, regardless of the reason. By your logic, it's just as correct to blame Portis. How is it that Brunell can't get the ball down the field? Go back and watch the highlight films of this season. Brunell doesn't have a problem with getting the ball downfield.



It's not Brunell's fault that Portis couldn't establish the run. Our offensive philosophy is a run first to set up the pass philosophy. Logically, you must establish the running game to open up the passing game. We couldn't establish the running game, therefore, our passing game suffered as well. When you're put in a position where the majority of the plays have to be pass plays, then the defense can double your ONE receiver down the field. It's not that hard to figure out.


It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

We ran pretty well all year even when there was 7 or 8 in the box.

Perhaps the loss of Thomas coupled with Portis' banged up shoulders limited our usual effectiveness in the running game.

Nah, let's just blame Brunell.

It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

So basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, we should lay ALL offensivefailure and success at the feet of Mark Brunell?

It is his fault if the defense is stacking the box with no fear of the passing game.

Not it's not. Stacking the box doesn't mean that they ONLY go after the running back. Brunell was pressured all day against Seattle's defense...that's a fact! The persuit stopped our WR screen - which helps to keep the defense honest. Nobody was getting open on a consistant basis. You have Taylor Jacobs playing opposite of Santana Moss..'nuff said.


Logically you have to establish 1 or the other, you have to run in order to pass, if a team over committs and stops the run, then you must burn them with the pass to force them out of the box, Brunell couldn't do that.

If and only if the receivers are open and if and only if you're given time to burn the defense deep - both were not true in that game.

Portis himself said after the game that he couldn't run because Seattle was stacking the box, you can't ask 5 O-linemen to block 7 and 8 players in the box, it's up to the QB to make them pay for that and Bruenll didn't.

In your theory, we should be able to burn people deep everytime a defense stacks 7 or 8 guys in the box. That doesn't always happen. Just like you said, you can't expect 5 guys to block 7 or 8, so how do you expect 5 guys to pass protect against 7 or 8 guys? It doesn't happen. The best way to counter that is a quick dump off pass. Again - Seattle's persuit was faster than what anybody gave them credit for. It's not Brunell's fault or at least isn't Brunell's fault alone.