And the QB debate rages on . . . Part II

[NamVet4]

What are your feelings? Vote and defend your choice!

[PyroGenic]

its not the QB its the line, our line play needs to improve drastically for our offense to be effective.

[Redskinmayhem]

Brunnell is completely inept, inneffective, lifeless, inaccurate, and I really feel that he kills team morale and our willingness to fight eveytime he kills a drive by throwing the ball 10ft over a guys head. The only thing I can say about him is that he knows when to get rid of the ball. For some reason I get the feeling the coaching staff doesn't like Ram. I don't know why but I just feel it. I think they should start Ram for the Bears game. A little while back Gibbs brought his wide open offensive playbook to DC and went 0-5. He readjusted to the smashmouth version of ball we all grew to love and the rest was history.....Well, now in a different time and place another readjustment is needed. Smashmouth obviously isn't working for us. We need to go back to what Gibbs KNOWS how to do. It's time to readjust and spread the field. Ram is the type of QB for that style. In 1991, we didn't exactly have the bruiser RB that Riggins, Riggs, or Rodgers was. What we had was talent at the skill positions and that's what we have now. Ram is a better fit than Brunnell. Period.

Mark, I'm sorry but, you're washed up.

[Redskinmayhem]

its not the QB its the line, our line play needs to improve drastically for our offense to be effective.


Pyro, I disagree. All the qb pressure came from the sides. If Mark was a competent pocket passer, he would've been able to step up in the pocket and go down field. I simply can't believe that Coles and co. can't get open against that D, when Kennison/Morton/and Gonzales can. I understand the running game helps but running and passing go hand in hand.

[PennSkinsFan]

Ramsey. I don't even have a single piece of doubt. The offensive woes are not all attributed to Mark Brunell, but he is completely inept, he is showing his age, and he gets no respect from defenses because he can not earn it. No rosy glasses on here, Brunell sucks, his best days are and have been in Jacksonville.

[28thegreat]

I'm not sure if Ramsey is THE answer, but this offense DEFINITELY needs to be shaken up. Bringing in Rams might just do the trick. We know he can win games given the chance...he threw touchdowns even when he was taking all those massive hits. I have been firmly in the Brunnell camp for all this time, but I think we are as close to desperate as we should get. Not that bringing in Ramsey would be desperate; it might be the smartest thing Gibbs could do.

[PyroGenic]

Pyro, I disagree. All the qb pressure came from the sides. If Mark was a competent pocket passer, he would've been able to step up in the pocket and go down field. I simply can't believe that Coles and co. can't get open against that D, when Kennison/Morton/and Gonzales can. I understand the running game helps but running and passing go hand in hand.

im not talking about just QB play, portis couldnt even get out of the backfield... we need to change our running game scheme, H-Backs arent really working out, just because they stack the line doesnt mean that we shouldnt be able to break through, just need a lead blocker to make the holes. Once our running game gets going our passing game will improve... I also think abandoning the run every game doesnt help Brunell out at all...

[Redskinmayhem]

At the very least, bringing in Ram gives Mark a chance to see things from a different perspective. Maybe Ram doesn't win at Chicago if he starts but then you put in a smarter Brunnell and....no, scratch that, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Mark sucks. Ram will lead us out of this funk.

[Redskinmayhem]

im not talking about just QB play, portis couldnt even get out of the backfield... we need to change our running game scheme, H-Backs arent really working out, just because they stack the line doesnt mean that we shouldnt be able to break through, just need a lead blocker to make the holes. Once our running game gets going our passing game will improve... I also think abandoning the run every game doesnt help Brunell out at all...


Sorry pyro, It's just not logical to think that if your offensive blockers are outnumbered in terms of defensive attackers, that you can still open holes for your RB's. It usually doesn't work that way. Sure, occasionally it works but that's not a consistent running game. They stack 8 or 9 in the box and we're already down one because the QB doesn't block. If a D doesn't respect your passing game, you cannot run consistently.

[PyroGenic]

Sorry pyro, It's just not logical to think that if your offensive blockers are outnumbered in terms of defensive attackers, that you can still open holes for your RB's. It usually doesn't work that way. Sure, occasionally it works but that's not a consistent running game. They stack 8 or 9 in the box and we're already down one because the QB doesn't block. If a D doesn't respect your passing game, you cannot run consistently.

sorry i may be dilerious because im on pain killers but just because a d stacks the line doesnt mean that each side of the line (left to right) is equally guarded, we need to be able to see that and audible to which side we want to run to, not just run Portis into holes that have yet to develop.

[Redskinmayhem]

sorry i may be dilerious because im on pain killers but just because a d stacks the line doesnt mean that each side of the line (left to right) is equally guarded, we need to be able to see that and audible to which side we want to run to, not just run Portis into holes that have yet to develop.


Ok, point made...I agree with you on that one. I guess we need better adjustment at the line.

[RedHokieSkin]

im not talking about just QB play, portis couldnt even get out of the backfield... we need to change our running game scheme, H-Backs arent really working out, just because they stack the line doesnt mean that we shouldnt be able to break through, just need a lead blocker to make the holes. Once our running game gets going our passing game will improve... I also think abandoning the run every game doesnt help Brunell out at all...

You may be right about the scheme of the running game, but I don't think that this removes blame from Brunell. Sure, a good running game opens up the passing game. This happens because the defense has to put extra guys in the box to stop the running game. You said yourself that they were already stacking the line. If this is the case, we should be able to complete some passes.

In that regard, a decent passing game will open up the running game the same way. Since the running game wasn't getting it done, it's up to Brunell to make something happen. Week after week he hasn't stepped up. He has looked scared in the pocket. The analysts broadcasting the game must have said how "uncomfortable" Brunell looked about 15 times...

Many of us (including me) were sold on Brunell at the beginning of the season based on several factors:

1. Veteran leadership
2. Mobility
3. Makes few mistakes

He has not shown leadership. The Ravens analyst on Comcast made this point last night. We don't have a leader on offense. Brunell has tried verbally at times, but his performance on the field hasn't shown it.

His mobility has obviously left him. He can't move any better than Ramsey at this point. He looks like a wounded sloth running around.

He hasn't made many mistakes, I'll give him that. However, you won't make mistakes if you never try to make a play. Of course, you'll never make a play either.

He's lost what he had during his "glory" years in Jacksonville. It's time to sit him down and pay him his wad of money to teach Ramsey the ropes and mold him into the next great QB in the NFL.

[tomlcollins]

Take Brunell out and let him be a mentor (a very $$$ mentor!!) to Ramsey for at least the rest of the year. I'm sure I'll hear some crap for this, but I don't see any way of us making the playoffs this year, so let Ramsey get the experience. I'm not writing off the season, but I think the Skins should salvage what they have and start building towards the future, which Brunell clearly (at least hopefully!) is not a part of.
Last night was painful to watch, I don't know how many more of these I can take....

[RedskinRyan]

it is time for ramsey. i've been hiding my doubts with brunell, but at the same time i still thought he could do it. but he was miserable that game. gibbs has the wrong veteran. he can help ramsey develop, but he can not help us win games. did you guys see how bad brunell played? im tired of seeing him being chased to the outside, and instead of throwing the ball away cause he's out of the pocket, he runs out of bounds for a loss of yards. theismann said brunell wasnt setting his feet cause he didnt feel comfortable, but ramsey will because he's tough as nails. brunell was THROWING DOWNWARD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD. that screams "tip this ball". he underthrew alot of passes, including the INT by sanders, and one ball on third down that just bounced in front of the reciever. he put too much on some throws, like that screen to jacobs.

its time for ramsey. being 1-4, it would take a miracle to make the playoffs, and brunell is not it. not to mention we still have 4 division games left(2 against the iggles). we still have to play pittsburgh, green bay(they always have a chance with brett favre), and minnesota. lets play for next year. david carr, joey harrington, and ramsey are in years 3. carr and harrington are playing MUCH improved. why? playing time. let this be ramsey's second year of real playing time, and maybe next year will be his break out year.

[Redskinmayhem]

Take Brunell out and let him be a mentor (a very $$$ mentor!!) to Ramsey for at least the rest of the year. I'm sure I'll hear some crap for this, but I don't see any way of us making the playoffs this year, so let Ramsey get the experience. I'm not writing off the season, but I think the Skins should salvage what they have and start building towards the future, which Brunell clearly (at least hopefully!) is not a part of.
Last night was painful to watch, I don't know how many more of these I can take....

I pretty much agree, except that I always think we can go undefeated the rest of the season, wether it's 11 games or 1. :Pickle:

[C-7]

Take Brunell out and let him be a mentor (a very $$$ mentor!!) to Ramsey for at least the rest of the year. I'm sure I'll hear some crap for this, but I don't see any way of us making the playoffs this year, so let Ramsey get the experience. I'm not writing off the season, but I think the Skins should salvage what they have and start building towards the future, which Brunell clearly (at least hopefully!) is not a part of.
Last night was painful to watch, I don't know how many more of these I can take....


Unfortunetly I must say that I agree with you. Playoffs seem almost impossible right now. I was of the opinion that Ramsey should have started from day one, over Brunnel. Ramsey is our future, not the over-the-hill Mark Brunnel.

[RedHokieSkin]

sorry i may be dilerious because im on pain killers but just because a d stacks the line doesnt mean that each side of the line (left to right) is equally guarded, we need to be able to see that and audible to which side we want to run to, not just run Portis into holes that have yet to develop.

Sure it does...especially with a good defense. If we were playing the Chiefs or Colts defense, this may be a valid argument. It's all about linebackers and safeties filling the gaps. Just because a defense appears to be more vulnerable on one side of the line, doesn't mean they are. Good defenses know how to fool a QB. Not all the players just run straight ahead at the snap of the ball. They all have assignments and good defenses are going to fill the holes no matter where they occur.

We all know the Ravens are a good defense. If they want to stop the run (against 95% of teams in the NFL), they will do it. I think Portis did reasonably well considering the passing game he had to work with...

[Minnesota Mike]

Leave Brunell in for the next game and use the week off to get Ramsey ready for the start after the week off. Brunell has been a huge disappointment. It probably isn't all his fault, because the O-line is lousy, but there are things he is doing that could help, but he's not doing them.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Well, you all know my stance on the matter.

['SkinsSouth]

Ramsey. I don't even have a single piece of doubt. The offensive woes are not all attributed to Mark Brunell, but he is completely inept, he is showing his age, and he gets no respect from defenses because he can not earn it. No rosy glasses on here, Brunell sucks, his best days are and have been in Jacksonville.


PennSkinsFan--You hit the nail on the head (what I highlighted in bold)! I was telling my brother the same, exact thing last night.... If, you noticed, each and every week, teams are becoming more disrespectful to Brunell.... They are consistently creeping and basically, keeping 7-to-8 players in the box each week.... I hope Gibbs isn't too stubborn to see that this team needs a shakeup and maybe, Ramsey could be it.... As, someone said in this thread--"The only thing Brunell does well is throw the ball away." You have to agree with that assessment.... Ramsey is supposedly the future, so why not play him next week!?! Hell! The season is almost lost at this point.... So, go with the younger guy.

[RedHokieSkin]

....As, someone said in this thread--"The only thing Brunell does well is throw the ball away." You have to agree with that assessment....

Actually, I have to disagree with that assessment. I don't even think he is doing that well. There are so many instances where he runs out of bounds for a loss rather than trying to throw it away. ;)

[skins74]

Ramsey makes plays, many good, some bad. Brunell doesn't really make anything happen. We need someone who will try to make something happen and Brunell's wind up is killing us, could he take any longer to throw? I have seen brilliance in Ramsey at times and I know if given time he can throw the ball and even run for the first down and the O line has been okay at pass protection its run blocking that they suck at. Final Word: Ramsey will throw deep and make some plays, this will open up the running game enough for us to win the remaining games.

[techskinsfan]

I voted the second choice, but just because ram needs a whole two weeks with the first string. Win or lose they will probably be sorry on o next week again. Or maybe the bears is a good game for ramsey to see some time too. I am not sure, i would prefer for him to come in after the bye. The o's struggle is not all brunell, BUT, Gibbs running game WILL open up once they have a deep threat at qb. Ramsey can rocket the ball and put it on a reciever, brunell can get the ball down field, after it floats in the air for 5 minutes. WE WANT RAMSEY

[NCskinsfanatic]

Out of the 2 options i went with the 2nd, for the millionth time until this line plays noticebly better we will not have a running game or an effective QB. It can be done Brunell is no worse than Garcia in the arm strength category yet the Browns have won despite some questionable performances by him and his arm. Brunell looks bad b/c very few of us watch the breakdowns along the line or factor inm the lack of a running game, we have the same problems we had lastyears. Difference is instead of blaming the qb,(who did hold the ball too long) we blamed the line, no RB and then the coach.

[frenchskinsfan]

No need to think about the consequences. At this time of the season, Gibbs and team must push the "why not" button. Ramsey didn't play well on PS ? Brunell has a heavy contract ? Brunell is a "safe" player ? Ramsey is a risky player ? we're 1-4 ? starting Ramsey against the Bears ? Why not ?

[SkinsGuru]

One of the biggest problems I think they are having is having a left handed QB. Brunell's blind side is the weak side of our o-line. That being said he is constantly looking over his should at the weak side pass rush . . . when you do that you don't see the field very well and you miss open receivers. If we start Ramsey, at least his blind side is the strengh of the o-line and maybe he can worry about looking for receivers instead of watching his back.

[hockeygoalie29]

After watching the game from section 440, row 24 (six from the top, gives me a great view of the entire field), this is what I have to say:

-Brunell held the ball way too long. Several times last night I saw him drop back and wait...and wait...and wait. For what I don't know because there were several times that one of our guys had a step on the defender and he wouldn't get it to him.

-Brunell refuses to throw long. Maybe it's Gibbs telling him not to, but I don't think so. I saw him look downfield several times, but throw it beyond ten yards one time. One time. And it was intercepted because he badly underthrew the reciever. Not that it would have mattered anyway because by the time his floater got there the defenders had caught up.

-Brunell, hailed for his accuracy, is not accurate. Wheather it be a skipping pass off the ground or a pass going over a recievers head, or him flat out missing guys, he just wasn't accurate. How else do you explain 13 of 29? 83 yards!!!! You can't blame it on dropped passes this week (although Coles did drop 2, but that's all I saw). To be honest, I'm very suprised the Ravens only managed one pick.

-Brunell, hailed for his good decison making, does not make good decisions. In fact, he is downright indecisive. Not throwing to open recievers, running out of bounds for a 2 yard loss, etc.

-Brunell can not lead this team. A leader, a true leader, leads his team in the fourth quarter when you are down by 7. He didn't. When you play the same way in the fourth quarter, down a touchdown, as you do with a 10 point lead, that shows me no heart. At that point, with only a few minutes left in the game, short, conservitive passes won't cut it. You have to go for it. He didn't.


Brunell has been a major disapointment this season. I was pissed when he was signed because I thought it would keep Ramsey on the bench for 2 or 3 years. Now I'm pissed because Brunell has cost us big time this season. It's time for Ramsey to step up and step in the game. We know he's a leader, he earned a hell of a lot of respect last season. We know he plays to win. We know he has the heart to continue fighting for the win with only 5 minutes left in the game. We know he will throw the ball more than 10 yards down the field. He may not be quite ready yet, but he is better than the alternative.

[KingButz]

Will Joe Gibbs bench the man who took him to the hospital when he needed medical attention? I don't know Coach Gibbs outside of his coaching record, but if he's loyal to veteran QBs, just imagine how loyal he'd be to someone who helped him on such a personal level.

Just a thought...

[hockeygoalie29]

I know a few old time QB's that can answer that question, from the bench!

[d151b]

Brunell has got to go. I remember a wise man once said.... if it looks like a rat.... and it smells like a rat...

[Jimreaper007]

The rat in this case has a weak arm and can only see one side of the field.

Ramsey will have a rough start, but he will do MORE GOOD than captain throw-away.

Brunell would be a bigger help telling Patrick what he sees in the defenses


GIVE RAMSEY THE BALL YESTERDAY....Let him get some timing over the bye with the Wr's.

[hockeygoalie29]

Brunell would be a bigger help telling Patrick what he sees in the defenses

Brunell: "Alright Patrick, it's 3rd and 8, I see two guys wide open down the field, better throw it to Rasby for a 2 yard gain, or better yet, throw it away, we don't want an interception do we?"

[chad101]

Hassleback and have Gibbs turn over the offense to someone else.

[bgforever]

If Joe Gibbs and Don Breaux can't see this, then time has passed them by. The game is QUICKER, defenses are not only stronger, but quicker, and we were in EVERY game so far!

Simply because OUR DEFENSE RULES!

Our offense sucks and Joe Gibbs needs to suck it up and start Ramsey. here's why.

20-21 pga when in there. Averages more first downs, and completed downfield passes.

Ramsey's int ratio is actually low compared to his overall TD rate!

Ramsey has taller presence and range of sight , yes that 1 inch means a lot.

Ramsey has a smoother exchange with RB's and releases quicker on open receivers, hitting them on break (perfect).

Ramsey would have the Chicago game under his belt, and a bye week extra to get more intense time with the 1st team offense, which needs to step it upi.


I know Joe Gibbs is a great man and all, but as a fan I still lay out my opinion.
If you start Brunell, I would say you're just yanking our chain if we look at this same game plan each week. It looks the same to me and if it aint, then maybe coach, YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[skinsholein1]

this team needs a huge spark.. It is time to let Ramsey prove himself or fail trying .

[whistleandthumb]

Put Ramsey in NOW. And here's the simple, cut & dry argument:



He certainly can't do any worse than Brunell is right now. And that's a fact. Ramsey could go out there and throw 15 interceptions a game, but if he's throwing the ball downfield, he's already doing more than Brunell is.

Acquiring Brunell may be the most financial disaster this team has ever been a part of. Deion, included.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Brunell: "Alright Patrick, it's 3rd and 8, I see two guys wide open down the field, better throw it to Rasby for a 2 yard gain, or better yet, throw it away, we don't want an interception do we?"

*round of applause*

[akhhorus]

BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS

[RedskinRyan]

yeah, there's a nice little spot for him to bang his head along the wall. i'd almost rather have heath shuler or shane matthews than brunell.

[Ramsey2Moss]

Take Brunell out and let him be a mentor (a very $$$ mentor!!) to Ramsey for at least the rest of the year. I'm sure I'll hear some crap for this, but I don't see any way of us making the playoffs this year, so let Ramsey get the experience. I'm not writing off the season, but I think the Skins should salvage what they have and start building towards the future, which Brunell clearly (at least hopefully!) is not a part of.
Last night was painful to watch, I don't know how many more of these I can take....
I agree 100%. Put in Ramsey and if he progresses as the year goes on then we keep him and decide what to do with Brunell. If not, we draft a QB in the first three rounds (two guys came to mind immediately that I would love for us to have, Kyle Orton from Purdue and Aaron Rodgers from California) and let Gibbs & Co train them. But let me just say this, if Gregg Williams leaves next year to go coach a team like Miami, we're screwed. There goes that #1 defense.

[Minnesota Mike]

BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS
BRING BACK GUS


You'll have to pry him from Daunte's cold dead small hands.

[dabro]

We're losing with Brunell. We might lose with Ram, too, but at least he'll be getting game exprerience. At least Ram has an up side, unlike Brunell.

[hail2skins]

Gibbs was just interviewed on channel 4 news and George Michaels asked the question of do you change your QB because that's all the fans are talking about. Gibbs gave a quick and stern NO.

He said if thought the only problem was the QB, he'd have no problem sitting him and Mark would understand that. He said our problem is everyone on offense including himself. There are too many mental mistakes still be made on the field regarding the line and other players.

[Chief Seeway]

Gibbs was just interviewed on channel 4 news and George Michaels asked the question of do you change your QB because that's all the fans are talking about. Gibbs gave a quick and stern NO.

He said if thought the only problem was the QB, he'd have no problem sitting him and Mark would understand that. He said our problem is everyone on offense including himself. There are too many mental mistakes still be made on the field regarding the line and other players.

Unfortunately this is falling on def ears.

[hail2skins]

Unfortunately this is falling on def ears.

Agreed. People are not looking at the whole aspect of the game.

To me this is the only game where Brunell really played bad. Bad throws and some errant throws. He's rolling out of the pocket and the running back can't make his block (from the blind side mind you).

[SkinsD]

See how Brunell does against da bears (I could throw for 100 yards against them)... if it is another poor showing we have to start Ramsey. There is absolutely no reason in starting a veteran while we lose games. Might as well lose as Ramsey is learning.

[techskinsfan]

If Ram doesnt break his foot last year, gets a whole year of exp(= 1 1/2 years game exp.), is gibbs so adimant to get a backup like Brunell right away, and is more patient, and finds maybe a Kerry Collins or Jeff Garcia for MUCH less?

Lets be honest, Ram lit it up at the beginning of the year. Until people figured out to just blitz him to death and the O-line completely fell to shambles, he did quite well i thought, and this should still be his job

Thoughts??

[hail2skins]

See how Brunell does against da bears (I could throw for 100 yards against them)... if it is another poor showing we have to start Ramsey. There is absolutely no reason in starting a veteran while we lose games. Might as well lose as Ramsey is learning.

Yeah, people made the same type of comments in ref to the Browns. You don't underestimate any team in the NFL.

