Player Spotlight: Mark Brunell (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

[SIZE=14pt]2006 Player Spotlight Series[/SIZE]

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

[SIZE=14pt]Thread Topic: Mark Brunell, QB, Washington Redskins[/SIZE]

Player Page Link: Mark Brunell Player Page

Each article will include:

[*]Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member

[*]Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads

[*]FBG Projections

[*]Consensus Member Projections

[SIZE=14pt]The Rules[/SIZE]

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

[*]Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player

[*]Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"

[*]To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the player

Projections should include (at a minimum):

[*]For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs

[*]For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[*]For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[SIZE=14pt]Best of Luck and ENJOY![/SIZE]

 

[redman]

The wild card here is health. I think you have to essentially do two evaluations for him, the first one assuming full or near-full health over the course of all 16 games, and the second assuming the number of games you believe he's actually likely to play.

Also note that Brunell's the kind of guy to play injured even if that means he's ineffective - he's done that in each of the last two years, AND Gibbs' tendency is to stick with his veteran QB too long when struggling rather than not long enough. This means that even if you wisely get the Brunell-Campbell handcuff, you may still have underperformance from this position on your ff roster.

Assuming a healthy 16 games from Brunell, I'd project the following numbers:

258/430 3400 25/13 passing

40/120/1 rushing

I would assume, however, that Brunell's going to get dinged at some point. He's only played a full 16 games once in his career. Given that fact, and given the fact that if injured, he'll likely have a couple of gimped games in which he's virtually worthless to you (and you can't use his backup), I'd evaluate Brunell in terms of his draft value at around 12/16's of those numbers listed above.

 

[Wade]

Mark Brunell enjoyed a return to form in 2005, topping 3000 yards for the first time since 2001, and throwing a career-high 23 touchdowns. Brunell has never been a high-yardage QB, consistently hovering around the 3000 yard mark; nor has he ever been a high-touchdown QB, generally finding himself between 15-20 TDs a season.

Washington added some passing-game weapons for Brunell this year in WR Brandon Lloyd and WR Antwaan Randle El. I think those additions will increase his passing yardage, but I have difficulty projecting him to throw much more than 20 touchdowns in any given year. I am confident that Brunell will start the season as the quarterback of the Redskins, but I would not be surprised to see Jason Campbell finish the season under center (via a Brunell injury, or an early end to the Redskins' playoffs hopes).

All that said, Brunell does have the opportunity, and the talent, to exceed the fantasy point totals of many quarterbacks in the NFL.

Mark Brunell, QB WAS

465 ATT, 275 COMP, 3200 YDS, 21 TD, 13 INT

40 RUSH ATT, 100 RUSH YDS, 0 RUSH TD

 

[slatercove1]

I'm just waiting for the Campbell era. Drafted Campbell and passed on Brunell in my initial dynasty last week.

 

[David Yudkin]

Not that anyone really cares, but I had Brunell pegged pretty close to the numbers he put up last year (2005) when I wrote his player spotlight--in 2004. At the time, I had him as a borderling QB1 in a 12-team league (he ended up as the #14 fantasy QB last year in standard scoring leagues). I was only off a year . . .

My concern for him this year is whether there will be a changing of the guard at QB later in the season should the Redskins fall out of contention, but given that there are so many teams usually in the running for a wildcard berth in the NFC that may not materialize.

The Redskins have more WR for Brunell to target this year, and given the options past Santana Moss last season that probably is a good thing. Still, I can't see him doing better than he did last year.

I'd set the bar for him at 3100/20 with 10 INT and 100 rushing yards thrown in for good measure. Decent fantasy backup or fill-in QB in most leagues, but the Redskins offense showed how lackluster they could be against TB in the playoffs. I'd be a little leary of starting a QB that played a full game in good whether but had just 41 passing yards . . ,

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

the Redskins offense showed how lackluster they could be against TB in the playoffs.  I'd be a little leary of starting a QB that played a full game in good whether but had just 41 passing yards . . ,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It could be something else, but I blamed that on the fact that Brunell just looked like he was out of gas. He had a great year, but he IS kinda old, and he hadn't played that late into the season since 2002.The loss of Randy Thomas right before the playoffs may have contributed as well, but Brunell just looked worn out towards the end of the year.

