Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Art_Monk_HOF
What I don't understand about the Ramsey apologists is this: How can they say this decision was made quickly? Ramsey has never shown anything. He is entering his 4th year, and he has shown no signs of improvement. He wasn't good for Gibbs last year. He stunk up the joint in preseason, and he was outplayed by Brunell then. Ramsey did nothing to earn the job.
I'm not saying that Brunell is 'the answer' at this point. But, Patrick has done nothing to show that he deserves to be a starting QB in this league.
|
Seems to me that Gibbs felt Ramsey was good enough last year to earn the starting job. He did, after all, name him the starter after seeing him improve over the course of the last few games (some of which were actually victories, believe it or not) last season.
Hmmm... are you questioning Gibbs's judgement? Seems awfully "un-Redskins Fan-like" of you. Maybe you should apologize to all of us for questioning what Gibbs ever saw in Ramsey to make him bench Mark Brunell and-- gasp!-- name Ramsey the 2005 starter. [/sarcasm]
Sorry. That statement was made in light of how ridiculous this "Holy Crusade of the Brunell Backers" has become.
Simply because people disagree with Gibbs's decision to start Brunell doesn't mean they're not Redskins fans. It doesn't mean they're Gibbs-haters or even Brunell-haters. It doesn't make them "Ramsey apologists," either. It simply means they have a different perspective on what's best for this team-- this team that they love and live and die for every bit as much as anyone else on this board.
There are those of us who prefer Brunell's cautious, conservative approach to "game management", and there are those of us who prefer Ramsey's youthful (if unrefined and sometimes ill-advised) aggressiveness. Both players-- because of their respective and numerous flaws-- have lost more games than they've won for this team, and
neither have proven they're 'the answer'.
With the disparity in age of the two quarterbacks in this debate, perhaps the better question is, if Gibbs's decision wasn't made quickly, would it have been made at all?
Perhaps we'll never know.