Post Game Thoughts

Part of the problem with opening the competition again has to do with the way Gibbs distributes practice reps. The starter gets the vast bulk of the reps (90% for the starter, 10% for everyone else). The only reason it was different this past offseason was that Gibbs had promised an open competition between Brunell and Ramsey, so that 90% was split, and each got around 45% of the daily practice reps throughout the late spring minicamps and training camp practices.

Looking back on that decision, Gibbs may very well decide it was a mistake to not commit to a starter early in the offseason, and in the future, he will name a starter early in the offseason, and give that QB the bulk of the reps throughout the offseason camps and training camp.

If he does this for Ramsey or Brunell or Hasselbeck (gotta make everyone happy here!), it will give that QB the necessary reps on the field to develop a complete understanding of-- and comfort level with-- the offense, and enter the season confident of everything that needs to be done in the game to manage Gibbs' offense the way Gibbs intended.

For this reason, I think Gibbs will select a starter early, and will not jeopardize the learning curve for his starting QB-- and his offense as a whole-- by holding an open competition at QB throughout the offseason and training camp.

If Ramsey can flourish in these last 3 games, Gibbs should name him the starter for 2005, and focus on fully preparing him for that role from the first QB schools in March, through the start of the 2005 season.

...For this reason, I think Gibbs will select a starter early, and will not jeopardize the learning curve for his starting QB-- and his offense as a whole-- by holding an open competition at QB throughout the offseason and training camp.

If Ramsey can flourish in these last 3 games, Gibbs should name him the starter for 2005, and focus on fully preparing him for that role from the first QB schools in March, through the start of the 2005 season.

I am of the view that you want to let the players decide who should play, Joe. And that means competition. Let the best player win the job. If you make a decision about who should play before it is clear who is the best player, then "you" are making the decision, not the players.

When you let the players make the decision, then the players know that what counts is performance. It's not investment in the player financially. It's not who is most popular with the fans. It's not a thought that well let's just settle on someone, we are tired of uncertainty. It's not anything other than this guy is the best player and he has proven it because given a fair playing field, he beat out this other player or these other players.

When players on a team know that it's about how well they play and not other factors, then they play better. They play better because they know that its under their control to determine who is going to play and how much.

Joe Theismann said something interesting during the game - that even for him, Joe Gibbs never let him feel comfortable that he was entitled to the job in a closed minded way. He was always pushing for better performance and Theismann knew he had to play at a level that earned him the right to remain the starter.

Gibbs gave a fair chance for Brunell and Ramsey in the preseason. Brunell won the battle fair and square. Ramsey learned that he isn't entitled to the job and he took advantage of being on the sideline and began to learn the new system. He knew that playing time was based on his performance and being the best player available and not on other factors.

Giving players plenty of reps so they can play at a high level is important. More important is the need to see who is the best player we can realistically have as the starting quarterback of the Redskins.

From everything I hear and read, it sounds like defenses view playing against PR as taking lunch money from a school kid. That is not a good sign. Hopefully PR can develop but skins fans cannot blindly call PR the future of this team because the way he is playing now that future looks to be average and mistake prone.

From everything I hear and read, it sounds like defenses view playing against PR as taking lunch money from a school kid. That is not a good sign. Hopefully PR can develop but skins fans cannot blindly call PR the future of this team because the way he is playing now that future looks to be average and mistake prone.


irish, where did you "hear" and "read" that? I would really like to know who said that.


It's funny, just a week ago Ramsey was our QB of the future. Now all of a sudden, he can't read defenses, he's nervous in the pocket, and he throws too many INT's.

This is why I hesitate to come to this site sometimes. Because one day we love somebody and the minute they make a mistake, everyone rips them.
I can't believe someone here started a thread comparing Ramsey to Heath freaking Shuler! Come on man, give me a break.

I agree that it's important to let the players decide who will play, based on their performance, but let's look at how that's played out so far at the quarterback position: Gibbs held an open competition in the preseason to find out who should be playing, and both of the candidates-- not having a full opportunity to establish any continuity with the offense during practices-- pretty much stumbled their way through the competition, and the only reason anyone emerged as a "winner" is that Brunell was an 11-year veteran, and well... Joe Gibbs likes veteran quarterbacks.

After Brunell "played" his way into the starting quarterback role, Gibbs allowed him to play his way through nine miserable starts before finally deciding he had played his way OUT of the starting job.

