The truth about Mark Brunell (1 Viewer)

[redman]

There's a great article in today's Washington Post that lays out Brunell's situation as a QB, both the good and the bad. I post it here because it is directly attacking the all-too-convenient stereotypes that are thrown around and that hide the value that Brunell carries as a QB, both in fantasy and in the NFL:

Link

Brunell's Two-Minute Warning

At 35, Time Is Slowly Running Out for a Super Bowl Run

By Jason La Canfora

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 3, 2006; Page E01

Mark Brunell remembers becoming old about five years ago. He was 30 and was steeling himself for training camp -- an annual rite on the professional football calendar that, after eight years in the NFL, would lead to questions about his arm strength, quickness and ability to survive a 16-game regular season schedule.

The questions have been asked every summer since for Brunell, none more so than this preseason, his third as quarterback of the Washington Redskins.

Brunell, who turns 36 in two weeks, ended 2005 banged up with an injured knee and was ineffective for much of the playoffs, and has suffered through three minor injuries since then. He is learning a new system under the Redskins' new associate head coach-offense, Al Saunders, and, like the entire first-team offense, played poorly in four exhibition games.

Brunell is the only proven passer on a team with Super Bowl aspirations. With one backup -- Jason Campbell -- having never thrown an NFL pass and the other -- Todd Collins -- without an NFL start since 1997, Brunell is acutely aware that his health and performance will be scrutinized each week this season.

Brunell often uses self-deprecation to defuse uncomfortable questions regarding his age -- roasting himself before anyone else can -- but sometimes his eyes belie his tongue. While Brunell knows the questions are part of the job, it is clear they become tiresome. "I'm the oldest guy on the team, and I don't like hearing those questions, I really don't, because somewhere along the way 'old' means that you can't get it done anymore," Brunell said. "But I'll say this -- and I'm not just throwing it out there -- I really feel that I'm smarter than I ever have been.

"Now, physically, I don't run as fast -- my feet aren't as quick -- but I feel mentally sharper than I ever have, and I handle the game better, I believe. . . . But because I am up there in years, my health is the biggest thing for me. I have to take care of my body better than I ever have."

Brunell, a three-time Pro Bowl selection with the Jacksonville Jaguars, already has experienced an up-and-down career in Washington. He went from potential savior, when Joe Gibbs acquired him shortly after coming out of coaching retirement in 2004, to villain by the middle of that first season, when fans at FedEx Field screamed for backup Patrick Ramsey to take over. Brunell entered 2005 as Ramsey's understudy, regained his starting spot during the opening game and led the team into the playoffs for the first time since 1999. But Brunell, battling a knee problem, struggled in the postseason, which ended with the Redskins' second-round NFC playoff loss to the Seattle Seahawks.

Questions about Brunell's durability were raised again when he broke his index finger shortly before minicamp last spring. Getting kicked in the calf and straining his groin were brief training-camp maladies this summer. Collectively, the setbacks caused some angst given his age and recent history of injuries.

Brunell also completed less than half of his passes (16 for 33) in four preseason games, though the team's coaches profess little concern about that.

"You look around the league and I see the guys who are playing, and we probably talk about [the quarterback's age] more in this town than they do in other towns," Gibbs said. "They'd probably go, 'Hey, we got Mark Brunell, he's a veteran.' Here we say how old he is and everything. But I think we've seen quarterbacks play up into their late thirties and be really good, and certainly I think Mark takes great care of himself. You kind of go off what you see on the field, and I certainly don't see it in him where you think he's losing something."

Motivation

Teams have been represented by a starting passer 36 or older seven times in the 40-year history of the Super Bowl, most recently when Rich Gannon, who was 37, quarterbacked the Oakland Raiders in their loss to Tampa Bay on Jan. 26, 2003. John Elway won his first Super Bowl at age 37, then led the Denver Broncos to the league title again the next year. Redskins legend Sonny Jurgensen led the NFC with a 94.6 passer rating in 1974, at age 40, on wobbly knees and in his final NFL campaign.

Hall of Famer Fran Tarkenton had his last great season at age 36. Hall of Famers Roger Staubach (35) and Johnny Unitas (37) won Super Bowls at an advanced age. Hall of Famer Warren Moon was 38 when he had the second-best season of his prolific career. Hall of Famer Joe Montana had strong seasons at age 37 and 38. Their age was lost on none of them, Moon said.

"There's no question that it spurred those guys on, because it spurred me on," said Moon, who broadcast both of Washington's games with Seattle last season. "It seems like the only time you heard your age it was either, 'He had a great game, can you believe he's 36 years old?' Or, 'Ooh, he had a bad game and he's 36 years old, maybe his best days are behind him?' You get tired of hearing that, and I'm sure that Mark uses that as motivation like I did."

