Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Yes, as did I, after Brunells debacle last season pretty much everyone wanted his head, and yes I was one of the few to defend the fact that although I felt Ramsey would be better for us, brunell was made to look far worse than he was, I put a lot of the blame on Gibbs and his simplistic offense, well guess what the team has evolved some from last season, and Brunells play has been head and shoulders better than last season, which brings me to my point, under the same circumstances last season Ramsey outplayed Brunell [against better defenses I might add] then why is it so difficult to believe that under better circumstance this year Ramsey wouldn't be even better than he was last season, and yes better than brunell has been this season, at least I have something to base my evaluation on, there is no way to base an evaluation on him being a failure this season because he hasen't played, the only thing anyone can hang their hat's on is Gibbs deciesion to bench him, I know this is taboo around here but is there a remote possiblity, just a chance, that Gibbs could perhaps have been wrong about the QB situation? Does that possibility exist, he has admitted to making mistakes personel wise in other areas, I am not saying that that is the case, but could it be possible?[/QUOTE]

That's one huge run on sentence! :lol: Okay, let's break this down. First of all, as much as this offense needed some tweaking from the previous year, I find it hard to put the blame on Brunell's play on the system. If the system was too simplistic like you say, then Brunell would have had an easy time adjusting to it. Let's face it, Brunell stunk it up last year. Part of the reason was that he was injured. I think the other part of it had to do with him being away from playing for at least year in Jacksonville. When you're an older athelete it is much harder to comeback from an injury.

Patrick Ramsey played better than Mark Brunell did LAST year, but that isn't really saying much. I felt Patrick came in and showed signs of promise, but he also showed signs of being a long ways from being a true starter. This year, I was hyped about how much Patrick would've improved. Yes, I base this on preseason, but why should I not? Patrick Ramsey showed no signs of improvement during preseason, and it spilled into our first regular season game.

Maybe you're argument is based on principle. You feel it's only fair to give Ramsey 8 or 9 games like Brunell was given last year. Well yes, that would be considered fair to a certain extent. But, these NFL teams do not put their success in how fair things are. They put their success in winning. However, judging by how Patrick Ramsey played in preseason, we would more than likely be 4-8 right now, if not worse. I witnessed nothing about Ramsey's play that would've suggested anything much better than that.

As far as Brunell's play lately, he hasn't played as well as he has for the most part of this season. He has also had two of his starting receivers out. With both Thrash and Patten in there with Moss, Brunell is a better quarterback. When he basically has one proven threat to throw too, how can Mark Brunell duplicate his best performances of this season? It doesn't happen.

Finally, this system is not inept. It is a ball controlled system that thrives off of maximum protection and a strong running game. That is how it has always been. It has always been a run first pass second offense - even during the days of the posse. They made this offense special, because they were probably the best three wide receivers in the league back then. That is probably the biggest reason why we could score points easily. But we don't have Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders now. We have only one receiver in Santana Moss, who I feel could be as good as any of the members of the posse.

Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny. We have a winning record and a chance to make the playoffs. That is a whole heck of alot more than what we can say about this team for the most part this past decade. There is alot to look forward to even if we don't make the playoffs this year. This franchise is establishing itself as a good franchise, but that does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on maybes or would've could've should've.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

Brunell will finish the year, unless he is injured. He will finish it. The Arizonia game kind of showed that. Brunell threw a lot of picks and Gibbs stuck with him which I see him doing for the rest of this season. Campbell still isn't ready and we shouldn't rush him in. Brunell's in there for a "win now" and Campbell's on the bench for a "win later".

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That's one huge run on sentence! :lol: Okay, let's break this down. First of all, as much as this offense needed some tweaking from the previous year, I find it hard to put the blame on Brunell's play on the system. If the system was too simplistic like you say, then Brunell would have had an easy time adjusting to it. Let's face it, Brunell stunk it up last year. Part of the reason was that he was injured. I think the other part of it had to do with him being away from playing for at least year in Jacksonville. When you're an older athelete it is much harder to comeback from an injury.

Patrick Ramsey played better than Mark Brunell did LAST year, but that isn't really saying much. I felt Patrick came in and showed signs of promise, but he also showed signs of being a long ways from being a true starter. This year, I was hyped about how much Patrick would've improved. Yes, I base this on preseason, but why should I not? Patrick Ramsey showed no signs of improvement during preseason, and it spilled into our first regular season game.

