Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Mark Brunell
Tequilla
Member Posts: 19,969
The original Jack Lockner ... honestly way worse early in his career
Comments
1990 was dominance with a close call at CU and a loss to the soft Bruins costing a natty
Or how about that Bruin game where he was in the 10 for 30 neighborhood for about 120 with at least 4 fumbles?
BTW NFL Brunell >>>>>>>> NCAA Brunell
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.
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.
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.
Fuck off