Back-up QB options?

D_it_up · 03-15-2010, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

in the carolina game.....with backups? against the #4 pass defense in the league? with all their starters in? thats the game you are judging?

come on brother. one game does not make a career.......brunell filled in for 1 game in 2 years against one of the premiere defenses in the league and your basing your opinion of him on that one game

but you'd rather have guys like derek anderson or jake delhomme who had a combined 11 TDs to 28 INTs

guys who lost a combined 6 fumbles in 18 starts combined......guys who couldnt make it on 2 of the worst teams in the league?

Exactly. That is exactly what I am basing it on. Regardless of the starters that played that day for Carolina, they played pathetic on defense. If Brees had started, they would have been picked apart. They had nothing to play for but a .500 season and they showed it. Brunell's passes were terrible. Not even close to their mark. Why did the Saints run the majority of the time in the game? Because Brunell isn't good anymore. That's why. Brunell wouldn't be a starter for any team in the NFL right now. Not even the Bills. So why on earth would anyone be comfortable with him as a back-up to "fill in" a few games when his skill set has regressed drastically? And yes. I would rather have someone like Jake or Derek as a back up. Look at the receivers those two had to work with. Jake had a receiver that is probably on the down slope of his career in Steve Smith. Other than that, he had nothing. What did Anderson, or even Quinn for that matter, have in Cleveland? You should be able to answer that, because you talk about the Browns enough on here. If you can't, I'll answer for you. They had NOTHING. Their receivers were crap. You can't be good if you have nothing to work with. Anderson is two years removed from a pretty darn good season when he had more to work with. I'm not saying they would be All-World with the Saints if we had either one and something happened to Brees, but I would feel more comfortable seeing them behind center than Brunell. I don't care what kind of resume' Brunell has. He isn't good anymore. At all.

CantonLegend · 03-15-2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by D_it_up

Exactly. That is exactly what I am basing it on. Regardless of the starters that played that day for Carolina, they played pathetic on defense. If Brees had started, they would have been picked apart.

there is a distinct difference between brees and brunell.....just like there is between brees and DA and brees and delhomme and brees and any other QB in the league.......drew is a freak of nature at the QB position...thats why brunell is a backup

They had nothing to play for but a .500 season and they showed it. Brunell's passes were terrible. Not even close to their mark. Why did the Saints run the majority of the time in the game?

why did they run the majority of the game.......4th ranked pass defense, 22nd ranked rush defense....significant difference between strength and weakness of that defense

Because Brunell isn't good anymore. That's why. Brunell wouldn't be a starter for any team in the NFL right now.

ru sure? there are a lot of teams that could use QBs right about now...think rams, 49ers, panthers, browns, bills, raiders, buccaneers....etc

And yes. I would rather have someone like Jake or Derek as a back up. Look at the receivers those two had to work with. Jake had a receiver that is probably on the down slope of his career in Steve Smith. Other than that, he had nothing. What did Anderson, or even Quinn for that matter, have in Cleveland? You should be able to answer that, because you talk about the Browns enough on here. If you can't, I'll answer for you. They had NOTHING. Their receivers were crap. You can't be good if you have nothing to work with.

first i'll respond to the browns thing......the browns are a terrible team....ive defended DA and quinn a lot because of the lack of talent on that team....having said that, DA is one of the most inaccurate passers ive seen....i said that in his pro bowl season.....i said that the year after his pro bowl season......the browns were much better off with charlie frye starting because he could move in the pocket and avoid pressure......DA wants starter money and will not settle for a backup position

secondly......the players that delhomme and DA were playing with are starters.....the players that brunell was playing with.....darnell dinkins, lynell hamilton, robert meachem, kyle eckel.....etc......now i know we are all homers here, but when other teams look at us, do you think they are scared of any of those players? probably not.....the lone name that stands out is meachem who has had 1 solid season in 3 years and could be a good player if he continues like that

Anderson is two years removed from a pretty darn good season when he had more to work with. I'm not saying they would be All-World with the Saints if we had either one and something happened to Brees, but I would feel more comfortable seeing them behind center than Brunell. I don't care what kind of resume' Brunell has. He isn't good anymore. At all.

the year anderson made the pro bowl.....he threw 19 INTs and completed only 56% of his passes

mark brunell has completed less than 56% of his passes only 2 seasons in his entire career.....his first season played in 1994(played 2 games....27 pass attempts) and this past season when he played 1 game

D_it_up · 03-15-2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

there is a distinct difference between brees and brunell.....just like there is between brees and DA and brees and delhomme and brees and any other QB in the league.......drew is a freak of nature at the QB position...thats why brunell is a backup

And Brunell will continue to be a back-up, at best, no matter what team he plays for.

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

why did they run the majority of the game.......4th ranked pass defense, 22nd ranked rush defense....significant difference between strength and weakness of that defense

Actually, I correct myself. They only ran the ball three more times than they passed, so it was balanced. Regardless, Brunell's passes were horrible and, as I stated in another post, he works with the 2nd and 3rd stringers on a regular basis. He should have been comfortable with them, but he did not look comfortable at all back there in the pocket. He could only complete short passes, and even those looked shaky. Anytime he went down the field, he either grossly overthrew or underthrew his receiver.