Now we have Ramsey as the starter, and while the results have been mixed, Gibbs has admittedly seen vast improvement from the youngster, and he will undoubtedly allow Ramsey the same opportunity he afforded Brunell, and let him keep or lose the starting job through his performance. If Ramsey stumbles mightily through the last 3 games, then Gibbs will likely decide it's time to give someone else a chance to prove they're worthy.

My point is not that you must disallow any opportunity for other players to prove themselves, but rather that you must ALLOW one player-- and that's one player at a time-- to prove themselves at the position of quarterback. We've seen the Spurrier days of shuffling quarterbacks whimsically based on the inevitable peaks and valleys that all quarterbacks must play through. We've seen the Gibbs way of splitting reps between two quarterbacks in the hopes that one quarterback would emerge as a bastion of stability out of such a de-stabilizing scenario. We've also seen what happens when you commit to a player out of some misguided sense of loyalty or financial obligation.

Gibbs must make the decision-- not for the sake of making a decision-- but for the sake of the quarterback, the offense, and the team as a whole. He needs to make that decision early, and he needs to base it on how he sees the quarterbacks perform on a daily basis. Gibbs believes he needs to give his starting quarterback 90% of the reps in practice. If that's his chosen method, then it would follow that he would need to choose a starting quarterback in order for that methodology to be effective. You don't institute that system after the 4th preseason game-- you institute it early in the offseason. If the guy you choose proves in practice that he's worthy of being the starter, you keep him in there. If he doesn't, you give the next guy the opportunity to take 90% of the reps until he proves he can do the job or he can't.

Part of the problem with opening the competition again has to do with the way Gibbs distributes practice reps. The starter gets the vast bulk of the reps (90% for the starter, 10% for everyone else). The only reason it was different this past offseason was that Gibbs had promised an open competition between Brunell and Ramsey, so that 90% was split, and each got around 45% of the daily practice reps throughout the late spring minicamps and training camp practices.

Looking back on that decision, Gibbs may very well decide it was a mistake to not commit to a starter early in the offseason, and in the future, he will name a starter early in the offseason, and give that QB the bulk of the reps throughout the offseason camps and training camp.

If he does this for Ramsey or Brunell or Hasselbeck (gotta make everyone happy here!), it will give that QB the necessary reps on the field to develop a complete understanding of-- and comfort level with-- the offense, and enter the season confident of everything that needs to be done in the game to manage Gibbs' offense the way Gibbs intended.

For this reason, I think Gibbs will select a starter early, and will not jeopardize the learning curve for his starting QB-- and his offense as a whole-- by holding an open competition at QB throughout the offseason and training camp.

If Ramsey can flourish in these last 3 games, Gibbs should name him the starter for 2005, and focus on fully preparing him for that role from the first QB schools in March, through the start of the 2005 season.
I couldn't agree more.

As long as PR plays at the same or better level that he's been playing at, once the season is over I'd like to see Gibbs name him the starter for 2005 and settle any offseason QB debates before they start. At that point Ramsey would become the main focus of the offseason camps and we can work on getting him coached up for next year.

It seems like every offseason we have major questions at QB, for once I'd like to have that problem taken care of early on. Then we can focus our more pressing needs elsewhere.

I read it more than once in the Wash Post and I heard Wilbon say it on the Tony Kornheiser show just this morning. In fact I've heard him say it for about 3 weeks now.

last week the entire team looked great because they played the worst team in the league and the skins are not quite that bad. The O looked way better last week than they really are so of course everyone was certain PR et al are future pro bowlers.

I buy the idea of letting Ramsey play out the rest of the season, but what I don't buy is that he wins the starting job for next year unless he shows himself to be a superb quarterback. He doesn't get the mantle in my view just by avoiding "stumbling mightily." That's not a winning standard. I don't want the stability of sticking with someone who doesn't earn the job.

For the sake of the team, who plays has to be based on performance. That is the message to send because then players know that they play based on factors they control. Marvin Lewis didn't do that this year when he just handed the job to one player who hadn't earned it. The team went down. It was the message of saying my judgment is more important than your opportunity to prove yourself. It was an egotistical move.

I think you set a period up where the competition runs, from this time to that time. If you don't want to go until the last preseason game for whatever reason, that's fine, just pick a time, set aside preconceptions and prejudices, and let the players play, and let the player who plays best win the job.

As far as the concern about who gets 90% of the snaps in practice during the regular season - that to me doesn't seem relevant to the basic need to let the players play themselves into a job.

I agree that Gibbs should make the decision in that he is the judge; there simply has to be a fair, equal playing field where players are chosen based on how they perform not on other factors.