OL not blocking Alex Brown

More often than not, it was a schematic flaw that allowed Brown to come free. As others have said, Rasby was often matched up against him, while Samuels was assigned to a DT or LB. On some plays, there was no blocker assigned to him, since the running play was going the other way, and it was expected that Portis would be gone before Brown could get to him. Obviously, that wasn't the case on a few plays. But most of the time, when Samuels was actually matched up against Brown, Samuels kept him in check. I noticed the Bears were lining Brown up way outside on a lot of plays, hoping that he would beat Samuels with his speed from that angle. Samuels did a pretty good job of sliding out to block him, though.

Seems like JoeCrisp was the only one paying real attention. Brown was effective when the Bears' scheme require that he line up to the outside (the left shoulder) of our TE. In those cases, Brown wasn't Samuels' direct responsibility; it was the responsiblity of our TE, who was closest to Brown and usually got overpowered due to size disadvantage. In fact, we should be giving Samuels credit for not falling for the scheme, because the scheme was intended to prompt Samuels to slide over, which would have allowed the linebackers to sneak into the area where Samuels would have vacated.

I think Matty's point was that he is improving, as is the entire line. But that does not mean they are anywhere near where they should be. It takes time. Just as with Gibbs for the offense as a whole, people kind of expected Bugel to "wave his magic wand" and the O-line would become dominant overnight. It just doesn't happen that way, plus the loss of Jansen was huge, but they are definitely getting there...

So wait, we need to be patient with the offensive line but not the quarterback? I'm not saying Brunell is improving in the least, but I don't see much improvement out of Samuels.

My point is we can't scapegoat the players. I even saw a post about Brunell not being "committed to winning." Let's give this team some time, the frustration in here is due to our view that the team is underachieving, well the special teams and offense are underachieving. This team is clearly not playing as well as the sum of its parts, but there are 10 games left.

Cut Samuels, good one matty and point taken.

So wait, we need to be patient with the offensive line but not the quarterback? I'm not saying Brunell is improving in the least, but I don't see much improvement out of Samuels.

My point is we can't scapegoat the players. I even saw a post about Brunell not being "committed to winning." Let's give this team some time, the frustration in here is due to our view that the team is underachieving, well the special teams and offense are underachieving. This team is clearly not playing as well as the sum of its parts, but there are 10 games left.

Cut Samuels, good one matty and point taken.

You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.

You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.

Brunnell need to let go off his igo and fear to step down so that he can rest and get better. there is to much talent on the offensive side to under produce like they do. Gibbs sticks up for him, loves vetran qb's so why won't give him his job back when he feel up to it. Brunnell needs to do what's right for the team and not himself.

You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.
Sunra, I posted that QB poll for a reason, after Brunell lit up the Bears on 8/22 passing I figured it just might be a hot topic for discussion. I don't think it's insulting to Gibbs or anyone else to discuss the game after a loss or a victory. Brunell's play is obviously a huge issue right now.

As for the poor special teams play, we've discussed that in several threads. People want to fire Danny Smith and cut Chad Morton all over the place, sound familiar?

That wasn't exactly a stellar victory, so of course there are going to be some unhappy people around. The team still has some major questions to answer, a win was nice but it didn't do much in answering some of those key questions.

Brunnell need to let go off his igo and fear to step down so that he can rest and get better. there is to much talent on the offensive side to under produce like they do. Gibbs sticks up for him, loves vetran qb's so why won't give him his job back when he feel up to it. Brunnell needs to do what's right for the team and not himself.That's an excellent point, diehardskin2982 (SUNRA rolls his eyes). I'm not sure why we're supposed to excuse Brunell's poor play simply because he has been injured and may still be injured. If he's injured to the point where he is unable to effectively play the quarterback position and make the throws he needs to make to move the ball down the field and score, then he shouldn't be playing-- plain and simple.

It would clearly have been in the best interest of the team for Brunell to have taken himself out for a few weeks and allow the hamstring and/or or any other injuries to heal sufficiently. I appreciate his commitment to toughing it out and playing through the injury, but ultimately, that's not a sound decision when continuing to play negatively affects his performance and, subsequently, the performance of the offense as a whole.