Moon, who like Brunell starred at the University of Washington, speaks with Brunell frequently. They espouse the same theories about dealing with advancing age -- staying attuned to any small pain so as not to exacerbate it, getting ample sleep, working out year-round -- but ultimately agree that they must leave some of the future up to chance.

"A lot of it has to do with pure luck and not having any major injuries," Moon said. "That's what most quarterbacks worry about."

The cumulative impact from years of playing the game can manifest itself suddenly. Hall of Famer Bart Starr won his fifth championship at age 33, then, in his final two seasons, tossed eight touchdowns and 16 interceptions. Brett Favre, who turned 36 last October, is coming off his worst season in which he threw for 20 touchdowns and 29 interceptions. Unitas threw 38 touchdowns and 64 interceptions in his final six seasons.

"The thing that happens when you get old, and I'm sure it will happen for Mark, is that when you take some punishment, you don't recover as quickly as when you were younger," said Jurgensen, a Hall of Famer and longtime Redskins broadcaster. "Sometimes it lingers throughout the week and hampers you as far as practice.

"That's a tough thing, because you have to get ready to play the following weekend, you're not 100 percent at all, and you have to leg it out the best you can. And Mark has made his living with his legs, and he's been able to escape the rush, roll out, throw on the move, but you do take some hits that way."

Confidence

Brunell injured his hamstring early in the 2004 season, his first in Washington, and lost his starting job in the ninth game of the year when he ranked 32nd in the league with a 49.8 completion percentage. The Redskins' offense was conservative that year, and the team had few quality receivers. But several commentators said Brunell could no longer play the game, and at least five NFL executives contacted that season questioned Brunell's arm strength, mobility and willingness to absorb hits in the pocket. But Gibbs never wavered, predicted a rebound for the passer, and was proved right in 2005.

"I never really doubted Mark," Redskins running back Clinton Portis said. "When you look at guys and judge guys, you look at the guys who cut corners, then you look at the guys who are getting it done. Mark always gave it his all; we never had to worry about Mark. If he made a mistake, he stood up for it. If he did something wrong, he admitted it."

The coaches revamped the offense last season and added a deep threat in wide receiver Santana Moss. The turning point came in Week 2, when Brunell stunned a Texas Stadium crowd with consecutive fourth-quarter bombs to Moss to pull out a 14-13 win for the Redskins. His teammates' confidence in him grew.

"The Dallas game was huge," said Ramsey, a close friend of Brunell's who left Washington for the New York Jets this past offseason. "He helped us pull that one out. As the season progressed, he's a guy that guys were very inclined to, because of just who he is and the way is. You can see that when you get to know him."

Brunell performed at a top level most of 2005, and finished with a career-best 23-10 touchdown-to-interception ratio. But he was knocked out of the penultimate regular season game with a blow to his right knee. Brunell played down the injury, but wore a brace on his knee, and had trouble planting his feet and throwing accurately in the three games that followed.

Brunell was 38 for 77 (49 percent) in those three contests, with two touchdowns and two interceptions. His play included a paltry 7 of 15 for 41 yards against Tampa Bay in the playoff opener. In the previous 15 games Brunell had completed 59 percent of his passes, averaging almost 200 yards per contest with 22 touchdowns and nine interceptions.

"He was hurt, but one of the aspects that is a quintessential characteristic of Mark Brunell is an unwillingness to ever complain or alibi," said Leigh Steinberg, Brunell's longtime agent. "He's never publicly attempted to shift blame to other people or to injuries, and it sometimes gives a misleading picture, because sometimes Mark is a lot less healthy than you might think."

Brunell spent the offseason running long distances more than ever before, seeking to increase his endurance. He eats fewer cheeseburgers and is trying to give up soda. He requests more massages, soaks more frequently in a cold tub, stretches his limbs regularly to remain as flexible as possible. He has kept his mind limber, too.

New quarterbacks coach Bill Lazor tracked him down throughout the offseason, getting pop quizzes and tutorials to him every Monday by fax, snail mail, express mail or direct handoff when the quarterback walked out of Redskins Park. Brunell drew up every play the team planned to introduce at training camp. "He had to draw the formations, the routes, how he would read each play based on the [defensive] coverages I gave him," Lazor said. "I would guess it took a decent amount of his summer to do it, and Mark was pretty meticulous in how he filled it out and sent it back."

