12/21/24
August 26, 2003
Attaboy describes the tough position that new coach Jack Del Rio and the Jacksonville Jaguars find themselves in -- with Jimmy Smith suspended, Mark Brunell shopped, Tony Brackens sidelined, and fans disinterested after three losing seasons. Is my hometown team still being punished by the football gods for producing "Uh Oh -- the Jaguars Super Bowl Song" in 1999?
If JJ Stokes is the #1 receiver, the Jags will not be making the playoffs. Count on it, the guy never did s*&^ here for the Niners and he is a UCLA grad. If he graduated, that is.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:04 AM on August 26, 2003
The local media was pretty excited about Douglas, but his name hasn't been mentioned much in the pre-season games I have watched. Also, ever since Jimmy Smith was suspended for drugs, the media seems to have decided that any star player who is paid a lot of money should be dumped in the name of rebuilding. There are places where that makes sense, but I don't get the logic of giving up all your good players in the hope it frees up cap room to find new good players. Even if you succeed with 50 percent of your new acquisitions, which would be incredible, that still leaves you with half as many good players as you had originally. I can't believe no one else wants Brunell, not even a guy who loves veteran QBs like Bill Parcells.
posted by rcade at 11:15 AM on August 26, 2003
Well, as a Jags fan, I suppose I must admit that I think, with Jimmy Smith getting caught again and being suspended, it's time to move on and look to the future. I just wish the team wouldn't pussy-foot around the issue and make decisions. This team is going nowhere this season, and that fact just needs to be realized. Cutting some of the holdovers won't make that significant a difference in the end result. Besides, cutting some big name players might result in a high pick next year (for a WR, PLEASE!!), to help facilitate this team getting better quicker. Note: This is coming from one of Brunell's and the Jags' biggest fans. It will kill me to see him go, but it's inevitable.
posted by bcb2k2 at 12:06 PM on August 26, 2003
I hoped the Jags would let Brunell finish out his stay and tutor the younger QB's. But it doesn't appear management is going to allow that to happen. A sad state of affairs. If it has to come to a trade, I hope Mark ends up with a contender, and the Jags end up with a more reliable running back (or wide-out for that matter) in return.
As an aside, I always thought of Brunell as a dead ringer for Steve Young. Powerful lefty release with the ability to scramble, and the guts to stay in the pocket. Steve never had a back like Fred Taylor, but Mark never had the luxury of having Jerry Rice, T.Owens, Deion Sanders, etc., etc....Actually I'd take Brunell over Garcia in a heartbeat. Mr. Walsh to the white courtesy phone please.
posted by lilnemo at 12:10 PM on August 26, 2003
Brunell over Garcia? I'm glad you're not running the Niners! Garcia has been great since his second season, while Brunell has been on a slow fade. Stokes might surprise people. Granted, he never did much in San Francisco, but he was never a first option. At least now we'll know whether he has what it takes.
posted by dusted at 12:38 PM on August 26, 2003
Hear me out. Brunell is 1 year younger than Garcia. Is more mobile. Their numbers are comparable. If Brunell had a quality line, or receivers for that matter his TD totals would be higher. Want evidence? Garcia has been sacked 82 times, Brunell has been sacked 91 times. The difference in numbers is negligible until you see that Garcia has been sacked 82 times in his career while Brunell has been sacked 91 times in two years!
Stokes, however blows and will be out of the league at the end of his current contract (if not before). That is all.
posted by lilnemo at 12:56 PM on August 26, 2003
I checked the stats, and the gap between Garcia and Brunell is not quite as much as I thought, but it's still there. Despite the close QB rating last season, Garcia has consistently thrown more touchdowns, for more yards, while maintaining higher accuracy:
| COM | ATT | PCT | YDS | YPA | LNG | TD | TD% | INT | INT% | SK | SYD | RAT | |
| 2002 | |||||||||||||
| Garcia | 328 | 528 | 62.1 | 3344 | 6.33 | 76 | 21 | 4.0 | 10 | 1.9 | 17 | 93 | 85.6 |
| Brunell | 245 | 416 | 58.9 | 2788 | 6.70 | 79 | 17 | 4.1 | 7 | 1.7 | 34 | 210 | 85.7 |
| 2001 | |||||||||||||
| Garcia | 316 | 504 | 62.7 | 3538 | 7.02 | 61 | 32 | 6.3 | 12 | 2.4 | 26 | 114 | 94.8 |
| Brunell | 289 | 473 | 61.1 | 3309 | 7.00 | 44 | 19 | 4.0 | 13 | 2.7 | 57 | 387 | 84.1 |
| 2000 | |||||||||||||
| Garcia | 355 | 561 | 63.3 | 4278 | 7.63 | 69 | 31 | 5.5 | 10 | 1.8 | 24 | 155 | 97.6 |
| Brunell | 311 | 512 | 60.7 | 3640 | 7.11 | 67 | 20 | 3.9 | 14 | 2.7 | 54 | 289 | 84.0 |
posted by dusted at 02:28 PM on August 26, 2003
I agree with you dusted, but you have to agree that Garcia has a better O-Line and better receivers. Its in the numbers. We went over the sacks, their YPA is almost exactly the same. But Brunell routinely averages fewer attempts (64 to be precise) which accounts for fewer yards. Why? He doesn't have Jeff's line. If we pro-rate Brunell by allowing him those 64 extra attempts x his efficiency x his YPA and tack it on to his total yards you get this:
| NAME | YEAR | ATT | YPA | YDS | |
| BRUNELL | 2002 | 37.7+416=453.7 | 6.7 | 3040 | |
| BRUNELL | 2001 | 473+39=512 | 7.0 | 3582 | |
| BRUNELL | 2000 | 512+38.8=550.8 | 7.11 | 3915.8 |
This doesn't account for the occasional "long-ball" yardage variance.
I have way too much time on my hands.
I don't even like Brunell that much.
posted by lilnemo at 03:29 PM on August 26, 2003
Rcade, that's a pretty good team blog right there. I have sort of rooted for the Jags because Brunell is, as we all know, a UW Husky alum. Attaboy doesn't mention it, but on ESPN this morning Mike and Mike did the Jags for their preseason review and they were critical of the signing of Hugh Douglas. Why is that? What is the local media saying about that off-season pickup?