Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't think there has been another redskins player in my relatively short lifetime that polarized the fan base the way Mark did. Something tells me we will still be talking about him 5 or 10 years from now.

We've had a few here in recent years, but it would have to be between he & Lavar as the most polarizing.

I think in time Brunell will be more appreciated by the fans. As has been mentioend, the 14-13 monday night game is one of the greatest of all time. He came in & out w/Gibbs.

In a way he was the on field embodiment of Joe Gibbs.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel like I've done this 100 times, but I'd definately calling the BS here.

If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006. That 9th was even more impressive when you realize that it was done while we f'ed around with the Brandon Lloyd freakshow, and a bunch of poor games from a still-learning Randle El.

Presumably, Campbell is going to achieve more here than Brunell did, and Collins was successful in limited time also. But the guys who preceeded MB were Ramsey, Matthews, Wuerffel, Tony Banks, and Jeff George. Any objective (and I mean any) measure will show you that Brunell was far better than any of those players here.

He was as successful as Brad Johnson was, and you can keep going back, and back in time and find that our QB production was pretty terrible prior to 2005. Since 2005, we've been incredibly stable, and certainly Collins and Campbell deserve their credit for that, but Brunell has played more snaps than either of those guys as a Redskin.

So, yeah, saying he's one of the worst QBs we've had makes about as much sense as saying that Patrick Ramsey deserved eight more shots at the starting job here. No matter how much objective evidence can be addressed, some people just won't give up the point.

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). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.

[oldhog44]

I didn't realize Brunell had his best statistical year as a member of the Redskins. I would have bet he had at least one better one in J-ville.

[RiggoDrill]

On his best days, Brunell was slightly better than average. From a quartebacking perspective - I am elated to see him go.
He is a good man, a good representative of the organization, and the trigger man for the "Monday Night Miracle" in Dallas. For that I will always think well of him.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

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). I don't understand how you can defend him just because of our past, as if somehow we should rejoice and or applaud just becuase we are used to futility. I expect more.

If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.

[hesscl34]

.... I'll miss you MB ... :-(

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

....If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006.....

First let me say Good luck to MB in N.O.

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.

Brunell was a very good leader, good mentor, serviceable back-up, and a significant improvement over Wuerfel, Matthews and Ramsey. He was a good game manager. He wouldn't make the critical mistake to kill the team, but because his limitations hampered offensive production it was more of a slow bleed. The problem with MB is, his arm has been done since he arrived here. Other than the miracle against Dallas, he hasn't been able to throw a pass with any velocity over 15-20 yards. His accuracy has also gone way downhill since 2006. If there is no threat by the QB to stretch the field, the defense has a huge advantage and the offense is extremely limited. You can't survive on screens and 5-yard check-downs for very long. Especially on 3rd & 8+.

Here are a couple more factoids on MBs production.
Since Nov 2005
MB has passed for over 200 yards in 5 out of 18 games, and for over 250 in only 2 of 18.
He has thrown for more than 1 touchdown in 5 out of those same 18 games, but 0 touchdowns in 7 of 18.
His QB rating in 2006 was over 77 in only 4 out of 9 games.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

.... I'll miss you MB ... :-(

Yes, but for all of the wrong reasons.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel like I've done this 100 times, but I'd definately calling the BS here.

If you are of the opinion that the QB is responsible for the quality of the passing game, it's hard to defend your statement. 11th in 2005, 9th for the first 9 games of 2006. That 9th was even more impressive when you realize that it was done while we f'ed around with the Brandon Lloyd freakshow, and a bunch of poor games from a still-learning Randle El.

Presumably, Campbell is going to achieve more here than Brunell did, and Collins was successful in limited time also. But the guys who preceeded MB were Ramsey, Matthews, Wuerffel, Tony Banks, and Jeff George. Any objective (and I mean any) measure will show you that Brunell was far better than any of those players here.

He was as successful as Brad Johnson was, and you can keep going back, and back in time and find that our QB production was pretty terrible prior to 2005. Since 2005, we've been incredibly stable, and certainly Collins and Campbell deserve their credit for that, but Brunell has played more snaps than either of those guys as a Redskin.

So, yeah, saying he's one of the worst QBs we've had makes about as much sense as saying that Patrick Ramsey deserved eight more shots at the starting job here. No matter how much objective evidence can be addressed, some people just won't give up the point.

Well if you want to compare him to those QB's than yes he was an improvement but if you want to compare him to some real NFL QB's then it gets a litttle tough. I've back MB because he was our only choice for a few years and we were stuck with him. I feel as others do that JG's success the past 4 years was hampered by his age and play. I hope only the best for him and felt he gave us his best and was a team player. It just sucks getting old.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

If what you're saying is Brunell was not worth the price we paid, I think you have a point, however you can't blame a player if a team is willing to pay him that much. If you feel he wasn't worth it, then the next question would be, what's the alternative?

I'm sure there are a lot of answers to that, but that's all in hindsight. Teams struggle to find quality qb's & while he was no pro bowler, he wasn't one of the worst.

Would Brunell have been as criticized if he came here under a different coach & the results were the same?

After all, he was the qb on our first playoff team since 99. I think he took a lot of the blame that was directed at Gibbs. He was an easier target than Gibbs, and he took the blame for the whole offense's struggles.

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%.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

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.

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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, 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)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

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.

[Daseal]

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.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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...

[Monkeydad]

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.