[hail2skins]

Why isn't this in the QB thread?

[hail2skins]

Threads merged.

[techskinsfan]

If Ram doesnt break his foot last year, gets a whole year of exp(= 1 1/2 years game exp.), is gibbs so adimant to get a backup like Brunell right away, and is more patient, and finds maybe a Kerry Collins or Jeff Garcia for MUCH less?

Lets be honest, Ram lit it up at the beginning of the year. Until people figured out to just blitz him to death and the O-line completely fell to shambles, he did quite well i thought, and this should still be his job

Thoughts??
Tried to start a thread on this but i guess yall deleted it?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

My fear is that Brunell will have a decent game against the Bears. Just decent enough to reinforce Gibbs' confidence in him. Apparently, Gibbs has no
confidence in Ramsey...that being the case, he might as well have traded him.
I'm seriously starting to question Gibbs..and I feel terrible about it.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

My fear is that Brunell will have a decent game against the Bears. Just decent enough to reinforce Gibbs' confidence in him.

Honestly, that's what I'm worried about, too.

[rskinsfan10]

Wow, "fearful" and "worried" that the starting QB will have a good game, because you would rather have your favorite guy in instead. I guess if he had a good game, then maybe, just maybe, that would mean that the entire offense was starting to come around, but we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?

I've truly heard it all now. I thought you rooted for whoever the coach decided to go with, not who you personally want to see play.

[Meatsnack]

From todays Washington Post online Q&A with Wilbon:

"Michael Wilbon: I loved Mark Brunnell at Jacksonville. Loved him. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But that guy ain't this guy. He's nowhere close. Have you seen how many passes he threw at the feet of his receivers? I've talked to enough defensive players from Cleveland, the Giants and the Ravens to believe what they tell me off the record, which is that the quarterback is struggling. Badly."

Ramsey is better today, the Giants game notwithstanding, and has a high ceiling. Better to go out in a blaze than to die by inches. I would venture to say that if he can't "get it" then it is a coaching failure, given that we know P. Ram is smart, tough, and motivated. Of course, if Ramsey cannot execute the Gibbs offense by seasons end, I reserve the right to whine that we draft a QB. :helpme:

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Wow, "fearful" and "worried" that the starting QB will have a good game, because you would rather have your favorite guy in instead. I guess if he had a good game, then maybe, just maybe, that would mean that the entire offense was starting to come around, but we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?

I've truly heard it all now. I thought you rooted for whoever the coach decided to go with, not who you personally want to see play.
This has nothing to do with my feelings towards Ramsey. You don't think that I want to win as badly as you do? I could care less who starts..as long as they are getting the job done.

[rskinsfan10]

This has nothing to do with my feelings towards Ramsey. You don't think that I want to win as badly as you do? I could care less who starts..as long as they are getting the job done.

Then exactly what is there to be "fearful" of?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Then exactly what is there to be "fearful" of?

There is nothing to be fearful of if you believe that Brunell is the man to lead us.

[Ramsey2Moss]

From todays Washington Post online Q&A with Wilbon:

"Michael Wilbon: I loved Mark Brunnell at Jacksonville. Loved him. He was a poor man's Steve Young. But that guy ain't this guy. He's nowhere close. Have you seen how many passes he threw at the feet of his receivers? I've talked to enough defensive players from Cleveland, the Giants and the Ravens to believe what they tell me off the record, which is that the quarterback is struggling. Badly."

Ramsey is better today, the Giants game notwithstanding, and has a high ceiling. Better to go out in a blaze than to die by inches. I would venture to say that if he can't "get it" then it is a coaching failure, given that we know P. Ram is smart, tough, and motivated. Of course, if Ramsey cannot execute the Gibbs offense by seasons end, I reserve the right to whine that we draft a QB. :helpme:

Wow, I agree with Wilbon 100%. Ramsey is the QB for us, and if he can't succeed maybe it's time Matt Leinart's name gets called on draft day for the Washington Redskins.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Wow, "fearful" and "worried" that the starting QB will have a good game, because you would rather have your favorite guy in instead. I guess if he had a good game, then maybe, just maybe, that would mean that the entire offense was starting to come around, but we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?

I've truly heard it all now. I thought you rooted for whoever the coach decided to go with, not who you personally want to see play.

Well, to be more precise, Kenny, we're fearful and worried that Brunell will look just good enough in Chicago to keep his job over the bye, then start for a few weeks after it and lose those games.

[War Hogg]

All of this Brunell bashing is unneccassary.....Has anyone noticed that all the solid players on offense are not playing to thier known potential.....Brunell has the stats to prove his worthiness, so does Coles, So does Portis.....Its the Offensive scheme...

You all should read my "Sure Fire steps to win our next 8 games".

[whitskins]

Guys maybe this isn't the case at all but I have to think that Ramsey is also playing like crap in practice to not get a sniff at this point. I don't think it's a matter of Gibbs being in love with Brunell, I just get the sense that he's pretty low on Rams.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

*clears throat*

Well, I'll be damned, fellas! Favre's already thrown three picks in this Monday Night game and it's not even over yet! Time to shelve the gunslinger and bring in the backup to throw to the tight end a dozen times a game, wouldn't ya say?

Three picks! Hall of Fame talk for this joker?

[Gump84]

I'd just like to point out for you Patrick Ramsey haters that Brett Farve tonight has thrown 3 interceptions and 1 TD in a 25 minute period of time. Bet you don't think he is a horrible QB after ONE BAD GAME.

[War Hogg]

I'd just like to point out for you Patrick Ramsey haters that Brett Farve tonight has thrown 3 interceptions and 1 TD in a 25 minute period of time. Bet you don't think he is a horrible QB after ONE BAD GAME.

Brett Farve throws bad passes consistantly, and he could not help us right now.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Brett Farve throws bad passes consistantly, and he could not help us right now.

Brett Favre could not help us right now? I'm sorry, but could you please explain yourself?

[lamskins]

brunell is the second coming of 'hoss', an over the hill veteran who strikes no fear in defensive coordinators with his arm. I say let's play ramsey, if he proves to be shuler, ie can't figure out what he is supposed to do, then we will play that scrappy husband of a tv talk show.

if we don't move now, the defense is going to get discouraged and mail in the rest of the season much like they did in the 2nd half of last year.

[War Hogg]

Brett Favre could not help us right now? I'm sorry, but could you please explain yourself?

Better yet, tell me how he would help this team in the current offense......Better yet......tell me how Brett can help HIS team win tonight and why he's not the direct reason for thier loss.....

How many picks is that 5, yeah thats what we need!......

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Better yet, tell me how he would help this team in the current offense......Better yet......tell me how Brett can help HIS team win tonight and why he's not the direct reason for thier loss.....

How many picks is that 5, yeah thats what we need!......

Wow.




I'm in utter astonishment. Absolute. Utter. Astonishment.

[War Hogg]

Wow.




I'm in utter astonishment. Absolute. Utter. Astonishment.

You pop up in the thread and ask questions but have no anwers or suggestions. What would Brett do for us right now.....block for portis.....?play special teams.....? Sit in the replay booth.....? Scramble out of the pocket?

Gun slinging is not the answer to every offensive woe. Thats how you get blow out like Green Bay just did.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

You pop up in the thread and ask questions but have no anwers or suggestions. What would Brett do for us right now.....block for portis.....?play special teams.....? Sit in the replay booth.....? Scramble out of the pocket?

Gun slinging is not the answer to every offensive woe. Thats how you get blow out like Green Bay just did.

I pop up in the thread and ask questions? You've asked far more than me, my friend. I asked you to explain how you could possibly think that Mark Brunell is a better quarterback than Brett Favre. So far, you haven't, you've only asked questions in return. Which one of us did you say had no answers?

Offensive woes? I'm sorry, who in God's name said Green Bay had offensive woes? There's nothing wrong with their offense, and there's nothing wrong with Brett Favre. Their defense is how they got blown out tonight. If you think otherwise, you obviously didn't watch Tennessee toy with them the entire first half.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I hope I'm wrong..but I get the feeling that even with a loss at Chicago,
Gibbs will give Brunell at least 2 more games after the bye week.

[Jimreaper007]

Gibbs says he is sticking with Brunell...

This seems to be a pride thing because I know Gibbs watches film.

You cannot tell me that he and the coaching staff can't see that Brunell cannot make all the throws required of an NFL caliber QB.

Brunell must be a sweet talker supreme or all the coaches watch film like Stevie Wonder.

I cannot explain why he is sticking with Brunell

[techskinsfan]

"Somebody was joking, after Miami lost Jay Fiedler (ribs) and A.J. Feeley (concussion) to injuries, that the Dolphins ought to maybe give the other guy, (Sage) Rosenfels, a chance. I don't think it's a joke. The guy is a decent athlete and he can't be any worse than what they're putting on the field right now."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1899188

Is Sage better than Hasselback. Thanks Spurrs for his departure.

[techskinsfan]

Sorry that is kinda off topic, but the offensive is so terrible right now its hard not to think about everything possible that could or coulda fixed this. Just ran over this and thought bout it. Put Sage right there with # 48's departure to thank spurrier for. Just wondering

[IllinoiSkinFan]

Wow we have a bunch of QB discussion threads dont we?

BTW I vote to keep him in until Gibbs takes him out. :moon1:

[Skin-E-Dip]

With the choices being Ramsey or Brunnell, I think we should be the first NFL team ever to run a no QB offense. We can line up Portis and Tom Tupa in the backfield. Teams won't know if we are going to run, punt, or fake punt. Mix in a few reverses and triple options and we will make defense coordinators heads explode. I see 60 points a game.

[LATrueRedskin]

It's one more shot with Brunell. It's not all his fault, but he definately isn't helping out the situation throwing like he did against the Ravens (granted they're a quality defense). If he can't get it going against the Bears, then let Pat take his shot and start practice during the bye week.

[lakewinola]

The New Brunell Line for the week:

34 NFL Qb's have attempted an average of 14 passes per game. Of that 34 Brunell ranks:

33rd in completion %
33rd in yards per attempt
24th in touchdown %
26th in QB rating

[BIGSEF3]

this may be stupid, but does anyone think it would be "worthwhile" to start a petitition to have Ramsey start?

[Spence]

Depends on what you mean by "worthwhile." If you mean that it would be a nice way to kill a few hours, that's your prerogative. If you mean that it might have some effect on the decisionmaking of Joe Jackson Gibbs, I'd advise you not to waste your time.

[lrking75]

I told everyone before the season started that Brunell was a bad pick up and Ramsey should be the starter. 90% of you disagreed. NOW 90% of you agree with me..

[RoanokeSkin]

I told everyone before the season started that Brunell was a bad pick up and Ramsey should be the starter. 90% of you disagreed. NOW 90% of you agree with me..


You were barely a member before the season started. It is a little premature for the I told you so thing isnt it.

[rskinsfan10]

*clears throat*

Well, I'll be damned, fellas! Favre's already thrown three picks in this Monday Night game and it's not even over yet! Time to shelve the gunslinger and bring in the backup to throw to the tight end a dozen times a game, wouldn't ya say?

Three picks! Hall of Fame talk for this joker?

So I guess chucking it down the field doesn't equal instant success as you would like some of us to believe. That's what I gathered from that.

[NCskinsfanatic]

Enxactly Kenny, by the Titans stacking the line against the run and shutting down Green they made the "strong armed" Farve look like Ryan Leaf. But it probably just means that Farve's washed up and cant beat D's down the field. Of course it would have nothing to do with his O line not opening holes for Green or picking up blitzers.

[rskinsfan10]

Well, to be more precise, Kenny, we're fearful and worried that Brunell will look just good enough in Chicago to keep his job over the bye, then start for a few weeks after it and lose those games.

McCants is my 2nd favorite player on the team behind LaVar. I don't find myself "worried" or "fearful" that Gardner will have a good game because I want to see #85. I want whoever the coach decides to go with to be successful and to put up monster stats.

[BandWagon]

Give him one more start than use the bye week to get Ramsey back up to speed. Taking 10% of the snaps in practice probably isn't going to help us that much. He needs 90% for 2 weeks.

[funnyperson1]

Bring in Hasselbeck ;)

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

McCants is my 2nd favorite player on the team behind LaVar. I don't find myself "worried" or "fearful" that Gardner will have a good game because I want to see #85. I want whoever the coach decides to go with to be successful and to put up monster stats.
I couldn't agree with you more..but if we lose this next game, would you be
willing to entertain the notion of starting Ramsey?

[rskinsfan10]

I couldn't agree with you more..but if we lose this next game, would you be
willing to entertain the notion of starting Ramsey?

Only if I see major progression in the entire offense from everyone other the Brunell.

My deal with Ramsey is this. The notion originally was he needed to sit back and observe for at least a year how a vet handles everything that comes with playing the position, on and off the field. If Brunell is out there doing things that aren't acceptable, then Ramsey needs to sit back and observe what went wrong and, hopefully, how Brunell was able to correct those wrongdoings. It can only make him a better QB. As much as people like to place the blame on the things that Ramsey did wrong with Spurrier (Krusty) at the helm, I will credit Krusty with not starting him initially. He only put Ramsey in when he had no choice because of injury. IMHO, Ramsey would be much better off if he never took a snap while Krusty was the coach. History shows that QBs do much better when they sit and watch, rather being thrust into the hotseat quickly.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

So I guess chucking it down the field doesn't equal instant success as you would like some of us to believe. That's what I gathered from that.

Because, it's not like the Packers scored 28 points or anything. That number would have won every single one of our games, but, hey, scoring 10 points might excite some people.

I'll also point out that it was quite obviously the Packers' defense, not offense, that won that game. I'll also also point out that Brett Favre is going to have a bust in the Hall of Fame because of that gunslinger mentality. But, hey, I've already run into one person who thinks Brunell is better than Favre, maybe there are more out there....

[JoeDaSchmoe]

McCants is my 2nd favorite player on the team behind LaVar. I don't find myself "worried" or "fearful" that Gardner will have a good game because I want to see #85. I want whoever the coach decides to go with to be successful and to put up monster stats.

I want Brunell to be successful and put up monster stats. Thing is, he's not. What I'm worried about is that he won't be very successful or put up monster stats, he'll do what he's been doing all along, but the Bears will be just inept enough to make him look, oh, merely below average.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I want Brunell to be successful and put up monster stats. Thing is, he's not. What I'm worried about is that he won't be very successful or put up monster stats, he'll do what he's been doing all along, but the Bears will be just inept enough to make him look, oh, merely below average.
I agree with you Joe. I just wish that Brunell was held to the same
standards that Ramsey is.To be honest, many of the weaknesses
that Ramsey is accused of having, Brunell seems to possesse as well.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Only if I see major progression in the entire offense from everyone other the Brunell.

My deal with Ramsey is this. The notion originally was he needed to sit back and observe for at least a year how a vet handles everything that comes with playing the position, on and off the field. If Brunell is out there doing things that aren't acceptable, then Ramsey needs to sit back and observe what went wrong and, hopefully, how Brunell was able to correct those wrongdoings. It can only make him a better QB. As much as people like to place the blame on the things that Ramsey did wrong with Spurrier (Krusty) at the helm, I will credit Krusty with not starting him initially. He only put Ramsey in when he had no choice because of injury. IMHO, Ramsey would be much better off if he never took a snap while Krusty was the coach. History shows that QBs do much better when they sit and watch, rather being thrust into the hotseat quickly.
You made some valid points.

[IndianBaller27]

Start Patrick before I get REALLY pissed at Brunell

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Start Patrick before I get REALLY pissed at Brunell
lol..i'm way past being pissed..but Gibbs' knows best. I hope....

[RedskinRyan]

the fact is, ramsey still needs some playing time. carson palmer isnt exactly off to a great start. in their 2nd year playing, harrington and carr started to really show their skills, and they are breaking out this year, especially carr. ramsey didnt get as much playing time, so his first 2 years prolly only count as 1. start him this year, and i think next year he could be a real weapon.

[Jimskin]

Brunell is averaging only 5.6 yards per completion...WORST in the NFC and has completed only two passes for 30 yards! If he dosen't turn around against Chicago and we play him after the bye week, I'll know that it's because of the money and Joe wanting to save face with Snyder for recruiting him. Joe said that he would play the better player without considering the contracts. Here's our first test.

[rskinsfan10]

Because, it's not like the Packers scored 28 points or anything. That number would have won every single one of our games, but, hey, scoring 10 points might excite some people.

I'll also point out that it was quite obviously the Packers' defense, not offense, that won that game. I'll also also point out that Brett Favre is going to have a bust in the Hall of Fame because of that gunslinger mentality. But, hey, I've already run into one person who thinks Brunell is better than Favre, maybe there are more out there....

Who said that Brunell was better the Favre Joe? I remember someone saying that Favre couldn't help us right now, but when did he say that Brunell was better?

[ShaggySkins]

The problems on this team run MUCH deeper then Brunell vrs. Ramsey. If Ramsey were to come in this offense wouldn't suddenly be scoring 24 points a game. Despite what many of u feel it wouldn't. The play calling has been shaky at best, the mental errors have been overwhelming and the blocking has been as bad as last season. We are having countless dropped passes, fumbles, and missed assignments. You aren't going to win games that way. You could put Vick, Mcnabb, Culpepper, Manning or whomever back there that you would wish but if the play calling doesn't improve and people don't pick up blitzes this offense will continue to play poorly.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Who said that Brunell was better the Favre Joe? I remember someone saying that Favre couldn't help us right now, but when did he say that Brunell was better?

If you say that Brett Favre could not do anything to help this offense, that's saying that he's no better than Mark Brunell. That's a travesty.

The problems on this team run MUCH deeper then Brunell vrs. Ramsey. If Ramsey were to come in this offense wouldn't suddenly be scoring 24 points a game. Despite what many of u feel it wouldn't. The play calling has been shaky at best, the mental errors have been overwhelming and the blocking has been as bad as last season. We are having countless dropped passes, fumbles, and missed assignments. You aren't going to win games that way. You could put Vick, Mcnabb, Culpepper, Manning or whomever back there that you would wish but if the play calling doesn't improve and people don't pick up blitzes this offense will continue to play poorly.

I disagree. The problem is more than simply Brunell vs. Ramsey, yes, but I'm very confident that if Ramsey were playing, the offense would be scoring at least 24 points a game. And the main detriment his detractors are pointing to, his interceptions, not only would not be as common as they were against the Giants (any career stat you find will back that up), but they are also somewhat negated by our staunch defense, as evidenced by the 0 points New York scored in the second half.

Here's a stat from that Giants game besides the interceptions everyone wants to bring up: Ramsey gained 2.7 more yards per attempt than Brunell. That's against the same defense in the same game. That's the difference between ranking 33rd in the league (Brunell) and 3rd in the league (which is where Ramsey's number would put him).

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

If Brunell struggles against the Bears..does anyone think that Ramsey will be starting after the bye? Because I'm starting to have my doubts.

[Redblood]

I was against the Brunell trade, and I like it less now, but if you were able to put Brunell's head on Ram's body..................

[dj_stouty]

Here's a stat from that Giants game besides the interceptions everyone wants to bring up: Ramsey gained 2.7 more yards per attempt than Brunell. That's against the same defense in the same game. That's the difference between ranking 33rd in the league (Brunell) and 3rd in the league (which is where Ramsey's number would put him).

Ramsey's ypa average was better than Brunell's becuase Gardner made a 51-yard hall-of-fame catch on a Ramsey overthrown ball. (Ironic how he catches the near-impossible ones but can't hold onto the ones in his numbers)

I'm not suggesting we "subtract" that completion, like many of the media are doing on Portis' rushing average, but it is something to ponder. No catch = identical yards per attempt.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Ramsey's ypa average was better than Brunell's becuase Gardner made a 51-yard hall-of-fame catch on a Ramsey overthrown ball. (Ironic how he catches the near-impossible ones but can't hold onto the ones in his numbers)

I'm not suggesting we "subtract" that completion, like many of the media are doing on Portis' rushing average, but it is something to ponder. No catch = identical yards per attempt.
It's unlikely that Brunell could have even made that throw.

[Keino]

Ramsey's ypa average was better than Brunell's becuase Gardner made a 51-yard hall-of-fame catch on a Ramsey overthrown ball. (Ironic how he catches the near-impossible ones but can't hold onto the ones in his numbers)

I'm not suggesting we "subtract" that completion, like many of the media are doing on Portis' rushing average, but it is something to ponder. No catch = identical yards per attempt.

I don't see you subtracting the Completion any more than Joe is trying to suibtract the INT's. You have to look at the whole picture, and frankly I'd rather have the worst YPA with no INT's than the 3rd best with 3 INT's. You cannot win a single game in the NFL throwing 3 INT's.........

[dj_stouty]

It's unlikely that Brunell could have even made that throw.

Possibly...but I did witness Brunell throw a 49-yard toss to Gardner at the end of the Dallas game. That throw vs. Dallas looked more "on target" than the one Ramsey threw to Gardner vs. the Giants.

[Keino]

It's unlikely that Brunell could have even made that throw.


Interesting...I saw him complete a few passes like that the very next week on Monday night. The ball that Deion Picked off was a very deep throw and Deion made one helluva play to pick that ball off.......

