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, 10:11 PM   #31
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 82,330
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

Advertisements
Old 03-27-2005, 10:14 PM   #32
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
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.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 10:39 PM   #33
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, 10:46 PM   #34
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 03-27-2005, 11:25 PM   #35
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
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.....
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2005, 11:46 PM   #36
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 03-27-2005, 11:57 PM   #37
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 82,330
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, 12:00 AM   #38
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, 12:06 AM   #39
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, 12:12 AM   #40
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, 08:52 AM   #41
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,566
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
Old 03-28-2005, 09:20 AM   #42
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 82,330
Re: Musgrave.

I agree Malcolm, Vick will be at his most dangerous when he masters throwing from the pocket... with accuracy of course.

Until then he's a very exciting player that puts people in the seats, but he's not going to be taking home any hardware until he becomes a more complete player.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:21 AM   #43
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,566
Re: Musgrave.

Thanks for the support Matty.

I always seem to get shit when I talk about St. Vick.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:37 AM   #44
Playmaker
 
BrudLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE
Posts: 3,494
Re: Musgrave.

Having a QB with speed is like having a DE with great hands. There's all kinds of things that player can do that a normal DE can't, and it makes him a better player. It doesn't necessarily make him a better DE, though. As long as the job of QB involves making accurate throws to teammates both near and far away, Vick and McNabb will come up lacking when measured against the Brady's, Culpepper's, and Manning's (Peyton Manning's that is) of the league. It doesn't make them bad football players, they aren't as good at being QBs.

Now, that doesn't mean a slow leadfoot with accuracy is better than Vick, it just means the WRs for Johnny Slowpants are probably going to catch more balls than Peerless Price is.
__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.
BrudLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 11:12 AM   #45
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by illdefined
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.

I don't know...maybe those concerns are just illdefined. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, because I don't see the team being anything like the dreary picture you've painted. You can say I'm drinking the "KOOL-AID" all ya want, but you can't sit next to me on the bandwagon once they start winning.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy 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 02:45 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 0.28596 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