Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Musgrave. (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=5589)

Daseal 03-25-2005 09:22 PM

Musgrave.
 
Well, through the internet I've been able to find a lot of educated fans from other teams. I like to get their opinions about the skins, give mine on their team, and find out general other stuff. Anyhow, talked to a Jags fan today and asked him about Musgrave, this is the response I got:

HE SUCKS.

He's too conservative, he runs the same three plays in a row, and he refuses to go down field with a young QB (leftwhich.)

If this analysis is correct he sounds just like Gibbs and the opposite of what we needed. What do you guys think?

wolfeskins 03-25-2005 09:42 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
he's not there to call plays, only to work with ramsey and from what i've read about him he has helped develop some very good qbs.

BigSKINBauer 03-25-2005 09:42 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=Daseal]Well, through the internet I've been able to find a lot of educated fans from other teams. I like to get their opinions about the skins, give mine on their team, and find out general other stuff. Anyhow, talked to a Jags fan today and asked him about Musgrave, this is the response I got:

HE SUCKS.

He's too conservative, he runs the same three plays in a row, and he refuses to go down field with a young QB (leftwhich.)

If this analysis is correct he sounds just like Gibbs and the opposite of what we needed. What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]

Wow now we got Gibbs and his lesser apprentice but gibbs says he will try more down field stuff but who knows?

SKINSnCANES 03-25-2005 09:45 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
what we need to hope is that our oline doesnt get banged up next year. Because its goign to be the same type of crap as this year, its going to depend on the running game first. So as long as Portis is dominatnig with a good oline we will win, if not....well then we pray that in the huddle Ramsey says he is going to look long first...

Daseal 03-25-2005 09:46 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
heh, Running through all those people is the hard part!

htownskinfan 03-26-2005 12:51 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]what we need to hope is that our oline doesnt get banged up next year. Because its goign to be the same type of crap as this year, its going to depend on the running game first. So as long as Portis is dominatnig with a good oline we will win, if not....well then we pray that in the huddle Ramsey says he is going to look long first...[/QUOTE]

amen to that,it all starts upfront,if we have the protection and the recievers are hanging on to the ball,Gibb's knows when to take the shots,at least he used too,I dont think he tried it enough last yr,but I dont watch game films or see practice,and he's obviously privy to something we dont know,so I forgive him for last yr,but Ramsey has to have protection to be effective

John Hasbrouck 03-26-2005 01:37 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Musgrave is not here to call plays or do game plans-only to coach up Ramsey. Musgrave is a top shelf QB coach. Ramsey needs coaching up- no matter what the majority of you think.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha 03-26-2005 03:26 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=John Hasbrouck]Musgrave is not here to call plays or do game plans-only to coach up Ramsey. Musgrave is a top shelf QB coach. Ramsey needs coaching up- no matter what the majority of you think.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your first two statements, and [I]slightly[/I] disagree with your last statement about Ramsey needing "coaching up. "

First, Gibbs even admits he learned a lot last season - principally he needs to "open-up" the offense. So, even if Musgrave was conservative in Jacksonville, I don't think that means we'll retain our conservative approach on offense.

Second, Musgrave is supposedly a pretty damn good position coach. Being a bad offensive coordinator doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a good QB coach again.

As to your last point that Ramsey needs coaching up.....I agree that Ramsey needs additional coaching (as any young QB does). But, I think Ramsey needs experience more than coaching. It typically takes a QB a full two seasons of starting to develop. Thus far, Ramsey's started 23 games. Moreover, those 23 games were under two different head coaches, three different offensive coordinators, and over the course of three seasons. I think he needs a solid coaching staff (which he has) and a chance to start a number of consecutive games (which he hasn't had).

