Let's talk Quarterback controversy

by Skin Patrol on Sep 19, 2006 7:19 PM EDT

Dan Daly at The Washington Times has a well argued piece on why Joe Gibbs just might have too much loyalty in Brunell.

When he did have an opportunity to throw, though, the results were very hit-or-miss -- too hit-or-miss for the 21st century. This, moreover, isn't exactly a new development. Brunell has started the season pretty much the way he ended last season. The second half of 2005, you may recall, featured a 14-for-32 effort against Oakland; a 122-yard, three-interception afternoon at Arizona; a 9-for-25 outing at Philadelphia; and a 41-yard abomination at Tampa Bay.
And yet, despite these rather strong hints that No. 8 might be nearing the end, the Redskins traded his only viable competition, Patrick Ramsey, to the Jets in the offseason. Yesterday, Gibbs talked about football being "so unpredictable," but some things are actually quite foreseeable -- such as the continued deterioration of Brunell's abilities.

I was happily naive enough to think that last year's end of the season drop off was merely Brunell running out of steam. But he had some really bad games last year. He had only two 300+ yard games last year against Denver and Kansas City consecutively. Not surprisingly, these were also the two games where he had the most attempts. The numbers largely were the result of playing from behind for much of the game, and his completion percentages in both weren't of particular note: 56.6 and 61 respectively. And despite the fact that Brunell successfully failed to throw an interception in both games, he fumbled the ball 3 times over the course of those games, losing all 3. We also lost both games.

And these were some of his best preformances?

He had two games where his completion percentage dipped to the southside of 40%. His weak preformance vs. Oakland last year (14 of 32 or about 44%) largely explains why a 10-6 team lost to a 6-10 team. And while he managed a few games well enough last year to escape with a win, at least two of our games were unquestionably won in spite of the way he played: we beat Arizona 17-13 despite Brunell's 3 interceptions and we took down Philly 31-20 even though he was a dismal 9 completions on 25 attempts.

And although I hate hearing it repeated ad nauseum, Mark Brunell is old. And he's getting older. At the beginning of the season I honestly thought he had enough juice in the tank to improve, given the targest we picked up for him in the offseason. I've since lost some faith in that.

Perhaps it is time we think about going with a Quarterback who will do more than "manage" a game, especially seeing as how our usually stout defense is currently 23rd with little signs of improvement. On the contrary, it appears to have gotten worse.

If you guys hadn't picked up on it yet, I really want to engage this discussion and would appreciate any input you were willing to offer. What are Brunell's saving graces? He's good at not throwing interceptions, I'll give him that. If we stick with Brunell, at what point should we reasonably abandon him? Does a "great" game (for Brunell this means somewhere in the range of 150-250 yards with 0 interceptions) against Houston even silence the critics, like myself?

We're 0-2. I'm not in panic mode regarding our QB situation yet because, as last year proved, the team can win in spite of Brunell's shortcomings. But at 0-2 with time to make adjustments, I view the season in a different light than I might have at 5-6 last year (before a 6-0 tear that put us in the playoffs). There will never be an opportunity to win in spite of our quarterback's preformance like Houston. Right now just might be the last, best opportunity we have to go the JC route effectively.

Like everything else, that's just my opinion.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

QB Controversy

I'm pretty new to following the Redskins, but I've noticed that they have a really hard time settling on a quarterback. Well, maybe that's because they have a hard time settling on a coach but that's another story.

They have to wait a few games before they yank Brunell. There's really no controversy here at all. Campbell showed nothing in preseason that would lead anyone to believe that he could do any better at this point. Gibbs needs to stick with Brunell through at least week 4 before he plays Cap'n Hook.

Why week 4? Well, if the Skins are 1-3 or 0-4 by that time, they really have nothing to lose by playing Campbell. Either he comes in and succeeds, or he comes in and shows everyone, for once and for all, whether he's the answer at QB for the Skins.

But pulling people in and out on a dime (as the Skins are famous for doing) only serves to create more inconsistency.

Look. The Redskins are NOT going to the Super Bowl this year. It's just not going to happen. This year should be about making the emerging players on the team go from good to great. But you can't just go from good to dominant.

by Brandon @ Hogs Haven on Sep 19, 2006 9:04 PM EDT reply actions

My thing is...

I can see the Skins being 2-5 going into the BYE week (week 8.) Look at the schedule after Houston: @NYG, Jacksonville (who showed a lot last night), TEN, @ INDY...

Do you honestly think the team that played in Dallas can beat the Giants or Colts on the road? Even playing JAX at home is going to be something harder than tough. If, and I mean if, the Skins do not beat Houston and/or TEN and at least one of the other games (to put the team in an at least manageable 3-4 hole) then I think you HAVE to play JC.