[dj_stouty]

Joe - Do you really think it is fair to compare a QB with 18 passing attempts to one that has 146 passing attempts? Only 18 attempts! And then you go on to say that Ramsey's yards per attempt would put him at the top 3 in the league. That is about as fair as saying Ramsey's Interception per attempt in 2004 (1 INT for every SIX passing attempts) would translate over the course of the season.

Ironically, in that Giants game, Ramsey was 9 for 18 (50%) and Brunell was 10 for 18 (55.6%). Should we also assume Ram will throw for no better than 50% if he were the starter?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Interesting...I saw him complete a few passes like that the very next week on Monday night. The ball that Deion Picked off was a very deep throw and Deion made one helluva play to pick that ball off.......
To throw deep Brunell has to put a tremendous amount of air under his balls.
He has a weak arm..i said it and i'll stand by it. And Deion's int was caused by Brunell underthrowing the pass. Coles was open briefly but the pass was in the air forever.

[Keino]

To throw deep Brunell has to put a tremendous amount of air under his balls.
He has a weak arm..i said it and i'll stand by it. And Deion's int was caused by Brunell underthrowing the pass. Coles was open briefly but the pass was in the air forever.
Seeing how it happened right in front of me, I can tell you that the ball was perfectly thrown had there not been doule coverage, it was easily a TD. Deion made a great play. What about the Dallas Completions?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Seeing how it happened right in front of me, I can tell you that the ball was perfectly thrown had there not been doule coverage, it was easily a TD. Deion made a great play. What about the Dallas Completions? As I previously stated.."To throw deep BRUNELL needs to put a tremendous amount of air under the ball..thus leaving him vulnerable to
INTS. And yes, the dallas game still be bears out my statement. He
threw beach balls which Gardner made plays on.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I don't see you subtracting the Completion any more than Joe is trying to suibtract the INT's. You have to look at the whole picture, and frankly I'd rather have the worst YPA with no INT's than the 3rd best with 3 INT's. You cannot win a single game in the NFL throwing 3 INT's.........

Once again, I call BS. Kyle Boller did just last week. So did Marc Bulger. Vinny did it against Cleveland. That's not to say throwing INTs is good, obviously, only that once again there is too much importance placed on them. Did Ramsey win his half against the Giants or not? The Redskins scored 7 points. The Giants scored 0. Interceptions are not the be-all and end-all of quarterbacks.

Joe - Do you really think it is fair to compare a QB with 18 passing attempts to one that has 146 passing attempts? Only 18 attempts! And then you go on to say that Ramsey's yards per attempt would put him at the top 3 in the league. That is about as fair as saying Ramsey's Interception per attempt in 2004 (1 INT for every SIX passing attempts) would translate over the course of the season.

Ironically, in that Giants game, Ramsey was 9 for 18 (50%) and Brunell was 10 for 18 (55.6%). Should we also assume Ram will throw for no better than 50% if he were the starter?

DJ, I was not comparing 18 attempts to 146 attempts. I was comparing 18 attempts to 18 attempts. Those numbers were purely Brunell in the Giants game vs. Ramsey in the Giants game. I am not extrapolating them over a season. I am not comparing Brunell's overall average to Ramsey's from one game. I am pointing to the stat as evidence that Ramsey can move the ball better than Brunell can. Nothing more.

As for that long throw to Gardner, yes, it was a great catch. Perhaps Gardner would have made another one had Brunell even attempted a long throw?

Seeing how it happened right in front of me, I can tell you that the ball was perfectly thrown had there not been doule coverage, it was easily a TD. Deion made a great play. What about the Dallas Completions?

They were against a soft prevent defense. That's not to say I'm dismissing them entirely; they were still good throws. But they made Brunell look like a decent NFL quarterback for about five minutes out of the 270 he has played. Sputtering for three quarters and gradually putting things together for one does not make Brunell a good QB.

[Keino]

Joe there are 2 halves to Football. IDGAF if he won his half or not, we lost the game, largley due to his Strong Arm but poor decision making. Sheesh on 2 of the INT's I didn't even see a Redskins player near the play, so Im calling BS to your call of BS. Bulger is in a Passing offense, Kyle Boller didn't win his team a damn thing and am appaulled that you wold give him any credit. Furthermore, those respective Teams WON the turnover battle. Our defense doesn't create turnovers, so we can ill afford for our offense to be turning them over.

Joe whjat you refuse to acknowledge is thatPatrick has had his chances and has done poorly with them. His bets performance was against ATL in preseason and here are his numbers 11/21 for 81 and 0 interceptions. After being told that he would enter the season as the #2 QB ie no pressure of competeing for the job.

Ramsey holds the ball like Drew Bledsoe and forces things like Brett Favre without the playmaking ability or moxy of Brett. Thats not what a team that is self destructing every week needs to lead the team to vicotry.

I stand by Gibbs. Im sorry you missed his first go round, but he's trustworthy. He sees them both everyday in practice and has forgotten more football than either of us will ever know.........

[openallnight]

By reading this thread you'd think we had a QB controversy brewing :imshock:

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Joe there are 2 halves to Football. IDGAF if he won his half or not, we lost the game, largley due to his Strong Arm but poor decision making. Sheesh on 2 of the INT's I didn't even see a Redskins player near the play, so Im calling BS to your call of BS. Bulger is in a Passing offense, Kyle Boller didn't win his team a damn thing and am appaulled that you wold give him any credit. Furthermore, those respective Teams WON the turnover battle. Our defense doesn't create turnovers, so we can ill afford for our offense to be turning them over.

Where did I say I gave those quarterbacks any credit? You said it's impossible to win when you've thrown three INTs. I showed that that's not true. I didn't say it was a good thing those QBs threw three picks.

Our defense doesn't create turnovers, so it would make sense that rather than playing the 3-and-out game for 60 minutes we score some damn points, giving up the ball a couple times in the process and allowing our stout defense to force it back into our hands.

As for there being two halves, you're right. Brunell lost his. Ramsey won his. Yet somehow it's all Ramsey's fault.

And even the staunchest Brunell supporters will acknowledge that one of the interceptions was a miscommunication between Ramsey and Coles, which happens to the best QBs in the league, and another one would never have happened had Gardner not dropped a TD pass the play before.

Joe whjat you refuse to acknowledge is thatPatrick has had his chances and has done poorly with them. His bets performance was against ATL in preseason and here are his numbers 11/21 for 81 and 0 interceptions. After being told that he would enter the season as the #2 QB ie no pressure of competeing for the job.

Are you really gonna make me drag out Brunell's preseason stats from whatever hole they're in?

I suppose preseason, that famous stomping ground of such great QBs as Danny Weurfful (or however you spell that) and Shane Matthews, should be the true measure of a player, eh?

Ramsey holds the ball like Drew Bledsoe and forces things like Brett Favre without the playmaking ability or moxy of Brett. Thats not what a team that is self destructing every week needs to lead the team to vicotry.

I stand by Gibbs. Im sorry you missed his first go round, but he's trustworthy. He sees them both everyday in practice and has forgotten more football than either of us will ever know.........

Ramsey doesn't hold the ball any longer than Mark Brunell does. There have been dozens of times then season when Brunell has held it for two long and I've started screaming at the TV.

Herm Edwards saw Vinny and Pennington together in practice every day back in 2001. Bill Belichick saw Bledsoe and Brady together in practice in 2000. Neither thought it would be a good idea to replace the veteran with the youngster. Both were proven wrong. Gibbs could be wrong, too.

[ShaggySkins]

Herm Edwards saw Vinny and Pennington together in practice every day back in 2001. Bill Belichick saw Bledsoe and Brady together in practice in 2000. Neither thought it would be a good idea to replace the veteran with the youngster. Both were proven wrong. Gibbs could be wrong, too.

Pennington and Brady were both unknown to starting at QB when they took over. Ramsey has had 2 seasons of starting and a preseason of competing for the job to prove that he is capable of being a starter. In those years he didn't show anything that would make any of the coaching staff think he is capable of taking over. If Ramsey had lit up the score board the last 2 seasons he would be starting right now. Thus far he hasn't and the offense has been geared towards rollouts and sprint outs. I don't think Ramsey would fit into that style. He isn't the most mobile of QBs and he has shown a tendency to throw interceptions when under pressure. Atleast Brunell has been intelligent enough to throw the ball away when being chased.

[Keino]

Joe, you cannot say that one QB won a half and the other didn't. The team lost the game. Brunell didn't fumble that was Portis. Brunell didn't throw INT's, that Was Ramsey. Lets be clear. Ramsey didn't win anything in the Giants game. Not one single thing.

You want to play semantics game thats fine and good. More often than not you cannot win games with your QB throwing 3 INT's. You certainly can't win games when you lose the tunover battle. The Giants game was more about turnovers than anything. Since Our Defense doesn't craet turnovers, in order to win the turnover battle we cannot produce them. That means safer passes and throwing the ball away when the play isn't there.

Feel free to drag Brunell's stats out from pre-season. For me the important one is this: 4.5 games 2 INt's. Ramsey: .5 games 3 INT's. You can continue to try and gloss over the importance of turning the ball over, but Ramsey had an opportunity to sieze control of this job and he failed.

Brunell is not the reason we are losing.

[Keino]

I find your Herm Edwards/Vinny/Pennington ironic considering in that situation, the guy with the stronger arm got benched.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I find your Herm Edwards/Vinny/Pennington ironic considering in that situation, the guy with the stronger arm got benched.

My main argument, the thing I've said more than anything else, is not that Ramsey should be in because he has a stronger arm. It's that Ramsey should be in because he can move the ball down the field. He's kind of the polar opposite of Pennington; great arm, average accuracy vs average arm, great accuracy.

Joe, you cannot say that one QB won a half and the other didn't. The team lost the game. Brunell didn't fumble that was Portis. Brunell didn't throw INT's, that Was Ramsey. Lets be clear. Ramsey didn't win anything in the Giants game. Not one single thing.

You want to play semantics game thats fine and good. More often than not you cannot win games with your QB throwing 3 INT's. You certainly can't win games when you lose the tunover battle. The Giants game was more about turnovers than anything. Since Our Defense doesn't craet turnovers, in order to win the turnover battle we cannot produce them. That means safer passes and throwing the ball away when the play isn't there.

Feel free to drag Brunell's stats out from pre-season. For me the important one is this: 4.5 games 2 INt's. Ramsey: .5 games 3 INT's. You can continue to try and gloss over the importance of turning the ball over, but Ramsey had an opportunity to sieze control of this job and he failed.

Brunell is not the reason we are losing.

Oh God, this again? I refuse to bother demonstrating yet again that Ramsey is not turnover-prone. Actually, you know what? If you're going to base your entire judgement of Ramsey on one half (he may have been bad in preseason, but he wasn't especially turnover-prone), then so will I. Let me pick something...

In the second half of the Ravens' game, Mark Brunell was 4 for 13 for a mere 43 yards, threw an interception, was sacked twice, gave up a fumble for a touchdown, and led the team to exactly zero points. During this time, no other player on offense turned the ball over. I will now use this half of football to measure Mark Brunell if anyone else uses Patrick Ramsey's half of football to tell me that he's a turnover-prone quarterback, because I have already given this site a list that includes several current Pro Bowl players, several Hall of Famers, and more than a dozen current starting quarterbacks that average more interceptions than our #11.

Fair's fair.

[Keino]

Joe, my evaluation of Ramsey is not based solely on the Giants game. In fact, the only reason I keep citing the Giants game is because you seem to feel that game provides you evidence that supports your argument, while glossing over the importance of the turnovers in general and specifically in that game. It's misleading and I won't allow it.


Im not arguing that Ramsey is Interception Prone, just moreso than Brunell. Lifetime stats as well as this season's stats support that contention. Ramsey had multiple chances THIS season to sieze the starting job and quite frankly, he looked bad. His best perfmorance came when he didn't have the pressure of competing for the job.....for me that is significant. QB's need to handle pressure don't they?

Now if it's your contention that Ramsey can move the ball down the field but not because he has superior arm strength, then what is the basis for this argument, because frankly, I don't get it? Is his presence going to cause us to run the ball better?


And Please, The Ravens have arguably the Best Defense in the league. Im sure I can dig up many great QB's who've had terrible games against those guys.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Joe, my evaluation of Ramsey is not based solely on the Giants game. In fact, the only reason I keep citing the Giants game is because you seem to feel that game provides you evidence that supports your argument, while glossing over the importance of the turnovers in general and specifically in that game. It's misleading and I won't allow it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I only brought that up after two weeks of enduring "Ramsey threw three picks! He's the most turnover-prone player in the league!" type arguments from a few people. I was, in fact, doing what you're aiming to do now: Pointing out the parto f the game that the other half doesn't want to see. I by no means will blatantly ignore the fact the Ramsey threw three picks, but after hearing it for so long, I wanted to bring out another side of that game and see how people would respond.

Im not arguing that Ramsey is Interception Prone, just moreso than Brunell. Lifetime stats as well as this season's stats support that contention. Ramsey had multiple chances THIS season to sieze the starting job and quite frankly, he looked bad. His best perfmorance came when he didn't have the pressure of competing for the job.....for me that is significant. QB's need to handle pressure don't they?

I completely agree with the first two sentences, and the fourth sentence (the first part, anyway). My contention is that while Ramsey's style will lead to, oh, twice as many picks over the course of the season, it will lead to three times as many touchdowns. That is a raito that will win us more games with the style of this team. If our defense were as bad as we thought it would be in July, would I be saying this? Probably not. But the fact is that the defense has proven that it can not only routinely stop the other team, but routinely stop the other team when it is given a short field. What our defense has not been able to do is score points. Ramsey can. More than half of his interceptions will be handled by our defense, but at the end of the day, our defense needs 21 points on the board to win. Brunell, for all his careful play, isn't providing that.

As for the pressure to win the job, like I said, I agree. I even pointed that out myself after the fourth preseason game. You can say Ramsey doesn't respond well to pressure, but think for a minute: What other kinds of pressure have fazed him? He seems to press things too much in order to impress coaches for the starting job, but when it gomes to game pressure, can you remember a time it's been bad? Don't you remember the fourth-quarter drives Ramsey led last year? The year before? Remember that comeback he led when we had the first hR tailgate? Remember how he almost managed to bring the team back after his only other three-INT outing, all of them coming in the first quarter, no less? Remember how he responded to being beat into the ground time and time again in the Fun'n'Gun? Ramsey may not handle competing for a starting job all that well, but I fully believe that if, over the bye, Gibbs comes out and says that he is our starter and will remain so for the rest of the season, you'll see the quarterback who threw for 300 yards and beat the Falcons after going down 17-0.

Now if it's your contention that Ramsey can move the ball down the field but not because he has superior arm strength, then what is the basis for this argument, because frankly, I don't get it? Is his presence going to cause us to run the ball better?

Yes, a lot of my argument is based on arm strength. He can make passes that Brunell can't. No one will argue that. Another part of it is simply presence. When Ramsey is in, the ball moves. It doesn't have to do entirely with arm strength, as the same thing happened when Pennington replaced Testaverde in New York. But for Ramsey, that strength is a big part. As for running, I'd igve a resounding hell yes to that. Is part of our running problem the O-line not blocking well? Of course. Is another part that we don't spread the field enough for Portis? Sure. But a very big chunk of the problem can be blamed on the fact that all eleven defenders are routinely no more than eight yards from the line of scrimmage. Why? Brunell is not completing long balls. He's not even attempting them, probably because he knows part twenty yards or so his throws hang in the air too long. Has he made a few this season? Yes, mostly in his five minutes of old-school Brunell against Dallas. Five minutes is not enough. The fact that his yards per attempt is 33rd in the league backs that up.

And Please, The Ravens have arguably the Best Defense in the league. Im sure I can dig up many great QB's who've had terrible games against those guys.

I'm sure you could. That's not my point. If people are going to use a terrible half by Ramsey to judge him, ignoring the entirety of the past two years, I'll do the same to Mark Brunell when I'm arguing with those people.

[rskinsfan10]

Here's a stat from that Giants game besides the interceptions everyone wants to bring up: Ramsey gained 2.7 more yards per attempt than Brunell. That's against the same defense in the same game. That's the difference between ranking 33rd in the league (Brunell) and 3rd in the league (which is where Ramsey's number would put him).

You can't have it both ways Joe. You jump down the throats of people that bring up Ramsey's 3 INTs and decision making in that 2nd half of the Giants game, saying that we shouldn't hold that against him and that isn't indicative of how he would play if he were inserted again as the starter because it was only a half of football, yet seemingly you are now saying that with Ramsey at the helm would have this offense #3 in the NFL?

So tell me, if you are projecting that this offense would be #3 in the NFL now, and basing that off of one half of football, please tell me Ramsey's projected TD/INT ratio, completion pct., and QB rating. For some reason, I'm pretty confident that it will not be such a pretty picture.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

You can't have it both ways Joe. You jump down the throats of people that bring up Ramsey's 3 INTs and decision making in that 2nd half of the Giants game, saying that we shouldn't hold that against him and that isn't indicative of how he would play if he were inserted again as the starter because it was only a half of football, yet seemingly you are now saying that with Ramsey at the helm would have this offense #3 in the NFL?

So tell me, if you are projecting that this offense would be #3 in the NFL now, and basing that off of one half of football, please tell me Ramsey's projected TD/INT ratio, completion pct., and QB rating. For some reason, I'm pretty confident that it will not be such a pretty picture.

*rolls eyes* I'm just gonna quote myself again for simplicity's sake.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I only brought that up after two weeks of enduring "Ramsey threw three picks! He's the most turnover-prone player in the league!" type arguments from a few people. I was, in fact, doing what you're aiming to do now: Pointing out the parto f the game that the other half doesn't want to see. I by no means will blatantly ignore the fact the Ramsey threw three picks, but after hearing it for so long, I wanted to bring out another side of that game and see how people would respond.

[rskinsfan10]

*rolls eyes* I'm just gonna quote myself again for simplicity's sake.

Instead of rolling your eyes Joe, why not get those projections for us? No need in "rolling your eyes" when asked for stats that some of us would like to see. You were the one that projected #3 offense in the league, not anyone else. I'm interested in the entire picture, not just a part of it.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Instead of rolling your eyes Joe, why not get those projections for us? No need in "rolling your eyes" when asked for stats that some of us would like to see. You were the one that projected #3 offense in the league, not anyone else. I'm interested in the entire picture, not just a part of it.

No, I didn't project the #3 offense in the league. Go back and read what I said. I compared Brunell's and Ramsey's yards per attempt. Brunell's was 5.1. Ramsey's was 7.9. I then mentioned that Brunell is currently ranked 33rd in the league in yards per attempt, and that Ramsey's number for that game is the same as the third best in the league. I was, in fact, wrong about that part, actually; I clicked on the "NFC" category on the ESPN stats page by accident instead of the "NFL" category. Ramsey's was equal to what is currently sixth in the league.

[bigcmr]

Ramesy is way better he has a way stronger arm. he can go deep. Last year he looked real good. he just got beat up bad. The thing I dont like about Burunal is he have a week arm. he cant streach the feild. Its time to play ramsey.

[dj_stouty]

I was, in fact, wrong about that part, actually; I clicked on the "NFC" category on the ESPN stats page by accident instead of the "NFL" category. Ramsey's was equal to what is currently sixth in the league.

3rd....6th...it doesn't matter, because the other QBs on that list have probably 100 or more attempts. NOT 18!

Why continue to place Ramsey's YardsPerAttempt up against starting QBs? Like others have said, you do that, and you might as well put his 1 INT per 6 attempts up against them. See where he ranks then...

[dj_stouty]

Ramesy is way better he has a way stronger arm. he can go deep. Last year he looked real good. he just got beat up bad. The thing I dont like about Burunal is he have a week arm. he cant streach the feild. Its time to play ramsey.

And how will he stretch the field with only two WRs in the formation? Ramsey, more so than Brunell, needs the max protection. (See last year for proof) Max protection means 2, if not only 1 WR in the formation. Defenses already know this, and are licking their lips to see us try and start him...

[JoeDaSchmoe]

3rd....6th...it doesn't matter, because the other QBs on that list have probably 100 or more attempts. NOT 18!

Why continue to place Ramsey's YardsPerAttempt up against starting QBs? Like others have said, you do that, and you might as well put his 1 INT per 6 attempts up against them. See where he ranks then...

Continue? I haven't continued. I said it once because of all the people calling Ramsey turnover-prone because of his one game against the Giants. It drives me nuts. If you're going to call him turnover prone, then I'll be damn sure to mention that he got nearly three yards a pop better than Brunell did. I'd be happy to drop the stats from the Giants game altogether, because that's what I've been trying to get people to do all along.

And how will he stretch the field with only two WRs in the formation? Ramsey, more so than Brunell, needs the max protection. (See last year for proof) Max protection means 2, if not only 1 WR in the formation. Defenses already know this, and are licking their lips to see us try and start him...

If this were true, no immobile quarterback in the league would survive. They do. Ramsey does not need max protection. That's ridiculous. What got Ramsey killed with Spurrier was either A) when all five eligible receivers immediately went out on a pattern and the defense blitzed, meaning no one was there to pick it up; B) When the blocking scheme left a tight end on the defense's best pass rusher (remember Simeon Rice?); or C) When one of our running backs failed miserably to pick up the blitz, as they did often during the season.

