You haven't backed up a reason why he still has something left in the tank....other than posting a resume' that pretty much ended four years ago. Oh yeah...and two plays.

i dont care if he isnt an all pro

i was merely trying to point out that he isnt washed up and that basing an opinion on 1 game is kind of dumb

he is a backup....thats what hes supposed to be

but rather than answer the original question, you guys turned it around on me to make me prove that he is a stud....im not saying he is

but i am wondering why, AFTER 1 GAME, you guys have decided he is washed up

im glad we didnt do the same thing after drew's first game as a saint

when he threw for 170 yards on 16 of 30 attempts for a QB rating of 67.....AGAINST THE BROWNS

looks like maybe we shouldnt judge QBs after one game eh?

Must I explain one more time how crappy and sluggish the Carolina defense played in that game? I don't care if they were top 5 in defense or not. Their play didn't show it. Brunell couldn't complete anything downfield even when receivers were open and he was playing with players that he practiced with regularly, so there should have been some sort of rhythm, but there wasn't. Sure, he may have been accurate in the past, but he showed no signs of it in that game. You say arguing after one game is dumb and then try to bring Drew's name in this? Now who is the one with the dumb comment? Drew is a starter and we knew that he was better than that game and that he would improve. No one here can say with any certainty that Brunell has still got it or if he doesn't. We have our opinions, and we voice them. In my opinion, if Brees were to miss four games in a regular season, the Saints would be lucky to win one game. If they did win more than that, it wouldn't be because of the arm of Mark Brunell.

The the Carolina D might have collectively had a bad day, but Brunell, with no recent starts under his belt and playing with mostly 2nd and 3rd stringers couldn't? Surely you see how this empties the argument completely, right?

It empties the argument no more than going by 2 plays and a resume that hasn't been added to in 4 years.

that is just a piece of my argument where as it is your entire argument

Wrong again. You apparently only read what you want to read. Go back and see where I've said that he has played sparingly the last four seasons. At 39 years old, that doesn't bode well for him at all. You can throw in that Warner and Favre both were doing it, but Brunell doesn't even belong in the same category as far as effectiveness. Only age. Regardless, his play on the field, be it regular season, preseason, playing with 2nd or 3rd stringers, or whatever barely warrants a back-up position. I will say again, in my OPINION, he wouldn't start for any team in the NFL, so why would I feel comfortable with him being on the field and winning games for the Saints if something happens to Brees? In short, I wouldn't feel comfortable. At all.

It empties the argument no more than going by 2 plays and a resume that hasn't been added to in 4 years.

Well then argument A is no more valid than argument B. Rekon we're down then to opinion, unless there is more evidence to go on. Brunell has been a successful starter, and there is really no valid evidence to suggest that he can't spot start successfully if needed. That's my take, and I'm not biased in either direction on the guy.

It is just opinion. Mine is that if you see no evidence the Saints would be in trouble if Brunell had to step in and be our starter then I want some of what you're smoking. There is a reason he lost his starting job at Jax and Wash....he's no longer a starter.