Breaking News - JC to start Sunday

Okay, try to name 1 other good QB who has led an offense that has averaged 12 points in 7 of 9 games (taking away his two best games).

Besides those games against Jax, Dallas II, and Houston, when do you think Brunell played well? When do you think he didn't play well?Jake Delhomme. Jake Plummer. Chad Pennington, maybe?

Indy and Minnesota he did pretty well. New York, I'd give him an N/A since he never had the football. Tennessee he was brilliant in the first half and horrible in the 2nd.

Dallas I, he was bad and Philadelphia, bad. Both those games were road games w/o Portis. Games he would have needed to be perfect to win. Was far less than perfect, yeah, but it happens from time to time.

Really, Saunders was stoked? I wonder if he had alot of imput in the decision... Probably hoping someone will save his career!

I'm nervous for him. I desparately want him to do well, but its hard to imagine. I think because we havent had a QB that has done well in a long long time. Brunell has done allright, but he has been inconsistant.

Well since the efficiency ratings say it is, I have to dig deeper. Someone has to be right...the statistical rankings or illdefined.

Our star RB is injured. Our WRs have less than 200 yards...i dont know maybe because we pass less than anyone else. And we get yards after the catch? How HORRIBLE! Bench Brunell...oh wait.

Haven't even seen the efficiency ratings (certainly will take a hit after Sunday), but I already know who or what to believe.

if everyone was getting YAC, Lloyd, Randle El and Cooley wouldn't be miserable with less than 200 yards.

here's an eye-opening experiment, take out Betts' YAC from your efficiency ratings and see whats left. HE'S the one you really should be jocking, not your boy.

Jake Delhomme. Jake Plummer. Chad Pennington, maybe?

Indy and Minnesota he did pretty well. New York, I'd give him an N/A since he never had the football. Tennessee he was brilliant in the first half and horrible in the 2nd.

Dallas I, he was bad and Philadelphia, bad. Both those games were road games w/o Portis. Games he would have needed to be perfect to win. Was far less than perfect, yeah, but it happens from time to time.


I think its over, there dude...


I'd like to thank this opportunity to thank Mark Brunell (aka Gtripp0012) for his hard work and for fighting his guts out for us.

I appreciate the dramatic dallas win last year, as that is what I will always remember you for... and in a couple of short years I will stop talking about how you only watch 4 things when you have the ball (pass rush, santana, dumpoff valve, stands) in that order everytime, and at that point you will be that short guy that beat dallas by getting the ball to santana moss twice in 5 minutes....

Thanks...

me

Really, Saunders was stoked? I wonder if he had alot of imput in the decision... Probably hoping someone will save his career!

I'm nervous for him. I desparately want him to do well, but its hard to imagine. I think because we havent had a QB that has done well in a long long time. Brunell has done allright, but he has been inconsistant.

yeah he seemed very happy. he said the whole coaching staff made the decision. he also said this was on a week-by-week basis if campbell would keep starting. what i liked to hear was the offense would change some with campbell in. hopefully more downfield passing

Jake Delhomme. Jake Plummer. Chad Pennington, maybe?

Indy and Minnesota he did pretty well. New York, I'd give him an N/A since he never had the football. Tennessee he was brilliant in the first half and horrible in the 2nd.

Dallas I, he was bad and Philadelphia, bad. Both those games were road games w/o Portis. Games he would have needed to be perfect to win. Was far less than perfect, yeah, but it happens from time to time.

1st - Neither Delhomme nor Pennington have averaged 12 points per game (taking away their 2 best games).

2nd - I said to name me a good QB who's averaged less than 12 points per game. Jake Plummer has been playing horribly this year. Are you are seriously saying that Plummer has been playing like a good QB?

3rd - You admit that Brunell played poorly against Dallas I and Philly. So you actually think he played well against the Giants? What about against the Titans, Vikings, and Colts?

if everyone was getting YAC, Lloyd, Randle El and Cooley wouldn't be miserable with less than 200 yards.

here's an eye-opening experiment, take out Betts' YAC from your efficiency ratings and see whats left. HE'S the one you really should be jocking, not your boy.First of all they aren't my ratings. I don't make em up. Secondly, what are you saying? That because the opponent leaves RBs open and we exploit it...we suck?

Randle El and Lloyd have been worse than replacement this season (see earlier post, this thread) Cooley is having the worst season of his career, although he's picking it up of late.

And those stats I give attempt to eliminate the Brunell factor. So that isn't the issue. This arguement that Brunell has great weapons is off the mark. He has Moss (8+ DPAR/G). Period.

Here's a shocker, Moss is good. Betts is having a good year. TELL THE PEOPLES!!!

The one consistent factor keeping the offensive efficiency ratings up was Brunell, and he's gone so look for them to drop hard.

I could take out all the good plays and leave the bad if I wanted to, but that wouldn't tell me anything. What are you trying to say?

Also, I've got to ask again, do you honestly believe that every ex-football player, coach, analyst, and fan is wrong about Brunell and is unfairly blaming him? I hate to cite football "experts" as support for my argument, but when every single one has called for Brunell's benching I must. Is everyone else so very wrong and you are right?

i think some of us have forgot what a "good" starting qb is. its someone who scares the defense, someone who has the ability to stretch the field on a consistant basis, and neither of those is brunell. ken harvey said if he were still playing he would love to play against brunell beause he doesnt scare opposing defenses at all. brunell is an average qb, who could get the job done on a team like baltimore where the offense doesnt need to be awesome to win games because of the defense. but the fact is, our defense isnt good enough to just get by with "mistake free football". brunell plays a low risk, low reward game, and it doesnt help this team anymore

First of all they aren't my ratings. I don't make em up. Secondly, what are you saying? That because the opponent leaves RBs open and we exploit it...we suck?

Yeah, that's the general idea. Betts was the leading receiver in terms of receptions in the Indianapolis game, and this week at Philly. That says Brunell doesn't have the confidence to get the ball to his downfield receivers, that he panics at the slightest hint of a blitz, and purges the ball to his outlet receiver, (usually Betts) long before plays are allowed to develop. Not only that, opponents can blitz at will, knowing that Brunell will NEVER make them pay for it.

Now GTripp, I understand you're carrying the water for Brunell, going to obscure websites looking for convoluted statistics that somehow say Brunell is actually deserving of the league MVP in 2006 -- but what exactly is it you think the team should do with Brunell? In terms of leading the offense productively, effectively, and giving us scoring drives, what does the 3-6 record tell you that everybody else seems to miss?