Gibbs defends Brunell

I openly disagree with Gibbs on this move, as I'm pretty sure everyone does. 3 Superbowl rings or not... this is a bad move in my opinon.

Well I don't disagree with Gibbs until Ramsey can prove to Gibbs in practice that he understands his system and knows when to throw the ball and not take a sack. This is why he's isn't playing now, so why should he allowed to learn now that we won. If we had loss this game I could understand, but a victory sealed Brunell's position for another two weeks.

well whats gibbs going to say in a press conference. that hes happy we won and hes going to bench his starting qb. of course not. He still might play ramsey but i doubt it, either way he wouldnt have said anything in a post game conference.

I'm not sure that Ramsey is approaching his secondary role to Brunell in good favor. No question he is more talented than Brunell, but he obviously doesn't understand what Gibbs is trying to do. Otherwise he would have started this week.
I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

Brunell's main strength is handing the ball off to Portis, that is when he doesn't fumble the hand off. He doesn't have the arm strength to be effective; I'm sorry to say it but JG is in denial.

I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

APPARENTLY brunell has been injured, or so Gibbs says. But if gibbs thinks its a team and play calling problem then I agree we should stick with brunell. the last thing we need is to make the matter worse. if gibbs feels that the team needs more time to learn his system and for brunell to get on the same page as his receivers then ill go ahead and hope hes right for now. i think ramsey will throw more picks anyways, but I think ramsey gives us the best chance to move the ball and score

I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

If Gibb's message is consistentcy and confidence in a QB then I will defend him to the end because that's something we didn't have for the last two years. If the Redskins win the next 3 games, (Packers, Lions and Bengals)
with Brunell, there should be some kind of an apology thread to Gibbs for accusing him of being blind to the obvious facts. And what are the obvious facts? A young talented QB who threw 3 INTS in his only game appearance. 2 sacks in the same. Seems incapable of moving in the pocket. On the other hand, an injured veteran with a proven record, whose skills have deminished, but still able to lead his team with a weak O line. Now loyalty to Brunell has nothing to do with Ramsey on the bench. Ramsey had his chance and blew it. If Rasmey won the game against the Giants, do you think Gibbs would have benched him anyway?

yes,gibbs still would have put ramsey back on the bench even if ramsey would have led the skins to victory over the giants.gibbs would have said "nice job by ramsey but brunell is the starter,wer lucky to have such a good backup qb".
thats just my opinion.

I think the ineffectiveness of the offense can't be totally laid at Burnell's feet. I think the loss of Jon Jansen was a huge blow to our offensive line and protection he would have afforded, as well as blocking for Portis. I've read article after article that said although Samuels was focused on playing back to his pro-bowl level, he has yet to show the determination he did during camp and sometimes takes plays off. So Burnell has a make shift line he's working with. Gibbs doesn't have all the players with the skills he needs to make his offense hum. We are working with so-so tight ends, our only stellar wide receiver with speed is Coles, the rest are so-so. After losing games to turnovers and mistakes it looks like Gibbs has scaled back the offense and gone back to basics to get some wins and work with the talent the Redskins have on offense. In other words, our defense is being counted on to win games, and our offense is supposed to just be good enough not to lose the game. I think we need another draft (too bad we gave up a 2nd round pick for Bailey cause we could've used that pick...SIGH!) Anyway, Joe can't perform miracles with talent he lacks on offense! He's tinkering and trying but the team just isn't there yet. I've heard Theismann say and I've heard Gibbs say as well that he would prefer to have a QB throw the ball away then try to force something that isn't there. Burnell is doing what he can, with what he has. Yes, Ramsey is younger, and had a nice drive when he came in, BUT he also threw several picks........Gibbs isn't going to yield the team to a young gun...I think he feels a younger QB would make even more costly mistakes, something this offense can ill afford. And that's my humble opinion for what it's worth.........Joe needs more time folks, we waited 13 so what's one or two more......SIGH

I'll stand behind Gibbs with whatever decision he makes, but right now I don't think Brunell should be starting. I hope he proves us all wrong.

If the Redskins win the next 3 games, (Packers, Lions and Bengals) with Brunell, there should be some kind of an apology thread to Gibbs for accusing him of being blind to the obvious facts. And what are the obvious facts? A young talented QB who threw 3 INTS in his only game appearance. 2 sacks in the same. Seems incapable of moving in the pocket.
To be fair, SUNRA, Brunell was responsible for two turnovers himself in that game (1 interception, 1 fumble lost on a sack), and was ineffective once the Giants unleashed their pass rush and started blitzing. Ramsey came in with very little practice and forced passes, trying to lead the team from behind. He also scrambled for 17 yards on one play, despite his alleged immobility.

On the other hand, an injured veteran with a proven record, whose skills have deminished, but still able to lead his team with a weak O line. Now loyalty to Brunell has nothing to do with Ramsey on the bench. Ramsey had his chance and blew it. If Ramsey won the game against the Giants, do you think Gibbs would have benched him anyway?
Brunell has "led" this team to 2 victories over very weak teams, and 4 losses that could have been avoided, had the offense shown any signs of life prior to the 4th quarter in those games. If Ramsey had won the game against the Giants, it wouldn't have mattered. Gibbs would have put Brunell back in there, because that's the guy who "earned" the starting job in the preseason.

Ramsey would've had to go in and throw 5 touchdowns and won the game for Gibbs to have even considered benching Brunell. That's not a fair expectation, either. On the other hand, Brunell has 5 touchdowns in a little over five and a half games, and there have been no signs of improvement.