Brunell is being granted more rest and recovery time than in years past, with Gibbs planning to ease him through the practice week, monitoring the number of passes he throws in drills. He is surrounded by more talent than ever before after the addition of wide receivers Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle El. This year might be Brunell's last, best chance to win a title.

"Because I realize that I'm getting on in years -- and I don't know how many more years I'm going to play -- I appreciate the game more than I ever have," Brunell said. "I really enjoy what I do for a living more than I ever have. When you're young you think you're going to play forever. You just think, 'Okay, if we don't win a championship this year, we've always got next year, or the next year.' And pretty soon you get to Year 14, and your opportunities, well, you know you don't have that many chances left. So I'm having a blast and enjoying it while I can."

The entire article is relevant, but I've highlighted the two most important points. In the last two seasons, the stretches of time that stand out the most for most people are the mediocrity of 2004 season for Brunell, and then the lousy post-season last year. There was one thing that those times had in common, and neither had to do with talent or age: Brunell had suffered leg injuries that severely impacted his ability to plant and step into his throws. His arm looked feeble as a result and so people quickly wrote him off. When he's healthy, Brunell gets a B or B+ for arm strength; with leg injuries, he gets a D or an F. Brunell's stats last year were not an illusion or a fluke. He's still a very effective QB and can even make plays with his legs on timely scrambles . . . when he's healthy. I also agree that his decision making is one of his best attributes - he rarely makes a dumb play, and he's quick to throw the ball away to avoid an unecessary risk on an ill-advised throw or an unecessary hit in the pocket.

The bottom line is that Brunell is good value for you as he figures to easily be good for at least last year's numbers (3050/23/10) if he stays healthy, and yet he'll be undervalued by the people who really only watched him during last year's playoffs when his injured condition made him look terrible.

The major dilemma drafting him is that it's going to be tough to figure out right now who is a good handcuff for him. If you're in dynasty, Campbell is the obvious guy to get as he's the heir apparent. In redraft, though, Collins is still listed ahead of Campbell on the depth chart and this coaching staff clearly trusts a veteran at QB over a younger guy like Campbell, so for now Collins would be the first in line to replace Brunell in games. I still think you pick up Campbell as your handcuff in redraft because I think they'd call the game differently with Collins and his weaker arm in there, with more run plays and fewer pass plays.

The good news is that Brunell represents enough value at a low enough ADP that you could conceivably either draft another good QB in front of him with him as an excellent QB2, or draft him first and immediately follow him up with another QB pick in the following round.

Here are his career stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+				 |			  Passing				  |	 Rushing	 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year  TM |   G |  Comp   Att   PCT	YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb |   2 |	12	27  44.4	95   3.5   0   0 |	 6	 7   1 || 1995 jax |  13 |   201   346  58.1  2168   6.3  15   7 |	67   480   4 || 1996 jax |  16 |   353   557  63.4  4367   7.8  19  20 |	80   396   3 || 1997 jax |  14 |   264   435  60.7  3281   7.5  18   7 |	48   257   2 || 1998 jax |  13 |   208   354  58.8  2601   7.3  20   9 |	49   192   0 || 1999 jax |  15 |   259   441  58.7  3060   6.9  14   9 |	47   208   1 || 2000 jax |  16 |   311   512  60.7  3640   7.1  20  14 |	48   236   2 || 2001 jax |  15 |   289   473  61.1  3309   7.0  19  13 |	39   224   1 || 2002 jax |  15 |   245   416  58.9  2788   6.7  17   7 |	43   207   0 || 2003 jax |   3 |	54	82  65.9   484   5.9   2   0 |	 8	19   1 || 2004 was |   9 |   118   237  49.8  1194   5.0   7   6 |	19	62   0 || 2005 was |  16 |   262   454  57.7  3050   6.7  23  10 |	42   111   0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+|  TOTAL   | 147 |  2576  4334  59.4 30037   6.9 174 102 |   496  2399  15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Postseason data Year  Opp   Result  |  CMP  ATT   PYD PTD INT  |  RSH	YD  TD---------------------+--------------------------+----------------- 1994  dal  L,9-35   |	3   11	25   0   0  |	4	26   0 1996  buf  W,30-27  |   18   33   239   1   2  |	3	 9   0 1996  den  W,30-27  |   18   29   245   2   0  |	7	44   0 1996  nwe  L,6-20   |   20   38   190   0   2  |	6	34   0 1997  den  L,17-42  |   18   32   203   0   1  |	3	 4   0 1998  nwe  W,25-10  |   14   34   161   1   0  |	4	-2   0 1998  nyj  L,24-34  |   12   31   156   3   3  |	2	 9   0 1999  mia  W,62-7   |	5	9   105   2   0  |	1	 6   0 1999  ten  L,14-33  |   19   38   226   1   2  |	1	-1   0 2005  tam  W,17-10  |	7   15	41   0   1  |	4	 6   0 2005  sea  L,10-20  |   22   37   242   1   0  |	4	12   0---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------TOTAL				|  156  307  1833  11  11  |   39   147   0

 

[diesel7982]

Ive seen very little from him this preseason that makes me think his arm isnt as dead as it was at the end of last year.

