Re: Musgrave.
 

bigSKINSbauer you got it rite bout Ramsey-that is what I was saying-you put it down better-way to go

Re: Musgrave.
 

come now, you should know better than to question our "fan-ness" because we express (very) valid concerns and see the negative as well as the positive. it's called "tough love". there's burgundy BLOOD, that we've been bleeding for years, and then there's burgundy KOOL-AID. blood is thicker than water.

Re: Musgrave.
 

I prefer a QB that can also run-McNabb will be running again next yr. because the Eagles are a better team when he does

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=John Hasbrouck]I prefer a QB that can also run-McNabb will be running again next yr. because the Eagles are a better team when he does[/QUOTE]


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

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

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

understanding how to run an offense is far more important than the ability to run.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

But until he learns how to USE that arm he has and throw some touch passes, he is nothing more than what I mentioned before. A running back playing QB.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

Until then he's a very exciting player that puts people in the seats, but he's not going to be taking home any hardware until he becomes a more complete player.

Re: Musgrave.
 

Thanks for the support Matty.

I always seem to get shit when I talk about St. Vick.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

Now, that doesn't mean a slow leadfoot with accuracy is better than Vick, it just means the WRs for Johnny Slowpants are probably going to catch more balls than Peerless Price is.

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]come now, you should know better than to question our "fan-ness" because we express (very) valid concerns and see the negative as well as the positive. it's called "tough love". there's burgundy BLOOD, that we've been bleeding for years, and then there's burgundy KOOL-AID. blood is thicker than water.[/QUOTE]


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

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

just cuz i think it was a huge, costly mistake doesn't mean i think Gibbs will keep making them. or that we're doomed. i'm excited about Taylor and our defense, Ramsey and the new OLine, and i'm one of the few Portis heads on this board. the reason i brought this up is precisely because its so UNUSUAL of Gibbs, like i said, i too thought he could do no wrong. i think his first decision back was a terrible one, and am hopeful he'll use it to never make another bad one again.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

just cuz i think it was a huge, costly mistake doesn't mean i think Gibbs will keep making them. or that we're doomed. i'm excited about Taylor and our defense, Ramsey and the new OLine, and i'm one of the few Portis heads on this board. the reason i brought this up is precisely because its so UNUSUAL of Gibbs, like i said, i too thought he could do no wrong. i think his first decision back was a terrible one, and am hopeful he'll use it to never make another bad one again.[/QUOTE]

Was it a mistake to stick with Brunell for so long? Looking back now, yes it probably was. Did it cost us the season? It's not easy to say. I think it raises a few other questions that need to be answered. Was Ramsey ready to play earlier in the season? Would he have made that much of a difference if he was inserted into the lineup earlier?

Did it hurt the team's morale? If it did it didn't last long, the team fought and played hard right til the last snap of the season.

Re: Musgrave.
 

I'll say this. We definitely kept Brunell in too long. I DO happen to think it cost us a playoff birth, but I'll go ahead and say it. I'm glad that Brunell DID play those first few games since we spent so much damn money on him.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

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

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

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


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

I say we chalk one up for the Warpath in the GM department. Skin's management better start taking the Warpaths insight to heart if they want to turn this team around! :biggthump

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

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

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


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

Looking back on it, putting Ramsey in did help our offense because let's face it, anything other than Brunell at that point would have sparked the offense. I believe toward the end of the season Ramsey looked comfortable and poised, but he still needs work in his reads and maybe his foot work: hense the reason why Gibbs brought in Musgrave! I believe Patrick Ramsey is our future, but if we would have put him in before he was ready, I honestly don't believe Patrick would have had much of a future. However, this is Patrick's fourth season...he needs to step up this year and prove that he can lead this team successfully.

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers!

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers![/QUOTE]
I hate to say it but I think that one of the recievers that Ramsey had good chemistry with is now gone.(see Coles) But on the brighter side Ramsey and Cooley did seem to hit it off on the field. And I am pretty sure that Ramsey will build good rapport with the new WR's too!!!1

Re: Musgrave.
 

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

Now - My big beef was the rumor that Brunell got 90% of snaps in practice. This meant Ramsey didn't have the chance to really advance and to build chemistry that I feel is necessary for a starting QB. Hopefully Ramsey starts from day one and builds a good relationship with his receivers![/QUOTE]

If Brunell had played better, the offense would have opened up more for him like it did Ramsey. The way I see it is like this: Either quarterback had to show Gibbs that they could run the offense in each phase starting from phase one up to wherever it takes them to. Brunell played so bad, that he didn't get past phase one of the offense....in fact, I would imagine Gibbs had to go ultra consevative just to try to get Brunell back on track (as in the movie What About Bob....baby steps!) When Ramsey entered, he played better than Brunell....he was able to do the simple things at phase one. Each week, I noticed a new wrinkle added onto the offense....gradually it appeared that the offense opened up and became less conservative. Ramsey had obviously gotten past phase one, so phase two and so on. That is why I would imagine the offense being "changed." Actually, I wouldn't call it being changed, but being added on to each week as Ramsey gained confidence and Gibbs gained confidence in Ramsey.