NY_Skinsfan 03-26-2005 07:09 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Gibbs didn't open up the offense last year becuase everytime he saw Brunell throw long it went ten yards out of bounds...what was the point then. Once Ramsey came in it was too late in the season. The oline was a mess, the wr's were dropping all sorts of short passes. I think Gibbs system may not be a perfect fit for the nfl today, but it certainly will work a lot better with a better oline...I feel that's were it all starts. If we can get some protection for Portis and Ramsey we will have a very fun team to watch this year.

BrudLee 03-26-2005 09:04 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
On this site - which is the best Redskins site bar none - we have been known to have, shall we say, sour grapes, about those who have left the Redskins employ.

Pierce? a system guy.

Smoot? He'll regret leaving.

Bailey? *%#&%$!!!

It doesn't surprise me that Jag fans are blaming Musgrave for their woes. They were, before last season, a sweetheart pick for the Super Bowl. He wasn't so bad then.

GoSkins! 03-26-2005 09:11 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Gibbs is a big "stats" guy. When he got out of the season and saw how badly he ranked in plays over 25 yards I am sure it ate him up. When he says he will improve that, he will. Period. It may not mean he gets into the top ten, but they will improve.
Musgrave was brought in because Ramsey is a gun slinger and Gibbs wanted to help round out his game. Musgrave can get the best out of QB's and understands the west coast offense blocking schemes. This will be good because he will help to employ Portis in the short passing.

In short, Musgrave can help the short passes go longer and Gibbs gets to develop a long passing game to exploit the defenses. Remember, Gibbs calls the plays, not Musgrave.

BigSKINBauer 03-26-2005 10:38 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I agree with your first two statements, and [i]slightly[/i] disagree with your last statement about Ramsey needing "coaching up. "

First, Gibbs even admits he learned a lot last season - principally he needs to "open-up" the offense. So, even if Musgrave was conservative in Jacksonville, I don't think that means we'll retain our conservative approach on offense.

Second, Musgrave is supposedly a pretty damn good position coach. Being a bad offensive coordinator doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a good QB coach again.

As to your last point that Ramsey needs coaching up.....I agree that Ramsey needs additional coaching (as any young QB does). But, I think Ramsey needs experience more than coaching. It typically takes a QB a full two seasons of starting to develop. Thus far, Ramsey's started 23 games. Moreover, those 23 games were under two different head coaches, three different offensive coordinators, and over the course of three seasons. I think he needs a solid coaching staff (which he has) and a chance to start a number of consecutive games (which he hasn't had).[/QUOTE]

yeah yeah, i think he needs a good position coach, he messes up quiet a bit and don't get me wrong i do not want any other quarterback in there. I would like him in there for years but he does need to learn more about the game, after seeing some of his tape on fox and then on playbook on NFL network it just seemed that he wasn't throwing it to the obvious choice and was just throwing it short to a covered man but i am sure that a little more experience will go a long way its just that he needs a good coach and good experience and not just experince

MTK 03-26-2005 11:34 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Well, Musgrave wasn't brought in to be the offensive coordinator so there's not much sense in analyzing his playcalling abilities.

I think there's this misconception with some of the younger fans that Gibbs is this ultra-conservative minded offensive coach, which just isn't true. But going off last year I can see why this opinion is forming.

Gibbs is responsible for some of the more explosive offenses in NFL history. Last year was definitely an adjustment for him, but I believe we'll see a much improved offense in 2005 with an improved offensive line, a more experienced Ramsey under center, a group of speedy WRs, and Gibbs having last year under his belt.

As I indicated in another thread, the offense averaged over 300 yards per game and just over 20 points per game in the last 5 games of last season. I think we'll see a continuation of that late season development in 2005.

jrocx69 03-26-2005 11:48 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
musgrave was also brought in to help gibbs with zone blitzing defense which i believe made gibbs very cautious with plays and thus had a bigger effect on ramsey's play. musgrave was brought in to help with plays, but not to call them. i believe musgrave was brought in for 2 reasons, help ramsey develope fundamentals, and help both ramsey and gibbs with what modern day D-coordinators are doing with defense (zone blitzing, (3-4)... which gibbs rarely seen in his first stint

