Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)

Actually we have a HUGE amount of plays over 20 yards. If you can find the stat, I saw it during the Rams game. I believe we're one of the top 10 teams with long gaining plays.

How do we determine what constitutes a "deep pass" though? For example, Brunell dumped off a screen pass to Moss that he turned into a 71-yard TD against KC. Long gaining play, but not a deep pass per se.

True. But I was just looking at a Moss highlight video and he definitely has at least 10 20+ yard catches through the air.

i know that i should have said something sooner but answer the question of the thread

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i don't think so

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."




Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.


Really? OK now I get it your just messing with us SG, Patten wasen't brought in to be a deep threat, now I can laugh, the purpose of both Patten and Moss was to provide a deep threat, Gibbs felt our recievers last year couldn't stretch the defense. So what was it about Pattens play in New England that led you to beleive he isn't a deep threat? Was it all his TD's, or his yards per catch? Or did you base it on his 4.2 speed? Or is that occasional 4.2 speed?

Pay attention, the reason a lot of us wanted a big WR in the draft was because most of felt that we needed a big target to be a possession type WR, because all we had was deep threats in Moss and Patten.

We win out, we have a great shot at the playoffs.



Care to give me the link or soundbyte to Mark Brunell stating specifically that he didn't have any help around him? You keep siting that one game, ignoring the fact that playing hurt makes the injury worse.




We have a winning record, therefore, Mark Brunell is not failing. You're just failing to convince me you even like the Redskins.



I'll be glad to correct you, because you usually are wrong. First of all, I'll admit you're really good at taking what I say completely out of context to justify your illness toward the Redskins. Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders. In fact, I might have even said that before. However, they are not considered deep threats. And because both are quality receivers and both being out, then we are left with ONE receiver, Moss, to throw to.

Mark Brunell wasn't losing games before Patten was injured - the Redskins were losing game, but they were also winning games. This is a team sport. If you have issues with this team, go back to pulling for the Jets.



You can't be anymore wrong than this. Gibbs hasn't shown the ability to adjust the offense? What team are you watching? You have absolutely no faith in this team whatsoever, and probably never will.



So what exactly is your point? Brunell can't throw the deep ball, but yet you talk about the "miracle passes" at the end of the Dallas game. That is where the real contradictions come into play. Please, give it up. Just say you hate Mark Brunell, Joe Gibbs, and the Redskins and get it over with. You have no enjoyment in watching this team whatsoever. Why do you even pull for this team?



BECAUSE WE HAD THE POSSE WHICH MADE IT SPECIAL FOR US! GO BACK AND READ MY POST. Yet, Portis is adjusting fairly well and we're also getting great use out of Betts and Cartwright. I see no logic in your point whatsoever.

[/QUOTE=Offiss]
Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad!

Do you not know how to read? Did I NOT say after watching Patrick Ramsey play in preseason, I found no signs of improvement and that it spilled over into our first regular season game? I betcha you didn't even watch the preseason at all, did you?



Here is your contradiction. You state in part of your post that Brunell doesn't have the ability to throw deep, but then you turn around and say that Dallas totally disregarded Mark Brunell's abilit to throw deep. Face it, you're pwned! You have no excuse to hide being a closest Jets fan anymore. Just come out and be loud and proud.




And I would suggest this is a reason why you don't coach football in the NFL, because if coaches didn't put alot of stock into training camp and preseason, then we wouldn't have training camp and preseason. What is your freakin point with Patten? You state that Patten is just as good as what Ricky Sanders was, and then you suggest that Patten only played in preseason with Patrick Ramsey. So by this logic, then Patrick Ramsey should have looked like Joe Montana. Give it up man.[/QUOTE]


skinsguy-Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny.
:goodjob:

You are one giant contradiction. and that's a fact!

As for the rest of your nonesense, I could explain it over and over again but judging from some of those so called points it's obviously a big waste of time.

Actually we have a HUGE amount of plays over 20 yards. If you can find the stat, I saw it during the Rams game. I believe we're one of the top 10 teams with long gaining plays.


I am sure your right with that MC, I know we have had some big plays, Moss has turned short gains into monsters, Portis, and Rock had some big runs in that Ram game, but those type plays don't stretch a defense, which is what I was trying to get at, infact those plays will do more to tighten up a defense, and there in lies the problem, to many guy's to close to the line of scrimmage.

I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.I would have to disagree with you on him just airing out those two balls to Moss in the Dallas game. Mose was not wide open he just had step on the D and both passes had to be perfect or they would have been imcomplete or for no gain after the catch. I cannot comment on the whole season and all our long passes unless I had the time to go back and watch all the games.

I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.

Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.

Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.

I guess what I am saying is this, yes we have plays over 20 yds and 40, but how many were actually thrown deep, and how many were short routes turned into long plays, you can't just look at stats sometimes their misleading, my contention is that Brunell can't throw deep, not that he can't hit a quick hitch and turn it into a long play, that does have it's benefits but not what I was pointing out. Take a look a Palmer, every highlight is a deep throw not a short pass turned into a long gain, Palmer has been bombing away.

Don't get me wrong I feel brunells short passing game is tremendous he's been showing accuracy that's Montana like, but it's repetative and I believe defenses are now sitting on the short game, without much regard for the deep game, which has stagnated our offense, this allows safeties to play to close to the LOS which really hinders our running game.


The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Tell that one to Moss, he couldn't outrun anyone last season.

Our offensive line has provided for the most part enough time to throw deep, and if Moss can't get deep who may be the fastest player in the NFL, then what do you think it may be.

I do agree that many times players are scapegoated because of lack of a team effort, but sometimes that goes the other way as well.

I don't have the stats for you, but there is a Moss highlight video on ES. Go over there and download it from the Film Room. I see at least 10+ plays in the AIR of 20+ yards.