 

[redman]

Ive seen very little from him this preseason that makes me think his arm isnt as dead as it was at the end of last year.

You should be aware of the fact that Saunders not only doesn't run his full offense, he intentionally hamstrings it in order to see players in certain situations, including intentionally unfavorable situations, in order to evaluate them. He's estimated that he's only used 2% of his offense, and they've not used motion or audibles during the preseason even when they've seen defenses that have game planned against them (like NE did to a degree) or seen the defense showing blitz. This is an article talking about that, although there are others:

Saunders, who came over from Kansas City after last season, estimated that he has used just " 2 percent" of a playbook that contains 700 plays. He has called few, if any, plays that employ the multiple sets and motions that have served to confuse and confound opposing defenses in the past. He said that he has only used the most basic of pass-protection schemes.

"We are not covering the edges on pass protection because we need to see those guys by themselves out there without help from tight ends and backs," Saunders said.

Saunders said it has been his experience that game-planning during the preseason is of little use in the long haul.

"When you use tactics and schemes to camouflage some deficiencies in the preseason," he said, "it doesn't make you any better."

Edit to add- he had a lot of people chuckling when he overtly ridiculed Spurrier's impressive offensive showing during his preseasons.

 

[Despyzer]

There was one thing that those times had in common, and neither had to do with talent or age: Brunell had suffered leg injuries that severely impacted his ability to plant and step into his throws. His arm looked feeble as a result and so people quickly wrote him off. When he's healthy, Brunell gets a B or B+ for arm strength; with leg injuries, he gets a D or an F.

I was just listening to a reporter from Washington saying this same thing on ESPN Radio. However, he also added that all indications are that Brunell is not fully healthy and if there was another viable replacement for him at QB on the current roster, Brunell probably would not be the starting QB right now.

 

[redman]

There was one thing that those times had in common, and neither had to do with talent or age: Brunell had suffered leg injuries that severely impacted his ability to plant and step into his throws. His arm looked feeble as a result and so people quickly wrote him off. When he's healthy, Brunell gets a B or B+ for arm strength; with leg injuries, he gets a D or an F.

I was just listening to a reporter from Washington saying this same thing on ESPN Radio. However, he also added that all indications are that Brunell is not fully healthy and if there was another viable replacement for him at QB on the current roster, Brunell probably would not be the starting QB right now.

Who's the reporter?EDIT- this brings up another relevant point, related to the downside of having Brunell. First, he's never publicly discussed his injuries, and even after the fact he's downplayed them. For him, it's humility and refusal to make excuses, but it can be maddening to watch him repeatedly trot out there denying any problem and yet still playing poorly due to an injury. Second, and on a related note, this coaching staff is so devoted to having a veteran QB that they'll stick with him despite an injury longer than many other coaching staffs would. That may be less true this year with Collins there (Ramsey was the primary backup last year) but it's still a problem.

I have not watched the last two games so I have not seen the latest on his performances. I'll see if I can get more info into how he looks. The reason why I asked about the reporter is because I've found with the 'Skins (and it's likely true with any NFL team) there are local guys who really have the pulse of the team and there are national guys (and ESPN is of course a national organization) who may or may not know what they're talking about and who may therefore be relying upon stereotypes/the general consensus rather than upon good information.

 

[Despyzer]

Who's the reporter?

Sorry, I did not catch the name, but I did hear Salsbury say he was with the Washington Post. He also said that Portis is doing pretty well. He expected him to start the opening game and not even wear a shoulder brace.He talked about Collins, as well. He said that the coaches were skeptical about throwing him out there because they never really intended for him to be the #2 guy, and he hasn't even thrown with any regularity since 1997.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The bottom line is that Brunell is good value for you as he figures to easily be good for at least last year's numbers (3050/23/10) if he stays healthy, and yet he'll be undervalued by the people who really only watched him during last year's playoffs when his injured condition made him look terrible.