If Gibbs puts three wide receivers, a tight end (preferably Cooley), and Portis out there, then has both the tight end and Portis pick up possible blitzes or chip the defensive ends if no one is blitzing before running out into a short pattern, three receivers will be free to go deep and Ramsey will have time. The notion that simply because he's immobile we can't run more than two receivers out is ludicrous.

[dj_stouty]

And I ask....How many plays this year have you seen three WRs in the formation? Do you think Gibbs would open up the offense any more for Patrick than he already has for Brunell?

If this were true, no immobile quarterback in the league would survive. They do.

Well...most of the immobile QBs in the league who are not in need of max protection are successfull because they are extremely accurate. Ramsey is not. We need to face the facts on this. He is a 52.4% career passer in 22 total games. When you bring 3 or 4 WRs into the formation and rely on the TE and O-line to do the blocking you need to make quick decisions and be accurate in your throws.

Can we rely on our TE and O-line to block the pass rush? Not lately.
Is Ramsey quick, deliberate and accurate in his throws? Not lately.

I think Ramsey is the future of this team. But not now. I don't want to see him traded for a 2nd or 3rd rounder. I want to see him get the bench duty he was rightfully due when he was drafted by our Redskins. One year on the bench with a veteran leader and Joe Gibbs will do the guy wonders.

He is not the answer right now. There are too many problems on this team to pigeon hole it on the QB.

[Keino]

My contention is that while Ramsey's style will lead to, oh, twice as many picks over the course of the season, it will lead to three times as many touchdowns. That is a raito that will win us more games with the style of this team. If our defense were as bad as we thought it would be in July, would I be saying this? Probably not.

What have you seen that makes you think this? Ramsey has thrown over his career 24 TDs to 17 INTs and you are forgetting to mention the most important stat for Ramsey as starter...His win/loss record. I don't blame you for not mentioning it because it weakens your argument.

If we lose this week, and right now I think every game presents that possibility, then I will be in favor of playing Ramsey if for no other reason then to see his value in Gibbs' system. So far he has been unimpressive in the little action he has had.

Im in no way saying Brunell has been stellar, I just don't see how inserting a QB more prone to making mistakes is what this offense needs at this Juncture. QB play isn't the problem. Impatient running back who fumbles, WR's not getting seperation, backup trash missing crucial blocks, poor clock management, bad play calling and at times poor QB play are what ails this team and inserting Patrick Ramsey isn't gonna fix that in my opinion.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

And I ask....How many plays this year have you seen three WRs in the formation? Do you think Gibbs would open up the offense any more for Patrick than he already has for Brunell?

Firstly, I believe the offense is going to opened up more regardless of who is QB in the coming weeks. Secondly, it really doesn't matter. You can have one of two wide receivers out there and still run a deep pattern. There are still five eligible receivers on every play. Ramsey's got the gun to thread the needle against double coverage if need be. I was just refuting your argument about him needing max protection.

Well...most of the immobile QBs in the league who are not in need of max protection are successfull because they are extremely accurate. Ramsey is not. We need to face the facts on this. He is a 52.4% career passer in 22 total games. When you bring 3 or 4 WRs into the formation and rely on the TE and O-line to do the blocking you need to make quick decisions and be accurate in your throws.

Can we rely on our TE and O-line to block the pass rush? Not lately.
Is Ramsey quick, deliberate and accurate in his throws? Not lately.

What line have you been watching? I think we've done a fine job pass protecting this year. It broke down a bit against the Giants and Cowboys, but half of those because the quarterback (both Brunell and Ramsey) held the ball too long. And against the Ravens, the line formed a pocket that Brunell just refused to step up into on more than half of the passing plays, and I still can't figure out why. These weren't the designed bootlegs, they were the ones where he dropped back, didn't step up for a couple seconds, then started running for his life when it was completely unnecessary.

As for Ramsey's accuracy, those stats are based off his first and second seasons. No one is very good then. Someone pulled out stats from a few Hall of Fame QBs' first and second years earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this thread), and they were very similar, including in the percentage department.

By the way, did you know that Brunell ranks 34th in the league in accuracy?

I think Ramsey is the future of this team. But not now. I don't want to see him traded for a 2nd or 3rd rounder. I want to see him get the bench duty he was rightfully due when he was drafted by our Redskins. One year on the bench with a veteran leader and Joe Gibbs will do the guy wonders.

He is not the answer right now. There are too many problems on this team to pigeon hole it on the QB.

Oh, there are other problems, yes. But I believe Ramsey could help a lot.

Look, this whole sitting on the bench theory is great, and I fully agree when it comes to rookies. But Ramsey is not a rookie. He's spent some time on the bench, and, more importantly, he's spent time starting. For comparison, let's look at Peyton Manning. Manning threw 43 picks in his first two seasons. 43! That's almost... here's a shocker.... 3 per game. Did the Colts say, "Hey, the guy's throwing too many interceptions, let's sit him down for a year and let a vet show him how to manage the game"? No. They didn't tell Manning that, after already starting for the team, it was now time for him to feel like a rookie and spend a year holding a clipboard.

Now, I'm almost entirely sure someone's going to quote that and say "You're comparing Ramsey to Manning?! What an idiot you are!" So I'll deal with that now: No, I'm not saying Ramsey is as good as Manning. I'm saying that some quarterbacks do better sitting on the sideline and some do better learning on the fly. Was Ramsey Pro Bowl-caliber last year? No. But it was his second year. If you expected him to be flawless, you're nuts. The point was that he showed marked improvement on his rookie year. That's a trend that, in all likelihood, will continue with more playing time.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

What have you seen that makes you think this? Ramsey has thrown over his career 24 TDs to 17 INTs and you are forgetting to mention the most important stat for Ramsey as starter...His win/loss record. I don't blame you for not mentioning it because it weakens your argument.

Win/loss record? We're talking about the entire career of a guy who's been in the league two years, those year being under Steve Spurrier. Does David Carr suck because he's 11-26?

What I've seen that makes me think this is Ramsey's play last season. I know, I know, 14/9. That's where the whole "He's gotten better since then and will continue to do so because he's still young" argument comes into play, which I guess is what all this really boils down to.

If we lose this week, and right now I think every game presents that possibility, then I will be in favor of playing Ramsey if for no other reason then to see his value in Gibbs' system. So far he has been unimpressive in the little action he has had.

Im in no way saying Brunell has been stellar, I just don't see how inserting a QB more prone to making mistakes is what this offense needs at this Juncture. QB play isn't the problem. Impatient running back who fumbles, WR's not getting seperation, backup trash missing crucial blocks, poor clock management, bad play calling and at times poor QB play are what ails this team and inserting Patrick Ramsey isn't gonna fix that in my opinion.

Despite all those other problems, the fact remains that if our offense had just managed to put one more touchdown, and in some cases just one more field goal, up on the board, we would be at least 4-1 right now. Mark Brunell is lights-out bad in almost every meaningful quarterback statistic. He's not the only problem, but he's doing absolutely nothing to help be part of the solution.

[tbfoster1]

Joe, I love the way you think. I believe ramsey will do good too and your posts on this subject have helped back that feeling up. Keep em coming I want to hear more.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Joe, I love the way you think. I believe ramsey will do good too and your posts on this subject have helped back that feeling up. Keep em coming I want to hear more.
Joe is the voice of reason.

[dj_stouty]

Look, this whole sitting on the bench theory is great, and I fully agree when it comes to rookies. But Ramsey is not a rookie. He's spent some time on the bench, and, more importantly, he's spent time starting. For comparison, let's look at Peyton Manning. Manning threw 43 picks in his first two seasons. 43! That's almost... here's a shocker.... 3 per game. Did the Colts say, "Hey, the guy's throwing too many interceptions, let's sit him down for a year and let a vet show him how to manage the game"? No. They didn't tell Manning that, after already starting for the team, it was now time for him to feel like a rookie and spend a year holding a clipboard.




I don't think our situation with Ramsey is anywhere close to the situations Manning or even McNair found themsleves in when they were rookies. This is entirely different. This is not as cut and dry when Manning and Carr were sent in from snap one...or when McNair and Culpepper were asked to sit early on. Ramsey has started off and on his entire tenure here in Washington. Nothing has been constant for this kid...and I believe some time on the sidelines can't possibly hurt him. It can only help him, IMO.

I'm saying that some quarterbacks do better sitting on the sideline and some do better learning on the fly.

I see nothing wrong in having him learn from one of the best coaches in the game on the sidelines. I don't necessarily see him as someone who learns best from gametime experience. Why do I say this? I say this because when presented with the opportunity to challenge Brunell for the starting job this preseason, he threw the ball for a measly 40% completion rate and zero TDs over the first 4 preseason games. (And 1/2 of those games were versus scrub talent) You like to bring up yards/attempt, so I'll also point out that his ypa over those four games was even worse than the average Brunell currently has in 5 NFL games vs actual starters. (And a stat on Brunell that you have publically scrutinized) I havent seen his gametime experience make him any better as a QB. He hasn't done anything or shown us anyting in the last YEAR that says he is up for this starting job yet. NOTHING. In fact, you have to go back to the TB game of a year ago (10/12/03) as the last time he threw for over 54% completions in a game. Brunell has done that in three games already this year.

I don't believe in making a change simply for the sake of making a change. We need the best QB to give us a chance to win. Ramsey hasn't given us a reason to believe he should take over the reigns yet. Until he does, I say he sits pine.

[#1SkInSfAn]

Ramseys preseason games against "scrub" talent were also where he was playing behind a scrub O-line with scrub recievers where as brunell has been playing with the first team and still sucks. Ramsey is a true pocket passer and needs protection to deliver a good ball. I think he will become more mobile in the future once he estblishes his pocket passing game I.E payton manning. If we don't have a pocket for ramsey then I say he sits just because he needs a line to protect him to be good but to say mark brunell is better than ramsey as far as numbers go just based on a few preseason games is ludacris.

[kfn-nfce]

Interesting...I saw him complete a few passes like that the very next week on Monday night. The ball that Deion Picked off was a very deep throw and Deion made one helluva play to pick that ball off.......
That ball hung up in the air so long that it looked like a Tupa punt thats why Deion picked it off.More throws like that and they get intercepted i guess you will keep saying DBs are making great plays. Throws like that are begging to be picked off, also all the D-coordinators are not respecting Brunnell for a reason they are not idiots they realize that he is done. We might keep our heads in the cloud and say that Brunell still has it but that does not make it so andd we will keep gift wrapping victories to the other teams.

[Keino]

All you guys saying Joe is the voice of reason.......I agree 100%.

Joe Gibbs is the voice of reason. He says Mark Brunell is the starter and thats good enough for me.

[Minnesota Mike]

One more time:

Int 1 - The play before, Gardner dropped a ball in the endzone. The ball hit him in the hands. If he holds it, there is no next play, and no Int. Not to mention it was an insane play on the part of the D-man to pull that in.

Int 2 - Coles runs the wrong route. Ramsey throws to the right route. While the ball is in the air, Coles makes the wrong move.

Int 3 - was a desperate hail Mary type pass before the team needed to throw a hail Mary pass.

Int 3 is on Ramsey. The first two are on WRs.

It is true that when a team opens up the offense more, the team increases the risk of turnovers. But they also increase the possibility of reward.

I also think it is a little unfair to put a whole lot of weight on Ramsey's W/L record as a starter. The games he started last year that ended in a loss, can hardly be blamed on him. That team was unprepared in so many ways, it probably doesn't matter who was the QB. It could have been Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Sonny or Sammy, and last years team probably would have only won one or two more games.

Obviously, Gibbs sees the two of them (Ramsey and Brunell) a whole lot more than I do. He watches more film than I do. So as much as I want to see Ramsey and this team be successful, if Gibbs says Brunell is the guy, then that is good enough for me. But I do think Ramsey is being unfairly maligned here.

[Jimreaper007]

Ramsey should be the starting QB

Defense of my choice: Just watch Brunell try to throw mid to long range passes.

I have watched and re-watched all of the games thus far and Brunell cannot get it done with the limited opportunities he gets.

People judging Ramsey on the Giants game should remember that he came in cold with very few reps in practice.

[Skins4life]

I think Ramsey should be in. ALot of points were discussed - the bottom line - Defenses do not repect Brunnell's noodle arm. IT's time for a change. However - Gibbs sees something - I do not know what - but he knows something we don't.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I think Ramsey should be in. ALot of points were discussed - the bottom line - Defenses do not repect Brunnell's noodle arm. IT's time for a change. However - Gibbs sees something - I do not know what - but he knows something we don't.
I hope he knows something we don't.....

[Keino]

Of course he does Brave. Thats why he's in the HOF with 3 Superbowl Rings won with 3 different QB's and 3 Different RB's. He is the man, which why I will defend him everytime some kids want to question his moves......

[RedHokieSkin]

Obviously, Brunell is starting this weekend. This is the game for Brunell to show that he can still play. The Bears pass defense is rated 28th in the NFL. (Rush def is 19th)

Although most, including me, have already voiced their desire for Ramsey to play, several here are still on Brunell's bandwagon. If he can't perform against a defense like the Bears, then there will be no argument left for sticking with him.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Of course he does Brave. Thats why he's in the HOF with 3 Superbowl Rings won with 3 different QB's and 3 Different RB's. He is the man, which why I will defend him everytime some kids want to question his moves......
I don't question his credentials Keino...but I do recognize that he
could be mistaken. It is possible...

[Keino]

I don't question his credentials Keino...but I do recognize that he
could be mistaken. It is possible...

It's also possible that flying monkeys with waterguns filled with Phosphoric Acid will attack us too, but it's not very likely.

Look, Im not saying that Brunell has been good. Not in the least. What Im saying is that he is not what is wrong with this offense's ability to move the ball down the field. Ramsey has looked worse in this offense than Brunell has, yet all the Ramsey advocates keep overlooking that little tidbit......Strong arm, no mobility and trying to force things are not gonna win us games any more than Weak arm (Debateable but for the sake of discusison I'll concede that), Mobility and smart decisions with the ball.

I too am pissed that we aren't making defenses pay for stacking the line and am baffled that we don't try to throw deep until teams are playing 2 deep zones, but I don't think this is Brunell, but Gibbs.

[rskinsfan10]

It's also possible that flying monkeys with waterguns filled with Phosphoric Acid will attack us too, but it's not very likely.

Look, Im not saying that Brunell has been good. Not in the least. What Im saying is that he is not what is wrong with this offense's ability to move the ball down the field. Ramsey has looked worse in this offense than Brunell has, yet all the Ramsey advocates keep overlooking that little tidbit......Strong arm, no mobility and trying to force things are not gonna win us games any more than Weak arm (Debateable but for the sake of discusison I'll concede that), Mobility and smart decisions with the ball.

I too am pissed that we aren't making defenses pay for stacking the line and am baffled that we don't try to throw deep until teams are playing 2 deep zones, but I don't think this is Brunell, but Gibbs.

Now that's the voice of reason.

[rskinsfan10]

One more time:

Int 1 - The play before, Gardner dropped a ball in the endzone. The ball hit him in the hands. If he holds it, there is no next play, and no Int. Not to mention it was an insane play on the part of the D-man to pull that in.

Int 2 - Coles runs the wrong route. Ramsey throws to the right route. While the ball is in the air, Coles makes the wrong move.

Int 3 - was a desperate hail Mary type pass before the team needed to throw a hail Mary pass.

Int 3 is on Ramsey. The first two are on WRs

More then one person has accused Coles of running the wrong route on the INT. Where is the proof of this? Did he or someone from the team admit as much on TV or during an interview, because I must have missed it. We have the #1 WR who has been involved in all the practices and regular season games, and the #2 QB who is getting limited touches in practice. My money would be on the WR doing what he was supposed to be doing, and the QB in question was caught doing what alot of you seem to crave from him: forcing the ball into tight spaces in an attempt to "make something happen"

Also, why did Ramsey have to attempt a Hail Mary on #3? If I recall correctly, Portis was running to the right on that play as Ramsey started to scramble, and was pretty much open in the flat. Why couldn't Ramsey dump the ball off to him and give him a chance to make a play?

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

i think the people making excuses for why ramsey's INTs in the giants game are proving why its not right to pull brunell yet. the rest of the offense isnt doing their jobs.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I don't think our situation with Ramsey is anywhere close to the situations Manning or even McNair found themsleves in when they were rookies. This is entirely different. This is not as cut and dry when Manning and Carr were sent in from snap one...or when McNair and Culpepper were asked to sit early on. Ramsey has started off and on his entire tenure here in Washington. Nothing has been constant for this kid...and I believe some time on the sidelines can't possibly hurt him. It can only help him, IMO.

Now, this isn't an argument so much as a simple question, because I honestly don't know the answer... has there ever been a quarterback (well, a relatively recent quarterback) who was given the starting job one year, then had it taken away the next because he needed another season holding a clipboard? I'm not talking about a couple of games because the play was terrible, a la Brees and Flutie, I mean a real, honest-to-God "learning season" on the sidelines, after having been his team's quarterback the year before.

I see nothing wrong in having him learn from one of the best coaches in the game on the sidelines. I don't necessarily see him as someone who learns best from gametime experience. Why do I say this? I say this because when presented with the opportunity to challenge Brunell for the starting job this preseason, he threw the ball for a measly 40% completion rate and zero TDs over the first 4 preseason games. (And 1/2 of those games were versus scrub talent) You like to bring up yards/attempt, so I'll also point out that his ypa over those four games was even worse than the average Brunell currently has in 5 NFL games vs actual starters. (And a stat on Brunell that you have publically scrutinized) I havent seen his gametime experience make him any better as a QB. He hasn't done anything or shown us anyting in the last YEAR that says he is up for this starting job yet. NOTHING. In fact, you have to go back to the TB game of a year ago (10/12/03) as the last time he threw for over 54% completions in a game. Brunell has done that in three games already this year.

I don't believe in making a change simply for the sake of making a change. We need the best QB to give us a chance to win. Ramsey hasn't given us a reason to believe he should take over the reigns yet. Until he does, I say he sits pine.

Would this be the same preseason that saw the 0-5 Dolphins go 3-1? The 2-3 Browns go 3-1? The 1-3 Panthers go 4-0? The same preseason that made Sean Taylor look like Ronnie Lott in his prime? The same kind of games that made Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews look like John Elway and Dan Marino?

I mean, God, of all the teams that should know better than to judge anything on preseason, it's us. Winless in preseason, then a Super Bowl ring, remember? You're trying to tell me that the exact same stat categories that rank Brunell 33rd and 34th in the league, respectively, should be evidence that he's better than Ramsey based on preseason? Give me a break.

It's also possible that flying monkeys with waterguns filled with Phosphoric Acid will attack us too, but it's not very likely.

Ugh. You really think it's absolutely impossible for Gibbs to be making a mistake here? I'm sure you'd consider Bill Belichick to be, oh, I don't know, a somewhat decent coach. He's the guy who kept Tom Brady on the bench for Drew Bledsoe in the beginning of 2001, remember? Those flying monkeys must have had a field day back then.

Strong arm, no mobility and trying to force things are not gonna win us games any more than Weak arm (Debateable but for the sake of discusison I'll concede that), Mobility and smart decisions with the ball.

Mobility and smart decisions? First off, when has Brunell looked mobile so far this season? His legs are beaten up and it shows. Secondly, as I've said before, there's a difference between smart decisions and too cautious decisions. Brunell, right now, is taking zero (or in the case of last Sunday, one) chances per game. You must take chances in order to win. You cannot check down on every play any more than you can play the prevent defense every play. Of course, the prevent defense does mean that nothing terrible can happen in one play, which sounds like the style some people prefer. Instead of getting burnt once per game and making lots of plays in the process, we can let opposing offenses slowly and deliberately win the the games, because our defense is taking no chances to win the game. That qualifies as "smart play," I suppose.

i think the people making excuses for why ramsey's INTs in the giants game are proving why its not right to pull brunell yet. the rest of the offense isnt doing their jobs.

Portis didn't fumble and the wide receivers didn't have a large number of drops this week. That leaves the O-line to blame. We're running out of other parts of the offense to point the finger at. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A quarterback who only wins games when no one else screws up isn't much of a quarterback.

[Keino]

Mobility and smart decisions? First off, when has Brunell looked mobile so far this season? His legs are beaten up and it shows. Secondly, as I've said before, there's a difference between smart decisions and too cautious decisions. Brunell, right now, is taking zero (or in the case of last Sunday, one) chances per game. You must take chances in order to win. You cannot check down on every play any more than you can play the prevent defense every play. Of course, the prevent defense does mean that nothing terrible can happen in one play, which sounds like the style some people prefer. Instead of getting burnt once per game and making lots of plays in the process, we can let opposing offenses slowly and deliberately win the the games, because our defense is taking no chances to win the game. That qualifies as "smart play," I suppose.

Im going to chalk this up to hyperbole, because to say that Brunell has only taken one chance (last week's INT) and then to further say he hasn't made plays with his legs that Patrick couldn't is simply not being honest. I give you more credit than that Joe.

Offense and Defense are two entirely different animals. With a team like ours (Dominant defense) we need safe play from our QB so as to sustain drives and keep our defense fresh, something that the entire offense, including Brunell has failed to do in the past 4 weeks. I don't see how throwing Ramsey in while the O-line isn't playing great and the running game hasn't gotten off will help matters. If the O line and the running game were going good, then maybe we could look at replacing Brunell 5 games into the season. That, however is not the case. Joe you are starting to sound like a bitter Ramsey fan who was against not going into the season with anyone other than Ramsey come hell or high water. I like the kid too, but he was in a BS system the last 2 years and needs to unlearn the "Chuck and Duck" scheme. That means holding a clipboard according to the guy who coaches him.