 

[dgreen]

the Redskins offense showed how lackluster they could be against TB in the playoffs.  I'd be a little leary of starting a QB that played a full game in good whether but had just 41 passing yards . . ,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It could be something else, but I blamed that on the fact that Brunell just looked like he was out of gas. He had a great year, but he IS kinda old, and he hadn't played that late into the season since 2002.The loss of Randy Thomas right before the playoffs may have contributed as well, but Brunell just looked worn out towards the end of the year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brunell left the Giants game early two weeks before that playoff game. He looked pretty bad against Philly in their regular season finale. Tampa knew this. They dared Washington to pass. Once the Bucs were down early, they loaded up on stuffing the run.A healthy Brunell is still pretty good. An injured Brunell is only hoping not to turn the ball over.

 

[slatercove1]

I remember that cartoon of Brunell floating a year ago around where he couldn't throw the ball in the ocean was absolutely hilarious.

After seeing him in 2004, it's hard to imagine this guy's arm not falling off at any time. I'd take him as a low #2 QB. It's hard to imagine Washington sticking with him long if they struggle, when they could struggle with Campbell too.

 

[Jason Wood]

After being left for dead (from a fantasy perspective), Mark Brunell emerged as one of the most surprising fantasy contributors last season. His 23 TDs were a CAREER HIGH as was his +13 TD:INT ratio. Although he still didn't put up a ton of yards (3,050), he did stay healthy and managed a respectable 14th place finish among fantasy QBs.

Fantasy owners have a tendency to overvalue last year's numbers and undervalue long-term tendencies, which could lead to Brunell being overvalued this year. With the additions of Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle-El to the WR mix to go alongside Santana Moss (#3 fantasy WR in '05); many may presume a marked uptick in Brunell's productivity. Furthermore, the addition of Al Saunders as offensive coordinator will have people abuzz. But the bottom line is that Brunell needs to throw more than 454 times to warrant consideration as a fantasy starter in 10- and 12-team leagues.

 

[redman]

the Redskins offense showed how lackluster they could be against TB in the playoffs.  I'd be a little leary of starting a QB that played a full game in good whether but had just 41 passing yards . . ,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It could be something else, but I blamed that on the fact that Brunell just looked like he was out of gas. He had a great year, but he IS kinda old, and he hadn't played that late into the season since 2002.The loss of Randy Thomas right before the playoffs may have contributed as well, but Brunell just looked worn out towards the end of the year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brunell left the Giants game early two weeks before that playoff game. He looked pretty bad against Philly in their regular season finale. Tampa knew this. They dared Washington to pass. Once the Bucs were down early, they loaded up on stuffing the run.A healthy Brunell is still pretty good. An injured Brunell is only hoping not to turn the ball over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. This is what I was referring to above, in part, when I mentioned his willingness to play injured. That's not a good thing for fantasy purposes because he'll get the start - perhaps prompting you to play him - but he'll put up miserable numbers. He did this with that hamstring injury during the first part of 2004 before Ramsey replaced him, and he did it the last two games of 2005 plus in the playoffs when he again had a leg injury. He's just not the same guy if he doesn't have healthy legs under him.

 

[redman]

I remember that cartoon of Brunell floating a year ago around where he couldn't throw the ball in the ocean was absolutely hilarious.

After seeing him in 2004, it's hard to imagine this guy's arm not falling off at any time. I'd take him as a low #2 QB. It's hard to imagine Washington sticking with him long if they struggle, when they could struggle with Campbell too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2004 was not an arm issue, it was a hamstring issue. He couldn't put anything on the ball which made his arm look weak, but that was deceptive.

 

[redman]

My concern for him this year is whether there will be a changing of the guard at QB later in the season should the Redskins fall out of contention, but given that there are so many teams usually in the running for a wildcard berth in the NFC that may not materialize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a valid concern if the 'Skins are out of the playoffs. However, the mosh pit that is that division figures to be up for grabs until the last two weeks of the season, so that may not be much of a risk this year. I think it's more of a risk that he'll get injured and play ineffectively than it is that Campbell will simply replace him in the lineup.

