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 03-28-2005, 10:20 AM   #46
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,521
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

Advertisements
Old 03-28-2005, 10:21 AM   #47
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
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, 10:37 AM   #48
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, 12:12 PM   #49
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
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.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 01:29 PM   #50
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Musgrave.

we should ask. what do you guys think of Gibb's choice to get and stick with Brunell? how did it affect our season? our team? and ultimately this off-season? whats the consensus around the media?

just cuz i think it was a huge, costly mistake doesn't mean i think Gibbs will keep making them. or that we're doomed. i'm excited about Taylor and our defense, Ramsey and the new OLine, and i'm one of the few Portis heads on this board. the reason i brought this up is precisely because its so UNUSUAL of Gibbs, like i said, i too thought he could do no wrong. i think his first decision back was a terrible one, and am hopeful he'll use it to never make another bad one again.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 02:08 PM   #51
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
Re: Musgrave.

I know that we all put Gibbs in a god-like status (or most of us do), but he is definitely human, even though a very-intelligent one. Regardless of the Brunell move, there are a lot of good things that the team can glean from last year's experience. I would have to agree with whoever said that putting Ramsey in from the beginning would have been a mistake.

Brunell, a seasoned veteran, had major issues grasping the scheme. How well do you think Ramsey would have done without watching a lot of it from the sidelines and learning from Mark's mistakes?

I think putting him in from the beginning would not only have hurt his confidence, it would have fans wondering why in the hell we have such a high-paid backup (at least the wondering part is over with).

Gibbs is an extremely smart fellow and most of the moves he made last year were good ones. The Brunell fiasco is overshadowing the rest of the good things he did last year.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 03:33 PM   #52
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,521
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by illdefined
we should ask. what do you guys think of Gibb's choice to get and stick with Brunell? how did it affect our season? our team? and ultimately this off-season? whats the consensus around the media?

just cuz i think it was a huge, costly mistake doesn't mean i think Gibbs will keep making them. or that we're doomed. i'm excited about Taylor and our defense, Ramsey and the new OLine, and i'm one of the few Portis heads on this board. the reason i brought this up is precisely because its so UNUSUAL of Gibbs, like i said, i too thought he could do no wrong. i think his first decision back was a terrible one, and am hopeful he'll use it to never make another bad one again.
Was it a mistake to stick with Brunell for so long? Looking back now, yes it probably was. Did it cost us the season? It's not easy to say. I think it raises a few other questions that need to be answered. Was Ramsey ready to play earlier in the season? Would he have made that much of a difference if he was inserted into the lineup earlier?

Did it hurt the team's morale? If it did it didn't last long, the team fought and played hard right til the last snap of the season.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 03:39 PM   #53
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
Re: Musgrave.

I'll say this. We definitely kept Brunell in too long. I DO happen to think it cost us a playoff birth, but I'll go ahead and say it. I'm glad that Brunell DID play those first few games since we spent so much damn money on him.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 06:07 PM   #54
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Musgrave.

imagine if we didn't spend ANY money on him at all. seemed to be the consensus among the league that he was through. among us warpathers, seemed like the consensus was that Ramsey had the tools and earned the right to start.

in the end, Brunell was another costly example of the 'let's just win NOW' mentality that's plagued the skins for years, and i hope enough lessons have been learned to not go that route again.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 06:37 PM   #55
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 illdefined
imagine if we didn't spend ANY money on him at all. seemed to be the consensus among the league that he was through. among us warpathers, seemed like the consensus was that Ramsey had the tools and earned the right to start.

in the end, Brunell was another costly example of the 'let's just win NOW' mentality that's plagued the skins for years, and i hope enough lessons have been learned to not go that route again.

There's nothing wrong with trying to win now if you evaluate talent properly, unfortuantly we didn't when it came to Brunell. There where a lot of guy's on this site who evaluated Brunell far better than Gibbs did, and we said so before the trade happened, no monday morning QB's here!

I say we chalk one up for the Warpath in the GM department. Skin's management better start taking the Warpaths insight to heart if they want to turn this team around!
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 08:11 PM   #56
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection
Brunell, a seasoned veteran, had major issues grasping the scheme. How well do you think Ramsey would have done without watching a lot of it from the sidelines and learning from Mark's mistakes?

I think putting him in from the beginning would not only have hurt his confidence, it would have fans wondering why in the hell we have such a high-paid backup (at least the wondering part is over with).

Gibbs is an extremely smart fellow and most of the moves he made last year were good ones. The Brunell fiasco is overshadowing the rest of the good things he did last year.

