Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Yes, as did I, after Brunells debacle last season pretty much everyone wanted his head, and yes I was one of the few to defend the fact that although I felt Ramsey would be better for us, brunell was made to look far worse than he was, I put a lot of the blame on Gibbs and his simplistic offense, well guess what the team has evolved some from last season, and Brunells play has been head and shoulders better than last season, which brings me to my point, under the same circumstances last season Ramsey outplayed Brunell [against better defenses I might add] then why is it so difficult to believe that under better circumstance this year Ramsey wouldn't be even better than he was last season, and yes better than brunell has been this season, at least I have something to base my evaluation on, there is no way to base an evaluation on him being a failure this season because he hasen't played, the only thing anyone can hang their hat's on is Gibbs deciesion to bench him, I know this is taboo around here but is there a remote possiblity, just a chance, that Gibbs could perhaps have been wrong about the QB situation? Does that possibility exist, he has admitted to making mistakes personel wise in other areas, I am not saying that that is the case, but could it be possible?[/QUOTE]

That's one huge run on sentence! :lol: Okay, let's break this down. First of all, as much as this offense needed some tweaking from the previous year, I find it hard to put the blame on Brunell's play on the system. If the system was too simplistic like you say, then Brunell would have had an easy time adjusting to it. Let's face it, Brunell stunk it up last year. Part of the reason was that he was injured. I think the other part of it had to do with him being away from playing for at least year in Jacksonville. When you're an older athelete it is much harder to comeback from an injury.

Patrick Ramsey played better than Mark Brunell did LAST year, but that isn't really saying much. I felt Patrick came in and showed signs of promise, but he also showed signs of being a long ways from being a true starter. This year, I was hyped about how much Patrick would've improved. Yes, I base this on preseason, but why should I not? Patrick Ramsey showed no signs of improvement during preseason, and it spilled into our first regular season game.

Maybe you're argument is based on principle. You feel it's only fair to give Ramsey 8 or 9 games like Brunell was given last year. Well yes, that would be considered fair to a certain extent. But, these NFL teams do not put their success in how fair things are. They put their success in winning. However, judging by how Patrick Ramsey played in preseason, we would more than likely be 4-8 right now, if not worse. I witnessed nothing about Ramsey's play that would've suggested anything much better than that.

As far as Brunell's play lately, he hasn't played as well as he has for the most part of this season. He has also had two of his starting receivers out. With both Thrash and Patten in there with Moss, Brunell is a better quarterback. When he basically has one proven threat to throw too, how can Mark Brunell duplicate his best performances of this season? It doesn't happen.

Finally, this system is not inept. It is a ball controlled system that thrives off of maximum protection and a strong running game. That is how it has always been. It has always been a run first pass second offense - even during the days of the posse. They made this offense special, because they were probably the best three wide receivers in the league back then. That is probably the biggest reason why we could score points easily. But we don't have Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders now. We have only one receiver in Santana Moss, who I feel could be as good as any of the members of the posse.

Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny. We have a winning record and a chance to make the playoffs. That is a whole heck of alot more than what we can say about this team for the most part this past decade. There is alot to look forward to even if we don't make the playoffs this year. This franchise is establishing itself as a good franchise, but that does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on maybes or would've could've should've.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

Brunell will finish the year, unless he is injured. He will finish it. The Arizonia game kind of showed that. Brunell threw a lot of picks and Gibbs stuck with him which I see him doing for the rest of this season. Campbell still isn't ready and we shouldn't rush him in. Brunell's in there for a "win now" and Campbell's on the bench for a "win later".

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That's one huge run on sentence! :lol: Okay, let's break this down. First of all, as much as this offense needed some tweaking from the previous year, I find it hard to put the blame on Brunell's play on the system. If the system was too simplistic like you say, then Brunell would have had an easy time adjusting to it. Let's face it, Brunell stunk it up last year. Part of the reason was that he was injured. I think the other part of it had to do with him being away from playing for at least year in Jacksonville. When you're an older athelete it is much harder to comeback from an injury.

Patrick Ramsey played better than Mark Brunell did LAST year, but that isn't really saying much. I felt Patrick came in and showed signs of promise, but he also showed signs of being a long ways from being a true starter. This year, I was hyped about how much Patrick would've improved. Yes, I base this on preseason, but why should I not? Patrick Ramsey showed no signs of improvement during preseason, and it spilled into our first regular season game.

Maybe you're argument is based on principle. You feel it's only fair to give Ramsey 8 or 9 games like Brunell was given last year. Well yes, that would be considered fair to a certain extent. But, these NFL teams do not put their success in how fair things are. They put their success in winning. However, judging by how Patrick Ramsey played in preseason, we would more than likely be 4-8 right now, if not worse. I witnessed nothing about Ramsey's play that would've suggested anything much better than that.