And as I've said before, if Brunell remains healthy and plays effectively, and the 'Skins make the playoffs again, you should expect him to return in 2007 as the incumbent starter given Gibbs' history with veteran QB's.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I think last year Brunell showed what he can do when he can stay healthy most of the year, something he hadn't done in a while. If you believe he can do that again then it shouldn't be far-fetched to assume similar numbers to last year.

I think the offensive additions (Saunders being the most significant, IMO) slightly offset the age/injury factor so I'm thinking this for a full season:

285/475/3300/24/11, 40/125

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Brunell threw for a career-high 23 TD passes last year at age 35. Can he duplicate it at 36? Not likely. Through the first 6 games Brunell had 12 TD passes and 4 games with 30+ attempts. Through the final 10 games Brunell had 11 TD passes and only 2 games with 30+ attempts. The Skins did add Randle El and Brandon Lloyd but I think they are still an offense focused on Clinton Portis. Throw in Jason Campbell and there are plenty of red flags for the aging Mark Brunell this season.

I am guessing his stats look more like 2004's than 2005's:

9 games

125 completions/225 attempts

1400 yards

10 TD passes/8 INT

 

[Keys Myaths]

He had a careeer year last year. That's an automatic bump down for me. Moss is getting older, but Lloyd will offset that, IMO.

People that expect him to bump UP after a career year in a 13 season career are just fooling themselves, IMO.

I don't see him going down significantly. He'll still be productive, just not quite as productive as last year.

2800 passing yards, 21 TD, 11 interceptions, 105 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD.

 

[FUBAR]

He had a careeer year last year.  That's an automatic bump down for me.  Moss is getting older, but Lloyd will offset that, IMO.

People that expect him to bump UP after a career year in a 13 season career are just fooling themselves, IMO.

I don't see him going down significantly.  He'll still be productive, just not quite as productive as last year.

2800 passing yards, 21 TD, 11 interceptions, 105 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Santana Moss will be 27. EVERY player is getting older. 4 very good tools.

3200/25/10

 

[Keys Myaths]

He had a careeer year last year.  That's an automatic bump down for me.  Moss is getting older, but Lloyd will offset that, IMO.

People that expect him to bump UP after a career year in a 13 season career are just fooling themselves, IMO.

I don't see him going down significantly.  He'll still be productive, just not quite as productive as last year.

2800 passing yards, 21 TD, 11 interceptions, 105 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Santana Moss will be 27. EVERY player is getting older. 4 very good tools.

3200/25/10

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's my bad. Confused him with Joey Galloway for some reason, since I was doing Simms' projections at the same time.Bump it up to 2900, 22, and 11 then. You're still not going to go UP after a career year in a long career like that.

 

[FUBAR]

He had a careeer year last year.  That's an automatic bump down for me.  Moss is getting older, but Lloyd will offset that, IMO.

People that expect him to bump UP after a career year in a 13 season career are just fooling themselves, IMO.

I don't see him going down significantly.  He'll still be productive, just not quite as productive as last year.

2800 passing yards, 21 TD, 11 interceptions, 105 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Santana Moss will be 27. EVERY player is getting older. 4 very good tools.

3200/25/10

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's my bad. Confused him with Joey Galloway for some reason, since I was doing Simms' projections at the same time.Bump it up to 2900, 22, and 11 then. You're still not going to go UP after a career year in a long career like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

@ confusing Galloway and Santana Moss. IMO, the Redskins passing stats increase, but how much will be Brunell?

 

[Keys Myaths]

@ confusing Galloway and Santana Moss.

IMO, the Redskins passing stats increase, but how much will be Brunell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whaaat...anyone could make the mistake. And we'll see. I don't think they will increase, honestly. I think, at best, they'll stay the same as last year.

