How Long For Brunell?

My only probelm with Mark is that he feels the pressure more now than he probably use to and is quicker to throw it away that we would all like to see. However, As you guys have posted above he did throw for over 60% Monday night and did not get sacked or throw a pick. Which kept us in the game. The Skins lost the time of posession battle, which was a big deal in a tight game and I was unimpressed by our Defenses ability to get off the field on 3rd down. Mark is not the reason the Skins lost. Not getting more pressure on Brad was a big problem and the Skins rushing game was bad. If both of those a re better Sunday night, the Skins can and should beat Dallas.

seriously tho...where was duckett?? i thought we got him for redzone...why didnt he pound it in there

As far as I am concerned, Mark Brunell won the most important and the most memorable game of all, last year in Dallas to break the painful losing streak we had with the Cowgirls! Not only that, he lead the way in their second meeting at FedEx Field, a critical game which was important to both teams. Needless to say, you know the outcome. Give him some more respect! I think Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders know a little more than you do when it comes to deciding on who should be the starter!

All I know is what I see and what I see is that the weakest link on the offense is QB and has been for some time. It's a sad state of affairs when all you can credit the QB with is two games in a 16-game season. I'll repeat - he's rarely if ever the reason we win games and, for a QB, that's pathetic. I don't want a QB who mostly "doesn't lose games for us". QBs should be game breakers and control the flow of the game for their team. Brunell might do that 2 or 3 games a year, at best.

Problem is - there's no one else on the bench who's ready to take us all the way right now. Campbell may become that QB, but he's untested. I've seen all I want to see of what Brunell has to offer and it is game after game where we score 9, 10, 12, maybe 16 or 17 points. Again, pathetic, given the talent that surrounds him.

Funny how eating crow for some people never gets old.

I guess it must be tasty.

Betts: 8/22 yards, 1 Fumble (how come no one is calling for his head?)
3rd Down Defense: 9/17
3rd Down Offense: 4/13
Secondary play: Enough said.

Compare that with what MB did:

17/28/163 with 0 fumbles, sacks or INTs.

Sure, not Peyton like numbers, but he sure wasn't the reason why we lost.

First of all, the more knowledgeable among us already know that Betts isn't starter material. I've personally stated that he's not the "bruising power runner" that a lot of people seem to think he is, so his perfomance is about what I expected.

As far as pointing out Brunells' numbers; all but maybe one of the third down plays were passes, so the 4/13 on third down was mostly him throwing it away.

And as far as Campbell playing, I don't think that's a good idea just yet. While I think the offense will far more dynamic with him running the show, there will still be a learning curve, and if he doesn't perform well by his second start, everyone will be screaming that he was a wasted pick. The only way Campbell will see the field is if Brunell gets injured, or if he's still playing in week nine, like he played Monday, and there's no chance for a playoff run. At that point, I could see Gibbs making the switch.

But I've gotta tell you, I am nothing short of stunned by this thread. Exactly what game where you people watching? Of all the broken pieces and parts, why are you discussing QB play at all?

For example:

Betts: 8/22 yards, 1 Fumble (how come no one is calling for his head?)
3rd Down Defense: 9/17
3rd Down Offense: 4/13
Secondary play: Enough said.

Compare that with what MB did:

17/28/163 with 0 fumbles, sacks or INTs.

Sure, not Peyton like numbers, but he sure wasn't the reason why we lost.

When did Betts fumble? Either way, it was not a fumble lost. Brunell and Portis did fumble an exchange, but they recovered it. Unless I've missed something, we had no turnovers against the Vikings.

Now, as to Brunell, regardless of his final stats, the type of play we saw isn't going to win games. The point is that by and large, you need dynamic quarterback play if you expect to go anywhere in the NFL today. Brunell wasn't dynamic in '05 -- far from it. Our defense and the running game was what got us to the divisional playoff round.