Anything that might have resembled an instant change to the offense was Ramsey simply completing passes that Brunell couldn't complete.

Re: Musgrave.
 

jdlea:

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



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

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

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

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

This is the the year that Ramsey has to get it done; I think he has a lot of physical potential from his right shoulder to the finger tips on his right hand; my worry is about his brain.

Re: Musgrave.
 

I agree, Sports. Ramsey's time is now. At least we know Gibbs doesn't have a quick trigger on changing QBs, so Ramsey will get every opportunity to prove himself.

(Maybe Brady will fail to reach an agreement with the Pats and we can steal him! We know how to pass out the bonus duckets. Fire up Redskin one and let the tampering begin!)

Re: Musgrave.
 

I WAS worried about his brain but each game I saw a large improvement over his intelligence. I think he made his reads correctly and played smart football. The playcalling wasn't his fault and I believe he ran the plays that were called extremely effectively.

Re: Musgrave.
 

I don't know. I agree with what SC said. I saw video clips of Ramsey on the NFL network and they were discussing his reads. There was one play they pointed out where it was like 3rd and 15, and Ramsey, without hesitation, throws the ball to the guy that runs a five yard pattern. It appeared as if Ramsey didn't even take time (and he had time on this particular play) to see if it was possible to get the ball to a guy that ran a pattern past the first down marker. Sure, the playcalling wasn't up to hall of fame standards, but by the time Ramsey was in the starting line up for good, the playcalling had improved by leaps and bounds.....the second Giants game is a great example of such.

Like Sports said, this is Ramsey's year to show us he can lead this team. I have a feeling if he doesn't impress the coaches this year, we might be looking for another QB by season's end. I hope not though, I do feel Ramsey has the ability and the brains to be a successful QB in the league, he just needs to get the confidence and to slow the game down in his mind to start making the good reads on a regular basis.

Re: Musgrave.
 

I definitely do too. I hope the added protection will let us see what he can really do.

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I don't know. I agree with what SC said. I saw video clips of Ramsey on the NFL network and they were discussing his reads. There was one play they pointed out where it was like 3rd and 15, and Ramsey, without hesitation, throws the ball to the guy that runs a five yard pattern. It appeared as if Ramsey didn't even take time (and he had time on this particular play) to see if it was possible to get the ball to a guy that ran a pattern past the first down marker. Sure, the playcalling wasn't up to hall of fame standards, but by the time Ramsey was in the starting line up for good, the playcalling had improved by leaps and bounds.....the second Giants game is a great example of such.

Like Sports said, this is Ramsey's year to show us he can lead this team. I have a feeling if he doesn't impress the coaches this year, we might be looking for another QB by season's end. I hope not though, I do feel Ramsey has the ability and the brains to be a successful QB in the league, he just needs to get the confidence and to slow the game down in his mind to start making the good reads on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he just got too concerned with moving the chains and was too quick to opt for the safer route at times.

He showed he can hit the dink and dunk stuff and be efficient, now it's up to the staff to push him more and make him take his game to the next level.

Re: Musgrave.
 

Put Vick with the Skins and our WOs and turn Vick loose-plus Portis and the Defense. I suppose Iam the only one that would like to see that

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Perhaps he just got too concerned with moving the chains and was too quick to opt for the safer route at times.

He showed he can hit the dink and dunk stuff and be efficient, now it's up to the staff to push him more and make him take his game to the next level.[/QUOTE]

and it's now up to Gibbs to give him more than 10% of the snaps in practice.

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]and it's now up to Gibbs to give him more than 10% of the snaps in practice.[/QUOTE]

Once he became the starter he started receiving the majority of the work in practice, so I don't think that will be an issue.

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Once he became the starter he started receiving the majority of the work in practice, so I don't think that will be an issue.[/QUOTE]

i know. Gibbs gives the starter 90% of the snaps in practice. that was just a shaking of the head on his decision to start Brunell last year while not even giving Ramsey practice time.

Re: Musgrave.
 

Isn't that par for the course though in the NFL? The starter practices with the first team and gets the majority of the snaps during the regular season practice?

Re: Musgrave.
 

Don't you think the short balls on 3rd and long were more playcalling than Ramsey? Never saw him go for something less than a 1st down in Spurriers offense. I think Gibbs was just trying to play field position and wanted to move it some. Hell, we ran some jrunning plays on 3rd and long. I can remember one that worked.

I think this is Ramsey's time and he has all new receivers to get used to. I think he likes McCants - when McCants came into that game Ramsey hooked up with him what, 3 times in a row and marched right down the field? I'm not yet on the McCants bandwagon, but if a QB really likes a WR like that - let them work together!

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Don't you think the short balls on 3rd and long were more playcalling than Ramsey? Never saw him go for something less than a 1st down in Spurriers offense.[/QUOTE]

Hey! What happened to you not bringing up Spurrier again in exchange for us helping you out on your Jainism exam? A pox on you!

Re: Musgrave.
 

I said I'd try!