Maybe you're argument is based on principle. You feel it's only fair to give Ramsey 8 or 9 games like Brunell was given last year. Well yes, that would be considered fair to a certain extent. But, these NFL teams do not put their success in how fair things are. They put their success in winning. However, judging by how Patrick Ramsey played in preseason, we would more than likely be 4-8 right now, if not worse. I witnessed nothing about Ramsey's play that would've suggested anything much better than that.

As far as Brunell's play lately, he hasn't played as well as he has for the most part of this season. He has also had two of his starting receivers out. With both Thrash and Patten in there with Moss, Brunell is a better quarterback. When he basically has one proven threat to throw too, how can Mark Brunell duplicate his best performances of this season? It doesn't happen.

Finally, this system is not inept. It is a ball controlled system that thrives off of maximum protection and a strong running game. That is how it has always been. It has always been a run first pass second offense - even during the days of the posse. They made this offense special, because they were probably the best three wide receivers in the league back then. That is probably the biggest reason why we could score points easily. But we don't have Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders now. We have only one receiver in Santana Moss, who I feel could be as good as any of the members of the posse.

Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny. We have a winning record and a chance to make the playoffs. That is a whole heck of alot more than what we can say about this team for the most part this past decade. There is alot to look forward to even if we don't make the playoffs this year. This franchise is establishing itself as a good franchise, but that does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on maybes or would've could've should've.[/QUOTE]

How do you figure we are in control of our own destiny? FACT? If watching the playoffs on TV is our destiny then I would agree, take a good look we need help to get into the playoffs.

Brunell was hurt last season? Explain to me why he insist's he wasen't, and why he had his best game of the year statistically the week after he supposedly had this big time injury, Brunells explanation was he didn't believe he really had a hole lot of help around him.

As you said winning is the measuring stick in this league, that's winning in the regular season, not pre-season, and Brunell is failing.

Now the contradictions start, on one hand you say that the reason Brunell can't duplicate what he's previously done on offense is because Patten is out, then on the other hand you say we have no one except Moss who was in the posse's league, how many balls did Patten catch, and how much could an inferior talent in Patten to the Posse really effect an offense? And correct me if I am wrong but Brunell was losing games before Patten was injured.

The big reason why we won back in the 80's was because our O-line used to dominate everyone we faced, we would run at will on teams, that doesn't exist anymore, and Gibbs hasen't shown an ability to adjust the offense to compensate for the lack of a dominating offensive line.

And just for the record Moss is more explosive than any reciever Gibbs ever had in DC, and Patten was the same type player as Sanders, except Patten is probably a little faster, Cooley is better than any H-back we had, and a better all around reciever than Didier, one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

As for the ball control aspect in the 80's, only our running game was ball control, our passing game under Gibbs was alway's a downfield passing attack, and that's part of the problem, with Portis he's more of a homerun hitter than a ball control back.

Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad! what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again. But if your putting a lot of stock into what you saw in the pre-season OK, although most scouts and coaches don't put any stock into the pre-season, and yes that has alway's inc. Gibbs, why becuase of mismatches and vanilla offenses, while most legitamate starters are playing not to get hurt. How indicative was Brunells play in the pre-season, hold up to how he is playing now? I don't think he was succeeding in the pre-season with Patten as one of his WR's either. I do believe Patten played most of the pre-season with Ramsey.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines

[IMG]http://richard-kelly.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/thrashskin.gif[/IMG]

<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins [i]at all[/i]? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=Redskins88]offis, I'm just curious....but do you like the Redskins [i]at all[/i]? I just mainly read on this forum and post every now and then but I don't recall seeing positive posts about the Redskins....[/QUOTE]


What is it you would like to hear?

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]What is it you would like to hear?[/QUOTE]

After reading that..that....that, ridicularity, I fear I will suffer [b]physical damage[/b] if I do not respond! However, It [b]MUST[/b] come in the form of personal attack!!!!!! I will refrain, as I would not want to do that to a [b]football fan[/b]!!!!!

If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

Why not play Ramsey if Brunell is hurt? Anybody see that picture with A.Brown blowing a kiss? Ramsey is the one with both arms in the air celebrating. A class act and a true team player. Many of you would like us to trade him, but who else knows our offense as well? He can take a hard sack and not fumble. He can play at this level, no doubt. Who else could replace him? If you put Campbell in their you throw him to the wolves just like the 'ol ball coach did to Ramsey. Brunell has one more year(maybe) and Campbell is not ready. What do you suggest?