No, Brunell wasn't the sole reason we lost. But you cannot dismiss the fact that a better quarterback might have able to complete some throws into tight coverage and keep some drives going. Isn't Brunell a part of the 3rd down stats and red zone offense?

It's still hard to knock Brunell and his arm though...considering the Super Bowl winning QBs who were/are not known for arm strength: Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer...

Not a good comparison. I would submit that Dilfer and Johnson were playing at a higher level than Brunell is now. Not only that, the strength of the Ravens and Buccaneers in their Super Bowl seasons was the defense. Dilfer was better than people give credit for, ditto for Johnson. Right now, Brunell is playing like a very average quarterback.

Here's the thing, you can throw the ball away, and you can be good at avoiding interceptions, and still be ineffective as a quarterback.

As you guys have posted above he did throw for over 60% Monday night and did not get sacked or throw a pick. Which kept us in the game.

What kept the game close were Viking mistakes, nothing else. Throwing for 60% means nothing when there's only 16 points and failed red zone trips to show for it.

Let me say again, I am in no way calling for Brunell's head, nor am I calling for Campbell to start. Brunell is the best quarterback we have right now.

And that's the problem.

I cannot believe I am here defending #8.

All I know is what I see and what I see is that the weakest link on the offense is QB and has been for some time. It's a sad state of affairs when all you can credit the QB with is two games in a 16-game season. I'll repeat - he's rarely if ever the reason we win games and, for a QB, that's pathetic. I don't want a QB who mostly "doesn't lose games for us". QBs should be game breakers and control the flow of the game for their team. Brunell might do that 2 or 3 games a year, at best.



May I suggest:

Eye Surgery Education Council (http://www.lasikinstitute.org/)

Perhaps you would be happier with this team and their four Super Bowl trophies:

The Official Website of the Indianapolis Colts (http://www.colts.com/)

The Steelers, Patriots, Bucs and Ravens all have recent SB rings without "game breakers" at QB.

Perhaps you have forgotten what it has been like to have our QB losing game after game with stupid mistakes. I'm thrilled to see #8 throw that ball out of bounds instead of:

-Sack
-Penalty
-INT
-Fumble

The passing game struggles last year cannot be hung on MB. He had one quality WR. Of course the passing game is going to struggle. Against MN, Betts kept putting us in 2nd and 3rd and long. The most important (and most overlooked) QB stat is TD/INT ratio. Last year, MB was 2/1. That is outstanding. It was a big reason why we were able to get into the playoffs even though we were not getting any major juice from the passing game.

I feel like the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House yelling "Don't Panic!" in the middle of the riot.

If we had Bledsoe, Collins, Plummer, Kitna, Frye, Losman, Brooks, Carr, Huard or Favre (yes, I said it -- he is one of the worst in the league right now) at QB, then I could understand the reaction. In fact, I would be in a state of panic as well. But we don't.

I'd also like to point out that there are 10 NFL teams with really bad QBs starting for them this week. By comparison (and I can't believe I'm saying this), every Redskin fan should get down on their knees and thank god for #8.

give it another game or two. if we beat dallas we're fine. i of course have my doubts but it's too early to tell. if we get a bit better in the RZ we should be okay. i felt we could move the ball when we needed to (losing in the beginning and the 4th qtr drive).

i'd feel WAY differently if we lost by 10+.

brad johnson is def. better than MB but what can you do?

give it another game or two. if we beat dallas we're fine. i of course have my doubts but it's too early to tell. if we get a bit better in the RZ we should be okay. i felt we could move the ball when we needed to (losing in the beginning and the 4th qtr drive).

i'd feel WAY differently if we lost by 10+.

brad johnson is def. better than MB but what can you do?

Had it not been for Troy Willamson dropping passes, we would have lost by way more than 10 points.

Had it not been for Troy Willamson dropping passes, we would have lost by way more than 10 points.

i cancel that out partly with santana moss' drop. yeah he got hit but moss holds on to that shite.