Mark Brunell
Comments
-
Your very worst effort.Tequilla said:The original Jack Lockner ... honestly way worse early in his career
-
WARBMVPTPO
-
Mods?
-
Some of you need to go back and watch 1990 Mark Brunell #disaster
-
He paled only in comparison to my man Billy Joe
1990 was dominance with a close call at CU and a loss to the soft Bruins costing a natty -
And the 90 dominance was bc of Brunell right?
Or how about that Bruin game where he was in the 10 for 30 neighborhood for about 120 with at least 4 fumbles? -
fuck off
-
As a kid I got a Jacksonville Janguars jersey just for Brunell. A FUCKING Jags jersey. He was pretty good, you fucking twat.
-
Looks like I touched a nerve with many of you ... job accomplished
BTW NFL Brunell >>>>>>>> NCAA Brunell -
Whew, that's a relief. I'm just being trolled again. It has nothing to do with you being a raging retard fucking doogTequilla said:Looks like I touched a nerve with many of you ... job accomplished
BTW NFL Brunell >>>>>>>> NCAA Brunell -
The comparison to Locker is mostly tongue in cheek ...
I think many remember Brunell for what he became later and not what he was in college.
As Race alluded to, both losses in 90 could be pointed at Brunell ... particularly the UCLA game which cost a National Championship
He was hurt in 91 and Billy Joe led to a NC
After the Billy Joe fiasco in 92, the Brunell led team went from probable national champions to losing 3 of final 4 ... may not be fair to lay that all on Brunell but it is what it is.
At minimum, Billy Joe >>>>>> Brunell in my eyes. Watching the 90 game against UCLA today for the first time since 1990 reminded me of how inconsistent and inaccurate Brunell was early in his career. He developed a ton over the years and as a pro.
Why do I bring it up? I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 1990 team ... both w strong defenses with the QB play being a large factor in their ultimate success. -
lulz, same herehaie said:As a kid I got a Jacksonville Janguars jersey just for Brunell. A FUCKING Jags jersey. He was pretty good, you fucking twat.
-
Are you serious? No, really? Color me stupid for falling for your shitick.Tequilla said:The comparison to Locker is mostly tongue in cheek ...
I think many remember Brunell for what he became later and not what he was in college.
As Race alluded to, both losses in 90 could be pointed at Brunell ... particularly the UCLA game which cost a National Championship
He was hurt in 91 and Billy Joe led to a NC
After the Billy Joe fiasco in 92, the Brunell led team went from probable national champions to losing 3 of final 4 ... may not be fair to lay that all on Brunell but it is what it is.
At minimum, Billy Joe >>>>>> Brunell in my eyes. Watching the 90 game against UCLA today for the first time since 1990 reminded me of how inconsistent and inaccurate Brunell was early in his career. He developed a ton over the years and as a pro.
Why do I bring it up? I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 1990 team ... both w strong defenses with the QB play being a large factor in their ultimate success. -
Tequilla said:
The comparison to Locker is mostly tongue in cheek ...
I think many remember Brunell for what he became later and not what he was in college.
As Race alluded to, both losses in 90 could be pointed at Brunell ... particularly the UCLA game which cost a National Championship
He was hurt in 91 and Billy Joe led to a NC
After the Billy Joe fiasco in 92, the Brunell led team went from probable national champions to losing 3 of final 4 ... may not be fair to lay that all on Brunell but it is what it is.
At minimum, Billy Joe >>>>>> Brunell in my eyes. Watching the 90 game against UCLA today for the first time since 1990 reminded me of how inconsistent and inaccurate Brunell was early in his career. He developed a ton over the years and as a pro.
Why do I bring it up? I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 1990 team ... both w strong defenses with the QB play being a large factor in their ultimate success.
-
I sort of get the comparison of their first years starting. Both were athletic QB's who could run effectively. Brunell's completion percentage was not good. I believe it might have been around 50 percent (which today would get you benched in a half on a halfway decent team). 1990 was a different era though. There weren't faggoty gimmick spread offenses and read options back then, and the pros, for the most part, didn't throw the ball 35, 40, or more times per game. Throwing 57 or 58% was really good then I think. I think Montana might have barely cracked 60. There was a run and shoot in both college and the NFL, but it wasn't popular, and I don't think many teams, other than maybe the Lions used it past about 1992.
Overall though, it's not a good comparison. Brunell had a good career in the NFL and became at least a respectable passer. Lockner got his ass kicked (not really his fault since he played on bad teams), but he never did much. -
@Fire_Marshall_Bill basically touches on what I'm getting at ... Brunell wasn't great in '90. It's one thing to have a high completion percentage (and no question that the passing game was way different then but not to mention the preparation that kids at QB have at the QB position in HS and entering college is night and day different) ...
My biggest takeaway going back and seeing 1990 Brunell was that his accuracy was just terrible. Granted, the game I watched was an insanely windy bad weather game, but it matched what I remembered of him at the time as well in that he was wildly inaccurate. In fact, if you look at his numbers for that year, he completed under 47% of his passes: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/washington/1990.html
The Jack Lockner reference was essentially to shock and awe most people with a bit of a troll job and knowing that most on this board would immediately shoot down the comparison because what they remember of Brunell is what they saw of him in the NFL and not so much in college. For instance, @CokeGreaterThanPepsi probably has seen just a handful of games that Brunell played in college on tape ... what he'd remember is what he saw in the NFL.
Locker's career in the NFL was a product of his injuries, bad teams, and probably not having the burning drive to play the game as others had. Add into the fact that the game has changed in what is expected out of the QB position and he probably was a better fit about 20 years ago versus reality.
