![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#106 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dumfries, VA
Age: 72
Posts: 241
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Yes
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
#107 | |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 219
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#108 | |
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 8,317
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
I undoubtedly think Gibbs is great and has done more for this team than anyone else in the history of the franchise. However, I am not, nor will I ever be, the type to drink the Kool-Aid and blindly follow someone no matter who they are or how great I think they are. I truly think that despite what we saw of Brunell all last season, people are drinking the Kool-Aid and are placing too much trust in Gibbs. Yeah, for me it is emotional. Anyone who claims to be unemotional about the Redskins is either 1). a liar, 2). not thinking this talk of being "emotional" through, or 3). maybe doesn't have the same feelings about the Redskins that I have. I love my Skins. I love the Redskins more than just about anything else (my girlfriend and soon-to-be fiance tops them). I get passionate about the Redskins. I like Ramsey not for who he is, but for what I think he could do for this franchise if given AN ENTIRE season and a teaspoon of confidence. Trust me, if I thought Ramsey would kill our team, I'd be putting a bounty on his head. So yeah, I'm emotion in support of Ramsey, because I think Ramsey's the best we've got and I'd like to see a few wins. PS- Matty, I'm also trying to pin down your position. In some posts you seem to say that the Brunell-Ramsey debate isn't clear cut and in other posts you seem to say that it was a no brainer and Brunell was definately the way to go. Would you care to clarify your statements/opinions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 219
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Don't confuse the questioning of Joe's decision with everyone being emotionally attached to Ramsey. My biggest concern is how unsettled things are at the QB position. I do think Ramsey gives us the best chance to win. I also think that Brunell has shown me nothing to justify giving him the starter's job. In fact, just the opposite, he's shown me a lot of reasons why he should not have the job. And, finally, Campbell is nothing but a big question mark right now.
Forgive me for being just a tad bit troubled with this scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,340
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell?
Quote:
__________________
"Hail to the Redskins!" and "Fight on State!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,340
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
Did somehow completing less than half of his throws and gaining 5 yards per attempt last year win him the starting job? Did the fact that he went right back to that 5 yard per attempt average last week do it? If you compare the numbers of what the two have done in the same system, it's not even close.
__________________
"Hail to the Redskins!" and "Fight on State!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 49
Posts: 2,631
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
Last edited by illdefined; 09-14-2005 at 06:02 PM. Reason: terrible grammar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,340
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
I just can't get the 2004 comparison out of my head: Brunell 3-6: 9 games, 118 of 237 (49%), 1194 yards, 7 TD/6 INT, 63.9 rating Ramsey 3-4: 7 games, 169 of 272 (62%), 1451 yards, 10 TD/11 INT, 74.8 rating Hey, I hope I'm wrong. I hope I eat crow. But I just don't put that much stock in preseason, and I just don't have any faith in Brunell.
__________________
"Hail to the Redskins!" and "Fight on State!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 61
Posts: 3,097
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
Agreed, I am not so much a Ramsey fan [although I do like the kid and think he's tough, and a class act] as much as I want what's best for the team to win, and from every scenerio I look at it's Ramsey over Brunell, the only other problem I have is even if it turns out that Ramsey isn't the QB to lead us, I still feel under the circumstances and Brunells track record with us so far, he has been unfairly mistreated by Gibbs. Perhaps if some of us put our selves in Ramsey's shoes and take a look at what Gibbs did for Brunell last season, then to be told your my guy only to be yanked after 19 minutes for a guy who played the position last season for 9 games worse than anyone you have ever seen, you to may feel just a tad bit slighted, I would be surprised if Ramsey didn't ask for a trade, and wouldn't blame him one bit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115 | |
|
Special Teams
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Suitland, Maryland
Age: 49
Posts: 123
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 | |
|
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 51
Posts: 5,311
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
I would also add that just because those who disagree with the decision to bench Ramsey doesn't mean they believe he is the reincarnation of Johnny Unitas. The reaction we're seeing among many fans is simply the disapproval of the quarterback who replaces him. For the record, I don't think it matters which QB starts against the Cowboys on Monday night, or for the forseeable future. We simply do not have a quarterback that can lead any team to playoff contention. And I think Gibbs only has the choice between a guy who can occasionally make big plays, but still makes horrible decisions in Patrick Ramsey, or a guy who's most redeeming value right now seems to be that he's less likely to turn the ball over in Mark Brunell. Count me in the category which recognizes that Gibbs made the judgement to start the player he thinks gives the team their best chance to win. While I'm somewhat skeptical that Brunell is that player, I base that opinion on his results last year, and his preseason production this year against second and third team opponents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Newport News, Va
Age: 51
Posts: 24
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
As important as a good QB is, I think Gibbs just wants some consistancy in the team. So what ever gets that going I support. Besides maybe Brunnell still has some left now that he has healed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,687
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Let's just throw this out there..
Ramsey starts the game 1 for 4 for 4 yds, INT... he then goes 5 for 7 for 101 yards (not bad AT ALL!) BUT... if the bogus penalty on Cooley wasn't called it becomes 6 for 8 for 107 yds, TD. AND don't forget Portis drops a VERY catchable ball in there that would have been a 7 yarder which would have made him .... 7 for 8 for 114yds, TD after his first 4 attempts. I'd say that's damn good for ANY quarterback in the NFL in their first REAL action of the season after getting warmed-up (first 4 attempts). Also let's DEFINITELY not forget the Brunell threw an INT into Vasher's hands as well, only his was called back due to penalty. So basically, Ramsey has a TD called back, and Brunell has a pick called back... This is nuts. It even looked like Patrick was starting to look comfortable out there for once. It is VERY clear from watching the 2 play that you have 2 basic options. You can go with the Favre-type QB in the sense that he can and will get big chunks of yards on some plays yet throw a few INTs as well, or a guy who can only be ULTRA--ULTRA CONSERVATIVE throwing slants and WR screens but not many INTs. We proved last year that you HAVE to TRY and go downfield to help the running game and to score FREAKING TOUCHDOWNS to win games!! Remember that if we would have scored on average 21 points per game last year (which is less than the 6-10 panthers scored) we'd have been 11-5!!! Can Brunell lead this team to the Super Bowl?? NO. Let Ramsey PROVE... I mean REALLY prove his isn't the future...
__________________
“Sometimes it is not enough to our best; we must do what is required.” - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 | |
|
Camp Scrub
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: So. Md.
Age: 45
Posts: 32
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
I'll go even further and ask this. Aside from zone blocking, what was the basis of the "revamped" offense the staff worked so hard on this winter? Throwing the deep ball. Neither of these guys are great, but Roy Williams is going to be a lot closer to the line of scrimmage this Monday and we all no why. When our "starting " QB throws for 70 yds. in 3 quarters, what defense/coordinator is going to respect the Washington Redskins passing game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 | |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: VA
Age: 42
Posts: 17,620
|
Re: Do you support Gibbs' decision to start Brunell? (Merged)
Quote:
I think we'd be better than 11-5 at 21ppg, and I didn't think ramsey looked bad enough to bench either, but its kinda a done deal now. I'm hoping brunell can prove he can keep the dbs deep enough for portis to break something.I do agree that game could have turned out better easily, and the refs weren't that great, but bad calls are a reality for us. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|