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

ru sure? there are a lot of teams that could use QBs right about now...think rams, 49ers, panthers, browns, bills, raiders, buccaneers....etc

Brunell would look just as horrible on any of these teams, as well. You just listed a bunch of teams that are also horrible and have nothing to work with. Rams? Donnie Avery is the #1 receiver? Come on. 49ers? No one on that team but Vernon Davis. The jury is still out on Crabtree, because he hasn't played a full season yet. Panthers? I've already said my peace about them. They have a one-trick pony in Steve Smith. Browns? Yep. Already covered them, too. Bills? They had Lee Evans T.O and a horrible offensive line that couldn't make it protective custody much less protect a QB. Raiders? Notice how much better they were with Gradkowski in as QB than Russell? Buccaneers? Freeman will be the starter there next year regardless. Brunell wouldn't beat him out at all.

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

first i'll respond to the browns thing......the browns are a terrible team....ive defended DA and quinn a lot because of the lack of talent on that team....having said that, DA is one of the most inaccurate passers ive seen....i said that in his pro bowl season.....i said that the year after his pro bowl season......the browns were much better off with charlie frye starting because he could move in the pocket and avoid pressure......DA wants starter money and will not settle for a backup position

secondly......the players that delhomme and DA were playing with are starters.....the players that brunell was playing with.....darnell dinkins, lynell hamilton, robert meachem, kyle eckel.....etc......now i know we are all homers here, but when other teams look at us, do you think they are scared of any of those players? probably not.....the lone name that stands out is meachem who has had 1 solid season in 3 years and could be a good player if he continues like that

Again, as I stated above and in another post, Brunell practices with the 2nd and 3rd string, so he should have had a better game. Point is that he didn't. He stunk.

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

mark brunell has completed less than 56% of his passes only 2 seasons in his entire career.....his first season played in 1994(played 2 games....27 pass attempts) and this past season when he played 1 game

And how many games has Brunell played in the last four years? If he could have been a starter on any other team, then why would he settle for a back-up job with the Saints, knowing he wouldn't see the field unless something happened to Drew. Why didn't Delhomme do the same thing? Because he is confident enough in himself that he can still start. That's why he went to a team where he can compete for it. If Brunell is that confident, let him walk. Let him go to a team that he thinks he can start for. We will see how far that gets him.

03-15-2010, 03:38 PM	#2
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by D_it_up Exactly. That is exactly what I am basing it on. Regardless of the starters that played that day for Carolina, they played pathetic on defense. If Brees had started, they would have been picked apart. there is a distinct difference between brees and brunell.....just like there is between brees and DA and brees and delhomme and brees and any other QB in the league.......drew is a freak of nature at the QB position...thats why brunell is a backup They had nothing to play for but a .500 season and they showed it. Brunell's passes were terrible. Not even close to their mark. Why did the Saints run the majority of the time in the game? why did they run the majority of the game.......4th ranked pass defense, 22nd ranked rush defense....significant difference between strength and weakness of that defense Because Brunell isn't good anymore. That's why. Brunell wouldn't be a starter for any team in the NFL right now. ru sure? there are a lot of teams that could use QBs right about now...think rams, 49ers, panthers, browns, bills, raiders, buccaneers....etc And yes. I would rather have someone like Jake or Derek as a back up. Look at the receivers those two had to work with. Jake had a receiver that is probably on the down slope of his career in Steve Smith. Other than that, he had nothing. What did Anderson, or even Quinn for that matter, have in Cleveland? You should be able to answer that, because you talk about the Browns enough on here. If you can't, I'll answer for you. They had NOTHING. Their receivers were crap. You can't be good if you have nothing to work with. first i'll respond to the browns thing......the browns are a terrible team....ive defended DA and quinn a lot because of the lack of talent on that team....having said that, DA is one of the most inaccurate passers ive seen....i said that in his pro bowl season.....i said that the year after his pro bowl season......the browns were much better off with charlie frye starting because he could move in the pocket and avoid pressure......DA wants starter money and will not settle for a backup position secondly......the players that delhomme and DA were playing with are starters.....the players that brunell was playing with.....darnell dinkins, lynell hamilton, robert meachem, kyle eckel.....etc......now i know we are all homers here, but when other teams look at us, do you think they are scared of any of those players? probably not.....the lone name that stands out is meachem who has had 1 solid season in 3 years and could be a good player if he continues like that Anderson is two years removed from a pretty darn good season when he had more to work with. I'm not saying they would be All-World with the Saints if we had either one and something happened to Brees, but I would feel more comfortable seeing them behind center than Brunell. I don't care what kind of resume' Brunell has. He isn't good anymore. At all. the year anderson made the pro bowl.....he threw 19 INTs and completed only 56% of his passes mark brunell has completed less than 56% of his passes only 2 seasons in his entire career.....his first season played in 1994(played 2 games....27 pass attempts) and this past season when he played 1 game
	"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

