Breaking News - JC to start Sunday

yeah, I mean truth be told, if our defense was even half of what it's been the past few seasons, we would have a few more wins and Brunell would probably still have his job...

At the same time, we had our chances yesterday to score and stay in the game (20 mins time of posession in the 1st half) and the defense actually made some stops, but we couldn't punch it in.

Let the church say AMEN!

I'm pretty much just itching to bash the hell out of our lousy D. Two things I hate: lousy defense and not running the football....

NICE!!!!

(Borat Voice)

let me in this conversation. whats going on

So according to "advanced statistics," if Campbell had played yesterday we would have scored -1 pts?? MB is afraid to throw down the middle of the field, and can't throw longer than 10 yards to save his life. With all our speed at WR, its criminal to not take at least a few shots per game downfield. Brunell's avg. yards per attempt has got to be near the bottom of the list...The 4 points a game is an average, not something we would lose every game. I bet Campbell could have put up at least 3 against Phili. But he wouldn't have gotten 36 against Jacksonville.

Brunell's yards per attempt are near the top (which has been my point all along). He gets a lot of YAC help, but when hes doing his part, it's hard to blame him. And if the defense has truly been playing up against us because they dont fear Brunell, then where did all the YAC come from? Let's face it, common opinion of Brunells year to date is wrong somewhere.

Supreme effort from great players to turn Brunell's 'Pig's Ear' into a 'Silk Purse' play.

There's your explanation.

GTripp,

I love your resolve to prove us wrong and back up your undying support of Brunell, but I cannot believe that you don't think Brunell was A problem. Apparently Gibbs agrees with us and I'll just leave it at that.He absolutely was a problem...yesterday. AND against Dallas week 2. Horrible games those days. What was the common link? Clinton Portis didn't play in the 2nd half of either game.

It's not an excuse, just correlation.

So if Campbell is missing CP, why would I expect him to fare any better?

Supreme effort from great players to turn Brunell's 'Pig's Ear' into a 'Silk Purse' play.

There's your explanation.I think you're wrong.

That was easy.

Except to this day it would be just as deloooooooosional to think that we'd be any better than 2-7 with Campbell at QB. The games we lost we didn't lose because of the QB position, and the Jacksonville game we won because of it.

You can't solve all your teams problems with a QB change, espicially when the QB wasn't the issue.

Here's a list of guys who have had worse seasons than MB:

Jon Jansen
Al Saunders
Derrick Dockery
Chris Cooley (my favorite Redskin)
Christian Fauria
Gregg Williams
Adam Archuleta
Sean Taylor
Carlos Rogers (I think he will improve drastically in the 2nd half of the year)
Warrick Holdman
Lemar Marshall (my 2nd favorite Redskin)
Marcus Washington
Andre Carter
Phillip Daniels

Good, now that we have Brunell out of the way, what are we going to do with those guys? And who is going to be Campbell's replacement when he doesnt throw 4 TDs this week?

According to advanced statistics (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php) Brunell is personally responsible for 36.6 points this season (4.1 DPAR/G) (above replacement, or a guy responsible for exactly 0, and yes you can be below replacement level). Until further proof, Campbell would fall at the replacement QB range (0 DPAR/G). In his prime, Campbell is projected to produce 6.1 DPAR/G. That means Campbell at his prime would be responsible for 55.0 points this season up until this point. But he's got a ways to go to make his projection so you are almost certainly taking a hit in the present.

So in the present, I would expect our average pts/game to decrease by 4 for the rest of the year, slowly increasing as JC gets expierence.

OH, Hi! It's my new long lost twin again!! :)