 

[Sidewinder16]

He had a careeer year last year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only significant stat he had a career year in was TD passes, which he accomplished in his first full year in essentially a new system for him.Washington was 22nd in passing attempts, with 482, last season. I can't see that not going up with the addition of Saunders and the WRs. If Brunell can get his completion% and Y/A up around 60%/7.0 then improving on last seasons numbers should really only take staying at least as healthy as he was in '05 (he had some dings in the last half of the season, but played all 16 games).

 

[-OZ-]

He had a careeer year last year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only significant stat he had a career year in was TD passes, which he accomplished in his first full year in essentially a new system for him.Washington was 22nd in passing attempts, with 482, last season. I can't see that not going up with the addition of Saunders and the WRs. If Brunell can get his completion% and Y/A up around 60%/7.0 then improving on last seasons numbers should really only take staying at least as healthy as he was in '05 (he had some dings in the last half of the season, but played all 16 games).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KC last year - 520 rushes, 507 passesWAS last year - 525 rushes, 481 passes

Given the defenses, I'm not sure I'd expect Washington to pass that much more than last year. But, with the WRs, I can. So I'm not really sure here.

I don't see them decreasing though.

 

[thayman]

He had a careeer year last year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only significant stat he had a career year in was TD passes, which he accomplished in his first full year in essentially a new system for him.Washington was 22nd in passing attempts, with 482, last season. I can't see that not going up with the addition of Saunders and the WRs. If Brunell can get his completion% and Y/A up around 60%/7.0 then improving on last seasons numbers should really only take staying at least as healthy as he was in '05 (he had some dings in the last half of the season, but played all 16 games).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KC last year - 520 rushes, 507 passesWAS last year - 525 rushes, 481 passes

Given the defenses, I'm not sure I'd expect Washington to pass that much more than last year. But, with the WRs, I can. So I'm not really sure here.

I don't see them decreasing though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The #'s should be about the same. It's the NFC East, going to be alot of clock grinding running games.

 

[jurb26]

Brunell is one of the guys that I find it very hard to give projections for. I'm just not sure he can stay healthy or keep Campbell form getting PT. I'll assume he does both though. The Skins O just keeps on getting better and better IMO. 3 new weapons for Brunell and one of the best OC's in the game come to town. ONly problem is, that OC really leans on the running game and that is where I see the largest improvments for this team. I am expecting less passing, but more efficient passing in Wash.

Prections:

430 atts, 267 comp, 3230 tds, 22 TD, 8 Ints, rushings stats are meaningless.

 

[5Rings]

I'm not high on Brunnell this year.

I don't think the team is as talented as their record last year, and everybody else in the division made big strides this offseason. I can certainly see WASH (in the cellar) pulling Brunnell at midseason and letting Campbell play--assuming Brunnell can stay healthy that long.

120-220, 1300, 8td, 8 int

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

459 att. 263 comp. 2971 yds. 21 TD 11 INT

39 rushes 110 yds 0 TD

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

459 att. 263 comp. 2971 yds. 21 TD 11 INT

39 rushes 110 yds 0 TD

#21

 

[sacked4loss]

Brunell is one of the guys that I find it very hard to give projections for.  I'm just not sure he can stay healthy or keep Campbell form getting PT.  I'll assume he does both though.  The Skins O just keeps on getting better and better IMO.  3 new weapons for Brunell and one of the best OC's in the game come to town.  ONly problem is, that OC really leans on the running game and that is where I see the largest improvments for this team.  I am expecting less passing, but more efficient passing in Wash.

Prections:

430 atts, 267 comp, 3230 tds, 22 TD, 8 Ints, rushings stats are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree but 16ints

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Brunell is one of the guys that I find it very hard to give projections for.  I'm just not sure he can stay healthy or keep Campbell form getting PT.  I'll assume he does both though.  The Skins O just keeps on getting better and better IMO.  3 new weapons for Brunell and one of the best OC's in the game come to town.  ONly problem is, that OC really leans on the running game and that is where I see the largest improvments for this team.  I am expecting less passing, but more efficient passing in Wash.

Prections:

430 atts, 267 comp, 3230 tds, 22 TD, 8 Ints, rushings stats are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree but 16ints
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If nothing else, Brunell is good at avoiding excessive INTs. He averages 11 per 16 game season.