03-15-2010, 04:06 PM	#3
D_it_up Faqda Falcons Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ruston, Louisiana Posts: 3,465 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by CantonLegend there is a distinct difference between brees and brunell.....just like there is between brees and DA and brees and delhomme and brees and any other QB in the league.......drew is a freak of nature at the QB position...thats why brunell is a backup And Brunell will continue to be a back-up, at best, no matter what team he plays for. Originally Posted by CantonLegend why did they run the majority of the game.......4th ranked pass defense, 22nd ranked rush defense....significant difference between strength and weakness of that defense Actually, I correct myself. They only ran the ball three more times than they passed, so it was balanced. Regardless, Brunell's passes were horrible and, as I stated in another post, he works with the 2nd and 3rd stringers on a regular basis. He should have been comfortable with them, but he did not look comfortable at all back there in the pocket. He could only complete short passes, and even those looked shaky. Anytime he went down the field, he either grossly overthrew or underthrew his receiver. Originally Posted by CantonLegend ru sure? there are a lot of teams that could use QBs right about now...think rams, 49ers, panthers, browns, bills, raiders, buccaneers....etc Brunell would look just as horrible on any of these teams, as well. You just listed a bunch of teams that are also horrible and have nothing to work with. Rams? Donnie Avery is the #1 receiver? Come on. 49ers? No one on that team but Vernon Davis. The jury is still out on Crabtree, because he hasn't played a full season yet. Panthers? I've already said my peace about them. They have a one-trick pony in Steve Smith. Browns? Yep. Already covered them, too. Bills? They had Lee Evans T.O and a horrible offensive line that couldn't make it protective custody much less protect a QB. Raiders? Notice how much better they were with Gradkowski in as QB than Russell? Buccaneers? Freeman will be the starter there next year regardless. Brunell wouldn't beat him out at all. Originally Posted by CantonLegend first i'll respond to the browns thing......the browns are a terrible team....ive defended DA and quinn a lot because of the lack of talent on that team....having said that, DA is one of the most inaccurate passers ive seen....i said that in his pro bowl season.....i said that the year after his pro bowl season......the browns were much better off with charlie frye starting because he could move in the pocket and avoid pressure......DA wants starter money and will not settle for a backup position secondly......the players that delhomme and DA were playing with are starters.....the players that brunell was playing with.....darnell dinkins, lynell hamilton, robert meachem, kyle eckel.....etc......now i know we are all homers here, but when other teams look at us, do you think they are scared of any of those players? probably not.....the lone name that stands out is meachem who has had 1 solid season in 3 years and could be a good player if he continues like that Again, as I stated above and in another post, Brunell practices with the 2nd and 3rd string, so he should have had a better game. Point is that he didn't. He stunk. Originally Posted by CantonLegend mark brunell has completed less than 56% of his passes only 2 seasons in his entire career.....his first season played in 1994(played 2 games....27 pass attempts) and this past season when he played 1 game And how many games has Brunell played in the last four years? If he could have been a starter on any other team, then why would he settle for a back-up job with the Saints, knowing he wouldn't see the field unless something happened to Drew. Why didn't Delhomme do the same thing? Because he is confident enough in himself that he can still start. That's why he went to a team where he can compete for it. If Brunell is that confident, let him walk. Let him go to a team that he thinks he can start for. We will see how far that gets him.

03-15-2010, 03:11 PM	#1
D_it_up Faqda Falcons Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ruston, Louisiana Posts: 3,465 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Back-up QB options? Originally Posted by CantonLegend in the carolina game.....with backups? against the #4 pass defense in the league? with all their starters in? thats the game you are judging? come on brother. one game does not make a career.......brunell filled in for 1 game in 2 years against one of the premiere defenses in the league and your basing your opinion of him on that one game but you'd rather have guys like derek anderson or jake delhomme who had a combined 11 TDs to 28 INTs guys who lost a combined 6 fumbles in 18 starts combined......guys who couldnt make it on 2 of the worst teams in the league? Exactly. That is exactly what I am basing it on. Regardless of the starters that played that day for Carolina, they played pathetic on defense. If Brees had started, they would have been picked apart. They had nothing to play for but a .500 season and they showed it. Brunell's passes were terrible. Not even close to their mark. Why did the Saints run the majority of the time in the game? Because Brunell isn't good anymore. That's why. Brunell wouldn't be a starter for any team in the NFL right now. Not even the Bills. So why on earth would anyone be comfortable with him as a back-up to "fill in" a few games when his skill set has regressed drastically? And yes. I would rather have someone like Jake or Derek as a back up. Look at the receivers those two had to work with. Jake had a receiver that is probably on the down slope of his career in Steve Smith. Other than that, he had nothing. What did Anderson, or even Quinn for that matter, have in Cleveland? You should be able to answer that, because you talk about the Browns enough on here. If you can't, I'll answer for you. They had NOTHING. Their receivers were crap. You can't be good if you have nothing to work with. Anderson is two years removed from a pretty darn good season when he had more to work with. I'm not saying they would be All-World with the Saints if we had either one and something happened to Brees, but I would feel more comfortable seeing them behind center than Brunell. I don't care what kind of resume' Brunell has. He isn't good anymore. At all.