MTK 03-26-2005 11:57 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=jrocx69]musgrave was also brought in to help gibbs with zone blitzing defense which i believe made gibbs very cautious with plays and thus had a bigger effect on ramsey's play. musgrave was brought in to help with plays, but not to call them. i believe musgrave was brought in for 2 reasons, help ramsey develope fundamentals, and help both ramsey and gibbs with what modern day D-coordinators are doing with defense (zone blitzing, (3-4)... which gibbs rarely seen in his first stint[/QUOTE]

Good points, and since Musgrave's background is in the west coast offense I'm sure that will benefit Gibbs to see a different perspective in offensive schemes.

John Hasbrouck 03-26-2005 03:16 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Ramseyfan you refer to it as additional coaching - I call it coaching up-either way one states it-Ramsey needs it -QB performance will be the KEY to our season

skinsguy 03-26-2005 04:32 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Well, Musgrave wasn't brought in to be the offensive coordinator so there's not much sense in analyzing his playcalling abilities.

I think there's this misconception with some of the younger fans that Gibbs is this ultra-conservative minded offensive coach, which just isn't true. But going off last year I can see why this opinion is forming.

Gibbs is responsible for some of the more explosive offenses in NFL history. Last year was definitely an adjustment for him, but I believe we'll see a much improved offense in 2005 with an improved offensive line, a more experienced Ramsey under center, a group of speedy WRs, and Gibbs having last year under his belt.

As I indicated in another thread, the offense averaged over 300 yards per game and just over 20 points per game in the last 5 games of last season. I think we'll see a continuation of that late season development in 2005.[/QUOTE]


Amen to that! I sort of can understand the youngins basing what they know about Gibbs from what they have seen. I just can't understand why us older fans are bashed in believing in Gibbs when we're doing the same exact thing?

GoSkins! 03-26-2005 04:57 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Amen to that! I sort of can understand the youngins basing what they know about Gibbs from what they have seen. I just can't understand why us older fans are bashed in believing in Gibbs when we're doing the same exact thing?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't think that the young guys can really understand how totally dominate the offenses under Gibbs were. There are guys hate to lose, guys that work hard to make sure they won't, guys who are smart enough to take a hard look at themselves and change when needed... and Gibbs has always been all of those. I can't believe he is a different person now.

JWsleep 03-26-2005 05:39 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
As Matty said, Musgrave has a background in the west coast offense, so he's coming from a slightly different direction. I think that's a big reason he's there, as well as his obvious role in developing Ramsey. He's not here, as far as I can tell, to call plays. He brings a different perspective and he's a quality coach. What's the problem? No one thinks Musgrave is going to be the big difference-maker. Either Gibbs will figure it out or he wont. Having clear memories of the dominant Gibbs offenses of the 80's-early 90's, I'm optimistic. But we'll see...

shallyshal 03-26-2005 06:37 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
agree with those posters about musgraves purpose as a redskin. most young qb's really benefit from having a qb coach to talk to all the time... ramsey will be no different.

as to what went on in jax, perhaps his playcalling was reflective of the personnel and their shortcomings rather than his own.

in the end, bringing on a younger guy who is well versed in the WCO is absolutely a plus for the team. i see no downside..

diehardskin2982 03-26-2005 09:41 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Gibbs only had rust this year. did he run the same three plays when he won the superbowl?

jdlea 03-27-2005 12:33 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Anybody who will take a step down from Offensive Coordinator to QB's Coach is good in my book. All he has to do is develop Ramsey...much the same way he did Leftwich. Leftwich, when healthy had a pretty decent season last year and they narrowly missed the playoffs. I would be happy if Ramsey makes those kinds of strides. If he does, I think it would land us in the playoffs because we can run the ball and play D. 2 things that aren't exactly the Jags strong suit.

John Hasbrouck 03-27-2005 12:49 AM

Re: Musgrave.
 
