Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)

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.


Exactly! Thank you Taf, see it's nice to get along.

Stats don't alway's tell the tale, sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

Whether or not Brunell actually has the arm to throw the long ball maybe the wrong question, perhaps the question is why doesn't throw the deep ball, pretty much the same question we all had last season?

Maybe it's his age and he wear's down as the season progresses, who knows, I just don't see us taking shots deep downfield, maybe I am wrong but that's what I am seeing anyway. :biggthump

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.


I believe you MC, but I don't consider 20 yds a deep pass, those are intermidiate passes, I know we had some big plays but our passing game as a whole has really been lacking the deep ball, I know we wont complete everyone but throwing a deep incomplete still serves a purpose, and that is to show the defense you are will to throw deep and make them respect that fact so you can work the ball underneath, I kind of think we are working the ball underneath without the respect of the deep ball by the defenses, which makes it much more difficult.

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.

I guess I don't see how the difference between a play where the ball is in the air for 40 yards vs. a play that ends up going for 40 yards, but mostly on the ground really matters. Unfortunately it's not a stat the NFL measures, so we're sorta screwed.

I guess you could argue that if it really is short passes going for long gains rather than long passes, then the defense can play more guys up on the line to try and stop the short passes - but we're still making the long plays regardless.

It seems like the end result is that we have as many long plays as the best teams around. If it's true that Brunell actually isn't throwing the ball long on these plays, then our receivers must be doing an absolutely astonishing job of breaking tackles and turning short passes into long gains to the point that we have similar stats as the Mannings and Palmers. I find that a little hard to believe, but I'm willing to grant that short passes turning into long plays is perhaps contributing somewhat.

Still seems like from a defensive point they have to respect the big play potential of the Skins because long pass or short pass we're getting it done.

I think my main point in all of this discussion is that it's foolish to try to pin this down to one thing. Brunell suddenly heaving the ball 70 yards downfield isn't going to magically fix everything. I place the blame for the offensive troubles squarely on everyone - coaching, playcalling, QB, WRs, offensive line, etc.

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

That is a great question! We win as a team, we lose as a team.

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

Fans love a scapegoat. Plus it's easy to single players out rather than look at the big picture. The QB is the easiest player to single out and the most convenient scapegoat.

Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines

http://richard-kelly.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/thrashskin.gif

<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>

love that emoticon, I'm adding that right away

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.

You could explain it if you had any idea what you're talking about, but from what most of us have seen, it appears that isn't the case.

So, go ahead and hate on the coach, hate on the quarterback, and hate on the team. I'm sure you'll be right in there with us, high fiving all of us and saying "Gibbs knew what he was doing all along" when this team is back on track.

This whole time, I have asked you, what proof do you have that Patrick Ramsey would be the better quarterback at this point. You have yet to provide the proof, other than what you think might would happen. And, my reply is, we don't go on maybes or would've, could've, should've, we go on what we know. What we know right now, is that this team is 7-6, which is a winning record. We know that this team is still in the hunt for a playoff spot - that is fact. We know that this team is playing a meaningful game against the Dallas Cowboys this Sunday - late in December. What part of any of those points are false or nonesense?

You have given nothing to justify pulling Mark Brunell at this point in the season, other than to harp on Brunell not throwing bombs every game. Brad Johnson didnt' throw bombs when he was with Tampa Bay, and they won the Super Bowl. A good quarterback has to be judged on more than his ability to throw a deep ball. The only thing you can come up with is that Patrick Ramsey has a stronger arm than Mark Brunell. So freakin what? It takes more than a strong arm to play quarterback in this league.

Now, I am not denying that Mark Brunell has had a few bad games recently. However, in two of those games, our team still won. Which emphasis the fact that we win as a team, we lose as a team. This isn't golf. This isn't tennis. This is football. This is a team sport.

You could explain it if you had any idea what you're talking about, but from what most of us have seen, it appears that isn't the case.

So, go ahead and hate on the coach, hate on the quarterback, and hate on the team. I'm sure you'll be right in there with us, high fiving all of us and saying "Gibbs knew what he was doing all along" when this team is back on track.

