Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

Ok, calling him one of the worst Redskins QB was overstating it BUT with the level of expectation that came with him and what he represented (Gibbs first player he targeted), what we gave up (a draft pick when he was going to be released) and the was he was so indignantly defended by the coaching staff when it was OBVIOUS he was done made his tenure torturous to bear. Obvious only to the ignorant, as I will defend below.

While I understand your points, I think they are somewhat misplaced. Just because we've had a string of horrible qb's doesn't justify going out and trading (dropping serious coin) on a talent that was only marginally better. In my opinion, we paid for a 2000 bently and got a used 1985 honda instead. Any way you slice it, his performance did not merit his cost (salary itself as well as the time spent squandered on his broken, oft injured body).Of course, you've both touched on the counter argument regarding Brunell--that a year and a half of solid play does not warrent a trade of a 3rd round draft pick, and about 17 million dollars in cap space over 4 years.

Looking into this however, I don't think it's as cut and dry. This is a comprehensive list of players who had more total value over the same time period, and the compensation given to get them:

Steve McNair (1st round pick, 1995, by Titans) (4th round pick 2006,by Ravens)
Marc Bulger (6th rounder, 2001, by Rams)
Peyton Manning (1st rounder, 1998, by Colts)
Drew Brees (2nd rounder, 2000, by Chargers)
Carson Palmer (1st rounder, 2003, by Bengals)
Tom Brady (6th round pick, 2000, by Patriots)
Ben Roethlisberger (1st rounder, 2004, by Steelers)
Matt Hasselbeck (6th rounder, 1998, by Packers) (6th rounder, 2000, by Seahawks)
Trent Green (8th rounder, 1993, by Chargers), (unknown draft pick, 2000, by Chiefs)

Obviously, those picks netted more years for those players than we got from Brunell, and that has to be considered in the draft pick equation, but do realize that every one of those players was, or is current getting paid more money than Mark Brunell was here. Conclusively, cut and dry, you HAVE to pay well to get and keep QB talent. Indisputable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue here in most people's minds the fact that we paid Mark Brunell before he ever played a down for us? I think this is the case here, and in my opinion, that's not really relevant.

As to the passing rankings, I'm not as interested as where they finished statistically as results.. He had one good year in 3, 2005. Other than that he was garbage. I could complete 70% of my passes if I didn't throw more than 5 yards downfield for a majority of the game. I was one of the biggest critics of Gibbs offense during 2.0 but MB played a big role in that.False, because in the first half of 2006, he was, along with Portis and the offensive line, the only player doing his job on the Redskins. Go back, crunch the numbers, or save yourself the time and just listen to me. We were top ten in yards per pass while MB was the QB, and top 3 in fewest INTs per pass. That's about the only thing we had going for us in 2006, at least until Betts came on and got hot.

It's not a good criticism to say a guy who averaged 6.8 yards an attempt "never threw more than 5 yards downfield". Big gap in logic there that you have to backpeddle on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stats you are quoting are Total Yards - Offense. If you look at:
Passing Yards for 2005 we were ranked 21st, 5th in Passing TDs.
Passing Yards for 2006 we were ranked 21st again, 17th in Passing TDs.
2004 was a trainwreck.I was actually quoting DVOA (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff2005.php), but you can use passing yards as long as you remember to divide by the number of attempts. It's a really important step that makes the numbers look a lot more accurate. We simply didn't throw as often as other teams and you can't penalize us for that.

(Remember I'm also not counting the Campbell era of 2006, because the numbers saw a huge decline when he came in--for obvious reasons that say everything about his inexperience and nothing about his skill level)

As I wrote in my first, post, I cannot and do not fault Mark for taking the redskin's bid. The point of my first statement was simply, while MB wasn't horrible from a playing perspective (though even in his good year, he wasn't healthy enough for the playoffs, so really, what good did it do? Ask the eagles) he was not a good choice given the investment (both financial and the opportunity cost associated with not trying someone younger and more able)- fact is he couldn't play a full season plus post season at 100%.Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.

