Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Musgrave.

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-27-2005, 10:53 PM   #31
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

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.
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
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-27-2005, 11:01 PM   #32
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
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.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:10 PM   #33
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
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.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:11 PM   #34
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,553
Re: Musgrave.

Blame the all mighty dollar for why we lost Pierce and Smoot, that's really all it boiled down to.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:14 PM   #35
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

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.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:39 PM   #36
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:46 PM   #37
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Musgrave.

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

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

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.
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.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 12:25 AM   #38
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
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.....
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 12:46 AM   #39
Special Teams
 
John Hasbrouck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 180
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
John Hasbrouck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 12:57 AM   #40
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,553
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 01:00 AM   #41
Special Teams
 
John Hasbrouck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Re: Musgrave.

bigSKINSbauer you got it rite bout Ramsey-that is what I was saying-you put it down better-way to go
John Hasbrouck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 01:06 AM   #42
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Musgrave.

come now, you should know better than to question our "fan-ness" because we express (very) valid concerns and see the negative as well as the positive. it's called "tough love". there's burgundy BLOOD, that we've been bleeding for years, and then there's burgundy KOOL-AID. blood is thicker than water.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 01:12 AM   #43
Special Teams
 
John Hasbrouck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 180
Re: Musgrave.

I prefer a QB that can also run-McNabb will be running again next yr. because the Eagles are a better team when he does
John Hasbrouck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 03:00 AM   #44
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hasbrouck
I prefer a QB that can also run-McNabb will be running again next yr. because the Eagles are a better team when he does

How do you figure? As Matty pointed out he had his best year and went to the SB when he ran for the lest amount of yards in his career.

Running QB's don't win, but pocket passer's do. Take a long hard look at what Philli did to Vick, Atlanta IMO was an equally talented team to philli, and the falcons may have the greatest running QB of all time in Vick, and philli shut him down, period!

Brady, Warner, Johnson, Dilfer, have won the last 6 SB's none of which can really get out of their own way.

understanding how to run an offense is far more important than the ability to run.
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:52 AM   #45
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
Re: Musgrave.

Completely agreed. It's fine that you can run, but until you become a pocket passer, you are pretty much one-dimensional. At risk of getting shit AGAIN for saying this about Vick, he is just a RB playing QB. And to reiterate and defend myself for the 123125134809th time, YES he does have a great arm and YES he is exciting to watch (if nothing more than to see if he's going to rush for 100 yards or get sacked 10+ times).

But until he learns how to USE that arm he has and throw some touch passes, he is nothing more than what I mentioned before. A running back playing QB.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection 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 03:15 AM.


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 0.32035 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