If Ramsey has that kind of yr. we will be in the SB

illdefined 03-27-2005 02:21 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
I grew up in Gibbs D.C., and I lived the skins fans' dream. I too thought the man could do no wrong. until Brunell.

he was so sure. when absolutely everybody said otherwise. he bet the season and lost. cost us massive cap, and crucial morale as well. how could he be so wrong? I dunno guys. I can doubt him now.

skinsguy 03-27-2005 03:03 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Are you serious? Brunell won the starting job because he outplayed Ramsey in training camp. Gibbs went with who he felt was the better QB...even Ramsey said it himself that he[Ramsey] was not ready to start at the beginning of the season. The Coles situation is what hurt us with the cap...in fact, Brunell renegotiated his contract to free up a bit of cap room for us. What facts do you have of low morale on the team? Maybe among some fans, but nothing that is team wide.

TheMalcolmConnection 03-27-2005 05:03 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
I would really disagree that there is low morale on the team. Honestly, judging from what I've heard out of players this pre-season, it seems that the team KNOWS it has potential and that everyone is excited for the season to start.

offiss 03-27-2005 05:11 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Are you serious? Brunell won the starting job because he outplayed Ramsey in training camp. Gibbs went with who he felt was the better QB...even Ramsey said it himself that he[Ramsey] was not ready to start at the beginning of the season. The Coles situation is what hurt us with the cap...in fact, Brunell renegotiated his contract to free up a bit of cap room for us. What facts do you have of low morale on the team? Maybe among some fans, but nothing that is team wide.[/QUOTE]


Brunell was the heavy favorite in the pre-season as far as Gibbs was concerned, Brunell did nothing remotly special in the pre-season to say he outplayed Ramsey, 1 big pass to McCants for a TD was all that realistically seperated the 2. Was Ramsey ready? No. But neither was Brunell considering his performance, I was one of the guys saying Ramsey should have started day 1, he was the future and eventually will prove out to be a much better passer than Brunell, he needed the experience, while my belief was Brunell was a playmaker more than a pocket passer which is what Gibbs wants a QB who can stand in the pocket, well we saw what happens to Brunell when asked to stand in the pocket he no longer can run around and create plays as he once did, it turn's out that Ramsey would have been the right move to start.

As for moral, the only thing that kept this team from really unhinging was Gibbs reputation and peoples belief that he would straighten out the offense, which never really happened, but players like Portis, Gardner, and obviouisly Coles had serious issues on how they were used, moral may not be the right word but there was defiently a lot of second guessing.

John Hasbrouck 03-27-2005 05:24 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Ramsey can't run either

offiss 03-27-2005 06:12 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=John Hasbrouck]Ramsey can't run either[/QUOTE]


Is there a point to that JH?

skinsguy 03-27-2005 06:18 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=offiss]Brunell was the heavy favorite in the pre-season as far as Gibbs was concerned, Brunell did nothing remotly special in the pre-season to say he outplayed Ramsey, 1 big pass to McCants for a TD was all that realistically seperated the 2. Was Ramsey ready? No. But neither was Brunell considering his performance, I was one of the guys saying Ramsey should have started day 1, he was the future and eventually will prove out to be a much better passer than Brunell, he needed the experience, while my belief was Brunell was a playmaker more than a pocket passer which is what Gibbs wants a QB who can stand in the pocket, well we saw what happens to Brunell when asked to stand in the pocket he no longer can run around and create plays as he once did, it turn's out that Ramsey would have been the right move to start.