As far as Brunell's play lately, he hasn't played as well as he has for the most part of this season. He has also had two of his starting receivers out. With both Thrash and Patten in there with Moss, Brunell is a better quarterback. When he basically has one proven threat to throw too, how can Mark Brunell duplicate his best performances of this season? It doesn't happen.

Finally, this system is not inept. It is a ball controlled system that thrives off of maximum protection and a strong running game. That is how it has always been. It has always been a run first pass second offense - even during the days of the posse. They made this offense special, because they were probably the best three wide receivers in the league back then. That is probably the biggest reason why we could score points easily. But we don't have Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders now. We have only one receiver in Santana Moss, who I feel could be as good as any of the members of the posse.

Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny. We have a winning record and a chance to make the playoffs. That is a whole heck of alot more than what we can say about this team for the most part this past decade. There is alot to look forward to even if we don't make the playoffs this year. This franchise is establishing itself as a good franchise, but that does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on maybes or would've could've should've.[/QUOTE]

How do you figure we are in control of our own destiny? FACT? If watching the playoffs on TV is our destiny then I would agree, take a good look we need help to get into the playoffs.

Brunell was hurt last season? Explain to me why he insist's he wasen't, and why he had his best game of the year statistically the week after he supposedly had this big time injury, Brunells explanation was he didn't believe he really had a hole lot of help around him.

As you said winning is the measuring stick in this league, that's winning in the regular season, not pre-season, and Brunell is failing.

Now the contradictions start, on one hand you say that the reason Brunell can't duplicate what he's previously done on offense is because Patten is out, then on the other hand you say we have no one except Moss who was in the posse's league, how many balls did Patten catch, and how much could an inferior talent in Patten to the Posse really effect an offense? And correct me if I am wrong but Brunell was losing games before Patten was injured.

The big reason why we won back in the 80's was because our O-line used to dominate everyone we faced, we would run at will on teams, that doesn't exist anymore, and Gibbs hasen't shown an ability to adjust the offense to compensate for the lack of a dominating offensive line.

And just for the record Moss is more explosive than any reciever Gibbs ever had in DC, and Patten was the same type player as Sanders, except Patten is probably a little faster, Cooley is better than any H-back we had, and a better all around reciever than Didier, one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

As for the ball control aspect in the 80's, only our running game was ball control, our passing game under Gibbs was alway's a downfield passing attack, and that's part of the problem, with Portis he's more of a homerun hitter than a ball control back.

Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad! what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again. But if your putting a lot of stock into what you saw in the pre-season OK, although most scouts and coaches don't put any stock into the pre-season, and yes that has alway's inc. Gibbs, why becuase of mismatches and vanilla offenses, while most legitamate starters are playing not to get hurt. How indicative was Brunells play in the pre-season, hold up to how he is playing now? I don't think he was succeeding in the pre-season with Patten as one of his WR's either. I do believe Patten played most of the pre-season with Ramsey.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines

[IMG]http://richard-kelly.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/thrashskin.gif[/IMG]

<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins [i]at all[/i]? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=Redskins88]offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins [i]at all[/i]? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....[/QUOTE]


What is it you would like to hear?

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]What is it you would like to hear?[/QUOTE]

After reading that..that....that, ridicularity, I fear I will suffer [b]physical damage[/b] if I do not respond! However, It [b]MUST[/b] come in the form of personal attack!!!!!! I will refrain, as I would not want to do that to a [b]football fan[/b]!!!!!

If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

Why not play Ramsey if Brunell is hurt? Anybody see that picture with A.Brown blowing a kiss? Ramsey is the one with both arms in the air celebrating. A class act and a true team player. Many of you would like us to trade him, but who else knows our offense as well? He can take a hard sack and not fumble. He can play at this level, no doubt. Who else could replace him? If you put Campbell in their you throw him to the wolves just like the 'ol ball coach did to Ramsey. Brunell has one more year(maybe) and Campbell is not ready. What do you suggest?

Hail to the REDSKINS

Re: If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

Whenever PRs contract expires (which I think is after this season) he will be let go. There is no way the skins will resign him. As for a more seasoned backup, they can just bring in a free agent like Minn did with Brad Johnson.

Re: If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

[QUOTE=PhxRedSkin]Why not play Ramsey if Brunell is hurt? Anybody see that picture with A.Brown blowing a kiss? Ramsey is the one with both arms in the air celebrating. A class act and a true team player. Many of you would like us to trade him, but who else knows our offense as well? He can take a hard sack and not fumble. He can play at this level, no doubt. Who else could replace him? If you put Campbell in their you throw him to the wolves just like the 'ol ball coach did to Ramsey. Brunell has one more year(maybe) and Campbell is not ready. What do you suggest?

Hail to the REDSKINS[/QUOTE]

Sure, but Brunell isn't hurt, isn't this thread the same as [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=9540]this one[/url]?