Here are his career stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 || 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 || 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 || 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 || 1998 jax | 13 | 208 354 58.8 2601 7.3 20 9 | 49 192 0 || 1999 jax | 15 | 259 441 58.7 3060 6.9 14 9 | 47 208 1 || 2000 jax | 16 | 311 512 60.7 3640 7.1 20 14 | 48 236 2 || 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1 || 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 || 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 || 2004 was | 9 | 118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 | 19 62 0 || 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 147 | 2576 4334 59.4 30037 6.9 174 102 | 496 2399 15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Postseason data

How do you reconcile the bolded statement with Brunell's career stats? Your statement insinuates that 23 TDs is a given assuming health, yet his 23 TD tosses last season was by far a career high, and followed a total of 26 TDs the past 3 seasons combined. Looking at his career numbers, 2005 looks like the outlier, not the "least" number of TDs you should expect from Brunell assuming health.

 

[diesel7982]

Ive seen very little from him this preseason that makes me think his arm isnt as dead as it was at the end of last year.

You should be aware of the fact that Saunders not only doesn't run his full offense, he intentionally hamstrings it in order to see players in certain situations, including intentionally unfavorable situations, in order to evaluate them. He's estimated that he's only used 2% of his offense, and they've not used motion or audibles during the preseason even when they've seen defenses that have game planned against them (like NE did to a degree) or seen the defense showing blitz. This is an article talking about that, although there are others:

Saunders, who came over from Kansas City after last season, estimated that he has used just " 2 percent" of a playbook that contains 700 plays. He has called few, if any, plays that employ the multiple sets and motions that have served to confuse and confound opposing defenses in the past. He said that he has only used the most basic of pass-protection schemes.

"We are not covering the edges on pass protection because we need to see those guys by themselves out there without help from tight ends and backs," Saunders said.

Saunders said it has been his experience that game-planning during the preseason is of little use in the long haul.

"When you use tactics and schemes to camouflage some deficiencies in the preseason," he said, "it doesn't make you any better."

Edit to add- he had a lot of people chuckling when he overtly ridiculed Spurrier's impressive offensive showing during his preseasons.

Unless Saunders took a rubber mallet to Brunell's shoulder before every game, I dont know how you reconcile the lack of accuracy and arm strength with that explaination.

 

[Biabreakable]

The bottom line is that Brunell is good value for you as he figures to easily be good for at least last year's numbers (3050/23/10) if he stays healthy, and yet he'll be undervalued by the people who really only watched him during last year's playoffs when his injured condition made him look terrible.

Here are his career stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 || 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 || 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 || 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 || 1998 jax | 13 | 208 354 58.8 2601 7.3 20 9 | 49 192 0 || 1999 jax | 15 | 259 441 58.7 3060 6.9 14 9 | 47 208 1 || 2000 jax | 16 | 311 512 60.7 3640 7.1 20 14 | 48 236 2 || 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1 || 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 || 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 || 2004 was | 9 | 118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 | 19 62 0 || 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 147 | 2576 4334 59.4 30037 6.9 174 102 | 496 2399 15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Postseason data

How do you reconcile the bolded statement with Brunell's career stats? Your statement insinuates that 23 TDs is a given assuming health, yet his 23 TD tosses last season was by far a career high, and followed a total of 26 TDs the past 3 seasons combined. Looking at his career numbers, 2005 looks like the outlier, not the "least" number of TDs you should expect from Brunell assuming health.

Brunell's TD numbers were really inflated imho by Sellers catching 7 TD Royals 1 TD in GL situations. On top of 7 TD scored by Cooley. Those are gimmie TDs for a Qb easy to execute but not so easy to replicate.If Duckett has a role as GL runner I see those TDs coming from what Sellers/Catwright did last year. Or else they go to Portis.

The Deadskins do have better Wrs now with ARE and Lloyd. So I see boost to the overall offense. This mix leads me to the conclushion that Brunell will probobly throw 16-20 TD in 2006 but have more yardage passing if healthy all season.

 

[redman]

The bottom line is that Brunell is good value for you as he figures to easily be good for at least last year's numbers (3050/23/10) if he stays healthy, and yet he'll be undervalued by the people who really only watched him during last year's playoffs when his injured condition made him look terrible.

Here are his career stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 || 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 || 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 || 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 || 1998 jax | 13 | 208 354 58.8 2601 7.3 20 9 | 49 192 0 || 1999 jax | 15 | 259 441 58.7 3060 6.9 14 9 | 47 208 1 || 2000 jax | 16 | 311 512 60.7 3640 7.1 20 14 | 48 236 2 || 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1 || 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 || 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 || 2004 was | 9 | 118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 | 19 62 0 || 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 147 | 2576 4334 59.4 30037 6.9 174 102 | 496 2399 15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Postseason data

How do you reconcile the bolded statement with Brunell's career stats? Your statement insinuates that 23 TDs is a given assuming health, yet his 23 TD tosses last season was by far a career high, and followed a total of 26 TDs the past 3 seasons combined. Looking at his career numbers, 2005 looks like the outlier, not the "least" number of TDs you should expect from Brunell assuming health.