Hail to the REDSKINS

Re: If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

Whenever PRs contract expires (which I think is after this season) he will be let go. There is no way the skins will resign him. As for a more seasoned backup, they can just bring in a free agent like Minn did with Brad Johnson.

Re: If Brunell is hurt why not Ramsey?
 

[QUOTE=PhxRedSkin]Why not play Ramsey if Brunell is hurt? Anybody see that picture with A.Brown blowing a kiss? Ramsey is the one with both arms in the air celebrating. A class act and a true team player. Many of you would like us to trade him, but who else knows our offense as well? He can take a hard sack and not fumble. He can play at this level, no doubt. Who else could replace him? If you put Campbell in their you throw him to the wolves just like the 'ol ball coach did to Ramsey. Brunell has one more year(maybe) and Campbell is not ready. What do you suggest?

Hail to the REDSKINS[/QUOTE]

Sure, but Brunell isn't hurt, isn't this thread the same as [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=9540]this one[/url]?

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=9540[/url]

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.

...

what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again. [/QUOTE]

Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't get it either. Brunell was throwing the ball deep just fine earlier in the year. I think the way defenses are playing us now has more to do with our troubles going down the field, add in the losses of Patten & Thrash and it's much more logical to conclude that than to say Brunell has suddenly lost his arm strength. :rolleyes:

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]How do you figure we are in control of our own destiny? FACT?[/Quote]

We win out, we have a great shot at the playoffs.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
Brunell was hurt last season? Explain to me why he insist's he wasen't, and why he had his best game of the year statistically the week after he supposedly had this big time injury, Brunells explanation was he didn't believe he really had a hole lot of help around him.[/QUOTE]

Care to give me the link or soundbyte to Mark Brunell stating specifically that he didn't have any help around him? You keep siting that one game, ignoring the fact that playing hurt makes the injury worse.


[QUOTE=Offiss]
As you said winning is the measuring stick in this league, that's winning in the regular season, not pre-season, and Brunell is failing.[/QUOTE]

We have a winning record, therefore, Mark Brunell is not failing. You're just failing to convince me you even like the Redskins.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
Now the contradictions start, on one hand you say that the reason Brunell can't duplicate what he's previously done on offense is because Patten is out, then on the other hand you say we have no one except Moss who was in the posse's league, how many balls did Patten catch, and how much could an inferior talent in Patten to the Posse really effect an offense? And correct me if I am wrong but Brunell was losing games before Patten was injured.
[/QUOTE]

I'll be glad to correct you, because you usually are wrong. First of all, I'll admit you're really good at taking what I say completely out of context to justify your illness toward the Redskins. Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders. In fact, I might have even said that before. However, they are not considered deep threats. And because both are quality receivers and both being out, then we are left with ONE receiver, Moss, to throw to.

Mark Brunell wasn't losing games before Patten was injured - the Redskins were losing game, but they were also winning games. This is a team sport. If you have issues with this team, go back to pulling for the Jets.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
The big reason why we won back in the 80's was because our O-line used to dominate everyone we faced, we would run at will on teams, that doesn't exist anymore, and Gibbs hasen't shown an ability to adjust the offense to compensate for the lack of a dominating offensive line.[/QUOTE]

You can't be anymore wrong than this. Gibbs hasn't shown the ability to adjust the offense? What team are you watching? You have absolutely no faith in this team whatsoever, and probably never will.

[QUOTE=Offiss]
And just for the record Moss is more explosive than any reciever Gibbs ever had in DC, and Patten was the same type player as Sanders, except Patten is probably a little faster, Cooley is better than any H-back we had, and a better all around reciever than Didier, one big difference that we had in the 80's that we don't have now, is a strong armed QB who could get the ball deep, Brunell can't throw the deep ball and stretch the defense any more.[/Quote]

So what exactly is your point? Brunell can't throw the deep ball, but yet you talk about the "miracle passes" at the end of the Dallas game. That is where the real contradictions come into play. Please, give it up. Just say you hate Mark Brunell, Joe Gibbs, and the Redskins and get it over with. You have no enjoyment in watching this team whatsoever. Why do you even pull for this team?