This whole time, I have asked you, what proof do you have that Patrick Ramsey would be the better quarterback at this point. You have yet to provide the proof, other than what you think might would happen. And, my reply is, we don't go on maybes or would've, could've, should've, we go on what we know. What we know right now, is that this team is 7-6, which is a winning record. We know that this team is still in the hunt for a playoff spot - that is fact. We know that this team is playing a meaningful game against the Dallas Cowboys this Sunday - late in December. What part of any of those points are false or nonesense?

You have given nothing to justify pulling Mark Brunell at this point in the season, other than to harp on Brunell not throwing bombs every game. Brad Johnson didnt' throw bombs when he was with Tampa Bay, and they won the Super Bowl. A good quarterback has to be judged on more than his ability to throw a deep ball. The only thing you can come up with is that Patrick Ramsey has a stronger arm than Mark Brunell. So freakin what? It takes more than a strong arm to play quarterback in this league.

Now, I am not denying that Mark Brunell has had a few bad games recently. However, in two of those games, our team still won. Which emphasis the fact that we win as a team, we lose as a team. This isn't golf. This isn't tennis. This is football. This is a team sport.


I will give it to you again please comprehend, Ramsey under the same conditions last season outplayed Brunell, that is why Gibbs named him the starter this season, in the opening game Ramsey threw for more yards in 1 quarter than Brunell did in 3 quarters, Ramsey's arm is much stronger than Brunells which has alway's been a big advantage in a Gibbs system [Joe always liked strong armed QB] although he seems to have been trying to reinvent himself this go round, he has a homerun hitting back rather than a power guy to grind it out, and a week armed QB in Brunell, who I might add Gibbs likes the fact that he can scramble even though through his first tenure he wanted his QB to stay in the pocket, not that I have a real problem with the philosophy of the above, but it doesn't seem he has been able to make all the adjustments for both the passing, and running game to become consistant, hopefully he will get there.

I wish I had more to go off of as far as proof that Ramsey would be an overall better choice for us at QB under Gibbs, but I can only go off of what I have seen which isn't a whole lot because obviously Ramsey hasen't seen the field much in Gibbs tenure, it's a talent judgement on my part. Even if he fails, how much worse would we really be, what has, and what is, Brunell doing to make believers out of all of us? Ramsey deserved the chance in the regular season to sink or swim, at least we would know where we stand with him by now, we may not needed to give up next years draft for yes another unproven QB out of college, that is the biggest risk Gibbs has taken in this whole QB controversy.

Do you deny that Ramsey outplayed Brunell last season under the same circumstances? Do you deny he threw for more yards in 1 quarter against the Bears this season than Brunell did in 3? Do YOU know for sure that Ramsey wouldn't be better than Brunell? Do you believe if Ramsey goes to a team like the Dolphins, Bucs, Bears, Boy's, next season he will fail? Because I believe where ever he is next year excluding us, he will succeed, but that is my opinion at this point, and only time will tell if I am right, or wrong on the evaluation.

Take a long look at what happened in both Giant games last season, under brunell we lose, under ramsey we crushed them, I do know circumstances can dictate wins and loses and they don't alway's tell the whole story, but we lose with Brunell, and crush them with Ramsey, that may be the strongest argument for ramsey.

It wasn't the same exact circumstances they played under last year though.

Later on in the year when Ramsey started, I think it's safe to say by then Gibbs and co. had made some necessary adjustments to the offense, and with Ramsey they scaled things back and went ultra conservative.

Plus I don't care what Brunell says, he obviously was not 100% healthy. He doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't want to come off as a guy who's making excuses, but it's obvious something was wrong with him physically because his arm strength simply wasn't there at all, and he clearly has much more zip this year. How many times have we seen him one hop a ball to a WR this year? None that I can remember as opposed to last year when he was good for a few a game.

Enough about last year though. Brunell has helped get us to where we are right now, 7-6 and in a good position to control our own destiny if we can win out.

Because Ramsey passed for more yards in the Bears game doesn't necessarily make him a better quarterback. We're not playing the EA Quarterback Challenge out there. If it was all about how far you can launch the football then, well then we'd be a perennial playoff team and firmly entrenched in the Jeff George era. There are plenty more intangibles involved then yards passing or how strong your arm is.