As for moral, the only thing that kept this team from really unhinging was Gibbs reputation and peoples belief that he would straighten out the offense, which never really happened, but players like Portis, Gardner, and obviouisly Coles had serious issues on how they were used, moral may not be the right word but there was defiently a lot of second guessing.[/QUOTE]

Ramsey was not ready to go in from day one. He admitted that himself. Have you forgotten his performance from the earlier games of the season? He was horrible! As far as Joe Gibbs wanting QBs who are strictly pocket passers and not "playmakers"...well first of all, all coaches would like for their QB to be a passer first..playmaker second! Even in Atlanta, Mora wanted Vick to focus more on passing than running...we saw evidence of that this year. Secondly, you might be too young to remember this, but Joe Thesimann returned punts for the Washington Redskins in his first two years with the team. Obviously, that means that Theismann was a threat with his legs as well as his arm. With that said, Brunell was being compared to Theismann at the beginning of the season. We all know the success we had with Joe Theismann in the early 1980's. So, if Brunell seemed to be the favorite...there are plenty of good reasons for that...and I don't care what anyone may say now, nobody even romotely felt Brunell was going to be the bust like he was this season.

Lastly, the offense had improved. I realize you're just measuring the offense by points scored...naturally that would be the easiest thing to do. But considering that our time of possession increased, and we had put ourselves in scoring position quite often...the only thing that really didn't improve was red zone scoring. But, overall, the offense improved quite a bit from it's earlier attempts in the season -- Even with a make shift offensive line. Yes, Ramsey was one of the biggest reasons....but only after he was able to watch the system from the bench and the classroom study, that he was able to figure out the theories behind the system and to understand it. It paid off for Ramsey once he got on the field. He still has a long ways to go, of course, but his hard work has gotten him the starting nod for 2005, and Joe Gibbs' respect and support.

offiss 03-27-2005 09:53 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Ramsey was not ready to go in from day one. He admitted that himself. Have you forgotten his performance from the earlier games of the season? He was horrible! As far as Joe Gibbs wanting QBs who are strictly pocket passers and not "playmakers"...well first of all, [QUOTE]all coaches would like for their QB to be a passer first..playmaker second! Even in Atlanta, Mora wanted Vick to focus more on passing than running...we saw evidence of that this year.[/QUOTE] Secondly, you might be too young to remember this, but Joe Thesimann returned punts for the Washington Redskins in his first two years with the team. Obviously, that means that Theismann was a threat with his legs as well as his arm. With that said, Brunell was being compared to Theismann at the beginning of the season. We all know the success we had with Joe Theismann in the early 1980's. So, if Brunell seemed to be the favorite...there are plenty of good reasons for that...and I don't care what anyone may say now, nobody even romotely felt Brunell was going to be the bust like he was this season.

Lastly, the offense had improved. I realize you're just measuring the offense by points scored...naturally that would be the easiest thing to do. But considering that our time of possession increased, and we had put ourselves in scoring position quite often...the only thing that really didn't improve was red zone scoring. But, overall, the offense improved quite a bit from it's earlier attempts in the season -- Even with a make shift offensive line. Yes, Ramsey was one of the biggest reasons....but only after he was able to watch the system from the bench and the classroom study, that he was able to figure out the theories behind the system and to understand it. It paid off for Ramsey once he got on the field. He still has a long ways to go, of course, but his hard work has gotten him the starting nod for 2005, and Joe Gibbs' respect and support.[/QUOTE]


Sorry son, but knowbody was comparing Brunell to Theisman at the beginning of the year except maybe you, Why anyone would compare a 34 year old Brunell to a 24 year old Theisman I have no idea. A lot of us didn't want him because we felt his legs are gone and he's not a prototypical Gibbs QB, and a lot of us were right.

I understand that Ramsey has said he wasent fully prepaired to start but that's not the point, the point is neither was Brunell! So all thing's being equal we should have went with Ramsey to speed up his development, instead of watching the train wreck called Brunell, which did nothing more than waste valuable time that could have been used to speed up Ramseys development.

Here's a new's flash Gibbs QB's whether they can or can't are not scrambler's regardless of how slow or fast they are, the only thing Gibbs does with the QB is roll the QB outside and set up a pocket, but it's all controlled and the ability to scramble is not a big deal for a Gibbs offense

As for performances by Ramsey didn't he move us up and down the field against the Giant's? In 1 half in relief of Brunell he moved the ball more than Brunell moved the ball in every one of his games combined, and if Gardner had at least the hands of an 8 year old, Ramsey would have won that game for us completing a come back out of a hole Brunell created in his first action of the season.

