Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Post Game Thoughts

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2004, 07:44 AM   #31
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,216
It's all about the order the plays are called in, not the plays. Longtimeskinsfan: Don't be an ass. I know many people here are jaded and can't fathom saying Gibbs did a poor job, but plain and simple the playcalling has a ways to go. Execution is part of it, but doesn't that also lie squarely on the coaching staff to change? Why don't you say last year it was all execution and not coaching? You can go both ways, I liked Spurrier, that doesn't mean he did the right thing but I enjoyed being aggressive. This year, I like Gibbs, but that doesn't mean I think he's calling the right plays. He's too passive.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 12-13-2004, 08:33 AM   #32
^21^
 
Luxorreb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 1,611
I don't understand how anyone can say we had bad playcalling. Redskins at 4-8 kept up and dominated a 11-1 team! We don't get the Sellers penalties 3 for 45 yds and the other 100 yds worth of penalties and the bad PI call we probably win. Doesn't matter now cause ofcourse we lost. Valiant effort today and I'm proud to be a REDSKINS life long fan. I believe. Not in the quick fix but the long haul. Sellers might be gone. I really do like his big frame, but honestly he doesn't play enough to warrant 3 personal fouls (same as Shaq last night). Sean Taylor has the only current hall pass on the team.
__________________
GO SKINS!!! ^21^
Luxorreb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 08:42 AM   #33
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 51
Posts: 515
speaking of ST, did you see that hit he put on TO last night??? Looked like a side body slam from wrestling...also I noticed TO wasn't so smiley and jovial near the end of the game when the cameras were on him. Maybe it's because he knew he was in a real knockdown drag-out game for once and we weren't going to roll over because of his greatness?
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 08:48 AM   #34
^21^
 
Luxorreb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 1,611
TO is a great player. He isn't dumb either. Him and his WR's ran from #36 last night and he fumbled in the redzone for no real reason. We didn't even attempt a strip, he just fumbled. Eagles have a good team, but I'm pulling for them to lose in their 1st round. Bottom line unfortunately is the W-L column and we're almost as good as they are and we're 4-9.
__________________
GO SKINS!!! ^21^
Luxorreb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 08:55 AM   #35
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,128
My random thoughts:

Ramsey played well for 99% of the game. One poor decision doesn't taint the entire night to me. He hit on 64% of his throws and made some nice plays under some heavy pressure. He reverted back to the Ramsey of old on that last play, I'm sure he wishes he could have that back. With more time and experience he's not going to make decisions like that. If I'm Gibbs I don't even think twice about looking at another QB's direction this offseason.

Coles was a warrior last night, the guy is all heart, seems like he's starting to find his role in this system.

What more can be said of Cooley? Get the ball in his area and he catches it. When we drafted him I thought he could be a decent receiver and maybe have 30 catches a year. Now I'm starting to think he could be a 60+ catch a year guy no problem.

I loved the intensity that we had on both sides of the ball. Guys were hitting and jawing at each other like it was a playoff game. For the past few seasons we've been pushovers when playing the Eagles, I think we got their attention last night.

The INT that ended the game, I liked the call to take a shot at the endzone, but Ramsey needed to check that play down and hit someone underneath. Ramsey knows he can't force a throw like that, once he saw the coverage he should have checked down. He got a little greedy and was probably frustrated by the lack of deep shots all game. Seemed like anytime he was setting up to go deep the Eagles pass rush was in his face.

Clock management was horrible once again. It seemed like we had started to clear up that problem in previous weeks only to have it rear it's ugly head once again. Was anyone else yelling at the TV right before the 2 minute warning like I was? They let a good 20 seconds run off without running a play. It's looking like it takes way too long to get the play call in, do they even practice a two minute drill?? It sure didn't look like it to me.

The big question after last week was, did the team hit a turning point or did they just get lucky against a very bad Giants team? After last night I think it's a combo of both, with more leaning towards the turning point option.

I really think guys are 'getting it' and buying in. You really have to wonder where we'd be if Ramsey was put in earlier in the year. Ramsey has been solid and has basically played the way Gibbs envisioned Brunell would.

I'm disappointed about the loss of course, but I took a lot of positives away from last night. We took the best team in the NFC down to the wire. We're still a step behind a great team like Philly, but the gap is narrowing.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 09:05 AM   #36
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 51
Posts: 515
Quote:
I'm disappointed about the loss of course, but I took a lot of positives away from last night. We took the best team in the NFC down to the wire. We're still a step behind a great team like Philly, but the gap is narrowing.