Clearly, Gibbs is committed to Brunell as the Redskins quarterback this season, so missing a few games until the bye week shouldn't have been that big of a deal. I don't think Brunell would have lost his job, regardless of how well Ramsey played in his absence. The coaches and trainers have held out LaVar, despite his willingness to play, so that he can be completely healed and ready to contribute to the team down the backstretch of the season. Why couldn't they do the same with Brunell? It's not like Lemar Marshall is a LaVar clone. Sure, the quarterback is the linchpin of the offense, but isn't that even more reason to have a healthy quarterback in there? We're not talking about the difference between an injured Brett Favre and a healthy Doug Pederson here, or an injured Steve McNair and a healthy Billy Volek. We're talking about a guy (Brunell) who clearly isn't an effective quarterback when he's injured, and his backup (Ramsey) who is healthy and capable of performing much better than the injured starter.

joecrisp:

NFL players have egos; that is part of what makes them NFL players. If they did not really believe that THEY are difference makers, many of them would be in some other line of work where they did not take the punishment that they do. Wishing that Brunell would "check his ego at the locker room door" is a bit unrealistic and probably not in the best interest of the team.

And what do people say about Lavar Arrington who was obviously playing well below his skill level early in the year because of his injury? They say he is a "warrior" and a "beast". NO he is not. He is a football player with an ego that drives him to play the game and when it became too painful for him to play, he had the surgery that resulted in his "vacation".

If Arrington is a warrior for playing through his injury, so is Brunell. If you think Brunell is an egomaniac who has taken leave of his senses, then tell me why the same is not true of Lavar Arrington?

The Redskins' brain trust - the coaching staff not the players or the FO - have decided that Brunell is the best QB on the squad in October 2004. If people here think that decision is half as bad as it is protrayed here, then they should go to Fed Ex with signs calling for Gibbs and company to be fired for incompetence. But I haven't seen many of those - have you?

oop. looks like it was Rasby who couldn't handle Alex Brown...

joecrisp:

NFL players have egos; that is part of what makes them NFL players. If they did not really believe that THEY are difference makers, many of them would be in some other line of work where they did not take the punishment that they do. Wishing that Brunell would "check his ego at the locker room door" is a bit unrealistic and probably not in the best interest of the team.

And what do people say about Lavar Arrington who was obviously playing well below his skill level early in the year because of his injury? They say he is a "warrior" and a "beast". NO he is not. He is a football player with an ego that drives him to play the game and when it became too painful for him to play, he had the surgery that resulted in his "vacation".

If Arrington is a warrior for playing through his injury, so is Brunell. If you think Brunell is an egomaniac who has taken leave of his senses, then tell me why the same is not true of Lavar Arrington?

The Redskins' brain trust - the coaching staff not the players or the FO - have decided that Brunell is the best QB on the squad in October 2004. If people here think that decision is half as bad as it is protrayed here, then they should go to Fed Ex with signs calling for Gibbs and company to be fired for incompetence. But I haven't seen many of those - have you?
Whoah, SC, let's take a step back here and look at what I actually said, instead of making assumptions about my argument, based on your aggregate impression of what others on this board have said in this debate. You addressed this rebuke to me individually, so I think your quotations and implications should at least be relevant to my post.

The point I was making was not that LaVar is a "warrior" or a "beast" for trying to play through his injuries, nor did I imply anything about Brunell or any other player "checking their ego at the door". I don't know where you got those ideas, but I didn't give them to you.

My point was that "the Redskins' braintrust" decided it was in the best interest of the team-- and it was-- to sit LaVar while he mended, despite the significance of his role in the defense, so why didn't they see fit to sit Brunell? I don't care about anybody's egos here, I just want the team to put guys on the field that will help the team win. You and the coaching staff may think that means putting an injured Brunell on the field the past few weeks. I happen to think a healthy Ramsey would've been a better option-- here in October of 2004-- for the sake of winning entirely winnable games that this team has lost since Brunell was injured.

And let's get one more thing straight here: just because I disagree with the decision to continue playing an injured Brunell, doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to Gibbs and his staff, nor do I plan to go post "Fire Gibbs" signs at FedEx. Gibbs is the whole reason I'm a Redskins fan, and I think he's still capable of leading this team back to greatness. But that doesn't mean I think the guy is infallible, either. The guy's made plenty of mistakes in his career, and I happen to think that Mark Brunell is one of them...

...and I reserve the right to change my mind and eat a large, heaping plate of crow if Brunell somehow reverts to his 90s form and leads this team to respectability this season. In fact, I hope he does, because that's the only way the Redskins will have a shot at the playoffs, since Gibbs won't abandon Brunell as his starter.