The defense will get better. Portis will eat up clock, giving the already overworked defense some time to rest. Springs will move everyone down the depth chart at CB. I like the matchup of Carlos Rodgers at the #2 spot and the combination of Wright/Rumph at the #3. That is a much more realistic and serviceable defense. This also gives Williams the ability to blitz more, which plays to this defenses strengths. Archuleta and Taylor are devistating hitters and blitzers, which should allow for more turnovers and better overall field position.

Is it time to panic? No. But the QB position needs to improve dramatically. Can that happen if Brunell is still starting? Yes, but it needs to happen now, this week, in Houston. This is a MUST WIN game. I know that term gets thrown around a lot, but given the current state of the team, as well as the upcoming schedule, this week needs to get the ball rolling. (I would say in the right direction but I'm not entirely sure it is even rolling at all.)

The point was made about consistency at the QB spot being needed. But I think the overall offense needs consistency, which might come at the expense of the QB position.

by TexSkins on Sep 19, 2006 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Seriously,

But the QB position needs to improve dramatically. Can that happen if Brunell is still starting? Yes, but it needs to happen now, this week, in Houston.

No, it can't really happen. Wasn't the Dallas game must-win enough? Isn't the point supposed to be that "Brunell manages a good game"? Well, his management skills certainly sucked in his rainbow interception on the 1-yard line, which was clearly the turning point in the game. He tried to force it at the worst possible time.

His throws aren't going to just suddenly get more accurate this week. He's been sucking for quite some time now. I don't care how hard he studies the playbook. He does not have the touch anymore. Christ, if he has a good game against the godforsaken Titans, is that going to convince everyone he's the guy again? Puhleeeaase.

JC is the QB of the future. Time to give him snaps all week with the first team (instead of the scrubs, like preseason). Scale the book down, hand the ball to Portis a lot, and start developing this kid ON the field.

Maybe it won't pay off this year. But it will certainly pay dividends for next year.

Yeah, I know, we're "built to win now". Except there's one little problem. We're not built to win now at quarterback.

/rant

by zknower on Sep 20, 2006 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Remember that...

It was a failure to maintain Ramsey as the QB that, some feel, led to a successful 10-6 season. I disagree with that, I think, having looked at the numbers the Redskins won last year in spite of Brunell and not because of him.

I agree that realistically there is no controversy. Gibbs has shown incredible loyalty towards his QBs, documented well in the Times piece of above, and Brunell isn't going anywhere. Gibbs is committed to him.

I disagree about Campbell. I think what he showed was the capacity and willingness to throw the ball deep with the 2nd and 3rd team offenses. I think he showed much better arm and mobility than Brunell, though sacrificed both those on decision making.

At this point though, with our offense so incredibly anemic after 2 regular season games and 4 horrid preseason games (not that they matter), is that such a sacrifice? Brunell still threw the most costly pass of the game to Roy Williams. As far as I can tell, the longest completion we had against Dallas was to the other team. Even Brunell admitted, in his post game interview that a) he probably shouldn't have thrown the pass and b) if he could do it again he would've put more behind it. We should wonder whether c) he was even capable of putting more behind it.

Campbell might be good for an additional turnover per game (then again he might not be) but I doubt the offensive production will suffer drastically. It's hard to imagine the Skins getting any worse, offensively.

Fair point about waiting, and honestly Brunell will have to do much worse for Gibbs to actually pull him.

by Skin Patrol on Sep 19, 2006 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Brunell

I just don't understand why the front office and coaching staff has so much faith in him. And this goes back to last year. I couldn't believe he got the nod last year with Ramsay still around. I'll give Mark credit, he had a fairly solid year last year and he won his final 4 games to get into the playoffs if I'm remembering correctly. It's hard to ditch a guy who leads you somewhat miraculously into the playoffs. YOu feel you 'owe' it to him after what he did last year, and what he's done over the course of his career. I think this was a huge blunder on the part of the SKins management. You have all the pieces to win last year, this year, and in the next several years for that matter. BUT, now you're in a tough situation this year where you don't want to jump ship on Brunell until the very end, hey, he might just lead y'all into the playoffs in Week 17 like last year. But the problem is, if you miss this year, you've lost a year to develope Campbell. Because Snyder wants to win now, he'll probably go searching for another veteran, over the hill QB to lead the team for a year or two in 07 and 08, further retarding Campbell's career.

I'm rambling, but I see the QB situation as the biggest reason why the Skins may not live up to their potential this year. They need somebody with the stones and the arm to get the ball down the field.

by Blitzburgh @ Hogs Haven on Sep 19, 2006 11:39 PM EDT reply actions

Is it all Brunell's fault?

