Does Anyone Want To Compare Brunell To Manning Now????

If he takes 1 chance out of 5 to trust his arm, his ability and his receivers, instead of dumping the goddamn ball off, we may be better off.What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...

We can get pretty much 4-5 yards a play dumping the ball off. If they jump that, Brunell tends to find guys sitting around the sticks for the first down. I'd say 4/5 times we can pick up 4-5 yards doing what we do in the passing game. So the only way our drives stall are: Turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd and short conversions.

Throwing the ball up would increase the turnover rate. It would increse the likelyhood of sacks and penalties. More importantly, 80% of the time, it costs you a down...if you are lucky. Remember, you are throwing into coverage. By design. Which I don't like.

So if the offense we run now is designed to keep negative plays, penalties, and turnovers from occuring, then the problem happens only when those things occur. We aren't turning the ball over. We are however getting negative plays and penalties. And the penalties aren't on Mark Brunell. The sacks could be on a Quarterback if he holds the ball too long. But one of the main complaints with his play is that he doesn't hold it long enough.

Offensive efficiecy is up from last year due in part to the system, and in part to Brunell's play. But drives aren't being sustained. Either players who go hard the first two downs are deciding to pack in on third, or the playcalling is suspect. I blame the playcalling, but I think its a deeper issue. Saunders' philosophy is to ignore the down and distance and call the play he thinks will gain the most yardage at that time. So if he thinks a deep pass will net 0 yards (incomplete), he won't call the deep pass.

I believe he sees the long pass as a sign of desperation. By the way you guys talk about it, I think he might be on to something.

So if you have followed my stream of conscieousness to this point, I may have stumbled upon the reasoning for the lack of deep throws. Having the 6th ranked offense and the 11th ranked QB, he doesn't feel the pressure you do to tear up chunks of yardage. He continues to desire to move the chains. Saunders knows any call he makes could go for a touchdown. So why call the low percentage pass when he could call the high one or run it?

I don't condone being conservative, and if I was calling plays, I would put more stock into down and distance than Al does, but I REALLY don't condone offensive desperation, espicially when the alternative is working reasonably well.

I think its time for some desperate measures on the defensive end.

Manning is the best QB in the league. Brunell is a vet who still plays at a pretty high level. While I could draw parallels all day, the truth is no one in the game today is anywhere near Peyton Manning. I don't know if anyone at this fourm ever tried to make a point of one being better than the other simply because it's a given that Manning is the best.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Campbell-Manning comparision sometime after his first TD pass from someone on this fourm. It's quite sad that some people can be so blind to good production. Campbell will be good, I promise you. If you want to know why, pick up the Pro Football Prospectus 2006.

But the only reason I ever mention Manning and Brunell in the same sentence, is because they are both veteran QBs who are in fact human and make mistakes. Two different players, two different roles in two different offenses. Manning is better. No one disputes that.

yeah, but based on that (qb success from NCAA -> NFL based on NCAA starts and completion %), kyle boller is god, which is clearly untrue.

What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...


WHAAA???? moss runs a 4.27, and deep passes aren't his strength? El is super speed too, yet he's not good at deep balls? dallas 14-13 showed our strength, an it WASN'T screen screen screen, dump off dump off dump off. it was varied, and definately included going over the top.

yeah the Colts are desperate. all the way into the 4th quarter. this was a real bad rationalization GTripp. you don't ignore your playmakers you pay millions for, and you don't play strictly for completion percentage which seems to be the ultimate goal in your explantion. wins be damned.

WHAAA???? moss runs a 4.27, and deep passes aren't his strength? El is super speed too, yet he's not good at deep balls? dallas 14-13 showed our strength, an it WASN'T screen screen screen, dump off dump off dump off. it was varied, and definately included going over the top.We have height issues at WR. We won't win jump balls down the field. Moss' strength is YAC, it's something we figured out after the Jets had 4 years to and couldn't. They tried to use his speed down the field, and could never find him. We throw screens and curls, set up the blocks and watch him run. It's really cool.

What? Why?

#1 the vertical passing game is not the strength of our recieving core. Lloyd is the most well-adjusted for it. So I'd say your 1 in 5 chance of success figure is pretty accurate. Running with that...

Huh? So Moss isn't a deep threat either? What is ARE, a possession receiver? Patten was a deep threat in New England. You also concede that Lloyd is a deep threat. So I have no clue how you can say that we don't have deep threats.


We can get pretty much 4-5 yards a play dumping the ball off. If they jump that, Brunell tends to find guys sitting around the sticks for the first down. I'd say 4/5 times we can pick up 4-5 yards doing what we do in the passing game. So the only way our drives stall are: Turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd and short conversions.


NO team eliminates turnovers, negative plays, penalties, or failed 3rd down conversions.


Throwing the ball up would increase the turnover rate. It would increse the likelyhood of sacks and penalties. More importantly, 80% of the time, it costs you a down...if you are lucky. Remember, you are throwing into coverage. By design. Which I don't like.


So you don't like throwing the ball deep? I don't know of ANYONE that thinks that throwing the ball deep is a bad thing. Gibbs brought wideouts in to improve our deep passing game. So Gibbs was dumb to try to focus on the deep passing game?


So if the offense we run now is designed to keep negative plays, penalties, and turnovers from occuring, then the problem happens only when those things occur. We aren't turning the ball over. We are however getting negative plays and penalties. And the penalties aren't on Mark Brunell. The sacks could be on a Quarterback if he holds the ball too long. But one of the main complaints with his play is that he doesn't hold it long enough.


Although the penalties aren't on Brunell, some of the negative plays are. He checks down on about 80% of all passing plays. Defenses just sit by the line of scrimmage and wait to jump on Portis or the guy getting the screen pass. Net result=negative plays.


Offensive efficiecy is up from last year due in part to the system, and in part to Brunell's play. But drives aren't being sustained. Either players who go hard the first two downs are deciding to pack in on third, or the playcalling is suspect. I blame the playcalling, but I think its a deeper issue. Saunders' philosophy is to ignore the down and distance and call the play he thinks will gain the most yardage at that time. So if he thinks a deep pass will net 0 yards (incomplete), he won't call the deep pass.

Drives aren't being sustained because you can't expect a team to be able to consistently sustain 16 play drives. They need to start airing it out a bit to get teams to respect our offense and back off the line of scrimmage.

yeah the Colts are desperate. all the way into the 4th quarter. this was a real bad rationalization GTripp. you don't ignore your playmakers you pay millions for, and you don't play strictly for completion percentage which seems to be the ultimate goal in your explantion. wins be damned.Do completion percentage and yards/attempt not dictate successful passing? Am I that mislead?

The whole situation is moot. If we can't stop anybody defensively, then it doesn't matter who we have at QB. The games will just be over a lot sooner if we aren't careful with the football.

We have height issues at WR. We won't win jump balls down the field. Moss' strength is YAC, it's something we figured out after the Jets had 4 years to and couldn't. They tried to use his speed down the field, and could never find him. We throw screens and curls, set up the blocks and watch him run. It's really cool.

Moss is definately good at getting YAC, but to say he isn't a deep threat is simply ridiculous.

GTripp,

Just one question. Do you think that Mark Brunell is great, average, or sub-par in the intermediate and deep passing game?

Do completion percentage and yards/attempt not dictate successful passing? Am I that mislead?

The whole situation is moot. If we can't stop anybody defensively, then it doesn't matter who we have at QB. The games will just be over a lot sooner if we aren't careful with the football.

yeah, points dictate wins. you need more than them.