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=9540[/url]

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

...

what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again. [/QUOTE]

Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't get it either. Brunell was throwing the ball deep just fine earlier in the year. I think the way defenses are playing us now has more to do with our troubles going down the field, add in the losses of Patten & Thrash and it's much more logical to conclude that than to say Brunell has suddenly lost his arm strength. :rolleyes:

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]How do you figure we are in control of our own destiny? FACT?[/Quote]

We win out, we have a great shot at the playoffs.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
Brunell was hurt last season? Explain to me why he insist's he wasen't, and why he had his best game of the year statistically the week after he supposedly had this big time injury, Brunells explanation was he didn't believe he really had a hole lot of help around him.[/QUOTE]

Care to give me the link or soundbyte to Mark Brunell stating specifically that he didn't have any help around him? You keep siting that one game, ignoring the fact that playing hurt makes the injury worse.


[QUOTE=Offiss]
As you said winning is the measuring stick in this league, that's winning in the regular season, not pre-season, and Brunell is failing.[/QUOTE]

We have a winning record, therefore, Mark Brunell is not failing. You're just failing to convince me you even like the Redskins.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
Now the contradictions start, on one hand you say that the reason Brunell can't duplicate what he's previously done on offense is because Patten is out, then on the other hand you say we have no one except Moss who was in the posse's league, how many balls did Patten catch, and how much could an inferior talent in Patten to the Posse really effect an offense? And correct me if I am wrong but Brunell was losing games before Patten was injured.
[/QUOTE]

I'll be glad to correct you, because you usually are wrong. First of all, I'll admit you're really good at taking what I say completely out of context to justify your illness toward the Redskins. Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders. In fact, I might have even said that before. However, they are not considered deep threats. And because both are quality receivers and both being out, then we are left with ONE receiver, Moss, to throw to.

Mark Brunell wasn't losing games before Patten was injured - the Redskins were losing game, but they were also winning games. This is a team sport. If you have issues with this team, go back to pulling for the Jets.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
The big reason why we won back in the 80's was because our O-line used to dominate everyone we faced, we would run at will on teams, that doesn't exist anymore, and Gibbs hasen't shown an ability to adjust the offense to compensate for the lack of a dominating offensive line.[/QUOTE]

You can't be anymore wrong than this. Gibbs hasn't shown the ability to adjust the offense? What team are you watching? You have absolutely no faith in this team whatsoever, and probably never will.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
And just for the record Moss is more explosive than any reciever Gibbs ever had in DC, and Patten was the same type player as Sanders, except Patten is probably a little faster, Cooley is better than any H-back we had, and a better all around reciever than Didier, one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.[/Quote]

So what exactly is your point? Brunell can't throw the deep ball, but yet you talk about the "miracle passes" at the end of the Dallas game. That is where the real contradictions come into play. Please, give it up. Just say you hate Mark Brunell, Joe Gibbs, and the Redskins and get it over with. You have no enjoyment in watching this team whatsoever. Why do you even pull for this team?

[QUOTE=Offiss]
As for the ball control aspect in the 80's, only our running game was ball control, our passing game under Gibbs was alway's a downfield passing attack, and that's part of the problem, with Portis he's more of a homerun hitter than a ball control back.[/QUOTE]

BECAUSE WE HAD THE POSSE WHICH MADE IT SPECIAL FOR US! GO BACK AND READ MY POST. Yet, Portis is adjusting fairly well and we're also getting great use out of Betts and Cartwright. I see no logic in your point whatsoever.

[/QUOTE=Offiss]
Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad![/QUOTE]

Do you not know how to read? Did I NOT say after watching Patrick Ramsey play in preseason, I found no signs of improvement and that it spilled over into our first regular season game? I betcha you didn't even watch the preseason at all, did you?

[QUOTE=Offiss]
what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again.[/QUOTE]

Here is your contradiction. You state in part of your post that Brunell doesn't have the ability to throw deep, but then you turn around and say that Dallas totally disregarded Mark Brunell's abilit to throw deep. Face it, you're pwned! You have no excuse to hide being a closest Jets fan anymore. Just come out and be loud and proud.


[QUOTE=Offiss]
But if your putting a lot of stock into what you saw in the pre-season OK, although most scouts and coaches don't put any stock into the pre-season, and yes that has alway's inc. Gibbs, why becuase of mismatches and vanilla offenses, while most legitamate starters are playing not to get hurt. How indicative was Brunells play in the pre-season, hold up to how he is playing now? I don't think he was succeeding in the pre-season with Patten as one of his WR's either. I do believe Patten played most of the pre-season with Ramsey.[/QUOTE]

And I would suggest this is a reason why you don't coach football in the NFL, because if coaches didn't put alot of stock into training camp and preseason, then we wouldn't have training camp and preseason. What is your freakin point with Patten? You state that Patten is just as good as what Ricky Sanders was, and then you suggest that Patten only played in preseason with Patrick Ramsey. So by this logic, then Patrick Ramsey should have looked like Joe Montana. Give it up man.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.

Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=NFLeurope]Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.[/QUOTE]

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."

[QUOTE]
Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.[/QUOTE]


Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.