Like Biakabreakable has already said, I think he can far more easily exceed his yardage totals than he can his TD totals. Remember, he basically put up last year's numbers in 12 or 13 games, given how conservative the offense was called during the first eight quarters of the season up until the final minutes of that notorious MNF game at Dallas, and given his knee injury in the second-to-last game of the year. His potential was already greater last year, and the offense around him has gotten better. As for Sellers, his TD's will go to the RB's in general (with a few exceptions), but there should be additional TD's scored by the WR's.

I also don't think that 23 TD's is so high that he can't exceed those numbers either just looking historically at his performance. If he's healthy all year, I could see him throwing for 26 TD's in this offense, which while a good number is not something that other non-elite QB's haven't done before (e.g. Brees, Delhomme, Plummer) in recent years. Why he never threw for many TD's in the Jags' offense has always been a mystery to me, and perhaps is attributable to the lack of any respectable TE or receiving threat out of the backfield in short yardage situations.

Don't take from what I'm saying that I'm expecting numbers like Manning, Culpepper and other studs have put up because I'm not. My only point here is that people seem to write him off when he would appear to offer some good upside that other QB's near his ADP don't seem to offer.

Obviously, you consider these things along with the fact that he's been injured in both of the last two seasons in such a way that his effectiveness as a QB was greatly hampered. That's why I'm calling him "value" not a "lock" or a "stud" or anything else besides that.

 

[redman]

Ive seen very little from him this preseason that makes me think his arm isnt as dead as it was at the end of last year.

You should be aware of the fact that Saunders not only doesn't run his full offense, he intentionally hamstrings it in order to see players in certain situations, including intentionally unfavorable situations, in order to evaluate them. He's estimated that he's only used 2% of his offense, and they've not used motion or audibles during the preseason even when they've seen defenses that have game planned against them (like NE did to a degree) or seen the defense showing blitz. This is an article talking about that, although there are others:

Saunders, who came over from Kansas City after last season, estimated that he has used just " 2 percent" of a playbook that contains 700 plays. He has called few, if any, plays that employ the multiple sets and motions that have served to confuse and confound opposing defenses in the past. He said that he has only used the most basic of pass-protection schemes.

"We are not covering the edges on pass protection because we need to see those guys by themselves out there without help from tight ends and backs," Saunders said.

Saunders said it has been his experience that game-planning during the preseason is of little use in the long haul.

"When you use tactics and schemes to camouflage some deficiencies in the preseason," he said, "it doesn't make you any better."

Edit to add- he had a lot of people chuckling when he overtly ridiculed Spurrier's impressive offensive showing during his preseasons.

Unless Saunders took a rubber mallet to Brunell's shoulder before every game, I dont know how you reconcile the lack of accuracy and arm strength with that explaination.

I started this discussion on the Extremeskins message board to get comments from 'Skins fans (not necessarily "homers" BTW as many of them haven't been shy about criticizing Brunell). You can see for yourself what people are saying here.

 

[Riffraff]

You'd think that eventually they give in and play their first round QB (cost them 2 first rounders).

 

[Despyzer]

You'd think that eventually they give in and play their first round QB (cost them 2 first rounders).

He's been awful. The Redskins staff is coming to grips with the possibility that he may never be a decent QB in this league.

 

[njxbean]

skins fan here.

My thoughts have always been that Brunell is a good qb when healthy. However, when he is say 85%, he is not a good qb. And that is what we saw at the end of last year. It also didnt help that he had noone to throw to except cooley and moss. I definitly think Brunell should at the very least have a good start. And fantasy wise, he will be productive early. I just worry about him staying healthy. 100% healthy.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The bottom line is that Brunell is good value for you as he figures to easily be good for at least last year's numbers (3050/23/10) if he stays healthy, and yet he'll be undervalued by the people who really only watched him during last year's playoffs when his injured condition made him look terrible.