Yards after carry for receivers:

Santana Moss - 0.7
Antwaan Randle El - 1.3
Chris Cooley - -0.3 (yes, that's a negative)
James Thrash - 3.0
Christian Fauria - 0.0
Brandon Lloyd - 0.0

Last season's #s:

Santana Moss - 7.3
Chris Cooley - 6.9
David Patten - 4.3
James Thrash - 3.4
Taylor Jacobs - 0.5
Brian Kozlowski - 4.0
Jimmy Farris - 3.0
Robert Johnson - 11.0

Of course, I'm not going to place the blame entirely on the receivers. They need to do a better job breaking tackles, just as Brunell needs to do a better job of hitting them in stride. The running game is also obviously not working when Santana Moss is the #2 rusher for the 'skins so far.

So, yeah, we've got a quarterback problem, but we have issues with all aspects of the offense.

by Burgundy and Gold on Sep 19, 2006 11:46 PM EDT reply actions

Heaps of that

has to do with pass placement. Moss and Cooley had better YACs last year because Brunell threw them the ball downfield. Cooley has underpreformed, but not in his YACs. He's dropped passes. But when he catches the ball at the LOS everytime, where defenders lurk, we can't expect 7 yards everytime.

Moss had YAC last year because he'd get the ball in stride, downfield where he's running against a pair of defensive backs. You can't expect him to make plays downfield if he gets the ball 2 yards past the LOS and is looking at 2 linebackers, 2 safeties, and a defensive back. Same for Cooley, who has hurt us more with dropped passes than a failure to break tackles.

Think of the Dallas game last year. Moss didn't break tackles for his YAC, he picked those up because he a) got behind the defense and b) had a QB willing to throw the ball deep. Has Brunell thrown the ball deep so far at all?

by Skin Patrol on Sep 19, 2006 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Word.

YAC is never going to be good when all of your passes are LOS dinks and dunks.

Brunell has yet to throw a pass over 25 yards this year.

by zknower on Sep 20, 2006 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Not true...

just ask Roy Williams.

by TexSkins on Sep 20, 2006 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions

Santana....

Santana Moss is one of the most special players in the NFL in my opinion. I'm not going to get in to that well versed piece of Skin Patrol's comparing him to T.O, beacuse they're totally different players in my mind, but I'll say this. I would absolutely LOVE to have him playing opposite Hines Ward.

Moss is more than just fast. From the little I've seen of him, he has some unique and incredible instints on the field. He makes incredible adjustments on the ball when it's in air, and he's unbelivably quick with his first step. Very explosive off the line and after the catch.

Force him the ball if you have to! At worst, it leads to some pass interference calls, especially with a guy like Moss who can be bumped off his route more visibly than other WRs (refs are calling that more this year). At best, Moss will make plays like he did all of last year when he led the league in plays over 40 yards or more (10).

GET HIM THE DAMN BALL!

by Blitzburgh @ Hogs Haven on Sep 20, 2006 12:57 AM EDT reply actions

Hard choices

I see a defense that will right the ship and be a big factor when Springs comes back. The offense is being bashed but this is a learning year. It will not be Kansas City until much later if at all (Kansas City did have dominent O-lines). I side with the thought that while learnig a new offense it might as well be Cambell getting the snaps. No rookie QB is going to the Superbowl. But neither is Brunell.

One point to make here is that people are not giving enough credit to the skins opponents. Minnesota looks like it will be the most improved team in the league this year and it finished 9-7 last year. That defense is playing very well. Dallas bit the bullet last year with the defense and played a lot of rookies. This year those guys are talented and rounding into form. Their Jacksonville game is the abberation not the skins game. They will likely finish top-5 on Defense despite a killer schedule. Unfortunately this week at Houston will prove nothing unless Houston wins (hard to conceive).

by lee3022 on Sep 20, 2006 3:18 AM EDT reply actions

Um

One player does not fix a defense, and one player does not fix an offense (unless it's Mike Vick).

That, and it's hard to imagine Springs and Portis at 100% when they return. The only question is if they'll outperform Rogers, and Betts/Duckett.

by Burgundy and Gold on Sep 20, 2006 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions

To second that

Springs didn't break his finger, he ripped muscle off his groin. That's going to affect how he moves, pivots, picks up speed, runs, etc. against a starting WR in the National Football League. He'll still be better than Wright/Rumph, and it will legitimately improve our defense, but we haven't looked one player away from good -- we've looked 3 or 4 players away from good.

We have a long ways to go on both sides of the ball. Even a marginal win against Houston is still cause for concern, though I'll happily welcome having a win.

by Skin Patrol on Sep 20, 2006 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions