Brunell is Bad

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

I can throw an NFL football 40 yds. So can a bunch of people on this message board. Samuels is a top 5 LT, Jansen?, Rabach, and you think randy thomas is the only good one? Brunell has a offensive line, that I might ad is run by one of the best line coaches of all time, Joe Bugel.

Our OL gave up 35 sacks last year, not really a great number for a top unit as you say.

The OL is still a work in progress.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Our OL gave up 35 sacks last year, not really a great number for a top unit as you say.

The OL is still a work in progress.

Actually, you are proving my point. We had an excellent OL but Brunell's indeciciveness and lack of awareness were the cause of those sacks. A lineman can only be expected to block for so long.

[12thMan]

I'm still baffled by the title of this thread. We were a couple of wins away from the big dance, and somehow people find things wrong with Portis, or Brunell, or this or that guy. I know it's an open forum and I'm totally cool with that, but to bash guys who had Pro-Bowl caliber seasons is just beyond me.

[Sean Taylor is God]

I really can't believe that many of you disagree that Mark Brunell had an excellent supporting cast. It boggles the mind.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

So after all this is said and done, you've flip-flopped a bit, do you still think that Brunell is bad or do you think that he's not as great as he was made out to be last year?

I strongly feel that he made plays when he had to and definitely had a Pro Bowl caliber season, however I feel he should have had the balls to sit down when his knee wasn't 100% in the playoffs.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

I can throw an NFL football 40 yds. So can a bunch of people on this message board. Samuels is a top 5 LT, Jansen?, Rabach, and you think randy thomas is the only good one? Brunell has a offensive line, that I might ad is run by one of the best line coaches of all time, Joe Bugel.

do you watch other teams games regularly? rabach is average, not near top 5. he just looks great cause raymer may very well have been the worst starting center in 2004. Samuels has top 5 talent, but he's wildly inconsistant. Just cause bugle is coaching them doesn't automatically make them superstars. I didn't say they weren't good, but only thomas is head and shoulders with the league's best, and after reviewing some video, jansen may be as well :P

at LT: jones, ogden, pace, roaf, McKinnie and you could argue light, thomas, glenn and possibly clifton or the guy from the titans... so top 10-12 somewhere, but not top 5.

RT: there's a legit arguement for jansen here, everybody is pretty close. gallery will be better in a year or two and runyan is better, but gross, mckenzie and anderson are all around the same level.

at RG: shields, posibly rivera and then there's no one else... both those guys are 33 too, so thomas is top 3 without much question.

c: Kruetz, mawae, birk, nalen, weigmann, bentley, saturday, flanagan, newberry, possibly meester... he'd be in the average class there... otherwise why would the ravens let him go after he started 15 games in one season for them? they had a guy (that was on IR i believe) who they liked more.

and at LG we're probably mid 20s, there's ample room to upgrade there (spencer will be available, 350+ lbs (heaviest at combine) and ran a 5.28... dockery was 347 and ran a 5.58, so bigger and much more athletic with great drill work).

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

Actually, you are proving my point. We had an excellent OL but Brunell's indeciciveness and lack of awareness were the cause of those sacks. A lineman can only be expected to block for so long.

you think brunell is indecisive yet you want ramsey in there? once patten left the supporting cast wasn't as great anymore. he had the best numbers of his career (and its been a good career), so i don't get what the knock is (besides him playing terribly when injured and fading down the stretch). Brunells pocket awareness wasn't one of his weaknesses, it was one of his stonger points (knowing when to run etc).

he's a mobile guy and was willing to throw the ball away, he avoided more sacks than he caused. you know the skins run max protect a lot right? that means a lot of 1 and 2 man routes where you either have to wait for a receiver to get open or throw it away.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by That Guy

do you watch other teams games regularly? rabach is average, not near top 5. he just looks great cause raymer may very well have been the worst starting center in 2004. Samuels has top 5 talent, but he's wildly inconsistant. Just cause bugle is coaching them doesn't automatically make them superstars. I didn't say they weren't good, but only thomas is head and shoulders with the league's best, and after reviewing some video, jansen may be as well :P

at LT: jones, ogden, pace, roaf, McKinnie and you could argue light, thomas, glenn and possibly clifton or the guy from the titans... so top 10-12 somewhere, but not top 5.

RT: there's a legit arguement for jansen here, everybody is pretty close. gallery will be better in a year or two and runyan is better, but gross, mckenzie and anderson are all around the same level.

at RG: shields, posibly rivera and then there's no one else... both those guys are 33 too, so thomas is top 3 without much question.

c: Kruetz, mawae, birk, nalen, weigmann, bentley, saturday, flanagan, newberry, possibly meester... he'd be in the average class there... otherwise why would the ravens let him go after he started 15 games in one season for them? they had a guy (that was on IR i believe) who they liked more.

and at LG we're probably mid 20s, there's ample room to upgrade there (spencer will be available, 250+ lbs and ran a 5.28... dockery was 347 and ran a 5.58, so bigger and much more athletic with great drill work).

i like the way you have outlined the positions and it makes me realize how subjective OL positions can be. The only statistic's are pancake blocks and sacks allowed and those are not always good measures. perhaps you are right about rabach but i thought he did a great job all year. as for samuels, he had one bad year two years ago. he is better than mckinnie, light, clifton and i think is definitely top five. he made it to the pro-bowl.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by That Guy

you think brunell is indecisive yet you want ramsey in there? once patten left the supporting cast wasn't as great anymore. he had the best numbers of his career (and its been a good career), so i don't get what the knock is (besides him playing terribly when injured and fading down the stretch). Brunells pocket awareness wasn't one of his weaknesses, it was one of his stonger points (knowing when to run etc).

he's a mobile guy and was willing to throw the ball away, he avoided more sacks than he caused. you know the skins run max protect a lot right? that means a lot of 1 and 2 man routes where you either have to wait for a receiver to get open or throw it away.

i never said i wanted ramsey

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So after all this is said and done, you've flip-flopped a bit, do you still think that Brunell is bad or do you think that he's not as great as he was made out to be last year?

I strongly feel that he made plays when he had to and definitely had a Pro Bowl caliber season, however I feel he should have had the balls to sit down when his knee wasn't 100% in the playoffs.

While I realize my title was a bit misleading it was meant to spark interest. I am saying the latter, that brunell's success is due in large part to his team and coaches.

[That Guy]

rabach was fine and i don't see any need to upgrade there, but he's not an elite center by any means. there's an arguement that samuels is the #5 LT (no way in #$%% he's #4 or above), but i'd prefer more consistant guys. sometimes samuels just decides to quit on a play and let someone go right by him or something equally boneheaded (i believe the greenish football stat site did a super intensive analysis of the 2004 OL and that outlined that).

and the pro bowl means nothing. vick made the pro bowl after a terrible year (even brunell's stats were much better :P). cooley missed the pro bowl when his stats were WAY beyond the alt that got in ahead of him.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

While I realize my title was a bit misleading it was meant to spark interest. I am saying the latter, that brunell's success is due in large part to his team and coaches.

But the same could also be said about Joe Montana, Steve Young, Joe Theismann, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, etc.....

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

But the same could also be said about Joe Montana, Steve Young, Joe Theismann, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, etc.....

please don't tell me you are comparing brunell to any of those guys. They won.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

Actually, you are proving my point. We had an excellent OL but Brunell's indeciciveness and lack of awareness were the cause of those sacks. A lineman can only be expected to block for so long.

LOL spin it any way you want I guess.

That's what the Brunell haters will do... spin it any way to take credit away from the guy.

It actually sounds like you are describing Ramsey with use of the words indecisive and lack of awareness.

Brunell did exactly what was asked of him, he threw the ball away when something wasn't there and he didn't force his throws and cause INT's.

[Sean Taylor is God]

mattyk, here are a list of QB's that I believe with one year of learning the offense could step in a do the job brunell did this year. I would like to know which one's you disagree with and if there are any i'm missing.

Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Brady, Mcnair, Leftwich, Plummer, Green, Brees, Bledsoe, Lil Manning, Favre, Culpepper, Delhomme, Simms, Brooks, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Frye, Campbell, Brad Johnson.