Here are his career stats:

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+ | Passing | Rushing |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| 1994 gnb | 2 | 12 27 44.4 95 3.5 0 0 | 6 7 1 || 1995 jax | 13 | 201 346 58.1 2168 6.3 15 7 | 67 480 4 || 1996 jax | 16 | 353 557 63.4 4367 7.8 19 20 | 80 396 3 || 1997 jax | 14 | 264 435 60.7 3281 7.5 18 7 | 48 257 2 || 1998 jax | 13 | 208 354 58.8 2601 7.3 20 9 | 49 192 0 || 1999 jax | 15 | 259 441 58.7 3060 6.9 14 9 | 47 208 1 || 2000 jax | 16 | 311 512 60.7 3640 7.1 20 14 | 48 236 2 || 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1 || 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 || 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 || 2004 was | 9 | 118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 | 19 62 0 || 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+| TOTAL | 147 | 2576 4334 59.4 30037 6.9 174 102 | 496 2399 15 |+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+Postseason data

How do you reconcile the bolded statement with Brunell's career stats? Your statement insinuates that 23 TDs is a given assuming health, yet his 23 TD tosses last season was by far a career high, and followed a total of 26 TDs the past 3 seasons combined. Looking at his career numbers, 2005 looks like the outlier, not the "least" number of TDs you should expect from Brunell assuming health.

Like Biakabreakable has already said, I think he can far more easily exceed his yardage totals than he can his TD totals. Remember, he basically put up last year's numbers in 12 or 13 games, given how conservative the offense was called during the first eight quarters of the season up until the final minutes of that notorious MNF game at Dallas, and given his knee injury in the second-to-last game of the year. His potential was already greater last year, and the offense around him has gotten better. As for Sellers, his TD's will go to the RB's in general (with a few exceptions), but there should be additional TD's scored by the WR's.

I also don't think that 23 TD's is so high that he can't exceed those numbers either just looking historically at his performance. If he's healthy all year, I could see him throwing for 26 TD's in this offense, which while a good number is not something that other non-elite QB's haven't done before (e.g. Brees, Delhomme, Plummer) in recent years. Why he never threw for many TD's in the Jags' offense has always been a mystery to me, and perhaps is attributable to the lack of any respectable TE or receiving threat out of the backfield in short yardage situations.

Don't take from what I'm saying that I'm expecting numbers like Manning, Culpepper and other studs have put up because I'm not. My only point here is that people seem to write him off when he would appear to offer some good upside that other QB's near his ADP don't seem to offer.

Obviously, you consider these things along with the fact that he's been injured in both of the last two seasons in such a way that his effectiveness as a QB was greatly hampered. That's why I'm calling him "value" not a "lock" or a "stud" or anything else besides that.

Fair enough. While I think your analysis is a bit optimistic, I agree that the offense is improved and could perform at a higher level as a whole in '06.I'd put Brunell's TD ceiling at 23 - expecting any more than that is homerish, IMO.

 

[redman]

You'd think that eventually they give in and play their first round QB (cost them 2 first rounders).

He's been awful. The Redskins staff is coming to grips with the possibility that he may never be a decent QB in this league.

Where on earth are you getting this from? Campbell has progressed nicely and is where you'd want him to be after spending a year learning from the sidelines. On a team with lesser aspirations than the Redskins this year (and perhaps with a coach less committed to starting veteran QB's in general), he'd be starting. I've heard nobody fret over him being a bust to date.

 

[redman]

FYI- Gibbs in his press conference today said that Collins would replace Brunell in a game if Brunell went down, but Campbell would start a game if he prepared during the week.

The handcuff to have is Campbell as you won't be able at all to predict if/when Collins would come into a game obviously.

 

[Englishteacher]

Ive seen very little from him this preseason that makes me think his arm isnt as dead as it was at the end of last year.

You should be aware of the fact that Saunders not only doesn't run his full offense, he intentionally hamstrings it in order to see players in certain situations, including intentionally unfavorable situations, in order to evaluate them. He's estimated that he's only used 2% of his offense, and they've not used motion or audibles during the preseason even when they've seen defenses that have game planned against them (like NE did to a degree) or seen the defense showing blitz. This is an article talking about that, although there are others:

Saunders, who came over from Kansas City after last season, estimated that he has used just " 2 percent" of a playbook that contains 700 plays. He has called few, if any, plays that employ the multiple sets and motions that have served to confuse and confound opposing defenses in the past. He said that he has only used the most basic of pass-protection schemes.

"We are not covering the edges on pass protection because we need to see those guys by themselves out there without help from tight ends and backs," Saunders said.

Saunders said it has been his experience that game-planning during the preseason is of little use in the long haul.

"When you use tactics and schemes to camouflage some deficiencies in the preseason," he said, "it doesn't make you any better."

Edit to add- he had a lot of people chuckling when he overtly ridiculed Spurrier's impressive offensive showing during his preseasons.

God does that make me feel better. How much, I don't know, but thank you. They've looked stinky this preseason.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

at touting Brunell yet being one of the Favre haters.