And for the record, Gibbs may make GM mistakes, but when it comes to on-field personnel decisions, I trust his judgement. He sees and evaluates these players on a daily basis and will always play the players he feels give him the best chance to win, thats good enough for me. This is not close to being the Tom Brady vs Drew Bledsoe situation. You see, when Bledsoe got hurt, Tom Brady was Stellar when he got his opportunity. As much as you'd like to have us belive Ramsey's opportunity was seized with equal vigor, it simply wasn't.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Im going to chalk this up to hyperbole, because to say that Brunell has only taken one chance (last week's INT) and then to further say he hasn't made plays with his legs that Patrick couldn't is simply not being honest. I give you more credit than that Joe.

He took one last week. He took none the week before (and, no, the long pass to Coles was not a chance, Coles was absolutely wide open). He took none against the Giants and none against the Bucs. His lone shining moment has been late in the Dallas game.

Offense and Defense are two entirely different animals. With a team like ours (Dominant defense) we need safe play from our QB so as to sustain drives and keep our defense fresh, something that the entire offense, including Brunell has failed to do in the past 4 weeks. I don't see how throwing Ramsey in while the O-line isn't playing great and the running game hasn't gotten off will help matters. If the O line and the running game were going good, then maybe we could look at replacing Brunell 5 games into the season. That, however is not the case.

What does having a dominant defense have to do with how cautious you want your offense to be? A dominant defense will help if you have the Ravens' offense or if you have the Colts' offense. You run your offense based on your offensive personnel, not your defense. This offense needs to be opened up more and to connect on more deep balls, in order to spread the defense horizontally and vertically so Portis can run wild. One of those must be done by Gibbs. The other must be done by the quarterback. Brunell, as we've clearly seen, cannot do that.

By the way, a clear example of the strong defense/high-powered offense combo last year was the Rams. That, of course, was the most successful team in that regard. There were also the Cowboys (Bill Parcells' offense last year featured more of a power running/deep throws combination than in years past), Titans, and, to a lesser extent, the Broncos.

As for the O-line, their run blocking is bad, but their pass blocking has been fine. Better than fine, actually; I'd say it's been pretty damn good. On 90% of the pass plays there is a solid pocket for at least four seconds. Half the time Brunell doesn't even step up into this pocket (and no, I'm not talking about the designed bootlegs); his reason for this is beyond me. As for the running game, there will be fewer defenders in the box if we start making them pay for playing so close. Brunell has not been able to do that.

Joe you are starting to sound like a bitter Ramsey fan who was against not going into the season with anyone other than Ramsey come hell or high water. I like the kid too, but he was in a BS system the last 2 years and needs to unlearn the "Chuck and Duck" scheme. That means holding a clipboard according to the guy who coaches him.

Actually, Keino, if you go back and look, I was pro-Brunell in the beginning of the season. I said many a time that he should be the starter. Check for yourself. Since then, his play has been so abysmal that I've lost all faith in his ability to consistently win ball games for this team.

And for the record, Gibbs may make GM mistakes, but when it comes to on-field personnel decisions, I trust his judgement. He sees and evaluates these players on a daily basis and will always play the players he feels give him the best chance to win, thats good enough for me. This is not close to being the Tom Brady vs Drew Bledsoe situation. You see, when Bledsoe got hurt, Tom Brady was Stellar when he got his opportunity. As much as you'd like to have us belive Ramsey's opportunity was seized with equal vigor, it simply wasn't.

That would be my point, Keino. You're misunderstanding. You (or someone else, I'm too tired to check and this argument has been used by plenty of people anyway) said that the proof that Ramsey is worse right now than Brunell is is the fact that Joe Gibbs is keeping him on the bench. My argument against that was the 2001 Patriots situation. Belichick kept Brady on the Bench in favor of Bledsoe. Bledsoe got hurt, and Brady proceeded to absolutely tear up defenses en route to a Super Bowl. Belichick kept the wrong man on the bench. My point was that great coaches can still make mistakes, including the decision on who starts behind center.

[dj_stouty]

Now, this isn't an argument so much as a simple question, because I honestly don't know the answer... has there ever been a quarterback (well, a relatively recent quarterback) who was given the starting job one year, then had it taken away the next because he needed another season holding a clipboard? I'm not talking about a couple of games because the play was terrible, a la Brees and Flutie, I mean a real, honest-to-God "learning season" on the sidelines, after having been his team's quarterback the year before.

Matt Hasselbeck was the starter in Seattle. He played like crap, and Holmgren decided to start Dilfer for a long period of time so Hasselbeck could learn more from the sidelines. Not exact same situation...but darn close.

Would this be the same preseason that saw the 0-5 Dolphins go 3-1? The 2-3 Browns go 3-1? The 1-3 Panthers go 4-0? The same preseason that made Sean Taylor look like Ronnie Lott in his prime? The same kind of games that made Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews look like John Elway and Dan Marino?

I mean, God, of all the teams that should know better than to judge anything on preseason, it's us. Winless in preseason, then a Super Bowl ring, remember? You're trying to tell me that the exact same stat categories that rank Brunell 33rd and 34th in the league, respectively, should be evidence that he's better than Ramsey based on preseason? Give me a break.

I see you are masking his errors with "preseason doesn't mean crap" statements. You never refuted my accusation that Ramsey hasn't had a decent (or even accurate) game of football since 10/12/03. A full year!

My main concern comes down to this: What has Ramsey shown you in the past year that makes you believe he can make this team win? Simply throwing the ball a long ways ain't going to put "w"s in our win column.

POINT TO SOMETHING...
.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I would only like to add that our QB play, whoever it is, will look much better if Portis and the O line start running the ball like an NFL team. Portis needs to stop putting the ball on the ground and the O line needs to start knocking people off the ball.

My question in all of this is, why isn't Bugel getting results from this crew, the injury to Jansen not withstanding? So maybe we can't run the ball off right tackle, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to run behind Samuels and Dockery. Come to the line and drive the guy right across from you off the ball. Sustain your block.

The next time you get to see a game, watch how many times our O lineman are running to where Portis is being tackled, and not blocking anyone. Their men have shed the blocks and got to the ball.

Winning in the NFL hasn't changed. You run the ball and stop the run. We seem to be doing that on D. We are not doing that on the O. Once you run the ball well on O, you make big plays in the passing game. We are doing neither.

I guarantee you, if Portis was getting 5.0 YPC and our record was 3-2 or 4-1, we wouldn't be having these QB discussions.

[Minnesota Mike]

More then one person has accused Coles of running the wrong route on the INT. Where is the proof of this? Did he or someone from the team admit as much on TV or during an interview, because I must have missed it. We have the #1 WR who has been involved in all the practices and regular season games, and the #2 QB who is getting limited touches in practice. My money would be on the WR doing what he was supposed to be doing, and the QB in question was caught doing what alot of you seem to crave from him: forcing the ball into tight spaces in an attempt to "make something happen"

Also, why did Ramsey have to attempt a Hail Mary on #3? If I recall correctly, Portis was running to the right on that play as Ramsey started to scramble, and was pretty much open in the flat. Why couldn't Ramsey dump the ball off to him and give him a chance to make a play?

Coles admitted it the next day.

I said the Hail Mary on #3 was on Ramsey.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Matt Hasselbeck was the starter in Seattle. He played like crap, and Holmgren decided to start Dilfer for a long period of time so Hasselbeck could learn more from the sidelines. Not exact same situation...but darn close.

Well, Hass has started at least ten games per season since he moved to Seattle. It is similar, I won't argue that, but it's not quite what you (or Keino, or Kenny) seem to be calling for.

I see you are masking his errors with "preseason doesn't mean crap" statements. You never refuted my accusation that Ramsey hasn't had a decent (or even accurate) game of football since 10/12/03. A full year!

POINT TO SOMETHING...
.

Point to something? Okay: Neither has Brunell. Mark Brunell has won one game since December 12, 2002. That's a stat I hadn't looked up before, and my God, is it bad. That's Warner-esque. Remember Kurt? Ol' "hasn't won a game since the NFC Championship" Kurt? Remember how many times the guys on NFL Live, NFL Countdown, Fox, etc. repeated that phrase? Mark Brunell is just as bad. Since that date, Brunell has tabulated a whopping 5.63 yards per attempt. That's his average since December 12, 2002. Do you know how many starting quarterbacks have a yards per attempt average worse than that since December 12, 2002? One. One QB in the entire league has thrown for fewer yards per play than Mark Brunell. It's Joey Harrington, if you're wondering. You know, that young guy up in Detroit. Drafted the same year as Ramsey. The guy whose head many Detroitians were calling for in favor of an experienced veteran. Know what Harrington's numbers are this year, now that's he's got two seasons of playing under his belt and a few really nice weapons? He's 69 for 113 (61.1%), had 7 TDs to 2 INTs, and has thrown for 708 yards (6.27 YPA). It would look so pretty if Brunell were even near that.

ISF, there's no question that you're right. But our running game isn't what most of us think it should be (one of the best in the league) right now, so our passing game has to pick up more of the slack. It's not.

[dj_stouty]

Well, Hass has started at least ten games per season since he moved to Seattle. It is similar, I won't argue that, but it's not quite what you (or Keino, or Kenny) seem to be calling for.

Point to something? Okay: Neither has Brunell. Mark Brunell has won one game since December 12, 2002. That's a stat I hadn't looked up before, and my God, is it bad. That's Warner-esque. Remember Kurt? Ol' "hasn't won a game since the NFC Championship" Kurt? Remember how many times the guys on NFL Live, NFL Countdown, Fox, etc. repeated that phrase? Mark Brunell is just as bad. Since that date, Brunell has tabulated a whopping 5.63 yards per attempt. That's his average since December 12, 2002. Do you know how many starting quarterbacks have a yards per attempt average worse than that since December 12, 2002? One. One QB in the entire league has thrown for fewer yards per play than Mark Brunell. It's Joey Harrington, if you're wondering. You know, that young guy up in Detroit. Drafted the same year as Ramsey. The guy whose head many Detroitians were calling for in favor of an experienced veteran. Know what Harrington's numbers are this year, now that's he's got two seasons of playing under his belt and a few really nice weapons? He's 69 for 113 (61.1%), had 7 TDs to 2 INTs, and has thrown for 708 yards (6.27 YPA). It would look so pretty if Brunell were even near that.

Still can't show me what Ramsey has done to prove he can win with this team? LOL

But instead of turning way...I'll actually address your accusations of Brunell...

Brunell not winning since 12/02 does sound bad. But lets tell the truth here. Prior to becoming a Redskin he only played in FOUR games since that December '02 win. He lost 4 games in a row. Hmmm...I know of a certain QB who'll remain nameless that has also had a 4-game losing streak during that EXACT same time frame. I'll let you guess who that is. (Hint: He wears a #11 jersey) ;)

Although I'll adamantly argue that "% completion" is a much more telling stat than "yards per attempt", I will confer that Brunell has 5.64ypa since his win in 12/02. However, Ramsey only has 0.8ypa more over the same timeframe, for a total of 6.52ypa. 0.8ypa isn't very much in the grand scheme of things...ESPECIALLY since Brunell had a bigger completion percentage (57.4%) over Ramsey (53.1%) over that same timespan. AND ESPECIALLY when Brunell threw only 0.3 INTS/game while Ramsey threw 1.0 INT/game over that same timespan. AND ESPECIALLY when Brunell lost .55 fumbles per game while Ramsey lost .64 fumbles per game over that same timespan.

I really could care less if Ramsey's attempts were getting 0.8ypa more than Brunell. In the timeframe you created, Brunell has been more accurate, thrown 3 times fewer INTS/game, and recorded less fumbles lost per game. The NFL is a game of turnovers...and Ramsey has proven he can turn them over more often than Brunell has.

Now tell me why you think ypa is so important a stat again?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Still can't show me what Ramsey has done to prove he can win with this team? LOL

*sighs*

Ramsey went 4-6 last year with most of the parts of this team. Clinton Portis wasn't here, and Chris Cooley wasn't here. Those are the only two offensive starters that have changed (I suppose you could count Ray Brown if you wanna get exceedingly technical, but that's because of injury). I know it was running Steve Spurrier's system instead of Joe Gibbs', but you know what? Two of Gibbs' Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were in the mold of Ramsey, not Brunell. The Gibbs QB most similar to Brunell, Joe Theismann, had one asset that Brunell lacks, the asset that I believe is part of what's missing from this offense: an arm that can stretch the field vertically. Ramsey has that arm.

But instead of turning way...I'll actually address your accusations of Brunell...

Brunell not winning since 12/02 does sound bad. But lets tell the truth here. Prior to becoming a Redskin he only played in FOUR games since that December '02 win. He lost 4 games in a row. Hmmm...I know of a certain QB who'll remain nameless that has also had a 4-game losing streak during that EXACT same time frame. I'll let you guess who that is. (Hint: He wears a #11 jersey) ;)

Why are we discounting the Redskin games? The Redskin games are what have made me so damn convinced that Brunell needs to go. Do I get to toss out four of Ramsey's losses just for the hell of it?

By the way, in that same timeframe, December 22, 2002 until the end of last season, Patrick Ramsey was 6-6. And, hey, if we throw out a win and four losses, he was 5-2!

Although I'll adamantly argue that "% completion" is a much more telling stat than "yards per attempt", I will confer that Brunell has 5.64ypa since his win in 12/02. However, Ramsey only has 0.8ypa more over the same timeframe, for a total of 6.52ypa. 0.8ypa isn't very much in the grand scheme of things...ESPECIALLY since Brunell had a bigger completion percentage (57.4%) over Ramsey (53.1%) over that same timespan.

I'll just as adamantly argue that a quarterback that completes 55% of his throws for 250 yards is much more valuable than a quarterback who completes 60% of his throws for 200 yards in the Gibbs system. This is not the West Coast offense. We don't rely on our quarterback to dink-and-dunk his way to eight first downs in a drive. What we do rely on our quarterback for is big plays down the field to balance out a heavy dose of running. As for the small difference in yards per attempt, part of that is, in fact, because of the completion percentage. Ramsey completed more passes down the field, but fewer passes overall, so his yards per attempt goes down.

AND ESPECIALLY when Brunell threw only 0.3 INTS/game while Ramsey threw 1.0 INT/game over that same timespan. AND ESPECIALLY when Brunell lost .55 fumbles per game while Ramsey lost .64 fumbles per game over that same timespan.

That couldn't possibly be because Spurrier's blocking schemes gave defenders a red carpet to the quarterback, could it?

As for the interceptions, see my "The Mistakes" thread. No one, unless they're very stupid, will argue that Ramsey will throw fewer interceptions that Brunell. I sure as hell won't. What I will argue is that Ramsey will, at the same time, make the offense perform much better as a whole, and that is more valuable than keeping the ball an extra four or five downs so we can punt it for better field position.

I really could care less if Ramsey's attempts were getting 0.8ypa more than Brunell. In the timeframe you created, Brunell has been more accurate, thrown 3 times fewer INTS/game, and recorded less fumbles lost per game. The NFL is a game of turnovers...and Ramsey has proven he can turn them over more often than Brunell has.

Now tell me why you think ypa is so important a stat again?

I'll tell you why YPA is such an important stat. It helps generate this one: Ramsey, since that date in 2002, average 20.1 points a game. Brunell averaged 14.8. 20 points per game would have us at 4-1 right now. But what about the interceptions, you ask? Just how many points did the Giants score off of Ramsey's interceptions?

[rskinsfan10]

Coles admitted it the next day.

I said the Hail Mary on #3 was on Ramsey.

Do you have a link to Coles admitting that, because as much as I keep up with the print stories and soundbites that come across the local news and SportsTalk980, I have never heard or seen him say as much. Another reason for my bewilderment with this is the fact that some people were saying this right after the game was over, before players were even interviewed, so my question has always been how do any of you know this?

I apologize for the point I was making on #3. I misread your quote as to saying that we needed to attempt that Hail Mary on that pass when in fact you didn't say that.

[rskinsfan10]

But what about the interceptions, you ask? Just how many points did the Giants score off of Ramsey's interceptions?
Joe, again I accuse you of trying to have it both ways. This isn't the first time you've asked this question, yet you seem to be ignoring a very simple, but important aspect in regards to it.

How many points did WE SCORE off of his INTs? You continue to harp on his ability to drive the team downfield, but you seemingly turn a deaf ear to the fact that he KILLED those three drives. What's the point in driving the team downfield if you are going to shoot yourself, and the team, in the foot? For the sake of saying that his stats were better? Turnovers hurt, regardless of if the opposition scores off of them.

[ShaggySkins]

Point to something? Okay: Neither has Brunell. Mark Brunell has won one game since December 12, 2002. That's a stat I hadn't looked up before, and my God, is it bad. That's Warner-esque. Remember Kurt? Ol' "hasn't won a game since the NFC Championship" Kurt? Remember how many times the guys on NFL Live, NFL Countdown, Fox, etc. repeated that phrase? Mark Brunell is just as bad. Since that date, Brunell has tabulated a whopping 5.63 yards per attempt. That's his average since December 12, 2002. Do you know how many starting quarterbacks have a yards per attempt average worse than that since December 12, 2002? One. One QB in the entire league has thrown for fewer yards per play than Mark Brunell. It's Joey Harrington, if you're wondering. You know, that young guy up in Detroit. Drafted the same year as Ramsey. The guy whose head many Detroitians were calling for in favor of an experienced veteran. Know what Harrington's numbers are this year, now that's he's got two seasons of playing under his belt and a few really nice weapons? He's 69 for 113 (61.1%), had 7 TDs to 2 INTs, and has thrown for 708 yards (6.27 YPA). It would look so pretty if Brunell were even near that.
.


Joe that is as much of a BS stat as you have thrown out. Seriously your getting angry at people pointing out the preseason and Ramsey's 3 interceptions. What you just did was skew the data more then anyone. Brunell since 12/15/02 his last win aganist the Bengals has only played in 4 games prior to the start of this season. Among those 4 games were The Colts (twice), Bills and the Panthers. Panthers and Colts were both playoff teams both years and the Jags were a sorry team.

But since you like pointing out the date of Brunell's last win lets compare his stats for those 4 games to Ramseys since that same date 12-15-02

Average Completion %
Brunell- 63.38%
Ramsey- 51.79%

Touchdown to Interception Ratio
Brunell- 5 touchdowns:1 interception
Ramsey- 1.5 touchdowns:1 interception

QB Rating
Brunell- 87.6 Rating
Ramsey- 75.2 Rating

Fumbles
Brunell- 1 fumble in 5 games
Ramsey- 11 fumbles in 14 games

Also just for the sake of it:
Sacks
Brunell- 3.75 times per game
Ramsey- 2.36 times per game

So don't point to the lack of protection for Ramsey with Spurriers system compared to Brunell.

All these stats were over your stretch of time that Brunell hasn't one a game. I took his last win till the start of this season not counting the Bucs game. The stats can mean anything depending on how u present them. These stats make Ramsey look A LOT worse then what he really is.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Joe, again I accuse you of trying to have it both ways. This isn't the first time you've asked this question, yet you seem to be ignoring a very simple, but important aspect in regards to it.

How many points did WE SCORE off of his INTs? You continue to harp on his ability to drive the team downfield, but you seemingly turn a deaf ear to the fact that he KILLED those three drives. What's the point in driving the team downfield if you are going to shoot yourself, and the team, in the foot? For the sake of saying that his stats were better? Turnovers hurt, regardless of if the opposition scores off of them.

How many points have WE SCORED with Brunell at the helm? I already provided the stats demonstrating that Ramsey scores more points than Brunell. I then pointed out that Ramsey's average of 20 points per game would have won four of our five games. The line about how many points the Giants scored off of us was in preperation for anyone who would say that other teams would be scoring a lot more with Ramsey's INTs. Our defense is good enough to stop that.

Shaggy, I'm not gonna quote your message because it's too long. Most people can read it anyways. My question to you is the same as my question to DJ a few posts ago: Why are you throwing away Brunell's stats from this year? Do they not count? Are we, in reality, 0-0, and the past month and a half has been a massive deception? The past five games are the reason why I want Brunell gone. I, like most of you, thought he would be the better QB at the beginning of the year. I've come to change my mind in the past five games.

I went all the way back to December 15, 2002 because I was looking for the last time he won out of a Redskins uniform. Why did I do that? Because someone brought up a BS fact about how Ramsey must be horrible because he hadn't won since last October. He was injured, obviously, but I decided that two could play at that game.

I won't argue at all that Ramsey was better last year that Brunell. He wasn't, although Brunell's stats are greatly inflated by his one game against Carolina. That's not worth getting into, though, as I'm really not in the mood to argue whether or not that one game or the other three show more of the real trend. You can probably guess my position, as I've been screaming all along that one game doesn't decide Ramsey's talent, either.

The point is that you're throwing this season out the window, and I have no idea why.

Oh, and hey, for you Brunell supporters to play with, here are a couple other fun facts:

We have scored the 4th fewest points in the league. Such offensive powerhouses as Chicago, Cleveland, and Arizona are ahead of us.

But even more importantly...

We have kicked the most punts in the entire league. All of it.

