Mark Brunell signs with the Saints.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BrunellMVP?

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.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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..

Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

Your words, not mine.

I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard. Bottom line...

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.

[freddyg12]

It's begginning to sound like Brunell is still here!

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Why? What are you talking about? He's not winning.

Your words, not mine.

-----------

Anyway, on a lighter note, I find it somewhat amusing that I spent my 5,200th post critiquing your 1,500th. Congrats on the well-deserved milestone.

Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.

[bigm29]

yes brunell was the man so its natural for everyone to like him, but i think everyone on this board forgot about just how bad brunell's game was. Aside from the Dallas and Jacsonville game I cant think of any really nice throws he made. Yeah he made the playoffs but he had a good running game and defense to back him up. This is how i will remember Mark Brunell in DC. three step drop, roll out, throw away. and dont forget about his other signature play. 3 step drop, defender in face, lays down.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Thank you.. Most of my posts are not a back and forth about a decrepit noodle armed has been :cheeky-sm so hopefully some of the 1500 have brought value to the board..

But back on point, comparing Campbell to Brunell at this point career wise is like grapes/grapefruits.. Once JC is a veteran QB then we can judge merit vs. merit.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement, but I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is to say that all you care about is wins. First of all, you have too much rep on this site for that to be true.

Secondly, as I posted (edited) above I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard...all of which suggest that Campbell is far beyond where Ramsey was at that point in his career.

I'm trying to give you a hard time here. Not because you didn't respect what Brunell did here, I could care less. Only because you resorted to oversimplifying an intelligent argument, and that's a pet peeve of mine.

[Redskin Warrior]

Good Luck MB thanks for the years of hard work even though I didn't like him as our QB I always respected him.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement, but I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is to say that all you care about is wins. First of all, you have too much rep on this site for that to be true.

Secondly, as I posted (edited) above I have Patrick Ramsey at 10-15 through the first 3 years of his career. That's 40%, the same as Campbell. According to your argument, they should be treated as equals, regardless of DVOA, Yards/Attempt, TD's/INT or any other standard...all of which suggest that Campbell is far beyond where Ramsey was at that point in his career.

I'm trying to give you a hard time here. Not because you didn't respect what Brunell did here, I could care less. Only because you resorted to oversimplifying an intelligent argument, and that's a pet peeve of mine.

Fair enough, thanks for keeping me on task.. I'll learn that once I broach the 3500 post mark!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by bigm29

yes brunell was the man so its natural for everyone to like him, but i think everyone on this board forgot about just how bad brunell's game was. Aside from the Dallas and Jacsonville game I cant think of any really nice throws he made. Yeah he made the playoffs but he had a good running game and defense to back him up. This is how i will remember Mark Brunell in DC. three step drop, roll out, throw away. and dont forget about his other signature play. 3 step drop, defender in face, lays down.

Ok, I'm not a big fan of MB (the QB) but to say the Dallas and Jacks were the only nice throws he had is stretching it a bit. MB was showing age when he played for us but he was not a tatal bust but we could have done better with the money we spent on him.

[JimmyCruz]

Im sad to see him go to be honest.......

[Stuck in TX]

He will be a reliable backup in NO but Brees is a ticking time bomb with his shoulder and Brunell, although descent, is pushing 60 so who is next in line? they need depth at QB and WR or else they will be the Saints of yesteryear soon enough.