Thoughts on Ramsey and Brunell... [Archive] - Page 12

offiss

12-02-2005, 01:39 PM

Ramsey been given pleanty of chances.. He played under the OBC and last year under Gibbs and he didn't play well. He's played in the preseason and looked like shit. Look at his number from last year in 9 games.

Ramsey gp att comp % yds avy td lng INT rat
2004 9 169 272 62.1 1665 6.1 10 51 11 74.8

Look if you can't see it Im not going to convince you, but you might want to check Brunells #'s under last year conditions, and take into account Ramsey came into some games trying to bail out the hole Brunell left for him, you also might want to take a look at the teams Ramsey faced when Gibbs finally made the switch, he came in against some of the best defenses in the NFL.

It's kind of funny that excuse after excuse is used why we have been losing, from our line play, to Royal dropping passes, which is fine and a big part of Brunells failure, but the same guy's who make excuses for Brunell because we can't run the ball, defend Portis to no end and constantly refer to his total rushing yards last season and compare him to elite RB's, and then scapegoat Brunell by blaming the running game, which is it?

It's not as if Ramsey didn't run into those same type of situations when he played, like recievers running the wrong routes while he recieves blame for INT's or fumbling after a cheap shot to the throat.

Some keep refering to the bears game as a big deal now that we have seen the kind of defense the bears possess, well how many QB's have drove the ball on the bears? Because Ramsey had 2 drives before he was yanked in 1 quarter, and more passing yards in 1 quarter than Brunell had all game, yes he had an INT which apperently was more Gibbs fault than anyone he is responsible to have the WR's making the right reeds, does anyone really want to bring up fumbling when talking about Brunell and Ramsey? Both are equally as bad or Brunell is worse, it's one or the other.

Yes, last week we had a big holding penalty that probably cost us the game no doubt, and no Brunell didn't hold the guy, but it's his resposibility as a leader to pick the team up there and he didn't, he didn't need to get a first down but how bout getting 5 to 10 yards to put us in legitamate fieldgoal range, once again he couldn't do it, and those are the situations some of us are talking about, when the game is on the line and we need not a spectacular play, but a first down, or 5 yards, if Brunell is everything he's made out to be then he should be able to come through there, that's what a 43 mil QB is supposed to do, be a difference maker with the game in the balance.


	Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum > Thoughts on Ramsey and Brunell... PDA Thoughts on Ramsey and Brunell... Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] FirstandTen 12-02-2005, 12:58 PM Thats kind of the point here, Ramsey really hasen't been given a chance under Gibbs. Ramsey been given pleanty of chances.. He played under the OBC and last year under Gibbs and he didn't play well. He's played in the preseason and looked like shit. Look at his number from last year in 9 games. Ramsey gp att comp % yds avy td lng INT rat 2004 9 169 272 62.1 1665 6.1 10 51 11 74.8 railcon56 12-02-2005, 01:22 PM Seriously, thank god. I can't understand why you guys aren't advisors to Gibbs by now. [/playful jab not to meant to start a firestorm or criticism of my warpath ego] its all good matty i love this board as far as i'm concerned its the #1 sports site in the world!! humor never hurts offiss 12-02-2005, 01:39 PM Ramsey been given pleanty of chances.. He played under the OBC and last year under Gibbs and he didn't play well. He's played in the preseason and looked like shit. Look at his number from last year in 9 games. Ramsey gp att comp % yds avy td lng INT rat 2004 9 169 272 62.1 1665 6.1 10 51 11 74.8 Look if you can't see it Im not going to convince you, but you might want to check Brunells #'s under last year conditions, and take into account Ramsey came into some games trying to bail out the hole Brunell left for him, you also might want to take a look at the teams Ramsey faced when Gibbs finally made the switch, he came in against some of the best defenses in the NFL. It's kind of funny that excuse after excuse is used why we have been losing, from our line play, to Royal dropping passes, which is fine and a big part of Brunells failure, but the same guy's who make excuses for Brunell because we can't run the ball, defend Portis to no end and constantly refer to his total rushing yards last season and compare him to elite RB's, and then scapegoat Brunell by blaming the running game, which is it? It's not as if Ramsey didn't run into those same type of situations when he played, like recievers running the wrong routes while he recieves blame for INT's or fumbling after a cheap shot to the throat. Some keep refering to the bears game as a big deal now that we have seen the kind of defense the bears possess, well how many QB's have drove the ball on the bears? Because Ramsey had 2 drives before he was yanked in 1 quarter, and more passing yards in 1 quarter than Brunell had all game, yes he had an INT which apperently was more Gibbs fault than anyone he is responsible to have the WR's making the right reeds, does anyone really want to bring up fumbling when talking about Brunell and Ramsey? Both are equally as bad or Brunell is worse, it's one or the other. Yes, last week we had a big holding penalty that probably cost us the game no doubt, and no Brunell didn't hold the guy, but it's his resposibility as a leader to pick the team up there and he didn't, he didn't need to get a first down but how bout getting 5 to 10 yards to put us in legitamate fieldgoal range, once again he couldn't do it, and those are the situations some of us are talking about, when the game is on the line and we need not a spectacular play, but a first down, or 5 yards, if Brunell is everything he's made out to be then he should be able to come through there, that's what a 43 mil QB is supposed to do, be a difference maker with the game in the balance.