More punts than Baltimore. More punts than Oakland. More punts than San Francisco. More punts than Miami and Buffalo. We have punted the ball more than anyone.

But, hey, there's no way any responsibility could be on the shoulders of Mark Brunell.

[Chief Seeway]

Oh, and hey, for you Brunell supporters...

Joe, I think the majority of if not all of the people that disagree with you here are not "Brunell" supporters but actually "Gibbs decision" supporters.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Joe, I think the majority of if not all of the people that disagree with you here are not "Brunell" supporters but actually "Gibbs decision" supporters.

Alright, that's probably true enough. But if I went that route, it'd sound like I was attacking anyone who supports Gibbs' decisions. It's just this particular one, Mark Brunell, that irks me.

[rskinsfan10]

But, hey, there's no way any responsibility could be on the shoulders of Mark Brunell.

That right there is a very ominous sign Joe, one that tells me that it is fruitless to continue to debate this subject with you, because it is pretty obvious that you are not listening to those that disagree with you.

It is the contention of those that are against inserting Ramsey that the problems with the lack of offensive production is a problem that falls on the shoulders of the entire offense, including the head coach, who himself said as much. You seemingly are so consumed with anti-Brunell rhetoric that you aren't listening to others when they say that the OL/WRs/RBs/Play Calling/Scheme have also done their collective parts to cause this slow start, moreso then the play of the starting QB. You seem to have the opinion that a strong armed young buck can overcome all of these negative aspects. If that is indeed the case, then exactly why didn't we win more games under Spurrier with Ramsey at the helm? Remember all those problems that we had with, again, OL/WRs/RBs/Play Calling/Scheme? Weren't you defending Ramsey's play back then when it was obvious that those things contributed to the overall lack of success of the Redskins?

You have been on an anti-Brunell crusade from the day that it was announced that we were going after him, and at this point I doubt that he could do anything to sway your opinion of him. He has zipped passes to WRs, yet you continue to say that his arm strength is non-existent, or maybe they occured when you weren't watching. It has been explained that for the first time in his career, he has been told by his coach to not take chances and force things, yet you continue to diss him for not taking those chances. How dare the man do what his coach tells him to do, right? You diss him for not staying in the pocket, when if you look back over his career, he has always been the type of QB that seemingly had a mental clock going inside his head, and when the bell rung, he would move outside of it to either pick up yardage or hope to find a WR breaking away from coverage. He gets criticized for putting alot of air under the ball, when again, if people would look back OBJECTIVELY, that has always been his style on deep passes. The only QB that I can think of that put more air under the ball is Jeff Blake. It is a trait of Brunell's that didn't just come about this year.

I am not a Brunell supporter. I do support the assertion that he gave us the best chance to win THIS YEAR. I don't own a thing with his likeness or his name on it. I do, however, own two Ramsey jerseys. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of investing big money in jerseys of players that end up leaving here. Even still, I don't have a shred of confidence in his ability to magically come in the game and lead this team to the promise land. Ramsey has had more excuses made for him then any other Redskin QB that I personally can remember. Shuler didn't get this much of a pass, and he was a superstar coming out of college. We are 1-4 at the time of this post, and despite the fact that Brunell is the WORSE QB EVER, Ramsey still finds himself on the bench. There is a reason for this, and I for one don't believe that Joe Gibbs' pride is the reason why.

[dj_stouty]

My question to you is the same as my question to DJ a few posts ago: Why are you throwing away Brunell's stats from this year?

Joe~ You need to reread my post. The difference between Shaggy's QB performance stats and mine is the fact that I did include all of Brunell's 5 starts as a Redskin. From 12/22/02 to the moment I am typing this, Brunell has been more accurate, thrown less interceptions and lost less fumbles than Ramsey. I really don't want to hear about how Ramsey's stats are bad because of Spurrier. Brunell had just as many (and similar) problems in JAX over that time period. And if you believe there are too many variables to compare these stats, then don't use them in the first place.

But, hey, there's no way any responsibility could be on the shoulders of Mark Brunell.

I'm assuming this is tounge in cheek. Regardless, since when are people (including myself) not laying any blame on Brunell. I have been very critical of some of his decisions. I am not saying Brunell is the savior of this team. I'm saying that he is the best QB of our three that give us the best chance to win games right now. The last thing I want is to be pigeon-holed into some "list" of Brunell lovers and/or Ramsey haters....because that just isn't the case. As I said a few thread pages ago, I really like Ramsey and I think he will do well someday after he gets to know this system. Unfortunately, he hasn't done ANYTHING to show me he can lead us to a win today in Chicago.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Ugh, I can't read all that up there at the moment, I'll deal with it in a little bit. No, I'm not dodging anything, you can come back in a couple hours and see my response if you feel like it. For the moment, I'd just like to point out something:

I would have loved to have seen him connect on more throws, however many of his incomplete passes were safe, out of bounds tosses. GOOD PLAYS, where the O-line didn't contain the pass rush and Brunell took the smart way out. A lot of NFL quarterbacks would have tried to force throws into coverage and potentially turn over the ball in those situations. Everytime he tossed it out of bounds, he took away the defenses' chances of an INT or a sack for a loss.

This right here is the definition of a "playing not to lose" mentality. This was posted by DJ in praise of Mark Brunell in a different thread. This is the kind of philosophy that loses football games. You must take chances to win. Throwing the ball away a couple of times a game is fine. It's smart. Throwing it away every time there's the slightest chance of something going wrong is not going to win more than four or five games in a season. You must take chances. You must play to win. How anyone could take an 8/22 performance and say, "Hey, most of that was being a smart quarterback" is beyond me.

And for the record, Kenny, I supported Brunell as our starting QB by the time Week 1 rolled around. I've repeated that several times in this thread. You can go back a couple months and check my posts if you want. If you don't, and keep telling me how I've "had a grudge" against Brunell for months, I'll have to go and do it myself. That's the only part of your post I noticed as I was skimming. As I said, I'll get ot the rest (and DJ's) later, after I've taken a nap.

[whitskins]

I've said in a few other threads today that I was on the side of sticking with Brunell until today. Today I must simply jump off of that bandwagon after what I saw against Chicago.

Guys, Brunell's game today was ugly. He missed badly, I mean laughably badly, on too many throws to mention (but the bomb to Coles that would have been a TD if it weren't thrown out of counds deserves special regonition), but the "smart decision making" quarterback that I wanted to see today also took a hit when he scrambled late in the fourth quarter and ran OUT OF BOUNDS. That was a rookie mistake, and again inexcusable.

But regardless, here is why I'm hoping for Ramsey now. It is because I finally don't think Mark gives us the best chance to win anymore because we are a team that is officially afraid to throw the ball. How many times did we throw in the 2nd half? We simply do not want to throw the ball whenever possible now, which is a state far more damaging than simply not executing properly.

Things finally came to a head for me when all of the problems I have been seeing in our offense besides Brunell, seriously corrected themselves, yet here was Mark, still throwing pathetic throws (I won't say he's weak armed because I don't necessarily believe that, honestly I just can't tell simply by watching on TV) and not moving the chains. Guys Portis got us over 170 yards rushing and our quarterback can only complete 8 passes??? This is a serious issue and it doesn't seem to be getting better, it seems to be getting worse.

So yeah, we won and I'm thrilled, and it's very tough to bench a QB after a win, but I think today proved that Brunell is killing us more than anything else, so I just can't stick up for him any longer.

[thickskin]

disregard the barely 50% completion percentage and 5 and a half yds per pass and look instead at what bru-nail does when he has opportuniteis to make plays. he throws the ball behind, at the feet of, out of bounds relative to the field upon which are playing, and over the heads of the receivers. da schmoe is exactly right. you're not arguing about blame distribution so much as you're really arguing about the relative merits of differnt philosophies. play-it-safe is isn't putting enough points on the board, and more importantly, continues to give up points to the other team both directly, in the form of ints returned for tds, and in failing to capitalize on good opportunities like missing wide open receivers. gun-slinging on the other hand cost us the giants game. we got the running game going today with absolutely no passing game to keep them honest. that's huge. now we have two weeks to get ready for a tough but i think very winnable game. i don't think our d will shut down the pack. we will need points. sounds like gunslinger time.

[LATrueRedskin]

Man, that missed touchdown to Coles is the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with Kenny about supporting who can give us the best chance to win, but seeing Brunell play more and more, I'm beginning to feel like he's not that guy. I don't know if Ramsey is, but it's not Brunell. We didn't need to pass much this game against the Bears, but when we need to, we've proven that we can't. Teams aren't even remotely scared of our passing attack, because frankly, we don't have one. They only guard the pass when it's an obvious pass play.

Two consecutive games without over 100 yards passing is absolutely pitiful for an NFL quarterback. Brunell's passes were off, and those missed passes hurt badly. Coles' missed pass was such an unbelievably bad thrown ball. If he can't hit him in stride for a walk in touchdown, at least keep it in bounds for a huge gain. Missed first downs, big gains, and "drive keepers" were missed basically on bad throws. Brunell doesn't trust his offensive line, who gave him a pretty good amount of time this year so far. Just drop back, Mark, and throw a damn pass. Brunell either needs to play the position, or he'll be out.

[PennSkinsFan]

Man, that missed touchdown to Coles is the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with Kenny about supporting who can give us the best chance to win, but seeing Brunell play more and more, I'm beginning to feel like he's not that guy. I don't know if Ramsey is, but it's not Brunell. We didn't need to pass much this game against the Bears, but when we need to, we've proven that we can't. Teams aren't even remotely scared of our passing attack, because frankly, we don't have one. They only guard the pass when it's an obvious pass play.

Two consecutive games without over 100 yards passing is absolutely pitiful for an NFL quarterback. Brunell's passes were off, and those missed passes hurt badly. Coles' missed pass was such an unbelievably bad thrown ball. If he can't hit him in stride for a walk in touchdown, at least keep it in bounds for a huge gain. Missed first downs, big gains, and "drive keepers" were missed basically on bad throws. Brunell doesn't trust his offensive line, who gave him a pretty good amount of time this year so far. Just drop back, Mark, and throw a damn pass. Brunell either needs to play the position, or he'll be out.


Good Post. When we discuss who "gives us the best chance to win the game" i think there is just a huge difference in opinion on this. In my opinion, Patrick Ramsey provides us the best opportunity, the best chance to have a winning season. Folks, the Bears were awful today. We could have and shoudl have beat them worse. BUT, again and again and again, offensive drives are stalled by Mark Brunells' consistent inconsistency. If were playing a division rival or a stronger team that had a little bit of offense, unlike Chicago, we would have lossed this game and the offense would again have been at afault, and by offense I am talking about the poor, poor, poor, passing game we have, led by Mark Brunell. Yes, a win is a win, but folks, Mark Brunell was horrendous AGAIN. Second straight week he compeleted WAY under 50% of his passes. Second straight week he threw for less than 100 yards. It is simply horrendous. The bloickign was pretty decent most of the game. Heck a few times you coul just see the way Coles was looking , he was thinking, where the hell are you throwing that too. Ramsey in my opinion is the onl hope of reviving the offense. Young QBs are doing it all over the NFL.

[dj_stouty]

Guys...what has been the one major thorn in our sides the last few weeks?

TURNOVERS

Brunell made sure not to take any chances of turning over the ball. Aside from the INT that was a tipped ball...he held onto the ball and kept our field position intact. Gibbs said we would start winning once our offense stopped turning over the ball. That starts with the QB. He did his job...

I love how no one is mentioning how the WRs were rarely open, aside from those two plays. I love how no one is mentioning how the rush-blockers allowed quick penetration early and often, and forced Brunell out of the pocket on numerous occasions. I love how no one is mentioning how mobile Brunell really was today...and how on a 3rd and 9 play in Chicago territory, he ran the ball for 10 yards and the first down to keep the drive alive. (That drive ended up giving us 3 points)

And once again...the question I've asked a dozen times with ZERO answers. "EXACTLY what have you seen from Ramsey in the past year that makes you think he can perform at a high level to better this team?"

Is it his ability to run out of the pocket and make clear decisions? (Survey says: 'x')
Is it his ability to reduce the numbers of offensive turnovers for this team? (Survey says: 'xx')
Is it his ability to accurately throw the ball? (survey says: 'xxx')

Am I really sensing that people want to make a change at QB RIGHT NOW after a win? Are you kidding me? Yeah...I'm sure the NFL has a long list of NFL coaches that would bench their season-starting QB after a win, in which he played mistake-free football. You really think this team should jeopardize their momentum and take a chance on a new QB? If you do...then you aren't thinking like a Hall-of-Fame Head Coach, and you shoudn't quit your day-job anytime soon.

[tbfoster1]

i was just listening to the press conference gibbs had today. he said he hope brunell gets healthier over the bye week. he said he that brunell gives the passing game another dimension with his scrambling ability. he also said that he is sound in that he didn't force anything a give up big plays other than that one td which was a breakdown in blocking. gibbs went on to say that some of the best plays at QB are the plays that aren't there. and of course he said we'll have to take a look at the film. I'd really want to see ramsey in there but lord knows when that is going to happen

[whitskins]

I'm really just wondering how many sub-100 yard passing days we are going to have before we think about Ramsey. I personally don't see Brunell as playing anything near mistake free football, 8-22 passing (and a lot of those throws were such ugly ducks) indicates enough mistakes for me. We will not win 8 games with a passing attack like this and we need to fix it because if we beat Green Bay in two weeks we are right back in this thing, with a chance to get to 5-4 before Philly.

In Week Three and Four I wanted to see more out of Brunell. Now I think I've seen enough.

[rskinsfan10]

Guys...what has been the one major thorn in our sides the last few weeks?

TURNOVERS

Brunell made sure not to take any chances of turning over the ball. Aside from the INT that was a tipped ball...he held onto the ball and kept our field position intact. Gibbs said we would start winning once our offense stopped turning over the ball. That starts with the QB. He did his job...

I love how no one is mentioning how the WRs were rarely open, aside from those two plays. I love how no one is mentioning how the rush-blockers allowed quick penetration early and often, and forced Brunell out of the pocket on numerous occasions. I love how no one is mentioning how mobile Brunell really was today...and how on a 3rd and 9 play in Chicago territory, he ran the ball for 10 yards and the first down to keep the drive alive. (That drive ended up giving us 3 points)

And once again...the question I've asked a dozen times with ZERO answers. "EXACTLY what have you seen from Ramsey in the past year that makes you think he can perform at a high level to better this team?"

Is it his ability to run out of the pocket and make clear decisions? (Survey says: 'x')
Is it his ability to reduce the numbers of offensive turnovers for this team? (Survey says: 'xx')
Is it his ability to accurately throw the ball? (survey says: 'xxx')

Am I really sensing that people want to make a change at QB RIGHT NOW after a win? Are you kidding me? Yeah...I'm sure the NFL has a long list of NFL coaches that would bench their season-starting QB after a win, in which he played mistake-free football. You really think this team should jeopardize their momentum and take a chance on a new QB? If you do...then you aren't thinking like a Hall-of-Fame Head Coach, and you shoudn't quit your day-job anytime soon.

I'm done with this debate, so I ask you to please be my spokesman on the issue from now on dj. I admitted that Brunell looked bad today, but I'm still seeing people not recognize that everything didn't click as well as they would like for some to assume. Run blocking, yes, improvement occured today. Scheme, yes, improvement occured today. Pass blocking, no, there was no improvement today. Seperation from the DBs by the WRs, no, from what I could see, there wasn't a whole lot of improvement. People are blaming Brunell for the INT, when Alex Brown himself simply made a helluva play. We won today, yet I see more crying about the QB then celebrating the win. Wow.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I'm done with this debate, so I ask you to please be my spokesman on the issue from now on dj. I admitted that Brunell looked bad today, but I'm still seeing people not recognize that everything didn't click as well as they would like for some to assume. Run blocking, yes, improvement occured today. Scheme, yes, improvement occured today. Pass blocking, no, there was no improvement today. Seperation from the DBs by the WRs, no, from what I could see, there wasn't a whole lot of improvement. People are blaming Brunell for the INT, when Alex Brown himself simply made a helluva play. We won today, yet I see more crying about the QB then celebrating the win. Wow.

My response is the same as it has been for the past four weeks: A quarterback who only wins when everyone else plays perfectly isn't much of a quarterback.

Perhaps there's so much crying about the QB because everyone (well, everyone who wants Ramsey, anyway) knows that we won't many games with Marke Brunell. Especially not with Mark Brunell going 8 for 22.

Gotta move backwards to respond to all of these posts....

[rskinsfan10]

My response is the same as it has been for the past four weeks: A quarterback who only wins when everyone else plays perfectly isn't much of a quarterback.

Perhaps there's so much crying about the QB because everyone (well, everyone who wants Ramsey, anyway) knows that we won't many games with Marke Brunell. Especially not with Mark Brunell going 8 for 22.

Gotta move backwards to respond to all of these posts....
Saying that everyone played perfectly tells me that you aren't being objective, or did you miss Alex Brown in the backfield all day Joe?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Guys...what has been the one major thorn in our sides the last few weeks?

TURNOVERS

Are you kidding me? The thorn in our side against the Ravens wasn't the fact that we couldn't score once in the second half? The thorn in our side against the Browns wasn't that we only scored three points in the second half? The thorn in our side against the Cowboys wasn't that we couldnt punch the ball in from the one yard line?

The only time turnovers were the biggest problem for us was against the Giants. Was that Ramsey's fault? Well, more than anyone else's. I won't argue with that, although some people will call into question how many of his interceptions were really his fault. But is he turnover-prone? No more so than half the starting quarterbacks in the national football league. That's not opinion. That's a statistical fact.

We have had four defensively returned touchdowns against us in the past six weeks. We won one of those games because of a 64-yard Portis run and stifling defense. We won another because Portis ran for 171 yards, and because of our again stifling defense. In the other two, we lost by four points and six points. Neither time did we manage to score 20 points. In fact, in all four games in which the opposing defense has scored, the defense held the opposition to a total of 23 points. That's all four games combined. If we can't win when our defense is playing that well, then the problem is with our offense, and it's not because of the turnovers. It's because we're not scoring a meager amount.

Brunell made sure not to take any chances of turning over the ball. Aside from the INT that was a tipped ball...he held onto the ball and kept our field position intact. Gibbs said we would start winning once our offense stopped turning over the ball. That starts with the QB. He did his job...

Oh, Brunell made sure not to take any chances, all right. You don't go 8 for 22 by going for a touchdown, or even a big play, very often.

I love how no one is mentioning how the WRs were rarely open, aside from those two plays. I love how no one is mentioning how the rush-blockers allowed quick penetration early and often, and forced Brunell out of the pocket on numerous occasions. I love how no one is mentioning how mobile Brunell really was today...and how on a 3rd and 9 play in Chicago territory, he ran the ball for 10 yards and the first down to keep the drive alive. (That drive ended up giving us 3 points)

I love how you make the same excuses every week, yet there were several blatant plays today that contradict you, plays that I would expect any starting QB in this league to make. I love how you bring up the one third down conversion he made with his legs, yet ignore the fact that twice he had the ball put in his hands on a crucial third down late in the game. A conversion on either play would have essentially allowed us to run out the clock. He couldn't do it.

And once again...the question I've asked a dozen times with ZERO answers. "EXACTLY what have you seen from Ramsey in the past year that makes you think he can perform at a high level to better this team?"

Is it his ability to run out of the pocket and make clear decisions? (Survey says: 'x')
Is it his ability to reduce the numbers of offensive turnovers for this team? (Survey says: 'xx')
Is it his ability to accurately throw the ball? (survey says: 'xxx')

I've answered. You've ignored the answers, apparently because they don't please you. I've seen the fact that Ramsey is not hesitant in his decisions. I've seen the fact that he can make the long throws Brunell so blatantly missed on today. I've seen the fact that Ramsey consistently moves the ball down the field, and the statistical fact that, when he has started a game, the offense has averaed nearly a touchdown more in production than Brunell's starts over the same timeframe.

Am I really sensing that people want to make a change at QB RIGHT NOW after a win? Are you kidding me? Yeah...I'm sure the NFL has a long list of NFL coaches that would bench their season-starting QB after a win, in which he played mistake-free football. You really think this team should jeopardize their momentum and take a chance on a new QB? If you do...then you aren't thinking like a Hall-of-Fame Head Coach, and you shoudn't quit your day-job anytime soon.

Mistake-free? 8 for 22 is mistake free? A pick returned for a touchdown is mistake free? You can argue that it wasn't his fault all you want, but then we get into the dangerous realm of when a quarterback's interceptions are his fault and are not his fault. You don't want to go there, do you? With Patrick Ramsey's blame for his own picks looming ominously?

We won, yes. But we saw the worst performance by Mark Brunell yet this season. This game, his sixth straight as Gibbs' unquestioned starter, his sixth straight running the offense, was Mark Brunell's worst so far. He is not improving. He is regressing.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Saying that everyone played perfectly tells me that you aren't being objective, or did you miss Alex Brown in the backfield all day Joe?

I didn't say everyone played perfectly. You're insisting that only when everyone else plays perfectly can Mark Brunell truly be judged. I'm telling you that insisting on that circumstance would make Brunell one very bad quarterback.

[dj_stouty]

Perhaps there's so much crying about the QB because everyone (well, everyone who wants Ramsey, anyway) knows that we won't many games with Marke Brunell. ....