I really would like to know what Joey T's punt return's at the start of his career have to do with an over the hill Brunell? JT came out of college back in 71 and returned kicks for us in 74' which means he was a pro for 10 years before Gibbs ever coached the man, which also means I was watching him return kick's before you were an itch in your daddy's pant's. In case you haven't noticed this is a Skin's forum that bit of trivia you threw out is mere child's play around here, but just for the record in case you were wondering I go back to the Sonny and Billy day's, thats Jurgenson and Kilmer in case your redskin history doesn't go back that far.

[QUOTE]all coaches would like for their QB to be a passer first..playmaker second! Even in Atlanta, Mora wanted Vick to focus more on passing than running...we saw evidence of that this year.[/QUOTE]

So all those fake handoff's QB rollout's we saw from Vick all year were the progression of the pocket passer? Further more why would anyone want to limit Vick's ability by making a pocket passer out of him, in case you didn't see it he's absolutly horrible when forced to stay in the pocket

illdefined 03-27-2005 10:01 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
i'm quite serious. surprised you argue it.

MANY people predicted Brunell would be a bust. most in fact. his enormous contract was signed BEFORE pre-season, regardless of the 'competition' which was hardly night and day difference anyway.

Gibbs's loyalty to his player (and unique decision) cost us quite a number of games, not to mention valuable reps Ramsey could have used to finish even stronger than we did with him at the helm.

are you really testing the morale question? if Gibbs was half as successful as hyped, and our offense was half as good our defense, I guarantee we wouldn't have lost ALL of our big sought after free agents (as in all THREE), plus one star player UNDER CONTRACT. in short, if not for Brunell, and Gibbs's strong (and lone) dedication to him, the season and this off-season would have played out MUCH different. i think many would agree.

skinsguy 03-27-2005 10:10 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Yes, I had seen analysts compare the two before the season started...I'm not going by the "expert" analysis of the forum board. The point my making is it's logical to think if someone is able to return punts and kicks in the NFL, they are some sort of a running threat. How many QBs return kicks and punts anyway? In that Giants game you mentioned, you failed to mention the bad reads Ramsey had and the what....FOUR interceptions in the fourth quarter? Yeah....that's good game play alright!

The offense Vick runs in Atlanta is a west coast offense. Those fake hand-offs are the same plays that Joe Montana ran in his hay-day with the 49ers. Sure, I am not saying that there were NO designed run plays for Vick, but being someone who has kept up with Vick from college up until now, I have noticed that Mora has kept Vick in the pocket more than what he was in previous seasons...that is just plain fact. Why? It's simple...Mora wants to develop Vicks passing game.

And here's a news flash for you...I really don't give a crap what you think Gibbs wants in his QB. I only mentioned JT's punt returns to make you understand that while he was a very good pocket QB, he wasn't immobile like Dan Marino.

MTK 03-27-2005 10:11 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
Blame the all mighty dollar for why we lost Pierce and Smoot, that's really all it boiled down to.

skinsguy 03-27-2005 10:14 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=illdefined]i'm quite serious. surprised you argue it.

MANY people predicted Brunell would be a bust. most in fact. his enormous contract was signed BEFORE pre-season, regardless of the 'competition' which was hardly night and day difference anyway.

Gibbs's loyalty to his player (and unique decision) cost us quite a number of games, not to mention valuable reps Ramsey could have used to finish even stronger than we did with him at the helm.

are you really testing the morale question? if Gibbs was half as successful as hyped, and our offense was half as good our defense, I guarantee we wouldn't have lost ALL of our big sought after free agents (as in all THREE), plus one star player UNDER CONTRACT. in short, if not for Brunell, and Gibbs's strong (and lone) dedication to him, the season and this off-season would have played out MUCH different. i think many would agree.[/QUOTE]


Certainly I'm testing the morale question. You mentioned Portis and from his own words from redskins.com, that proves you wrong.