[QUOTE=Offiss]
As for the ball control aspect in the 80's, only our running game was ball control, our passing game under Gibbs was alway's a downfield passing attack, and that's part of the problem, with Portis he's more of a homerun hitter than a ball control back.[/QUOTE]

BECAUSE WE HAD THE POSSE WHICH MADE IT SPECIAL FOR US! GO BACK AND READ MY POST. Yet, Portis is adjusting fairly well and we're also getting great use out of Betts and Cartwright. I see no logic in your point whatsoever.

[/QUOTE=Offiss]
Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad![/QUOTE]

Do you not know how to read? Did I NOT say after watching Patrick Ramsey play in preseason, I found no signs of improvement and that it spilled over into our first regular season game? I betcha you didn't even watch the preseason at all, did you?

[QUOTE=Offiss]
what was your thought on Brunells performance over the coarse of the next 7 quarters before he threw those 2 miracle passes, which only worked because of dallas's total disregard for Brunells ability to throw deep, that ain't happening again.[/QUOTE]

Here is your contradiction. You state in part of your post that Brunell doesn't have the ability to throw deep, but then you turn around and say that Dallas totally disregarded Mark Brunell's abilit to throw deep. Face it, you're pwned! You have no excuse to hide being a closest Jets fan anymore. Just come out and be loud and proud.


[QUOTE=Offiss]
But if your putting a lot of stock into what you saw in the pre-season OK, although most scouts and coaches don't put any stock into the pre-season, and yes that has alway's inc. Gibbs, why becuase of mismatches and vanilla offenses, while most legitamate starters are playing not to get hurt. How indicative was Brunells play in the pre-season, hold up to how he is playing now? I don't think he was succeeding in the pre-season with Patten as one of his WR's either. I do believe Patten played most of the pre-season with Ramsey.[/QUOTE]

And I would suggest this is a reason why you don't coach football in the NFL, because if coaches didn't put alot of stock into training camp and preseason, then we wouldn't have training camp and preseason. What is your freakin point with Patten? You state that Patten is just as good as what Ricky Sanders was, and then you suggest that Patten only played in preseason with Patrick Ramsey. So by this logic, then Patrick Ramsey should have looked like Joe Montana. Give it up man.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.

Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=NFLeurope]Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.[/QUOTE]

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."

[QUOTE]
Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.[/QUOTE]


Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

Are you guys nuts?
How the hell do you want to plop Ramsey into a game this important?
Of course I assume that you do not want the rookie from Auburn in there.

how come no one remembers the 3-0 start at the beginning of the season? You guys are talking about the 2006 draft without Brunells play so far this year instead of having a chance - slim - at a playoff bye.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

:duel: im down with the flu....let offiss and skins guy go at it...gives me somethin to read while i eat my soup. Keep it up guys, love the spirit!!

EF DALLAS

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=5RINGS]Are you guys nuts?
How the hell do you want to plop Ramsey into a game this important?
Of course I assume that you do not want the rookie from Auburn in there.

how come no one remembers the 3-0 start at the beginning of the season? You guys are talking about the 2006 draft without Brunells play so far this year instead of having a chance - slim - at a playoff bye.[/QUOTE]

They're not nuts, just been dippin' in to the sauce a bit too much.

:party-smi

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]Wait, let me get this straight - Brunell can't throw deep any more...even though he did earlier this season...which made the defense respect his ability to throw deep...and they still respect that, so they're covering downfield now...even though Brunell can't throw deep?

Why don't you get that one straightened out and get back to us.[/QUOTE]


I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

Actually we have a HUGE amount of plays over 20 yards. If you can find the stat, I saw it during the Rams game. I believe we're one of the top 10 teams with long gaining plays.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]Actually we have a HUGE amount of plays over 20 yards. If you can find the stat, I saw it during the Rams game. I believe we're one of the top 10 teams with long gaining plays.[/QUOTE]

How do we determine what constitutes a "deep pass" though? For example, Brunell dumped off a screen pass to Moss that he turned into a 71-yard TD against KC. Long gaining play, but not a deep pass per se.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

True. But I was just looking at a Moss highlight video and he definitely has at least 10 20+ yard catches through the air.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

i know that i should have said something sooner but answer the question of the thread

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i don't think so

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."




Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.[/QUOTE]


Really? OK now I get it your just messing with us SG, Patten wasen't brought in to be a deep threat, now I can laugh, the purpose of both Patten and Moss was to provide a deep threat, Gibbs felt our recievers last year couldn't stretch the defense. So what was it about Pattens play in New England that led you to beleive he isn't a deep threat? Was it all his TD's, or his yards per catch? Or did you base it on his 4.2 speed? Or is that occasional 4.2 speed?

Pay attention, the reason a lot of us wanted a big WR in the draft was because most of felt that we needed a big target to be a possession type WR, because all we had was deep threats in Moss and Patten.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]We win out, we have a great shot at the playoffs.



Care to give me the link or soundbyte to Mark Brunell stating specifically that he didn't have any help around him? You keep siting that one game, ignoring the fact that playing hurt makes the injury worse.




We have a winning record, therefore, Mark Brunell is not failing. You're just failing to convince me you even like the Redskins.



I'll be glad to correct you, because you usually are wrong. First of all, I'll admit you're really good at taking what I say completely out of context to justify your illness toward the Redskins. Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders. In fact, I might have even said that before. However, they are not considered deep threats. And because both are quality receivers and both being out, then we are left with ONE receiver, Moss, to throw to.

Mark Brunell wasn't losing games before Patten was injured - the Redskins were losing game, but they were also winning games. This is a team sport. If you have issues with this team, go back to pulling for the Jets.



You can't be anymore wrong than this. Gibbs hasn't shown the ability to adjust the offense? What team are you watching? You have absolutely no faith in this team whatsoever, and probably never will.



So what exactly is your point? Brunell can't throw the deep ball, but yet you talk about the "miracle passes" at the end of the Dallas game. That is where the real contradictions come into play. Please, give it up. Just say you hate Mark Brunell, Joe Gibbs, and the Redskins and get it over with. You have no enjoyment in watching this team whatsoever. Why do you even pull for this team?



BECAUSE WE HAD THE POSSE WHICH MADE IT SPECIAL FOR US! GO BACK AND READ MY POST. Yet, Portis is adjusting fairly well and we're also getting great use out of Betts and Cartwright. I see no logic in your point whatsoever.

[/QUOTE=Offiss]
Patrick's play spilled over to the regular season, you were able to make that evaluation after 1 quarter? Not bad![/QUOTE]

Do you not know how to read? Did I NOT say after watching Patrick Ramsey play in preseason, I found no signs of improvement and that it spilled over into our first regular season game? I betcha you didn't even watch the preseason at all, did you?



Here is your contradiction. You state in part of your post that Brunell doesn't have the ability to throw deep, but then you turn around and say that Dallas totally disregarded Mark Brunell's abilit to throw deep. Face it, you're pwned! You have no excuse to hide being a closest Jets fan anymore. Just come out and be loud and proud.




And I would suggest this is a reason why you don't coach football in the NFL, because if coaches didn't put alot of stock into training camp and preseason, then we wouldn't have training camp and preseason. What is your freakin point with Patten? You state that Patten is just as good as what Ricky Sanders was, and then you suggest that Patten only played in preseason with Patrick Ramsey. So by this logic, then Patrick Ramsey should have looked like Joe Montana. Give it up man.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]skinsguy-Fact is, we are in a position to control our own destiny.[/QUOTE]
:goodjob:

You are one giant contradiction. and that's a fact!

As for the rest of your nonesense, I could explain it over and over again but judging from some of those so called points it's obviously a big waste of time.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]Actually we have a HUGE amount of plays over 20 yards. If you can find the stat, I saw it during the Rams game. I believe we're one of the top 10 teams with long gaining plays.[/QUOTE]


I am sure your right with that MC, I know we have had some big plays, Moss has turned short gains into monsters, Portis, and Rock had some big runs in that Ram game, but those type plays don't stretch a defense, which is what I was trying to get at, infact those plays will do more to tighten up a defense, and there in lies the problem, to many guy's to close to the line of scrimmage.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.[/QUOTE]I would have to disagree with you on him just airing out those two balls to Moss in the Dallas game. Mose was not wide open he just had step on the D and both passes had to be perfect or they would have been imcomplete or for no gain after the catch. I cannot comment on the whole season and all our long passes unless I had the time to go back and watch all the games.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]I guess I will have to spell it out for you here we go, dallas's total disregard for Brunells arm strength set up that play, they like other teams weren't committing to the deep ball, Brunell if he throws deep puts way to much air under the ball and makes it easy to catch up, the reason he completed those balls wasen't because he out threw the defense, it was the defenses total disregard for anything deep and he was able to catch them way off guard, a normal coverage there and we are done in that dallas game. If you don't beleive that's the case show 1 game in which Brunell completed a deep ball like the last one to Moss?