Why is my question falling on deaf ears for the 30th time? Exactly what has Ramsey done in the past year that makes you think he can perform well enough to make this team win? The reason why this question has been avoided 29 other times is because there is no answer other than; Brunell sucks. And that isn't good enough.

I think its funny how many people around here have forgotten that over the past year, Ramsey has also thrown the ball at receiver's feet. He has also over/underthrown WIDE OPEN RECEIVERS. And instead of moving outside of the pocket when the protection breaks down, he would regularly stand tall and take more sacks than not. It's too bad the NFL network doesn't have NFL games-on-demand so we can go back and watch Ramsey's throws. (I want royalties if they do come out with that feature! ;))

Change for the sake of change doesn't solve a thing. We just won a game in which we ran the ball over 45 times, AND WON! Our O-line won the battle in the rush blocking trenches and we stuck with what worked, AND WON! Sometimes you don't need 100-yards of passing to win the game. Whatever happened to; "defenses wins championships"...or "you can't win without rushing the ball down the defense's necks"? All of a sudden we care whether or not our QB passes for 100 yards? WE WON!

[rskinsfan10]

I didn't say everyone played perfectly. You're insisting that only when everyone else plays perfectly can Mark Brunell truly be judged. I'm telling you that insisting on that circumstance would make Brunell one very bad quarterback.

You didn't? What does this mean then Joe:

My response is the same as it has been for the past four weeks: A quarterback who only wins when everyone else plays perfectly isn't much of a quarterback.

Were you unaware that we did win today? If that's not what you were implying Joe, then why even make that comment?

I'm not insisting that Brunell can only be judged when everyone else plays perfectly. You need to take a harder look at my comments. I have maintained that this teams offensive woes cannot be blamed soley on Brunell.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Why is my question falling on deaf ears for the 30th time? Exactly what has Ramsey done in the past year that makes you think he can perform well enough to make this team win? The reason why this question has been avoided 29 other times is because there is no answer other than; Brunell sucks. And that isn't good enough.

I think its funny how many people around here have forgotten that over the past year, Ramsey has also thrown the ball at receiver's feet. He has also over/underthrown WIDE OPEN RECEIVERS. And instead of moving outside of the pocket when the protection breaks down, he would regularly stand tall and take more sacks than not. It's too bad the NFL network doesn't have NFL games-on-demand so we can go back and watch Ramsey's throws. (I want royalties if they do come out with that feature! ;))

Change for the sake of change doesn't solve a thing. We just won a game in which we ran the ball over 45 times, AND WON! Our O-line won the battle in the rush blocking trenches and we stuck with what worked, AND WON! Sometimes you don't need 100-yards of passing to win the game. Whatever happened to; "defenses wins championships"...or "you can't win without rushing the ball down the defense's necks"? All of a sudden we care whether or not our QB passes for 100 yards? WE WON!

I answered your question in my next post. I said I'd be moving back in the thread to answer all the posts. I can only type so fast... I'm not Spence, after all. ;)

But, hey, you're right. Mark Brunell has now beaten two 1-4 teams. Hooray! If only the packers had lost today, then we'd be playing another one-win team, and we might be able to eek out another close one! Yes, WE WON, but you're not seeing the forest for the trees. The forest tells me that, over the course of the season, 8 for 22 is going to lose us a lot more games than it wins.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

You didn't? What does this mean then Joe:

Were you unaware that we did win today? If that's not what you were implying Joe, then why even make that comment?

I'm not insisting that Brunell can only be judged when everyone else plays perfectly. You need to take a harder look at my comments. I have maintained that this teams offensive woes cannot be blamed soley on Brunell.

I was saying that because you have consistently made excuse after excuse after excuse for Brunell's bad play. Perhaps I should amend my oft-repeated phrase to include the word "consistently." We won today, but it was in spite of Brunell, not because of him. A quarterback who cannot consistently win games without everyone else playing perfectly isn't much of a quarterback.

[dj_stouty]

I've answered. You've ignored the answers, apparently because they don't please you. I've seen the fact that Ramsey is not hesitant in his decisions. I've seen the fact that he can make the long throws Brunell so blatantly missed on today. I've seen the fact that Ramsey consistently moves the ball down the field, and the statistical fact that, when he has started a game, the offense has averaed nearly a touchdown more in production than Brunell's starts over the same timeframe.
[/b]

Ramsey is not hesitant in his decisions? That is entirely not true. Everyone has pointed out that he holds onto the ball too long. I call that hesitant.

I've watched Ramsey disregard wide open WRs MANY TIMES last year. I think you have the case of selective memory loss when it comes to that.

[rskinsfan10]

I was saying that because you have consistently made excuse after excuse after excuse for Brunell's bad play. Perhaps I should amend my oft-repeated phrase to include the word "consistently." We won today, but it was in spite of Brunell, not because of him. A quarterback who cannot consistently win games without everyone else playing perfectly isn't much of a quarterback.
And what exactly is Ramsey's record Joe?

[dj_stouty]

And what exactly is Ramsey's record Joe?

Be carefull...he will most likely bring up Spurrier again...;)

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Ramsey is not hesitant in his decisions? That is entirely not true. Everyone has pointed out that he holds onto the ball too long. I call that hesitant.

I've watched Ramsey disregard wide open WRs MANY TIMES last year. I think you have the case of selective memory loss when it comes to that.

He doesn't hold it too long any less often than Brunell holds it.

He also hit double-covered WRs MANY TIMES last year. Brunell has done that... what, once?

[rskinsfan10]

Be carefull...he will most likely bring up Spurrier again...;)
I expect him to.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

And what exactly is Ramsey's record Joe?

Better than Brunell's over the same time period.

[rskinsfan10]

Better than Brunell's over the same time period.

What is it Joe?

[PennSkinsFan]

All right fellas...my two cents
































Brunell Sucks

[dj_stouty]

The forest tells me that, over the course of the season, 8 for 22 is going to lose us a lot more games than it wins.

8 for 22 is bad.

But wouldn't you agree 8 for 25 is even worse?

That was the stat for Ramsey's game versus Buffalo last year. I guess under your logic that neither Brunell nor Ramsey are cut out to win in Washington.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

7-9. Brunell, over the same time period, was 2-7. I'm chomping at the bit to see how this means Brunell is the better quarterback.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

8 for 22 is bad.

But wouldn't you agree 8 for 25 is even worse?

That was the stat for Ramsey's game versus Buffalo last year. I guess under your logic that neither Brunell nor Ramsey are cut out to win in Washington.

My logic the entire time is that you can't judge a player by one game. I was attempting to write a line that sounded pretty good with that "8 for 22 won't win much" sentence. I wasn't judging Brunell by one game, as can be seen by my excessive use of season stats.

[rskinsfan10]

7-9, and with a team that the coach of the hated rival said had the most talent then anyone else in the division. Hmm, maybe it was Ramsey that was holding this team back while Spurrier was here.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

7-9, and with a team that the coach of the hated rival said had the most talent then anyone else in the division. Hmm, maybe it was Ramsey that was holding this team back while Spurrier was here.

Care to respond to the second half of what I said? The 2-7 part?

[PennSkinsFan]

His completion percentage is now down to 51.2% and passer rating as fallen below 70

Over the past two games, he has completed 21 passes on 51 attempts, marking a dismal 41%. Plus in those two games he has thrown for a mere 179 yards.

Compare that to Johnathan Quinn. he ha scompleted 36 of 65, marking a pecentage of 55% completion for 283 yards.

OMG, Brunell is worse than Quinn!

[rskinsfan10]

Care to respond to the second half of what I said? The 2-7 part?

Respond to what Joe? You are comparing 9 games to 16, and acting as though it is some sweeping indictment against Brunell. You have stated too many times to recall that you don't want Ramsey judged on limited action, yet you are making comparisons with not factoring in an equal amount of games played.

[rskinsfan10]

His completion percentage is now down to 51.2% and passer rating as fallen below 70

Over the past two games, he has completed 21 passes on 51 attempts, marking a dismal 41%. Plus in those two games he has thrown for a mere 179 yards.

Compare that to Johnathan Quinn. he ha scompleted 36 of 65, marking a pecentage of 55% completion for 283 yards.

OMG, Brunell is worse than Quinn!

Call Redskin Park and ask them to trade for Quinn then Mark.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Respond to what Joe? You are comparing 9 games to 16, and acting as though it is some sweeping indictment against Brunell. You have stated too many times to recall that you don't want Ramsey judged on limited action, yet you are making comparisons with not factoring in an equal amount of games played.

I was doing two things:

1) Leaving out this season, for your sake, and....

2) Simply going by the weeks during which both played.

If you really must get nitpicky, I can very happily include the past sixgames, as well as the lastest one from 2002 that I didn't count. That makes him 4-12.

Now, please explain how that is better than 7-9.

[PennSkinsFan]

Call Redskin Park and ask them to trade for Quinn then Mark.

Nah. A benching would be sufficient

[rskinsfan10]

I was doing two things:

1) Leaving out this season, for your sake, and....

2) Simply going by the weeks during which both played.

If you really must get nitpicky, I can very happily include the past sixgames, as well as the lastest one from 2002 that I didn't count. That makes him 4-12.

Now, please explain how that is better than 7-9.

Who had the better talent around him during that time Joe, or is that really being nitpicky?

[dj_stouty]

OMG, Brunell is worse than Quinn!

Except for the fact that Brunell is 1-1 over those two games and Quinn is 0-2.

[rskinsfan10]

Nah. A benching would be sufficient

Great, throw in the QB who has proven absolutely nothing. It's guaranteed to produce the results that we all are hoping for.

GUARANTEED.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Who had the better talent around him during that time Joe, or is that really being nitpicky?

Who had Jimmy Smith and Fred Taylor with him both years, along with a defense that ranked 12th in 2003 and 10th in 2002? Who had Tom Coughlin and Jack Del Rio?

Now, who had a decent running game and defense for six of his games, and a complete lack of a running back and the 25th ranked defense for ten of them? Better yet, who had Steve Spurrier as a coach?

Oh, and who was a rookie?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Great, throw in the QB who has proven absolutely nothing. It's guaranteed to produce the results that we all are hoping for.

GUARANTEED.

As opposed to a QB who has proven quite well that he can rank within five of the bottom in almost every meaningful statistical category for a QB? A QB who's GUARANTEED to turn more of his drives into punts than any other quarterback in the league?

[rskinsfan10]

Who had Jimmy Smith and Fred Taylor with him both years, along with a defense that ranked 12th in 2003 and 10th in 2002? Who had Tom Coughlin and Jack Del Rio?

Now, who had a decent running game and defense for six of his games, and a complete lack of a running back and the 25th ranked defense for ten of them? Better yet, who had Steve Spurrier as a coach?

Oh, and who was a rookie?

You named two players Joe. Is it your assertion that those two players are collectively better then the players that ramsey had at his disposal?

Did Ramsey not have a top defense with him when Lewis was here, and promises that the scheme would stay the same after he departed? But why does it matter where Ramsey's defense ranked, if as you say your QB should be able to win games for you by himself?

[dj_stouty]

As opposed to a QB who has proven quite well that he can rank within five of the bottom in almost every meaningful statistical category for a QB? A QB who's GUARANTEED to turn more of his drives into punts than any other quarterback in the league?

You really don't have much confidence in Ramsey, if you continually answer Ramsey's criticisms with information on Brunell's current playing. How can we be sure Ramsey won't be the catalyst for more punts?

[rskinsfan10]

As opposed to a QB who has proven quite well that he can rank within five of the bottom in almost every meaningful statistical category for a QB? A QB who's GUARANTEED to turn more of his drives into punts than any other quarterback in the league?

Yep, a QB that has at least proven SOMETHING in this league, not the one that cried like a punk when he wasn't given the job, and when given the chance to earn it, FAILED MISERABLY.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

You named two players Joe. Is it your assertion that those two players are collectively better then the players that ramsey had at his disposal?

Did Ramsey not have a top defense with him when Lewis was here, and promises that the scheme would stay the same after he departed? But why does it matter where Ramsey's defense ranked, if as you say your QB should be able to win games for you by himself?

Good Lord, Kenny, I'm not gonna go player-by-player on both teams' rosters over the span of two years. If you honestly wish to contend that the Jaguars had worse personnel... not better, not equal, worse personnel... go make a poll in the NFL forum or something. I'm sure we can all agree that Steve Spurrier was worse. And, by the way, how the hell does a promise made before the 2003 season weigh in at all with how the defense actually played?

You really don't have much confidence in Ramsey, if you continually answer Ramsey's criticisms with information on Brunell's current playing. How can we be sure Ramsey won't be the catalyst for more punts?

Uh... what? I was sarcastically talking about Brunell in response to Kenny sarcastically talking about Ramsey. It was balanced mudslinging.

Yep, a QB that has at least proven SOMETHING in this league, not the one that cried like a punk when he wasn't given the job, and when given the chance to earn it, FAILED MISERABLY.

Joe Theismann's proven something, why don't we call him up?

[dj_stouty]

Yep, a QB has at least proven SOMETHING in this league, not the one that cried like a punk when he wasn't given the job, and when given the chance to earn it, FAILED MISERABLY.

I really think we need to go back to training camp and the preseason this year to show exactly how "effective" Ramsey was. Brunell clearly won the starting job. There wasn't a soul in DC who refuted that. In fact, many thought that Ramsey lost the job, opposed to Brunell outright winning it. Ramsey looked like Weurfull during the preseason. He looked like he had WAY too much pressure on him, which he obviously couldn't handle. The only time he actually passed for over 50% during the preseason was in the final preseason game, when the monkey was lifted off his back and the pressure was removed.

Forget the stats for one moment. I question his ability to overcome pressure and perform.

[PennSkinsFan]

I really think we need to go back to training camp and the preseason this year to show exactly how "effective" Ramsey was. Brunell clearly won the starting job. There wasn't a soul in DC who refuted that. In fact, many thought that Ramsey lost the job, opposed to Brunell outright winning it. Ramsey looked like Weurfull during the preseason. He looked like he had WAY too much pressure on him, which he obviously couldn't handle. The only time he actually passed for over 50% during the preseason was in the final preseason game, when the monkey was lifted off his back and the pressure was removed.

Forget the stats for one moment. I question his ability to overcome pressure and perform.

I guess al I can say is, BRING ON HASS!

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I really think we need to go back to training camp and the preseason this year to show exactly how "effective" Ramsey was. Brunell clearly won the starting job. There wasn't a soul in DC who refuted that. In fact, many thought that Ramsey lost the job, opposed to Brunell outright winning it. Ramsey looked like Weurfull during the preseason. He looked like he had WAY too much pressure on him, which he obviously couldn't handle. The only time he actually passed for over 50% during the preseason was in the final preseason game, when the monkey was lifted off his back and the pressure was removed.

Forget the stats for one moment. I question his ability to overcome pressure and perform.

Actually, Ramsey looked nothing like Weurffel in the preseason. If he did, he would have torn it up and thrown 6 TDs a game. That would be part of my point regarding preseason: It's preseason. It's the time when Spurrier's ex-Gators looked amazing, and good teams like the Patriots look terrible. By the way, exactly how good did Brunell look back then?

Ability to overcome pressure and perform? How 'bout the fourth quarter comeback drives he led last year? How 'bout turning around from being down 17-0 to the Falcons and winning? How 'bout coming in when Matthews was hurt in his rookie year, and lighting up the Titans in his first NFL game?

Ramsey has performed very well under game pressure. The only pressure he seems to wilt against is that of winning the job from Brunell. Game pressure is a tad more important in my book.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I guess al I can say is, BRING ON HASS!

*audible groan*

[dj_stouty]

I guess al I can say is, BRING ON HASS!

:imshock:

[rskinsfan10]

Good Lord, Kenny, I'm not gonna go player-by-player on both teams' rosters over the span of two years. If you honestly wish to contend that the Jaguars had worse personnel... not better, not equal, worse personnel... go make a poll in the NFL forum or something. I'm sure we can all agree that Steve Spurrier was worse. And, by the way, how the hell does a promise made before the 2003 season weigh in at all with how the defense actually played?

Why should I have to do that Joe? You seemingly don't have any issues with doing research when you think that it paints your boy in a promising light. You make the poll for me, since you seem to bo so adament about doing so.

[whitskins]

Guys I can see where the anti-Ramsey sentiment is coming from since I was spitting it just a few weeks back, but really how many more sub-100 yard passing games can we take?

We have Green Bay coming up at home in two weeks, then Detroit and Cincinnati before we go to Philly. If we can perform like we're capable, we could be a 5-4 team going into the Eagles game, but how can we be expected to win if we're AFRAID to throw the ball (personally I am, and I think it's obvious the coaching staff wants to avoid it at all costs).

To say we're one dimensional is an understatement, we flat out can't score more than one TD a game if we're getting less than 100 yards passing. It's impossible to argue that Ramsey is the obvious choice and savior, but I've seen him sling it around pretty good, sure he's made some obvious bad choices and interceptions which I've harped on myself, but Mark's INTs seem to always go for TDs, and if we can upgrade our offense then I think they'll overcome any extra INTs we suffer, which really aren't even a given.

[dj_stouty]

Actually, Ramsey looked nothing like Weurffel in the preseason. If he did, he would have torn it up and thrown 6 TDs a game. That would be part of my point regarding preseason: It's preseason. It's the time when Spurrier's ex-Gators looked amazing, and good teams like the Patriots look terrible.


My analogy of Patrick in the preseason was to Weurffel in the regular season. Sloppy.

I think bringing up the preseason is very critical to this discussion...simply because Ramsey was in a QB-battle at the time. He knew that the way to win the starting job was to do so over the course of 4 preseason games. 2 in which he would start and 2 in which he wouldn't. And he floundered.

By the way, exactly how good did Brunell look back then?

How did Brunell look in the preseason? Now you care? Well since you asked:

Brunell over 5 preseason games:
26 of 46 for 295 yards, 1 TD and 0 INT.
That comes out to 56.5% completions and 6.4 yards per attempt.

Ramsey over 5 preseason games:
26 of 58 for 277 yard, 0 TD and 1 INT.
That comes out to 44.8% completions and 4.7 yards per attempt.

[dj_stouty]

Guys I can see where the anti-Ramsey sentiment is coming from since I was spitting it just a few weeks back, but really how many more sub-100 yard passing games can we take?

We have Green Bay coming up at home in two weeks, then Detroit and Cincinnati before we go to Philly. If we can perform like we're capable, we could be a 5-4 team going into the Eagles game, but how can we be expected to win if we're AFRAID to throw the ball (personally I am, and I think it's obvious the coaching staff wants to avoid it at all costs).

To say we're one dimensional is an understatement, we flat out can't score more than one TD a game if we're getting less than 100 yards passing. It's impossible to argue that Ramsey is the obvious choice and savior, but I've seen him sling it around pretty good, sure he's made some obvious bad choices and interceptions which I've harped on myself, but Mark's INTs seem to always go for TDs, and if we can upgrade our offense then I think they'll overcome any extra INTs we suffer, which really aren't even a given.

Do you think the ineffectiveness of the passing offense lies soley on the shoulders of the QB, or do you think it could be a combination of the QB, the O-line not pass blocking and our WRs not getting open?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

What is the point of playing Brunell? If this season is a transition season
(which it looks like it might be)would not it be in our best interest to see if
Ramsey actually is the FUTURE? Brunell remaining the starter does nothing
for us. Maybe we win a few games but what's the point?Unless Coach Gibbs
feels Brunell can actually be our QB for a couple of seasons. With Brunell
we "Might" win a battle..but with Ramsey..I believe we can win the war.

[whitskins]

Do you think the ineffectiveness of the passing offense lies soley on the shoulders of the QB, or do you think it could be a combination of the QB, the O-line not pass blocking and our WRs not getting open?

I agree that it's a combination of all of those things but in all honesty I see Brunell getting good protection and plenty of errant throws to very open receivers.

Really, I don't buy all this talk about our WRs not being open, I'm seeing lots of open guys who are getting balls thrown at their feet, over their heads, or out of bounds. I also see some pretty nice pockets for Mark, sure once in a while he has to move around but he's by no means running for his life like Ramsey was last year.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Why should I have to do that Joe? You seemingly don't have any issues with doing research when you think that it paints your boy in a promising light. You make the poll for me, since you seem to bo so adament about doing so.

Why would I have issues with doing research that supports my side of the argument?

Also, how am I adamant about anything regarding the surrounding talent? You dared me to post Ramsey's record, then you starting making excuses for Brunell, again, when I compared him to Ramsey with the very thing you dared me to do. I haven't been adamant about anything in this little chunk of the argument.

I think bringing up the preseason is very critical to this discussion...siHow did Brunell look in the preseason? Now you care? mply because Ramsey was in a QB-battle at the time. He knew that the way to win the starting job was to do so over the course of 4 preseason games. 2 in which he would start and 2 in which he wouldn't. And he floundered.

As I said, Ramsey has not done well handling the pressure of beating out Brunell. I won't argue that at all.

How did Brunell look in the preseason? Now you care?

I've repeated that every single time anyone brought anything up about Ramsey's preseason. Did you not notice?

And, honestly, 56.5% is better than I thought Brunell had done in the preseason. That's equal to 29th in the league right now. If only I could say the same about Brunell's regular season stats.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Do you think the ineffectiveness of the passing offense lies soley on the shoulders of the QB, or do you think it could be a combination of the QB, the O-line not pass blocking and our WRs not getting open?

