Yeah, this "should" be a real defensive struggle. With the defense we have shown, if Ramsey just avoids mistakes and doesn't get sacked too often, we have a great shot of winning. Sounds like the old George Allen/Billy Kilmer philosophy that I always disliked. But I just want to beat those b*stards.

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy]Anyway, we played a 100% awful game on offense. Period. If we had lucked out, scored and won, would you all feel a lot better? I don't know about you, but I was screaming at my tv during that game. I'm not down on this team, but sometimes a good ass beating isn't the worst thing for a team to get, better than a cheap win that over inflates the collective ego.[/QUOTE]

It is actually a good thing that we didn't pull it out and win. Good defense winning an ugly game is one thing, but this performance by the offense was inexcusable. Seven turnovers are going to make you lose 99% of the time, and if we would have been that 1% and won, that lesson would be harder to teach. I truly believe that this horrible game will make the team better and will motivate them to crush Dallass and get on a roll for the rest of the year.

SkinsRock I completely agree. You never like to lose that's for sure. But considering the type of game the Skins played on Sunday pulling out a victory might have been the worst thing that could happen to them. They'd think they were untouchable and destined for greatness.

Monday is going to be a tough, tough battle-almost at the level of Canes and my battle in the $$ league this weekend-and I'm reluctant to make any prediction but regardless of the outcome I want the Redskins to play smart and tough. If they do that then we can say that they benefitted from Sunday's loss...if not...:banghead:

I don't think a near win is as great a teaching tool as a near loss. A victory over the Giants not only affects the Redskins but it also drops the Giants home loseing streak to 10 in a row. They drop to 0-2 in the division and overall. This game and Dallas at home are to me the biggest games of the year. The Giants francise is where we were when Schottenheimer was the coach. We can not afford to lose any close divisional games especially against the Giants and Cowboys. If anything, I don't think a victory over the Giants would have made the team over confident as much as it would illustrate to a young team how to finish a close one.

Gibbs' primary objective in re-shaping Ramsey should be to break him of this "Favre syndrome" he seems to suffering from. Like Favre, Ramsey has a heck of an arm, and he knows it. Like Favre, he's so confident in his arm that he thinks he can make any throw from anywhere on the field. Like Favre, that stubborn insistence upon making the throw at all costs winds up costing his team the game in too many instances.

Where Ramsey differs from Favre is in the winning department. Favre has bought himself the license to make stupid throws, because those gambles have occasionally paid off-- and in some cases, paid off big. Favre's recklessness, while still a liability for the most part, totters precariously on the fine line between stupidity and heroism, whereas Ramsey's foolhardy gunslinger mentality almost always backfires, and is certainly a liability for a quarterback hoping to take the full-time reigns of a Gibbs offense.

If Gibbs does nothing else this week, he should strap Ramsey to a chair like the antihero in [i]A Clockwork Orange, [/i]and force him to watch looped footage of quarterbacks making stupid throws that cost their teams the game. It's going to take some hardcore de-programming like that to purge all those evil little Spurrierisms from Ramsey's sack-riddled brain.

Seriously though, this week's gameplan should be centered upon establishing the run early (duh! This is Gibbs after all, and Dallas is ranked a paltry 27th against the run), and when the play does call for a pass, it needs to be in maximum protection rollouts, with Gibbs firmly reminding Ramsey over the headset, "If it's not there, just throw it away!"

Run the ball, protect the quarterback, protect the ball, control the clock... help the defense win the game.

Joe, how the hell did you manage to work an "A Clock Work Orange" reference into a football chat? Bravo.

A little of the old ultra violence wouldn't hurt this Monday!

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I just don't understand how people can expect Ramsey to come in to camp, learn a whole new system that has an entirely different philosophy from Spurrier's, and also relearn his mechanics on top of that, and expect him to be functioning at a high level right off the bat. It's not like Brunell has the offense down pat either. And he's an 11 year vet who's been around the block.

Like JC said, people want to keep pointing at exceptions to the rule like Brady and question why Ramsey can't make the same instant transition. Sorry folks, guys like Brady are rare, and like I said, exceptions to the rule.[/QUOTE]

What you said is all very true. I think Ramsey will get better! I just is is sooner then later!

Although it goes without saying he has to stop with the INT's, I say he might be best suited to play his way through it, he is smarter than Favre, he just need's a lot of time on the field, and I believe those INT's will stop, the hard core competetor need's to fail to succeed, he has succeeded his whole life doing it his way, he has to find out for himself that his way doesn't work, then find a workable compromise, I like the fact that he's trying to win games, instead of trying not to lose them, I have no doubt that Ramsey is going to succeed, and succeed big, I just think we will have to live with his inexperience for a time, until he blossom's into a big time QB, remember even though he has the same reciever's as last year, they are running new routes, they have a lot of work to do before they really become acclamated with each other, the question is, will Gibb's put up with those mistakes early on, to allow him to blossom, Gibb's has developed other QB's without having them on the field, it takes time to really learn his offense, if it was easy everyone would do it.