[url]http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=6244[/url]

Certainly many of us, including myself felt Brunell should have been benched at least a couple games prior to when he actually was benched...but putting Ramsey in game one would have proved just as much of a mistake.

illdefined 03-27-2005 10:39 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
actually i didn't mention Portis, but even eternally optimistic CP got noticeably frustrated with Gibbs during the season. it took a handful of losses for Gibbs to finally try the zone-blocking Portis thrived on, and after seeing some welcome results, Gibbs went back to power scripted runs, using Sellers and Cooley as FB and having 200lb Portis up the middle again. eventually he got hurt (big surprise) and that injury stopped Portis from his beloved 3 season 1500yd mark.

as for the post-season, i know Smoot and Pierce weren't complaining about Williams and the no.2/3 defense in the league. no, they had lost faith in Gibbs's offense. if they saw a glimmer of hope in the offense, (and star players not jumping ship) i'm sure they wouldn't have been 'all about the money'. with the defense they were on, and an offense, the Skins would have been serious contenders.

alas, we had the worst passing attack in the league, and Brunell wasn't going to get better at 34. while the offensive hope for the Skins, Ramsey, had been set waaaay back by coach's obsession with Brunell. why would they tolerate yet another 'transition' season?

illdefined 03-27-2005 10:46 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Certainly I'm testing the morale question. You mentioned Portis and from his own words from redskins.com, that proves you wrong.

[url]http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=6244[/url]

Certainly many of us, including myself felt Brunell should have been benched at least a couple games prior to when he actually was benched...but putting Ramsey in game one would have proved just as much of a mistake.[/QUOTE]

and c'mon, you can hardly call anything on Redskins.com 'proof'. didn't they have a positive article on Coles a week or two before he left skidmarks in the locker room? Please, team sites are strictly tightly edited P.R. and i don't mean Patrick Ramsey.

Certainly MORE of us, felt Brunell shouldn't have been brought in at all. much less at that price we'll be paying for years. and by us, i definitely don't just mean warpathers.

skinsguy 03-27-2005 11:25 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
But, even MORE of us don't paint such a bleak outlook on things as some. In fact, I would say a good majority of us are still quite optimistic about the team, after all, why shouldn't we be? We're Redskins fans, right? The term "fan" is derived from fanatic which is defined as a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm. I haven't seen evidence of this by all Redskins fans I've chatted with online...which makes me wonder if they truly love or follow the team. I leave the decisions up to the coaching staff, because after all, I don't see anybody here challenging Joe Gibbs for his job. I'm not saying every decision the man makes is gold, and the mistakes he has made he as admitted to. However, if you truly bleed burgundy and gold, you're gonna be excited about this team.....

John Hasbrouck 03-27-2005 11:46 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
in todays game the QB has to beable to run. the best thing the falcons could do is get some wide outs and use the shotgun formation so they could also use Vicks running ability-sure Gibbs rolls them out but the times the QB has to pull it down and get positive yds. running-he best be able to run-us die hard Redskins fans have every rite to give our opinion in regards to what we think should be done-skinsguy you should not have anything to say if you just leave it up to the coaches-you think the coasches don't voice their opinions-and disagree

MTK 03-27-2005 11:57 PM

Re: Musgrave.
 
It's nice to have a running QB but it's not a necessity. I think the whole thing about the running QB is so overrated.

Tom Brady has 3 rings now, he's not much of a runner.

One of the best QBs in the game isn't a runner... Peyton Manning.

McNabb put up his best passing numbers as a pro and he also ran for a career low 220 yards.

The media loves to hype up the running QB, but in the long run what really matters is decision making and accuracy.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.10796 seconds with 8 queries