Brunell has a pocket on 90% of the pass plays. If he had simply hit the several blatantly wide open wide receivers that he missed today and not done a thing different, I probably would have shut my mouth for a while. This was not a case of receivers not being able to get open.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Haven't you learned by now Joe? Brunell has the "worst" O-line
in the league..followed by 2 below average WRS. It couldn't possibly be
his fault...

[rskinsfan10]

Why would I have issues with doing research that supports my side of the argument?

Also, how am I adamant about anything regarding the surrounding talent? You dared me to post Ramsey's record, then you starting making excuses for Brunell, again, when I compared him to Ramsey with the very thing you dared me to do. I haven't been adamant about anything in this little chunk of the argument.

You have been more then adament throughout this entire debate Joe. I didn't dare you to do anything. I asked you a simple question, and that question was asked because you repeatedly assert that a QB be based on his ability to win games. My point in asking you to compare rosters is to show you it isn't as cut and dry as you make it appear when it comes to win-loss records. Supporting cast does matter. It's not soley on the QB.

As far as making excuses, isn't that a case of the cat calling kettle black? Ramsey has had more then his share of excuse makers on this forum, and you certainly have made your share in his regard.

[rskinsfan10]

Haven't you learned by now Joe? Brunell has the "worst" O-line
in the league..followed by 2 below average WRS. It couldn't possibly be
his fault...
And exactly who said that?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

And exactly who said that?
It has been implied by many people on this board.
Many people might consider me a Ramsey apologist..which is fine.
Because I think there are quite a few Brunell apologists as well.

[rskinsfan10]

It has been implied by many people on this board.
Many people might consider me a Ramsey apologist..which is fine.
Because I think there are quite a few Brunell apologists as well.

I have yet to see anyone "imply" that the o-line is the worst in the league. To act as though the pass protection/run blocking has been more then average, before today when the run blocking stepped up, is being a bit niave IMO. I also noticed that those that still think that Brunell should remain the starter themselves stated that he had a bad game today, so that attempt at sarcasm doesn't have wings.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I have yet to see anyone "imply" that the o-line is the worst in the league. To act as though the pass protection/run blocking has been more then average, before today when the run blocking stepped up, is being a bit niave IMO. I also noticed that those that still think that Brunell should remain the starter themselves stated that he had a bad game today, so that attempt at sarcasm doesn't have wings.
In your opinion it doesn't have wings...but that's ok.
We've disagreed on Brunell vs. Ramsey before..and we will continue
to disagree. I do respect your opinion though.

[rskinsfan10]

In your opinion it doesn't have wings...but that's ok.
We've disagreed on Brunell vs. Ramsey before..and we will continue
to disagree. I do respect your opinion though.

I respect yours as well, but I still don't understand why you would say that some are implying that he has no bearing in the struggles of the passing game, when what we actually have been saying is that it isn't ALL his fault.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

You have been more then adament throughout this entire debate Joe. I didn't dare you to do anything. I asked you a simple question, and that question was asked because you repeatedly assert that a QB be based on his ability to win games. My point in asking you to compare rosters is to show you it isn't as cut and dry as you make it appear when it comes to win-loss records. Supporting cast does matter. It's not soley on the QB.

As far as making excuses, isn't that a case of the cat calling kettle black? Ramsey has had more then his share of excuse makers on this forum, and you certainly have made your share in his regard.

You didn't use the word "dare," but it was pretty obvious that you were trying to hammer on a point until I could come up with data that, you assumed, would support your point. When Brunell's data was worse, you changed from "What's his record, Joe?" to "Well, there are supporting casts and things to take into consideration."

I never said supporting cast didn't matter. I never said it was all on the QBs. Where, in fact, have I said anything remotely close to that? What I was was that a QB who only wins when no one else screws up isn't much of a QB. That "no one else" could be a Super Bowl team or the Arizona Cardinals. I don't care. The point remains the same.

As far as making excuses, I personally have never heard of a cat calling the kettle black. ;)

Really, though, I don't seem to recall making many excuses for Ramsey, because I've been one of the few that hasn't attempted to explain away his interceptions, and I'll continue to not do so. He screwed up. It was ugly. Were all three his entire fault? No. It's arguable that only two, or maybe even only one, were. But he still threw three picks. I won't shy away from that. At the same time, I'll prove with statistical evidence that Ramsey is less interception-prone than half the starting QBs in the league, meaning that he just had a bad game against the Giants. Nothing more, nothing less.

You Brunell supporters, meanwhile, have now seen Brunell deliver mediocre-to-terrible performances six weeks straight, and have to make excuses every time. It was the bad running game, you say. It was the bad pass blocking, you say. It was the drops, you say. In response, I say that Ramsey had to deal with each of those problems to an equal or greater degree last year, and led the offense to an average of six more points a game than Brunell has. We could be 5-1 with Ramsey's average.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I respect yours as well, but I still don't understand why you would say that some are implying that he has no bearing in the struggles of the passing game, when what we actually have been saying is that it isn't ALL his fault.
Ok..you are right..it isn't all his fault. I never said that. He is not
responsible for Clinton's fumbles, or the "sometimes" bad play of the
O-line. But I do think the lack of a running game has to do with his
lack of arm strength.
PS:By the way, our O-line has not played that badly. A number
of the sacks given up were actually caused by Brunell.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

You didn't use the word "dare," but it was pretty obvious that you were trying to hammer on a point until I could come up with data that, you assumed, would support your point. When Brunell's data was worse, you changed from "What's his record, Joe?" to "Well, there are supporting casts and things to take into consideration."

I never said supporting cast didn't matter. I never said it was all on the QBs. Where, in fact, have I said anything remotely close to that? What I was was that a QB who only wins when no one else screws up isn't much of a QB. That "no one else" could be a Super Bowl team or the Arizona Cardinals. I don't care. The point remains the same.

As far as making excuses, I personally have never heard of a cat calling the kettle black. ;)

Really, though, I don't seem to recall making many excuses for Ramsey, because I've been one of the few that hasn't attempted to explain away his interceptions, and I'll continue to not do so. He screwed up. It was ugly. Were all three his entire fault? No. It's arguable that only two, or maybe even only one, were. But he still threw three picks. I won't shy away from that. At the same time, I'll prove with statistical evidence that Ramsey is less interception-prone than half the starting QBs in the league, meaning that he just had a bad game against the Giants. Nothing more, nothing less.

You Brunell supporters, meanwhile, have now seen Brunell deliver mediocre-to-terrible performances six weeks straight, and have to make excuses every time. It was the bad running game, you say. It was the bad pass blocking, you say. It was the drops, you say. In response, I say that Ramsey had to deal with each of those problems to an equal or greater degree last year, and led the offense to an average of six more points a game than Brunell has. We could be 5-1 with Ramsey's average.
It will fall upon deaf ears Joe.

[hockeygoalie29]

rskinsfan10, I've read threw your posts, and it seems to me that you haven't given your opinion on the situation, but have taken the road of debating others opinions for the sake of pointing out what you feel to be inconsistantcies. By doing so you give the impression that you think Brunell is the best man for the job. Is this correct (and please don't say because Gibbs thinks he should be, I want your opinion)? If so, I'd love to hear why. I'll have to check back later when I am not swamped with midterms to check out your response.

My opinion is that Ramsey couldn't do much worse. The only thing worse than Brunell would be to give up more points to the opposing D, which at Brunells rate of about 7 a game would be hard to do. I have seen Brunell in person at every home game, and every away game on TV (except for this last one) and I'm not impressed. In fact, I'm downright disgusted. Without digging up hard evidence, I will estimate that the offense under Brunell (without counting scores off turnovers by our D) is scoring about 7 to 10 points a game. There is no one that can argue that this is productive. No one can argue that Brunell's numbers have been getting worse as the season goes on. And it is hard to argue that Brunell doesn't take a significant portion of the blame. The only reason we are 2-4 this year and not 0-6 is that our D is playing fabulously.

So like I said, maybe Ramsey doesn't do any better than Brunell, but it would be very difficult to do much worse.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

HG, if you had seen this game, you'd be even more disgusted. It was his worst to date, and this time he doesn't have the Ravens defense to blame it on.

[lakewinola]

The New Brunell Line for the week:

33 NFL Qb's have attempted an average of 14 passes per game. Of that 33 Brunell ranks:

32rd in completion % 51.2%
31st in yards per attempt 5.43
22nd in touchdown % 3%
26th in QB rating 69.8

[chrisbcbu]

I have been a HUGE Brunell supporter, and i will continue to support him until Gibbs tells him to sit the bench. If Gibbs has faith in Brunell then i will NOT question it. As it stands now, Gibbs has better perspective than i do in the Quarterback debate. Fans and the media are saying there is a debate, which the ppl that matter(Gibbs, coaching staff) have never waivered in their QB.

Granted i was extremely disappointed in his performance yesterday, but apparently Ramsey is not showing anything in practice. If he were showing something in practice it would be obvious that he would take over. But if Ramsey were to come in i would support him until Gibbs were to switch.

The only thing i have ever questioned since Gibbs came back was some of the play calls. I have yet to question his personnel decisions.

[RedHokieSkin]

Bears game:

Completion %:
Jonathan Quinn: 45 %
Mark Brunell: 36 %

Enuf said...

[RedHokieSkin]

I have been a HUGE Brunell supporter, and i will continue to support him until Gibbs tells him to sit the bench. If Gibbs has faith in Brunell then i will NOT question it. As it stands now, Gibbs has better perspective than i do in the Quarterback debate.

...

The only thing i have ever questioned since Gibbs came back was some of the play calls. I have yet to question his personnel decisions.


How could you question his play-calling and not question the decision to play Brunell? Questioning Gibbs is questioning Gibbs. I see no difference just because they are in different aspects of the game. They all effect the outcome of games. It seems hypocritical to me to be adamant about not questioning yet admit to it at the same time.


...Granted i was extremely disappointed in his performance yesterday, but apparently Ramsey is not showing anything in practice. If he were showing something in practice it would be obvious that he would take over....

Obvious? I respectfully disagree. Gibbs is a stubborn man. I feel this is an important trait in all the great coaches. It means, however, that Gibbs would stick with Brunell regardless of how Ramsey looked in practice. If Ramsey has looked amazing in practice, Gibbs would still have stuck with Brunell through the past couple games. I admire Gibbs for this.


...Fans and the media are saying there is a debate, which the ppl that matter(Gibbs, coaching staff) have never waivered in their QB...

Showing confidence in Brunell is what he decided was the right thing to do. As a player, I would want to know the coach had confidence in me.

Gibbs has hoped that making Brunell believe he had the QB job through think and thin would relax him and help his play. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way.

Different players respond to different stimulation.... Perhaps Brunell is one that responds better to competition.

If Gibbs decides to make a change to Ramsey, I believe he will be just as authoritative when announcing it. You'll then see him make the same statements about his confidence in Ramsey that he is now about Brunell.

[chrisbcbu]

Have you seen anyone from the coaching staff or players say that a change in QBs is necessary? Or that they are losing faith in Brunell? no! And if you had plz show me a link cause i have not seen it. All the talk is coming from fans and the media! I also wonder how Ramsey's play has been in practice! I assume its still a closed practice so we dont know who the better qb is in practice.

Well you can say i dont really question the play calling more less, i question more the execution of the play more. I dont think our players have yet to grasp it. But then again when we call a play that only sends 1-2 WRs out against 4 DBs i cant really see them getting open.

I will always be behind Gibbs in any decision he makes towards personnel issues. Since he is there during practice, and sees them play.

Do i think Brunell is playing poorly? yes
Do i think Ramsey could do better? maybe/maybe not

But as i have stated i have not been at the practices or heard anything about them so i cant say anything good/bad about Ramsey. But if he hasnt started yet, with Brunell playing this poorly then Ramsey is either playing worse in practice or is on Gibbs bad side.

[S.Taylor36]

This offense is getting tough to watch. Every time Brunell drops back to pass I hold my breath. Brunell is ineffective as a QB. Unfortunately I don't think Ramsey is the answer either but fits this offense better. We are losing games because the offense can't stay on the field.

Loving the D!!!

[RedHokieSkin]

Have you seen anyone from the coaching staff or players say that a change in QBs is necessary? Or that they are losing faith in Brunell? no! And if you had plz show me a link cause i have not seen it. All the talk is coming from fans and the media!

There are several reasons you haven't see anyone criticizing the QB:
1. The coaching staff has told them to keep their mouths shut and not to say things like this. They need to keep a positive attitude. To paraphrase the Bible, Let he among us without sin be the first to condemn (cast the first stone). I.e. the first player not to make a mistake can be the first to criticize someone else....
2. The players are smart enough to know not to say things like this. That sort of talk is what tears teams apart.
3. Brunell seems like a good guy. I'm sure everyone in the locker room respects him and wouldn't intentionally hurt his feelings.

If you ask 99% of the players in the NFL, "How is your QB playing?" What would they say? The 50% that believe their QBs are doing well, will say so. The 50% that believe their QBs are playing poorly, will NOT say so. They will deflect the question and turn it into an answer with regards to how the whole team needs to "step it up."

The one mistake that Portis made after the Browns game was one he quickly tried to correct. You simply do not put blame on specific players/coaches in the NFL if you're a team player.

If I came to your office, put a camera in your face, and asked you what you thought of your boss or a co-worker, what would you tell me knowing that your answer would be plastered all over the country the next day?


I also wonder how Ramsey's play has been in practice! I assume its still a closed practice so we dont know who the better qb is in practice.

I am curious about this too....although I'm not sure how you can judge something like this when Ramsey allegedly gets 5% of the snaps in practice.


Well you can say i dont really question the play calling more less, i question more the execution of the play more. I dont think our players have yet to grasp it. But then again when we call a play that only sends 1-2 WRs out against 4 DBs i cant really see them getting open.

Please show me a team that sends 4 WRs out on every passing play.

[return to glory]

Guys...what has been the one major thorn in our sides the last few weeks?

TURNOVERS

Brunell made sure not to take any chances of turning over the ball. Aside from the INT that was a tipped ball...he held onto the ball and kept our field position intact. Gibbs said we would start winning once our offense stopped turning over the ball. That starts with the QB. He did his job...

I love how no one is mentioning how the WRs were rarely open, aside from those two plays. I love how no one is mentioning how the rush-blockers allowed quick penetration early and often, and forced Brunell out of the pocket on numerous occasions. I love how no one is mentioning how mobile Brunell really was today...and how on a 3rd and 9 play in Chicago territory, he ran the ball for 10 yards and the first down to keep the drive alive. (That drive ended up giving us 3 points)

And once again...the question I've asked a dozen times with ZERO answers. "EXACTLY what have you seen from Ramsey in the past year that makes you think he can perform at a high level to better this team?"

Is it his ability to run out of the pocket and make clear decisions? (Survey says: 'x')
Is it his ability to reduce the numbers of offensive turnovers for this team? (Survey says: 'xx')
Is it his ability to accurately throw the ball? (survey says: 'xxx')

Am I really sensing that people want to make a change at QB RIGHT NOW after a win? Are you kidding me? Yeah...I'm sure the NFL has a long list of NFL coaches that would bench their season-starting QB after a win, in which he played mistake-free football. You really think this team should jeopardize their momentum and take a chance on a new QB? If you do...then you aren't thinking like a Hall-of-Fame Head Coach, and you shoudn't quit your day-job anytime soon.

Hey Dj Stouty,
You need to get your head out of your "you know what" and put the crack pipe down. How could you even post such a ridiculous response such as this? Are you suffering from some type of mental defect that you would like to share with the rest of us?
It goes without saying that Ramsey gives a better to chance to win. After watching that repulsive and dismal QB performance that Brunell displayed yesterday, you have the audacity to mention his 10-yard scramble as if that should have been the highlight play of his career. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen-- it was 10 yards (he missed a wide open tight end and he didn’t score), since when does a 10 scramble equate such praise for a QB that has failed to complete 50% of his passes and thrown fewer than 100 yards for two games in a roll. Why would you even bring that up, unless that is the only positive that you could muster out of yesterday’s disgraceful performance? That’s pretty pathetic that you have to find solace in a 10-yard scramble. You should be ashamed of yourself for even mentioning that play and I think you owe everyone here an apology.
On a more serious note, I don't know if you know this but an NFL QB is required to proficiently manage the team's offense and efficiently pass the ball. Brunell has failed miserably in his attempts to do either. As a matter of fact, how many of his "clear decisions" have resulted in touchdowns for the other team. By my last count he has “clearly” helped the other team score 4 touchdowns in four of the six games in which he has played. I hate to see what happens when his decisions aren’t so clear.
F.Y.I, the reason no one has not responded to any of your Ramsey related QB questions are that your questions are aimed at the wrong QB? Maybe the next time you want to post anything remotely as retarded as this most recent literary masterpiece, you should ask yourself these questions with regard to Brunell.

[dj_stouty]

Hey Dj Stouty,
You need to get your head out of your "you know what" and put the crack pipe down. How could you even post such a ridiculous response such as this? Are you suffering from some type of mental defect that you would like to share with the rest of us?
It goes without saying that Ramsey gives a better to chance to win. After watching that repulsive and dismal QB performance that Brunell displayed yesterday, you have the audacity to mention his 10-yard scramble as if that should have been the highlight play of his career. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen-- it was 10 yards (he missed a wide open tight end and he didn’t score), since when does a 10 scramble equate such praise for a QB that has failed to complete 50% of his passes and thrown fewer than 100 yards for two games in a roll. Why would you even bring that up, unless that is the only positive that you could muster out of yesterday’s disgraceful performance? That’s pretty pathetic that you have to find solace in a 10-yard scramble. You should be ashamed of yourself for even mentioning that play and I think you owe everyone here an apology.
On a more serious note, I don't know if you know this but an NFL QB is required to proficiently manage the team's offense and efficiently pass the ball. Brunell has failed miserably in his attempts to do either. As a matter of fact, how many of his "clear decisions" have resulted in touchdowns for the other team. By my last count he has “clearly” helped the other team score 4 touchdowns in four of the six games in which he has played. I hate to see what happens when his decisions aren’t so clear.
F.Y.I, the reason no one has not responded to any of your Ramsey related QB questions are that your questions are aimed at the wrong QB? Maybe the next time you want to post anything remotely as retarded as this most recent literary masterpiece, you should ask yourself these questions with regard to Brunell.

I know you are new here. HOWEVER, if you can't type a reponse without trying to degrade someone, then you better save us the time it would take to ban you, and leave now. You can disagree with me all you want...but dont' make it personal. I would expect more out of someone with the name; "Return to Glory".

Regarding your post. You are just another person who writes paragraphs at length on Brunell, but haven't invested on single sentence on what Ramsey has done that makes you think he can do any better than a struggling Brunell. Not a single sentence. And the best part, is you admit it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Please show me a team that sends 4 WRs out on every passing play.

The Redskins last year!

[IowaSkinsFan]

I know you are new here. HOWEVER, if you can't type a reponse without trying to degrade someone, then you better save us the time it would take to ban you, and leave now. You can disagree with me all you want...but dont' make it personal. I would expect more out of someone with the name; "Return to Glory".

Regarding your post. You are just another person who writes paragraphs at length on Brunell, but haven't invested on single sentence on what Ramsey has done that makes you think he can do any better than a struggling Brunell. Not a single sentence. And the best part, is you admit it.

Sounds like a troll in disguise, dj.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Hey, Return, that's not how we do things around here. Tone it down.

[PennSkinsFan]

Hey Dj Stouty,
You need to get your head out of your "you know what" and put the crack pipe down. How could you even post such a ridiculous response such as this? Are you suffering from some type of mental defect that you would like to share with the rest of us?
It goes without saying that Ramsey gives a better to chance to win. After watching that repulsive and dismal QB performance that Brunell displayed yesterday, you have the audacity to mention his 10-yard scramble as if that should have been the highlight play of his career. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen-- it was 10 yards (he missed a wide open tight end and he didn’t score), since when does a 10 scramble equate such praise for a QB that has failed to complete 50% of his passes and thrown fewer than 100 yards for two games in a roll. Why would you even bring that up, unless that is the only positive that you could muster out of yesterday’s disgraceful performance? That’s pretty pathetic that you have to find solace in a 10-yard scramble. You should be ashamed of yourself for even mentioning that play and I think you owe everyone here an apology.
On a more serious note, I don't know if you know this but an NFL QB is required to proficiently manage the team's offense and efficiently pass the ball. Brunell has failed miserably in his attempts to do either. As a matter of fact, how many of his "clear decisions" have resulted in touchdowns for the other team. By my last count he has “clearly” helped the other team score 4 touchdowns in four of the six games in which he has played. I hate to see what happens when his decisions aren’t so clear.
F.Y.I, the reason no one has not responded to any of your Ramsey related QB questions are that your questions are aimed at the wrong QB? Maybe the next time you want to post anything remotely as retarded as this most recent literary masterpiece, you should ask yourself these questions with regard to Brunell.

Relax and watch the tone. DJ is a respected member and moderator of this forum. Even if he was not, the tone displaye dhere is uncalled for , for ANY member to receive. This is a debate and attacks have no place. Please go back to the Cherokee main page, at the very top are User Guidelines, please read them, and if you have read them, re-read them.