Brunell is Bad

Maybe we can agree on this:

maybe Brunnel is better than you think
AND
maybe Ramsey is better than Gibbs thinks.

To me, Brunnel looked good when he had to open up the offense ?(KC, Denver, Dallas...), but there is no doubt that defenses would have backed off if Ramsey was back there and the line could protect him. I'll be interested to see what Saunders thinks if Ramsey stays.I would think that with Gibbs given Ramsey the OK to seak a trade gives us some insight to what Saunders thinks of him. Saunders had to of looked at game film and pratice film of Ramsey befor they gave him the Ok to go looking for a trade. If for one minute Saunders thought Ramsey should be the starter or could be the starter of the team he would not be looking for a trade.

Paintrain, read my post and I explain how. Ramsey would have given us a better TOP, more passing yards, more TDs, and more INTs. However he'd have far fewer fumbles than Brunell. Ramsey did more in slightly over one quarter in the first game than Brunell was able to pull out in the remainder of it. This was a good defense he was playing very well against.

I think the total amount of turnovers would have been similar, but Ramsey would have had more, yet we would have scored more and had more players worked into the mix. Easily the best season since 1999, big deal, this was "Easily the best season" for every Redskin since 1999, we made the playoffs. Little of that, in my opinion, had to do with the great play of Mark Brunell.

I guess I'm wrong about his contract, I thought the restructure last year made him even easier to cut this year. I could definitely be wrong here.

Couple of points of contention.. First, cutting Brunell would acutally cost $300K more than keeping him.. Brunell had his best season in years and easily the best season for a Redskins QB since Brad Johnson in 1999 and Ramsey could have done better? How much better are you looking for? You admitted that Ramsey would probably turn the ball over more, how is that an improvement? Brunell certainly isn't the picture of youth or ideal health but I feel 200% better going into the season with him as the starter than I would Ramsey..Come on man whats a few turn overs every game. Who needs to play field position and who cares that we toss a few to the other guys in the red zone. We can make all that up on a few long passes. Gibbs is just blind to all of Ramsey's tallent and is not going to look like a fool for picking up Brunell. Thats his guy!

I am very interested in Saunders evaluation of the situation will be as well, but I have a feeling Ramsey will be out of hear before he has a chance to do so, as we close in on draft day something is probably going to happen maybe even on draft day, right now things are up in the air on which direction teams with QB needs are going to go, once that straightens itself out Patrick will probably be on the move, to bad for us IMO.

I'd think if Saunders felt strongly about keeping Ramsey then Gibbs would have listened.

I'm not going to dazzle you with numbers or deep theory. I just want to see where this goes. I have been concerned with the aquisition of a #2 WR when somone posed that it is Brunell's fault not Patten's. He is absolutely right. I have never been sold on him but what little offensive success we saw last year had little to do with his play and more to do with individual great plays, good team strategy, and a great offensive line. Our most successful pass plays were quick screen's to Moss and Cooley, and passes in the flat to Sellars. This requires nothing from the QB but delivery and every 3rd QB in the league can give you delivery. Our success on these passes were due to great blocks and moss's speed. At no point did Brunell demonstrate an ability to read coverages and complete passes down the middle of the field. The long ball consisted of him throwing it as far as his weak arm could muster and have speedy Moss outrun coverage. He rarely even attempts down the field passes and when he does they make me sad. Honestly, I tear up. His willingness to throw the ball away is something for review, and he has no problem punting the ball away. I often feel that he does not want the ball and would prefer that the other team's offense had it so the defense would be responsible. We have four arguable top-5 at their position lineman who provided remarkable protection last year. Barring injuries they should be better next year, but hopefully the guy responsible for getting the ball out of the pocket will be calm, assertive, and not mark brunell.


PS- I was just watching a recording of Gibbs at the combine. I love him. And I love you.