Good riddance. Nice guy, but just feel like he's run out of gas in the tank. He's been coasting downhill without gas for a few years now.

Good points here, but do we know this for sure? I mean, he was injured in 2004, and got his knee banged up pretty bad 16 weeks into the 2005 season, but could that not happen to anyone?

I mean, yeah, if you are blaming age for the injury problems, you definately have to question the investment. I'm not sure we can so easily pin the fact that he was playing hurt at the end of 2005 on the fact that he was old. He just got hit in the knee, which seemingly could happen to anyone.

Fair point. I guess I just feel that if the rest of the NFL "knew" he couldn't really hack it as a starter any more, why didn't we? (that was the prevailing sentiment when we signed him). As a result, i do blame his age and mileage for his injuries...

Farewell Mark.

Thanks for the memories, the big run to the playoffs in 2005, your shortly-held consecutive completions record and most of all, GETTING PATRICK RAMSEY OFF THE FIELD.

He wasn't the best QB all of the time, but he was a great team player.

Now he's following in the footsteps of Heath Shuler, going to Naw'lins.

Good riddance. Nice guy, but just feel like he's run out of gas in the tank. He's been coasting downhill without gas for a few years now.


I'll laugh if your kids once say that exact same statement to you when you get old. :)

Fair point. I guess I just feel that if the rest of the NFL "knew" he couldn't really hack it as a starter any more, why didn't we? (that was the prevailing sentiment when we signed him). As a result, i do blame his age and mileage for his injuries...Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.

Fair enough. I can't really say you're off base here regarding the age-injuries correlation, and the injuries certainly had a lot to do with his inconsistencies here, especially given his solid performance when healthy.

Though, in regards to what the rest of the NFL thought of Brunell, I figured that Gibbs dealing a 3rd for him was his way of thinking that they wouldn't be able to sign him on the open market, as he was going to be the cream of the crop had he been cut and hit the open market. I thought Dallas was going to go after him to compete with/replace Quincy Carter.

Like everyone else, I would have been much happier if we had held on to the third rounder and tried to get him on the open market. At the time, it didn't make a lot of sense considering that Patrick Ramsey was coming off, what would end up being his career year. However, given Ramsey's fizzling in 2004, and Brunell's relatively stellar play in 2005 and 2006, I would say (and I know I'm in the minority) that he justified the opportunity cost we gave to get him.
Rather than debate you point for point since we are on polar opposites of the Brunell bandwagon, I'll just say this.. The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG.. Bottom line, he had one decent season, 2005. He was terrible and benched in 2004. He was terrible (outside of the Houston game) and benched in 2006. I know the entire offense isn't all on him and it's not his fault entirely that we struggled mightily on that side of the ball for years but for what we paid for him in picks, money and time he was an unmitigated bust in DC.

The reason that QB is the most valued and highest paid position in the NFL is because the buck stops there. RB get to make excuses about blocking in front of them. WR get to make excuses about not getting the ball thrown their way. DB get to make excuses about officiating or not being in the right scheme. QB are paid to do one thing, win.

I'm sure he's a great guy and a wonderful teammate but he didn't get the job of winning football games done well enough, bottom line.

The only 'results' I care about are wins and losses.. Not POVR or passer rating or TD/INT ratio or YPG..I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.

I don't really feel the need to bicker anymore over Brunell's accomplishments--I mean they are there for anyone who cares enough about Redskin football in 2004-2006 to see them, and I really have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

But if you aren't saying the above statement facetiously, and if you are, I apologize for missing it, there's really no reason to be discussing QB play here at the WP.

I mean, after all, what do you care how the guy played? He didn't win enough (17-19 as QB of Washington...or roughly winning a league average amount of games (47%)), and as you said yourself, why debate it any further?

Jason Campbell is only 8-12 as QB of the Redskins (40%), so his career is pretty much over. I mean, he's not winning, so let's not look any further. Why would we? It's not really important.
You're right, if you're comparing grapes to grapefruits.. Campbell's career is just beginning and Brunell's was over before he got here so that's a brilliant conclusion that Campbell's career is over. C'mon dude, use common sense in making your point or refuting mine..