So in part he doesn't throw downfield because it takes the ball to long to get there, which allows safties and DB's to recover and make a play on the ball.

2 pass plays doesn't constitute a deep passing GAME early in the season, take away those 2 passes and name all the deep passing plays we have completed this season?

And we have to keep in mind that the first TD pass in that game was about 40 yd, which leaves us with 1 real leagitamate deep ball, I would hope an NFL QB was capable of throwing the ball 40 yds.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]Yeah, you do need to spell it out for me - and everyone else seeing as I'm not the only one who finds your points either contradictory or poorly communicated.

A quick look at the NFL player stats shows Brunell has 30 completions of 20+ yards, 5 of those for 40+ yards. Over 13 games that's an average of 2.3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Let's take a look around the NFL, shall we?

Carson Palmer (hailed this season for his great arm) in comparison, has 37 completions for 20+ yards and 8 of them for 40+ yards. That's an average of 2.8 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Peyton Manning has 39 completions for 20+ yards, 6 of them went for 40+ yards. That's an average of 3 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Matt Hasselbeck has 36 completions of 20+ yards, 6 of them for 40+ yards. An average of 2.7 completions of 20+ yards per game.

Jake Plummer has 33 completions of 20+ yards, 7 of them for 40+ yards for an average of 2.5 completions of 20+ yards per game.

That's four of the top-ranked, playoff-bound teams in the NFL right now who have QBs completing deep balls no more frequently than Mark Brunell is, unless of course you want to argue that there is a massive, game-breaking difference between 2.3 long completions per game and 2.7.

The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.

Back your rants up with some stats before you go spouting off opinions that seem to be based on little more than feelings and vague notions.[/QUOTE]

I guess what I am saying is this, yes we have plays over 20 yds and 40, but how many were actually thrown deep, and how many were short routes turned into long plays, you can't just look at stats sometimes their misleading, my contention is that Brunell can't throw deep, not that he can't hit a quick hitch and turn it into a long play, that does have it's benefits but not what I was pointing out. Take a look a Palmer, every highlight is a deep throw not a short pass turned into a long gain, Palmer has been bombing away.

Don't get me wrong I feel brunells short passing game is tremendous he's been showing accuracy that's Montana like, but it's repetative and I believe defenses are now sitting on the short game, without much regard for the deep game, which has stagnated our offense, this allows safeties to play to close to the LOS which really hinders our running game.


[QUOTE]The simple fact is the offenses problems don't rest solely on Brunell, and arguing his "inability" to throw deep is our problem is just asinine. The offensive line and receiving corps bear as much or more of the responsibility than Brunell does.[/QUOTE]

Tell that one to Moss, he couldn't outrun anyone last season.

Our offensive line has provided for the most part enough time to throw deep, and if Moss can't get deep who may be the fastest player in the NFL, then what do you think it may be.

I do agree that many times players are scapegoated because of lack of a team effort, but sometimes that goes the other way as well.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

I don't have the stats for you, but there is a Moss highlight video on ES. Go over there and download it from the Film Room. I see at least 10+ plays in the AIR of 20+ yards.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]How do we determine what constitutes a "deep pass" though? For example, Brunell dumped off a screen pass to Moss that he turned into a 71-yard TD against KC. Long gaining play, but not a deep pass per se.[/QUOTE]


Exactly! Thank you Taf, see it's nice to get along.

Stats don't alway's tell the tale, sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

Whether or not Brunell actually has the arm to throw the long ball maybe the wrong question, perhaps the question is why doesn't throw the deep ball, pretty much the same question we all had last season?