4 top 5 linemen? who would those be? not dockery or rabach... and jansen and samuels are alright, but neither is top 5. (samuels is althletic enough to be in the top 5, but he's too inconsistant). thomas i would say is undoubtedly top 5, but 1/5 is a lot less than 4/5.

brunell threw deep fine. see dallas, see 49ers, etc... moss was in the top 3 in 40+ yard passes. most of his screen stuff went for 10-20 yards, not 40+.

brunell does have the running qb menality where he looks 1,2 and tosses it or runs or dump it off where (good) pocket passers tend to get an extra read in. he's actually good at what he does, but lossing patten really hurt and at the end of the year he was obviously banged up and playing very poorly. that' a far cry from saying he's just outright bad though. The protection wasn't remarkable though, it was average to slightly above average... which would be appaling if we actually did have 4/5 Olinemen that were top5 at their positions.

I agree, I think Ramsey could have done just as well with a very good O- Line, a very good wide reciever and tight end, then also throw in there that we have clinton portis. Don't forget that our defense was the main reason why we had 10 wins because they are the only consistent week in and week out pretty much. I don't have a problem with Brunell though I think he tries as hard as he can but he is getting pretty old and heart can only take you so far.

everyone is working off the defense did it all cause of 2004, but they're were a lot of 30 point games this year and the offense wasn't ranked 29th, it was above average. The offense wasn't existant in the playoffs, but in the regular season, the D gave up a lot more points and long runs than expected (36 to TB for example).

I would think that with Gibbs given Ramsey the OK to seak a trade gives us some insight to what Saunders thinks of him. Saunders had to of looked at game film and pratice film of Ramsey befor they gave him the Ok to go looking for a trade. If for one minute Saunders thought Ramsey should be the starter or could be the starter of the team he would not be looking for a trade.

It's likely that the Ramsey Bridge had already been burned before Saunders got here.

Take a look at the contracts. Suppose Saunders decided he wanted to start Patrick in 2006 and he was tickled pink with his performance...what then? How would we retain Ramsey for the future given his increased value, the Campbell and Brunell contracts, and the salary cap?

It's likely that the Ramsey Bridge had already been burned before Saunders got here.

Take a look at the contracts. Suppose Saunders decided he wanted to start Patrick in 2006 and he was tickled pink with his performance...what then? How would we retain Ramsey for the future given his increased value, the Campbell and Brunell contracts, and the salary cap?

campbell wasn't a top5 pick, he's cheap. If you cut brunell after june 1, you save 4-5mill this year and 1mill next year. ramsey is also cheap.

Come on man whats a few turn overs every game. Who needs to play field position and who cares that we toss a few to the other guys in the red zone. We can make all that up on a few long passes. Gibbs is just blind to all of Ramsey's tallent and is not going to look like a fool for picking up Brunell. Thats his guy!


You act as if Brunell doesn't turn the ball over? He turned the ball over at basically the same clip as Ramsey, and yes his were very costly because we lost 2 games in 2004 because of defensive TD's off of Brunell turnovers, so to make out Ramsey as some kind of TO machine is fine if you want to admit Brunell is with him step for step, and that's without the offensive output.

Is there any possiblity that Gibbs could maybe be wrong on this matter? At the very least even if he's right about Ramsey don't you think he could possibly be wrong about Brunell? I know if I gave up what Gibbs gave up for Brunell I would defietly feel an obligation to make that work, Gibbs had to make an evaluation on Ramsey based soley on film under SS as if any QB could have survived in that offense, and he gave up the farm for Brunell, that is a tough pill to swallow if your wrong on a major decision like that.

It just seemed to me that Gibbs is scared to death to allow Ramsey any playing time, I just don't understand why? He showed Gibbs in 2004 enough to be named the starter, yet Gibbs would rather put Brunell on the field in a wheel chair than give Ramsey an opportunity, something just doesn't add up? Can anyone disagree that a healthy Ramsey is better than a hobbled Brunell? We all saw how Brunell plays when hurt, if you don't disagree with that question than you will have to agree Gibbs was wrong in playing a player in Brunell who wasen't able to perform properly in our offense. We are all human even the best can make a mistake it happens all the time, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, but to specualte that is not a bad thing.

campbell wasn't a top5 pick, he's cheap. If you cut brunell after june 1, you save 4-5mill this year and 1mill next year. ramsey is also cheap.

Ramsey won't be cheap to re-sign for the future if Saunders starts him and he performs well in 2006. That was the scenario.

We aren't talking about this year's cap but 2007's.

So my point was...it doesn't matter what Saunder's opinion is of Ramsey. There's no good reason to keep him in the team's plans.