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I said I'd try![/QUOTE]

Such perserverance! You lasted how many days? Or should we count it in hours? :food-smil

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Don't you think the short balls on 3rd and long were more playcalling than Ramsey? Never saw him go for something less than a 1st down in Spurriers offense. I think Gibbs was just trying to play field position and wanted to move it some. Hell, we ran some jrunning plays on 3rd and long. I can remember one that worked.[/QUOTE]

I watched the tapes on some of hte NFL Network stuff about how we threw short on 3 and longs. It appeared to me that on several occasions there were open receivers beyond the marker, but Ramsey threw short. Maybe the open WR's ran the wrong route causing them not to be where PR expected them, maybe PR was feeling pressured, maybe PR just didn't see'em, or maybe he was still trying to get comfortable in a truly pro style offense after a college of shotgun and 2 years of Spurrier. Again, I don't think everyone of those 3rd and long passes was intended to go short. As I recall his offense, Gibbs ran hard and then played the intermediate passing game with an occassional bomb to keep the D honest. As for runs on third and long, every team does it on occasion, and it often works if the passing game is hitting.

Can I hear an "OH YEAH" for a Joe Washington draw play??

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Can I hear an "OH YEAH" for a Joe Washington draw play??[/QUOTE]

Just as a complete aside, anyone remember the time J. Washington broke a long run and, after about 10-15 yards, tried to juke a couple of tacklers, cut back up on his run, literally ran in a circle avoiding tacklers, and, instead of actually tackling him, the defenders hemmed him in against the sideline - he came to a complete stop and then he and the defenders stared at each trying to figure out what to do next until he finally just stepped out of bounds. After the play (which seemed to take about 45 seconds), the cameras cut to Gibbs watching the play and he was laughing his head off as J. Washington ran around and finally just sorta had to stop. It looked like farmhands trying to tackle a greased pig.

I think it was in the regular season Oakland game of the '82 season (when we met them in the superbowl).

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Just as a complete aside, anyone remember the time J. Washington broke a long run and, after about 10-15 yards, tried to juke a couple of tacklers, cut back up on his run, literally ran in a circle avoiding tacklers, and, instead of actually tackling him, the defenders hemmed him in against the sideline - he came to a complete stop and then he and the defenders stared at each trying to figure out what to do next until he finally just stepped out of bounds. After the play (which seemed to take about 45 seconds), the cameras cut to Gibbs watching the play and he was laughing his head off as J. Washington ran around and finally just sorta had to stop. It looked like farmhands trying to tackle a greased pig.

I think it was in the regular season Oakland game of the '82 season (when we met them in the superbowl).[/QUOTE]

Was that the one where Theismann threw a block for him after he cut back? I think that was against the Giants, and in that game Mark Moseley kicked his then record 20th consecutive field goal to give the Redskins a 15-14 win.

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]I watched the tapes on some of hte NFL Network stuff about how we threw short on 3 and longs. It appeared to me that on several occasions there were open receivers beyond the marker, but Ramsey threw short. Maybe the open WR's ran the wrong route causing them not to be where PR expected them, maybe PR was feeling pressured, maybe PR just didn't see'em, or maybe he was still trying to get comfortable in a truly pro style offense after a college of shotgun and 2 years of Spurrier. Again, I don't think everyone of those 3rd and long passes was intended to go short. As I recall his offense, Gibbs ran hard and then played the intermediate passing game with an occassional bomb to keep the D honest. As for runs on third and long, every team does it on occasion, and it often works if the passing game is hitting.

Can I hear an "OH YEAH" for a Joe Washington draw play??[/QUOTE]


I saw that segment on the NFL network and it looked to me like they were really trying to make Ramsey the scapgoat, when they showed the replay I didn't see anyone open and that was the first thing I said was where did they want him to throw it? The other recievers were running short routes as well and they were running them right into the defenders, the fact was Ramsey took a 3 step drop and fired the ball as if that was what the play was designed to do, my feeling on those highlights were that Gibbs had him throwing to the primary reciever no matter what, he didn't want him holding the ball, I believe Gibbs believed that if he hit the reciever quick and short he would be able to run for a first. The problem with the philosophy was he never stretched the defense all year to make them fear the deep play to give the recievers room to work underneath, all the defenses all year flooded the short passing game which is another reason we couldn't run, to many players around the line of scrimmage. The fact is we saw the same kind of routes and problems with Brunell. I didn't want Brunell here in the first place but he played a heck of a lot worse than even I expected, I don't believe it was totally his fault, I believe Gibbs has to absorb a most of the blame, as Portis said it's like the defenses know what we are running, couple that with Coles's complaints about not throwing the ball downfield and I say we have a Gibbs problem not a Ramsey problem!

Re: Musgrave.
 

I agree offiss, you said it better than I did!

Re: Musgrave.
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Was that the one where Theismann threw a block for him after he cut back? I think that was against the Giants, and in that game Mark Moseley kicked his then record 20th consecutive field goal to give the Redskins a 15-14 win.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I remember Joe T. blocking for him. I just remember Gibbs laughing as Washington came to a complete stop and stared at the tacklers who, in turn, stared back at him. It was almost as if the were afraid that, if they tried to tackle him, they would miss and he'd go for a TD.