Malcolm you said it best! That is exactly what I have been trying to say. What if we had put Ramsey in, knowing in pre-season he still played like he had shell shock (from the previous brutal season), we would have ran the risk of ruining Ramsey. The best thing for Patrick was to stand on the sidelines and learn how the system works with a veteran running it. Ramsey's mental (and physical) game was broken down so much from the prior season, he needed to be reintroduced slowly...thowing him into a new system and into the fire, yet again, would not have been a wise decision.

Looking back on it, putting Ramsey in did help our offense because let's face it, anything other than Brunell at that point would have sparked the offense. I believe toward the end of the season Ramsey looked comfortable and poised, but he still needs work in his reads and maybe his foot work: hense the reason why Gibbs brought in Musgrave! I believe Patrick Ramsey is our future, but if we would have put him in before he was ready, I honestly don't believe Patrick would have had much of a future. However, this is Patrick's fourth season...he needs to step up this year and prove that he can lead this team successfully.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 08:46 PM   #57
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,237
Re: Musgrave.

Let's not forget, Gibbs changed his offense when Ramsey went in, if Ramsey started the season he would have probably started with the abridged system too.

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers!
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:10 PM   #58
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 36
Posts: 2,519
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Let's not forget, Gibbs changed his offense when Ramsey went in, if Ramsey started the season he would have probably started with the abridged system too.

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers!
I hate to say it but I think that one of the recievers that Ramsey had good chemistry with is now gone.(see Coles) But on the brighter side Ramsey and Cooley did seem to hit it off on the field. And I am pretty sure that Ramsey will build good rapport with the new WR's too!!!1
__________________
"I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor
Redskins8588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:38 PM   #59
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,666
Re: Musgrave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Let's not forget, Gibbs changed his offense when Ramsey went in, if Ramsey started the season he would have probably started with the abridged system too.

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers!
If Brunell had played better, the offense would have opened up more for him like it did Ramsey. The way I see it is like this: Either quarterback had to show Gibbs that they could run the offense in each phase starting from phase one up to wherever it takes them to. Brunell played so bad, that he didn't get past phase one of the offense....in fact, I would imagine Gibbs had to go ultra consevative just to try to get Brunell back on track (as in the movie What About Bob....baby steps!) When Ramsey entered, he played better than Brunell....he was able to do the simple things at phase one. Each week, I noticed a new wrinkle added onto the offense....gradually it appeared that the offense opened up and became less conservative. Ramsey had obviously gotten past phase one, so phase two and so on. That is why I would imagine the offense being "changed." Actually, I wouldn't call it being changed, but being added on to each week as Ramsey gained confidence and Gibbs gained confidence in Ramsey.

Anything that might have resembled an instant change to the offense was Ramsey simply completing passes that Brunell couldn't complete.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2005, 09:52 PM   #60
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Musgrave.

jdlea:

You said the Jags could not run the ball and did not have a good "D" and that's why they missed the playoffs? Better go check the stats. Jags' running was fine with Fred Taylor - not the best in the league but certainly not an embarrassment. The Jags stayed in contention with their defense because Musgrave's offense could not score.



As to the hand-wringing about the starting QBs last year, it was incredibly obvious to me that Joe Gibbs and the staff were not sufficiently impressed with Patrick Ramsey and what they saw on tape of his performances to go with him as the #1 guy and so they had to go out and find a better QB. They went looking and found someone who turned out not to be "better". Hi ho!!

Then came training camp. Brunell was pretty mediocre - at best - but he was better than Ramsey who was bumfuzzled on his best plays. So the staff decided to start Brunell probably figuring that he would work the kinks out during the season. Sadly, that did not happen last year and is unlikely to happen this year.

That's why Brunell started the season and why it took a long time to make the switch to Ramsey. He probably did not overwhelm the staff with his abilities on tape and he stunk out the joint in pre-season and so they probably didn't want to play him at all if they could get away with it. But Brunell's tank was so empty that they had to go to Ramsey at mid-season.

This year is THE acid test for Ramsey. He's been around for a while (4th season) and has had more than a few starts and has had plenty of snaps. He will have been working in this system for 19 months once the season starts. He needs to play at least 50% better than he did at the end of last year or the staff may conclude that he's not going to be an elite QB in the NFL in our lifetimes.

This is the the year that Ramsey has to get it done; I think he has a lot of physical potential from his right shoulder to the finger tips on his right hand; my worry is about his brain.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon 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 10:52 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 0.31595 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