I agree in principle but I honestly don't think that we're a step behind Philly. I think we are now on a level playing field with them. The only other I can think of that played them this well (and I haven't really been following them) is Pittsburgh, and the Steelers manhandled them. As far as I'm concerned, either call us as good as Philly or consider them to be as bad, but I don't see them being any better than us based off last night's performance. I also think we've pretty much got our team for next year with the exception of maybe an upgrade on the OL and DL. I thought the playcalling was pretty solid but like you said, the clock management in the last 5 minutes was again problematic, and I think the coaching staff needs to look at that and how to improve it, unless they were simpling having technical glitches. I know from the past games there were a few times when Gibbs said there were issues with communication from the booth or going on to the field.
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 10:55 AM   #37
Special Teams
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 277
I think the team as a whole is making serious and heartening progress, no doubt about it. "Nervous Pat" Ramsey's mistakes notwithstanding, we did frighten the smug smiles off of the Eagles' mugs last night.

Gibbs did the right thing in keeping Ramsey out of the fire for as long as he did this season because the team wasn't able to support Ramsey for much of the year with the struggles with the line and the receivers and the adaptation of the offense.

The biggest problem Ramsey has is that he gets so tense out there that he doesn't see the field and misses obvious opportunities. He gets locked in mentally and forces it or holds on too long because he is waiting for the person he wants to throw to get open, and will take a sack like that inexcusable one he did late in the game. When you get that nervous, you make the stupid plays, and he made more than one last night.

I don't know whether he is ever going to relax out there enough, or whether it will happen in time.

He can make really good plays like that thread the needle to Cooley down to the goal line.

Ramsey fundamentalists want no competition for him. I say that that we open the competition next season and if Ramsey is the best play him. If Ramseyfanatics are so confident he will win any battle, what are you worried about? I guess you aren't really so confident.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 11:08 AM   #38
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,128
So what do you suggest, Shane? We got out and sign another FA to compete with him? Haven't we spent enough money on QB's lately? Why not just commit to Ramsey 100% and develop him. I don't see him as being a nervous QB, just indecisive due to lack of experience in general and more specifically in this system.

I say let the guy play, last night we saw some growing pains that you have to live with when you're playing a young QB. Other than the INT he played well and had us in position to win the game.

He's never going to improve if we don't play him. Along the way there's going to be bumps in the road, but we're never going to see what he's really capable of without going through some tough times.

Overall this season I've seen much more in the positive department from Ramsey than the negative. He's come so far so quickly in this offense, and he's only going to get better with more experience.
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 11:15 AM   #39
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 51
Posts: 515
The way I look at it, we've played 13 games so far with Brunell starting 9 and Ramsey starting 4. If we as a team were so committed to Brunell and giving him a chance, we should give Ramsey an equal opportunity to prove himself. I'm not a Ramsey lover or hater, I'm just an old Redskins fan who can remember watching, yes watching, Billy Kilmer at the helm. He wasn't the most gifted QB to walk on the field, but he was a smart field general, he was a leader, and most importantly, he got the job done and if he was good enough for George, he was good enough for me. Joe Theisman was not a lock out of the box either and we went through growing pains with him. He turned out to be a fine QB. I've certainly seen no reason to dump Ramsey yet and he has proven that he can put some good numbers on the board. I think he deserves a chance.
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 11:51 AM   #40
Special Teams
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 277
Matty, I am suggesting that Ramsey has not shown enough to be given the keys to the team and to therefore close our minds to other possiblities.

He may develop into a very solid quarterback, and he may also never play at more than an average level. No one knows what is going to happen with Ramsey. There are reasons to be encouraged. He has begun to feel comfortable in the system after a season in which he could absorb things while Brunell took the heat while the team struggled. He can make some excellent throws.

He also gets very nervous out there, in my view. It's just a physiological fact that when you get nervous, you get tunnel vision, and explanation that can account for much of Ramsey's mistakes on the field: the holding onto the ball too long, the forcing of plays, the lack of seeing the open receivers. This isn't a matter of learning the system, its a matter of field awareness. And as nervous tension rises, your awareness gets focused more and more narrowly.

I think Ramsey is smart. Believe me, I know its not easy what he is doing. He could learn to relax out there, and I hope it will happen.

What I would do is go into next year and open the competition at quarterback. What is to fear in doing that? If Ramsey is the best, he will win. If he is not the best, then someone else will win. Do we want the best possible player, or do we want Ramsey even if someone else would play better? Should the coaches give the position to Ramsey on a silver platter, or should he earn it?

There are always inexpensive free agents or players we can obtain cheaply. We already have Tim Hasselbeck. If Ramsey is the best, then its no problem - he will win the competition. If gets beaten out by someone else, why should that be upsetting? It would mean we have a better quarterback.

I suggested earlier that we look at inexpensive free agents. Then some people starting mocking the idea of expensive big name free agents. That isn't what I suggested.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 01:03 PM   #41
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
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.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 01:26 PM   #42
Special Teams
 
Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by joecrisp
...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.
Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 02:01 PM   #43
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,593
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 02:06 PM   #44
Fight for old DC!
 
Redskins_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Falls Church, VA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish
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.
Redskins_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2004, 02:22 PM   #45
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
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.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.39087 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25