I'm Not Sticking By Gibbs

I'm not sticking by Gibbs for one simple reason - Mark Brunell.

As the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon pointed out in today's paper, Brunell has the lowest completion percentage of any full-time starter in the NFL and he has had the lowest third-down conversion rate in the league.

Moreover Wilbon has gone to opponents locker rooms after each game to ask a veteran defensive player with credentials to tell him about Brunell. And each week he's been told that Brunell is most of the problem, that their defensive game plan is to gang up on Portis until Brunell completes some passes downfield, that defensive coordinators are convinced Brunell can't do that any more with any consistency.

Yesterday he asked Packers safety Darren Sharper the same questions. Asked what the defensive game plan was against Brunell, Sharper said: "Knock him down. He doesn't want to get hit. The plan -- and you can see other teams doing the same thing on film -- is to not let him set his feet. Make him roll out. Hit him enough, and sooner or later it'll mess up his accuracy. He's not the same quarterback he used to be. Look, I played against him in Jacksonville, and he was a very, very accurate passer. But in the pocket now, his passes sail. He has to roll out now; maybe he sees his receivers better. I don't know if he's as comfortable in this offense or what. But he's not the same quarterback."

I'm sorry, but keeping Brunell in the game is killing us. I saw it by week 2, the fans were screaming it yesterday, Wilbon can see it, every analyst in the league sees it, and most everyone on this site can see it. Why can't Joe Gibbs?

I have so much love for Gibbs; he brought our city 3 Lombardi trophies and he's just a really likeable guy. I will always admire Joe Gibbs for what he has done and who he is, but that doesn't mean I'm going to always defer to him.

Gibbs is sticking by Brunell because Joe was the key man in sending away a 2nd rounder for him (we traded a second rounder to get Cooley who we would've been able to draft with our 3rd round pick that we gave to Jacksonville for Brunell), we paid an amazing $40 million for him, and he's a veteran. Does anyone think for a SECOND that if Ramsey had the lowest completion percentage in the league, the lowest 3rd down conversion rate in the league, failed to score 21 points in ANY game, and led us to a 2-5 record EVEN THOUGH we have the best defensive unit in the game that Gibbs wouldn't have benched him? I think not.

For that, I personally blame Gibbs for keeping Brunell in and sinking our season.

The Redskins are scoring fewer points per game (a pathetic 14) than any other team in the league. For that I blame Brunell and Gibbs.

Look, Gibbs would be the first to admit that the buck stops with him. He's gone so far as to say so repeatedly. He just thinks that the team is better off right now with Brunnell at the helm. I fully support Gibbs, but I disagree with his decision to stick with Brunnell. Is that a contradiction in terms? No. You can fully support someone even if you don't agree with everything they do. (Probably a lot of people voting in the presidential election, on either side, feel this way...)

Look, Gibbs would be the first to admit that the buck stops with him. He's gone so far as to say so repeatedly. He just thinks that the team is better off right now with Brunnell at the helm. I fully support Gibbs, but I disagree with his decision to stick with Brunnell. Is that a contradiction in terms? No. You can fully support someone even if you don't agree with everything they do. (Probably a lot of people voting in the presidential election, on either side, feel this way...)

I totally agree.....

I have to ditto JW here. Gibbs has taken the blame in this one, but I don't agree with his decision to keep Brunell at the helm. One more loss and I think he will pull the plug and put Ramsey in there. Remember though, Ramsey probably would have thrown a couple picks when Brunell ate it for a sack yesterday.

I have no doubt that Gibbs will eventually turn this ship around, I just think he's slowing down the process by keeping Brunell in - for that, he's to share in the blame game.

Gibbs' hard-headedness is killing us right now. Why does he insist on sticking with Brunell, when it's so obvious to the whole world that Brunell is the major problem on the offense?

Several reasons, I think: 1) he personally went after Brunell in the off-season and it would be a tremendous embarrassment for him to pull his support from "his" guy, 2) the Skins (Snyder) paid Brunell a lot of money and can't afford to admit their mistake so soon after coughing up the bucks, 3) Gibbs is so enamored of playing proven vets that he can't see the forest for the trees.

I, for one, am mightily disappointed in Gibbs right now. His refusal to admit the obvious is costing the Skins their entire season. He should have made a change a couple of games ago, when there was still something left to salvage. If this were Spurrier being so pig-headed everyone would be all over him.

I can't believe Ramsey could play any worse than Brunell is playing. Maybe his strong arm and toughness is exactly what is needed to turn this thing around. All I know is that I don't want to have to suffer through one more game with Brunell because he just isn't getting the job done.

I would be willing to bet the house that many of the offensive players have lost all faith in their QB, but can't publicly say so. If you'll notice, hardly any of them are coming to Brunell's defense right now. Instead, they're noticeably quiet.

Bottom line is - Gibbs went after him and Gibbs is continuing to play him. So, Gibbs should take 99% of the blame for what is happening on offense. By the same token, Gibbs went after Gregg Williams and got him and that has proven to be a master stroke. So, I give Gibbs a lot of credit for how well the defense has performed. But, you really can't be a contender with only 1/3 of the team playing like champions.

Gibbs has really disappointed me these past 3 or 4 weeks and now the season is, for all intents and purposes, over.

I have to ditto JW here. Gibbs has taken the blame in this one, but I don't agree with his decision to keep Brunell at the helm. One more loss and I think he will pull the plug and put Ramsey in there. Remember though, Ramsey probably would have thrown a couple picks when Brunell ate it for a sack yesterday.
I agree with JW too.
I don't agree that Ramsey would have probably thrown picks instead of taking sacks....who knows, maybe he would use him arm to throw a strike and get the ball to a receiver even when he is well covered? To point is, no one knows what Ramsey would have done or will do (at least for this week), because Gibbs it being stubborn by sticking with Brunell. I respect Gibbs and support him, but that doesn't mean I agree with this decision.

Not a big fan of Brunnell but my guess is Gibbs doesn't think Ramsey can suceed with this offensive line since he is a statue so our only hope is that Brunell picks it up. I think Gibbs is probably lamenting jumping on Brunell so early when unbeknownst to anyone in the league the 49ers were gonna cut Garcia but this is what we're stuck with. A relatively mobile QB with a weak inaccurate arm and a granite statue with a strong arm who'll get sacked 7 times a game. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I blame Gibss for this but I bet he does too. This will get fixed sooner or later. Probably later...as in adios ramsey and hello someone capable of moving around back there so we don't have to play geriatric Mark Brunell.

I agree with JW too.
I don't agree that Ramsey would have probably thrown picks instead of taking sacks....who knows, maybe he would use him arm to throw a strike and get the ball to a receiver even when he is well covered? To point is, no one knows what Ramsey would have done or will do (at least for this week), because Gibbs it being stubborn by sticking with Brunell. I respect Gibbs and support him, but that doesn't mean I agree with this decision.

I think Gibbs looks at it like it is his job to evaluate players and based on what he has seen he doesn't think Ramsey would help us any. I don't think Joe ever showed a stubborness to only do things his way and based all his decisions on his pride. In fact he seems the opposite to me. Looks to me like he jus doesn't have any faith in ramsey so why put him in?