The reality is that the reason so many on this board hate Locker is because his teams went 4-9, 0-12, 5-7, and 7-6. Because of that, most on this board consider him a loser. He played on bad teams with poor coaching. If you put him on a team like the 1990 team or even a team like this year's team and there's no way that he's producing a mediocre record. In hindsight, you take a guy like Brunell in college and because he was the QB in the 1990 season that won a Rose Bowl and picked up the slack on the 1992 team that also went to a Rose Bowl his career at the UW is viewed far more favorably.
Even more, watching the 1990 team today there's a lot of similarities to me between that team and the 2016 team. Like Locker, Browning has drawn the wrath of many on this board because he was 7-6 as a true freshman starter (with a true freshman LT, RS Frosh RT, true Frosh RB, and missing his most dangerous WR target). Add to it the start to Fall Camp of the offense and their "struggles" given that they are going up against what should be a very, very stout defense and the negativity is amazing to me. But if you go back and look at the pieces between the two teams on offense, the biggest difference I see between the team is that the 1990 team probably had a more established OL and the 2016 team will get far better play out of the QB position. Regardless of what you think of Browning, if you go back and look at some of the work that Brunell did in 1990, it may give a bit of a different perspective on Browning. -
And for just about everybody in this thread, it's going to be fun watching this year as so many of you are predicting loss after loss just to prove you're right as this team wins and wins.
-
AmusingDerekJohnson said:fuck off
-
-
I predicted 11 wins based off of the offense improving. When they are getting ass raped in practice though that is reason for concern because we know the system of fly sweep and pre snap penalties is sure to cost us some games. Hopefully it is just minimal.Tequilla said:And for just about everybody in this thread, it's going to be fun watching this year as so many of you are predicting loss after loss just to prove you're right as this team wins and wins.
-
How about we take the gloves off instead old manRaceBannon said: -
And my response to you would be have you seen any of the practices? Or instead just relying on Jood's reports?AtomicDawg said:
I predicted 11 wins based off of the offense improving. When they are getting ass raped in practice though that is reason for concern because we know the system of fly sweep and pre snap penalties is sure to cost us some games. Hopefully it is just minimal.Tequilla said:And for just about everybody in this thread, it's going to be fun watching this year as so many of you are predicting loss after loss just to prove you're right as this team wins and wins.
-
Relying on the fact it took them 4 practices to get into the Redzone. Everyone that has gone there has said the exact same thing basically that our wr's are getting dominated in 7 on 7's. Obviously the run game is hard to evaluate thus far but when the offense can't consistently move the ball in 7 on 7 without pads we probably should just say they are fine and nothing to see here.
I expect our offense to be good. This is year 3. One side of the ball should not be dominating the other. No excuses. If some gets hurt and they suck, they should have recruited better. I don't fucking care at this point. Year 3 needs results. None of this matters until they play Stanford and maybe they will be good by then but what have they done in the first 2 years that gives you confidence?
Its not good when all reports are that the defense has had chances to score in the same amount of plays and the offense had not yet hit end zone.
-
Quite honestly I'd put you in the hospitalTequilla said:
How about we take the gloves off instead old manRaceBannon said: -
Quite honestly I'd doubt itRaceBannon said:
Quite honestly I'd put you in the hospitalTequilla said:
How about we take the gloves off instead old manRaceBannon said: -
I can't wait for your post fight breakdown of why Race kicked your ass and defied your expectations. It's not moving the goalposts, it's just honest analysis after all.Tequilla said:
Quite honestly I'd doubt itRaceBannon said:
Quite honestly I'd put you in the hospitalTequilla said:
How about we take the gloves off instead old manRaceBannon said: -
Any good golf courses in Temecula?
-
Delete your account.Tequilla said:The comparison to Locker is mostly tongue in cheek ...
I think many remember Brunell for what he became later and not what he was in college.
As Race alluded to, both losses in 90 could be pointed at Brunell ... particularly the UCLA game which cost a National Championship
He was hurt in 91 and Billy Joe led to a NC
After the Billy Joe fiasco in 92, the Brunell led team went from probable national champions to losing 3 of final 4 ... may not be fair to lay that all on Brunell but it is what it is.
At minimum, Billy Joe >>>>>> Brunell in my eyes. Watching the 90 game against UCLA today for the first time since 1990 reminded me of how inconsistent and inaccurate Brunell was early in his career. He developed a ton over the years and as a pro.
Why do I bring it up? I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 1990 team ... both w strong defenses with the QB play being a large factor in their ultimate success. -
If I was an executive, even if good answers were found here, I wouldn't sift through all the BS to find the good suggestionsTequilla said:The comparison to Locker is mostly tongue in cheek ...
I think many remember Brunell for what he became later and not what he was in college.
As Race alluded to, both losses in 90 could be pointed at Brunell ... particularly the UCLA game which cost a National Championship
He was hurt in 91 and Billy Joe led to a NC
After the Billy Joe fiasco in 92, the Brunell led team went from probable national champions to losing 3 of final 4 ... may not be fair to lay that all on Brunell but it is what it is.
At minimum, Billy Joe >>>>>> Brunell in my eyes. Watching the 90 game against UCLA today for the first time since 1990 reminded me of how inconsistent and inaccurate Brunell was early in his career. He developed a ton over the years and as a pro.
Why do I bring it up? I see a lot of similarities between this team and the 1990 team ... both w strong defenses with the QB play being a large factor in their ultimate success.