Maybe it's his age and he wear's down as the season progresses, who knows, I just don't see us taking shots deep downfield, maybe I am wrong but that's what I am seeing anyway. :biggthump

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I don't have the stats for you, but there is a Moss highlight video on ES. Go over there and download it from the Film Room. I see at least 10+ plays in the AIR of 20+ yards.[/QUOTE]


I believe you MC, but I don't consider 20 yds a deep pass, those are intermidiate passes, I know we had some big plays but our passing game as a whole has really been lacking the deep ball, I know we wont complete everyone but throwing a deep incomplete still serves a purpose, and that is to show the defense you are will to throw deep and make them respect that fact so you can work the ball underneath, I kind of think we are working the ball underneath without the respect of the deep ball by the defenses, which makes it much more difficult.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]I guess what I am saying is this, yes we have plays over 20 yds and 40, but how many were actually thrown deep, and how many were short routes turned into long plays, you can't just look at stats sometimes their misleading, my contention is that Brunell can't throw deep, not that he can't hit a quick hitch and turn it into a long play, that does have it's benefits but not what I was pointing out.[/QUOTE]

I guess I don't see how the difference between a play where the ball is in the air for 40 yards vs. a play that ends up going for 40 yards, but mostly on the ground really matters. Unfortunately it's not a stat the NFL measures, so we're sorta screwed.

I guess you could argue that if it really is short passes going for long gains rather than long passes, then the defense can play more guys up on the line to try and stop the short passes - but we're still making the long plays regardless.

It seems like the end result is that we have as many long plays as the best teams around. If it's true that Brunell actually isn't throwing the ball long on these plays, then our receivers must be doing an absolutely astonishing job of breaking tackles and turning short passes into long gains to the point that we have similar stats as the Mannings and Palmers. I find that a little hard to believe, but I'm willing to grant that short passes turning into long plays is perhaps contributing somewhat.

Still seems like from a defensive point they have to respect the big play potential of the Skins because long pass or short pass we're getting it done.

I think my main point in all of this discussion is that it's foolish to try to pin this down to one thing. Brunell suddenly heaving the ball 70 yards downfield isn't going to magically fix everything. I place the blame for the offensive troubles squarely on everyone - coaching, playcalling, QB, WRs, offensive line, etc.

Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]
Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?[/QUOTE]

That is a great question! We win as a team, we lose as a team.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=mheisig]Why is it that fans tend to want to blame one single thing as the cause of all the problems?[/QUOTE]

Fans love a scapegoat. Plus it's easy to single players out rather than look at the big picture. The QB is the easiest player to single out and the most convenient scapegoat.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Meanwhile Campbell waits patiently on the sidelines

[img]http://richard-kelly.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/thrashskin.gif[/img]

<<thanks to califan007 over at extreme for that hilarious emoticon>>[/QUOTE]

love that emoticon, I'm adding that right away

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=offiss]
As for the rest of your nonesense, I could explain it over and over again but judging from some of those so called points it's obviously a big waste of time.[/QUOTE]

You could explain it if you had any idea what you're talking about, but from what most of us have seen, it appears that isn't the case.

So, go ahead and hate on the coach, hate on the quarterback, and hate on the team. I'm sure you'll be right in there with us, high fiving all of us and saying "Gibbs knew what he was doing all along" when this team is back on track.

This whole time, I have asked you, what proof do you have that Patrick Ramsey would be the better quarterback at this point. You have yet to provide the proof, other than what you think might would happen. And, my reply is, we don't go on maybes or would've, could've, should've, we go on what we know. What we know right now, is that this team is 7-6, which is a winning record. We know that this team is still in the hunt for a playoff spot - that is fact. We know that this team is playing a meaningful game against the Dallas Cowboys this Sunday - late in December. What part of any of those points are false or nonesense?

You have given nothing to justify pulling Mark Brunell at this point in the season, other than to harp on Brunell not throwing bombs every game. Brad Johnson didnt' throw bombs when he was with Tampa Bay, and they won the Super Bowl. A good quarterback has to be judged on more than his ability to throw a deep ball. The only thing you can come up with is that Patrick Ramsey has a stronger arm than Mark Brunell. So freakin what? It takes more than a strong arm to play quarterback in this league.

Now, I am not denying that Mark Brunell has had a few bad games recently. However, in two of those games, our team still won. Which emphasis the fact that we win as a team, we lose as a team. This isn't golf. This isn't tennis. This is football. This is a team sport.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced?
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]You could explain it if you had any idea what you're talking about, but from what most of us have seen, it appears that isn't the case.

So, go ahead and hate on the coach, hate on the quarterback, and hate on the team. I'm sure you'll be right in there with us, high fiving all of us and saying "Gibbs knew what he was doing all along" when this team is back on track.