 

[Despyzer]

Campbell has progressed nicely and is where you'd want him to be after spending a year learning from the sidelines. On a team with lesser aspirations than the Redskins this year (and perhaps with a coach less committed to starting veteran QB's in general), he'd be starting. I've heard nobody fret over him being a bust to date.

Yeah, that's right. He was dropped to #3 behind a guy who has barely thrown the ball in ten years because he is setting the world on fire. My bad.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think Brunell will put up top 20 ppg.

 

[redman]

Campbell has progressed nicely and is where you'd want him to be after spending a year learning from the sidelines. On a team with lesser aspirations than the Redskins this year (and perhaps with a coach less committed to starting veteran QB's in general), he'd be starting. I've heard nobody fret over him being a bust to date.

Yeah, that's right. He was dropped to #3 behind a guy who has barely thrown the ball in ten years because he is setting the world on fire. My bad.

Don't be a dope. I'm telling you the facts. The only work Collins will get is in the same game that Brunell gets injured in and has to come out of the lineup. If Brunell continues to be injured after that game, Campbell gets the reps during the week and the start the following week.

 

[Despyzer]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

The Value is with Campbell. He's the guy who is going to be behind center before the year is out.

 

[Gopher State]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

Or you could go listen the Gibb's press conference on their web site. He said exactly what Redman is saying. Perhaps you should pay more attention to GIbbs and less attention to the speculation of sports writers. Campbell is the backup to Brunell should Brunell go down for any extended period of time. The only work collins will see is if Brunell is knocked out of a game.

 

[AB in DC]

Except that Campbell will not be very good this year, however much he actually sees the field.

It bears repeating: this is the sixth different offensive system he's had to learn over the past six year.

 

[LHUCKS]

LOL at Campbell getting playing time when the Skins are serious contenders for the Superbowl.

 

[Lowen1]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

For 'Skins info, trust redman and fatness. Not saying the WashPost doesn't have good reporters, but redman knows his stuff regarding the 'Skins.

 

[LHUCKS]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

For 'Skins info, trust redman and fatness. Not saying the WashPost doesn't have good reporters, but redman knows his stuff regarding the 'Skins.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

LOL at Campbell getting playing time when the Skins are serious contenders for the Superbowl.

Laugh away. He's the backup if Brunell goes down and has to miss games. SKins aren't SB contenders this year. They are playoff contenders with an aging qb who likely won't make it though the season.

 

[Despyzer]

For 'Skins info, trust redman and fatness. Not saying the WashPost doesn't have good reporters, but redman knows his stuff regarding the 'Skins.

I was listening right up until the point he started confusing Campbell with Roethlisberger.

 

[redman]

I'm telling you the facts.

Okay, I can listen to you or a guy who gets paid to cover the Redskins. Tough choice... let me think about it.

Or you could go listen the Gibb's press conference on their web site. He said exactly what Redman is saying. Perhaps you should pay more attention to GIbbs and less attention to the speculation of sports writers. Campbell is the backup to Brunell should Brunell go down for any extended period of time. The only work collins will see is if Brunell is knocked out of a game.

Exactly. It's not me saying it, it's Gibbs. I'm just relaying the information.

I was listening right up until the point he started confusing Campbell with Roethlisberger.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

LOL at Campbell getting playing time when the Skins are serious contenders for the Superbowl.

You've been hitting the too much tonight. The Skins aren't in the top three talents in their Division, much less the NFC.....

 

[fatness]

For 'Skins info, trust redman and fatness. Not saying the WashPost doesn't have good reporters, but redman knows his stuff regarding the 'Skins.

Redman is a reliable guy when it comes to posting Redskin information. He separates his opinion from facts and from opinions of others quite well, is an avid fan, and researches things thoroughly. He's much better at Redskin analysis than I am. Mostly I just post links to Redskin stories.

 

[LHUCKS]

LOL at Campbell getting playing time when the Skins are serious contenders for the Superbowl.

You've been hitting the too much tonight. The Skins aren't in the top three talents in their Division, much less the NFC.....

Maybe not the most "talent", but they've got the best coaching in football IMHO. In the era of the salary cap that holds a lot of water.

 

[redman]

LOL at Campbell getting playing time when the Skins are serious contenders for the Superbowl.

You've been hitting the too much tonight. The Skins aren't in the top three talents in their Division, much less the NFC.....

So the team that went 5-1 in the division a year ago and has as many offseason improvements that it can point to as any team in the division is the worst team in the NFC East? Anyone who at this point says that this division is anything but up for grabs is the one hitting the . I like the 'Skins chances with their coaching staff, but I'll repeat what I've said before: literally any combination of final standings in that division is a very realistic scenario.