Brunell is Bad

offiss, i think that brunell gives the redskins the best chance at winning,BUT im with you thinking that p ramsey has never gotten a fair shake with the skins since coach gibbs has come back.its probably better for all parties involved that he move on.im not really sure why the skins braintrust thinks about ramsey the way they do,but they have been constant in their thinking so he might as well go somewhere he has a chance to play

if he performs well in 2006 and has a starting role then thats the downside of not signing him now. campbell will still be cheap and brunell being cut would still save money. If the skins can't afford a good QB (which would be cheap the first 3 years) then they've got bigger problems.

if he performs well in 2006 and has a starting role then thats the downside of not signing him now.

Are you saying that you think the Skins and Ramsey could come to terms on an extension now?

Are you saying that you think the Skins and Ramsey could come to terms on an extension now?

no, but in a different life, thats alwayss the downside to not getting extensions done early, you pay more. the upside, of course, if that if they suck, its easier to kick them out the door.

you were discussing the possibility of keeping him, i was following that with the hypothetical that brunell would be easy to toss (cap wise) and campbell would be cheap enough that taking on a good QB contract would still be possible... SO if ramsey did well, the other QBs' contracts would be a non factor is whether you keep him or not.

as far as reality, he's gone regardless of cap sense, cause gibbs likes brunell and campbell, and its impossible to like 3 QBs and keep them all happy (and he's obviously made his choice).

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.

I'll agree with you about Brunell playing hurt. He did look bad and I thought we would have been better served to play Ramsey. That said, we won those games and it is hard to fault a win.

The basic thing that scares Gibbs about Ramsey is his lack of mobility and his last second decision making. I think that both of those things would get better with experience but Gibbs went to Campbell. My problem is not so much that Gibbs went with Brunell because Brunell had the experience to help Gibbs through his own transition back to offensive guru. It's that he gave up on Ramsey before the offense as a whole (coaches too) started to click and yes, Gibbs should have pulled Brunell earlier a couple of times this year so that Ramsey could get more time (San Fran, Dallas-2, Eagles-2).

It also probably scared Gibbs to death that Ramsey couldn't move well and Williams probably had the defense all over him through training camp. You see that and then realize you have to face the Cowboys and Eagles it might make you a little apprehensive also. I know that after the Chicago game all I could think was "Ramsey is going to get killed playing Dallas" once they see the way Chicago rattled him into giving up the ball.

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.
I read your post, but I didn't see any explanation that despite an increase in turnovers that would lead to an increase in TD, TOP and passing yards. By increased INT doesn't that inherently lead to a reduction in TOP and passing yards? Not to mention the possibility of some of those increased TD leading to INT returned for TD or at least into the red zone?

I'm clearly on record as saying that the Redskins are better with Ramsey not under center.. I believe he is what he has shown, flashes of brilliance, great physical tools, very inconsistent, holds onto the ball too long, makes poor decisions with the football.. In short, Gus Frerotte II.. No he didn't, yeah I went there.

You love Gibbs yet you don't trust his guidance on the single most important decision on the football team. If Brunell was not the best QB the redskins had last year than why was he playing for 16 straight weeks. I just can't come to terms with how you can be a Joe Gibbs fan and still question the biggest decision he made all of last season. This isn't a run of the mill decision like a call on a particular 3rd & 2 or whether or not Thrash is better than Jacobs...the starting QB is the most major of major decisions. To imply that gibbs started the wrong QB for 16 straight weeks pretty much says that you don't believe he knows what he's doing. I don't see how you can seperate one from the other.

And as for your basic point on Brunels performance, I disagree with it completely. I don't think the Redskins would have been any where near the playoffs with Ramsey or Campbel playing last year. Brunell is not the player he used to be but he had a very good season. He carried out the offense the way Gibbs wanted and prodcued 10 wins.



Plus, he had the best year statistically of his NFL career.

Yeh, yet another Brunell/Ramsey thread! Gee, haven't seen that lately! :/

first of all some1 shoulda closed this thread when it started......2nd u guys are saying that when a qb relys on his arm and tries to squeeze to make big plays is bad? the only way to make a big play like that is to take the gamble of throwing it up.......LOOK AT FAVRE he threw way more ints than td's i think most in his career.......would u take brunell b/c he doesnt go for the big play and doesnt throw ints, or would u take favre whos known for big plays in tight situations but throws ints too? ok then.....bottom line is ramsey didnt get his fair shot and thats bs! i respect brunell for taking us to the playoffs, but u act like ramseys an idiot and hasnt grown and wont grow anymore..........when he played releif for brunells old broken ass he did great he threw a thouchdown pass to santana and he "managed the game" i think better than brunelll he looked fine to me.......if we lose ramsey im really gnna miss him we havent seen ANYTHING in campbell absolutley nothing, he had great offensive supporting cast in aubrn, he threw a couple good balls in a mediocre ass defense in the pre-season......i say stick with ramsey and make big plays

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.

I find your entire post lacking any real knowledge of what the QB position is all about. While I will concede that Brunell is not Payton Manning, I will say this he made the most of what he was given to work with. I don't know if you go to the games or watch on TV, but when your at the game you can see if guys are running wide open and the QB is not getting him the ball. As someone that was at almost all the home games this year and even a couple of the away games that was not the case. I am sure you are a very big Redskins fan but your opinion that big plays in the passing game happen in spite of Brunell rather than because of him is just foolish. I realize bashing Brunell has become the "In thing" to do on a lot of these fan sites, but to make the statements you've made is ridiculous.