This whole time, I have asked you, what proof do you have that Patrick Ramsey would be the better quarterback at this point. You have yet to provide the proof, other than what you think might would happen. And, my reply is, we don't go on maybes or would've, could've, should've, we go on what we know. What we know right now, is that this team is 7-6, which is a winning record. We know that this team is still in the hunt for a playoff spot - that is fact. We know that this team is playing a meaningful game against the Dallas Cowboys this Sunday - late in December. What part of any of those points are false or nonesense?

You have given nothing to justify pulling Mark Brunell at this point in the season, other than to harp on Brunell not throwing bombs every game. Brad Johnson didnt' throw bombs when he was with Tampa Bay, and they won the Super Bowl. A good quarterback has to be judged on more than his ability to throw a deep ball. The only thing you can come up with is that Patrick Ramsey has a stronger arm than Mark Brunell. So freakin what? It takes more than a strong arm to play quarterback in this league.

Now, I am not denying that Mark Brunell has had a few bad games recently. However, in two of those games, our team still won. Which emphasis the fact that we win as a team, we lose as a team. This isn't golf. This isn't tennis. This is football. This is a team sport.[/QUOTE]


I will give it to you again please comprehend, Ramsey under the same conditions last season outplayed Brunell, that is why Gibbs named him the starter this season, in the opening game Ramsey threw for more yards in 1 quarter than Brunell did in 3 quarters, Ramsey's arm is much stronger than Brunells which has alway's been a big advantage in a Gibbs system [Joe always liked strong armed QB] although he seems to have been trying to reinvent himself this go round, he has a homerun hitting back rather than a power guy to grind it out, and a week armed QB in Brunell, who I might add Gibbs likes the fact that he can scramble even though through his first tenure he wanted his QB to stay in the pocket, not that I have a real problem with the philosophy of the above, but it doesn't seem he has been able to make all the adjustments for both the passing, and running game to become consistant, hopefully he will get there.

I wish I had more to go off of as far as proof that Ramsey would be an overall better choice for us at QB under Gibbs, but I can only go off of what I have seen which isn't a whole lot because obviously Ramsey hasen't seen the field much in Gibbs tenure, it's a talent judgement on my part. Even if he fails, how much worse would we really be, what has, and what is, Brunell doing to make believers out of all of us? Ramsey deserved the chance in the regular season to sink or swim, at least we would know where we stand with him by now, we may not needed to give up next years draft for yes another unproven QB out of college, that is the biggest risk Gibbs has taken in this whole QB controversy.

Do you deny that Ramsey outplayed Brunell last season under the same circumstances? Do you deny he threw for more yards in 1 quarter against the Bears this season than Brunell did in 3? Do YOU know for sure that Ramsey wouldn't be better than Brunell? Do you believe if Ramsey goes to a team like the Dolphins, Bucs, Bears, Boy's, next season he will fail? Because I believe where ever he is next year excluding us, he will succeed, but that is my opinion at this point, and only time will tell if I am right, or wrong on the evaluation.

Take a long look at what happened in both Giant games last season, under brunell we lose, under ramsey we crushed them, I do know circumstances can dictate wins and loses and they don't alway's tell the whole story, but we lose with Brunell, and crush them with Ramsey, that may be the strongest argument for ramsey.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

It wasn't the same exact circumstances they played under last year though.

Later on in the year when Ramsey started, I think it's safe to say by then Gibbs and co. had made some necessary adjustments to the offense, and with Ramsey they scaled things back and went ultra conservative.

Plus I don't care what Brunell says, he obviously was not 100% healthy. He doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't want to come off as a guy who's making excuses, but it's obvious something was wrong with him physically because his arm strength simply wasn't there at all, and he clearly has much more zip this year. How many times have we seen him one hop a ball to a WR this year? None that I can remember as opposed to last year when he was good for a few a game.

Enough about last year though. Brunell has helped get us to where we are right now, 7-6 and in a good position to control our own destiny if we can win out.

Re: Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)
 

Because Ramsey passed for more yards in the Bears game doesn't necessarily make him a better quarterback. We're not playing the EA Quarterback Challenge out there. If it was all about how far you can launch the football then, well then we'd be a perennial playoff team and firmly entrenched in the Jeff George era. There are plenty more intangibles involved then yards passing or how strong your arm is.