Gibbs says "Mark's the man"
 

Mark brunell will be our starter this week. [url]http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3014918[/url]

This makes me think he may have started wavering:

"There's a temptation there," the Redskins' coach said Wednesday. "And you see it all the time. 'Let's change a person because it's an easy thing to do.' I want to do what's right. Right now, Mark's the guy."

so one of the league's worst offensive teams will remain one of the worst offensive teams, great

I must say that I have to agree with Gibbs for one more week. But if Brunell is still playing like crap at half time. I hope we bench his ass!

Gibbs is NEVER going to call out one of his players in the media, it's just not gonna happen no matter how poorly a player is performing. Standing behind his players in the press is his MO. He'll always deal with issues in-house.

Keep in mind that just because he publicly has Brunell's back it doesn't mean behind closed doors at Redskins Park he has the same stance. Gibbs has to see Brunell struggling, he also has to know that Ramsey's strong arm could add an interesting dimension to the offense.

Gibbs will make a change when he feels he has no choice. That choice could be coming soon. My prediction is Ramsey will be the starter after the bye if Brunell stinks up the joint in Chicago, and I wouldn't rule out Brunell getting the hook at halftime in Chicago if Brunell is playing poorly.

If we get blown out cause Brunell plays like sh*t, Ramsey should be our QB. I said after the game at Baltimore, that Gibbs should give Brunell one more shot, so I dont disagree with the decision to start him this weekend. However, if Brunell plays like complete crap, I think Ramsey needs to come in. So we'll see.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]
"There's a temptation there," the Redskins' coach said Wednesday. "And you see it all the time. 'Let's change a person because it's an easy thing to do.' I want to do what's right. Right now, Mark's the guy."[/QUOTE]Looks like 1-5 is on the way, at least the folks in Chicago will get to experience the joy of not losing this Sunday. How many losses is it going to take before Gibbs wakes up to the fact that Brunell is no longer a starting NFL caliber QB?

[QUOTE=DirtBagZ]Looks like 1-5 is on the way, at least the folks in Chicago will get to experience the joy of not losing this Sunday. How many losses is it going to take before Gibbs wakes up to the fact that Brunell is no longer a starting NFL caliber QB?[/QUOTE]

That's a great way to look at this week's game. To hell with a weak special teams and O line. Let's not even mention the bust that Portis has become. He's still thinking about the fumbles and hasn't been able to shake it off. If Portis is handling 90% of the handoffs we will certainly have another L in the column.

The offense just needs a spark and everybodies play will improve. I'm telling we get teh passing game going and things will open up in the run game. But you got to be able to throw the ball in the NFL its a passing league.

Brunell has to show he can push the ball up the field, he can't just sit back throw the ball away and hope something magical happen's to score points, if he's not showing he can do this, then give him the hook at halftime, I want to see consistant ball controlling drives, not a desperation bomb for a completion to pad stats.

"I would say if there's any person we could change on our football team that would help us, we would do it. ... I don't think I would hesitate to do it," Gibbs said. "But I also think that if somebody's earned that job and they're fighting their guts out doing everything they could and you look at it and say this guy's not the problem, that would be the wrong thing to do."

- Joe Gibbs

Joe Gibbs doesn't say one thing in public and then say another behind closed doors. There is no equivocation in the above statement.

Joe Gibbs isn't going to Pat Ramsey because Pat Ramsey just isn't ready to lead this football team, and Mark Brunell is not the problem. There are a host of reasons why the team isn't performing well on offense.

It wouldn't be wise to put Ramsey in there right now with the status of our transitionary offensive planning, our protection issues, and other issues on offense. It wouldn't be wise to put Ramsey in there with his current level of development as a quarterback. It would be too much to ask him to manage the offense effectively and also be an inspiring leader.

Furthermore it would send a message to the team that when the going gets tough, it's time to scapegoat someone - someone who is fighting his guts out and doing everything he can. That's not the Gibbs way, and that's not the Redskin way.

The best way to be happier is to change your expectations not your quarterback.

I'm hoping for a hamstring injury reoccurrence

[QUOTE=] Furthermore [putting Ramsey in] would send a message to the team that when the going gets tough, it's time to scapegoat someone - someone who is fighting his guts out and doing everything he can. That's not the Gibbs way, and that's not the Redskin way.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point.

Of all the justifications for continuing with Brunell, despite his obvious limitations, I think this is the most compelling. To switch to Ramsey when their are so many problems on offense right now is a relapse into the "Snyder Way", i.e. all it takes is one guy, one free agent, one hot draft pick, to turn this thing around.

While I don't think Brunell is cutting it, it does not appear that his teammates have given up on him. Until they do, neither should Gibbs nor the fans should.

Gibbs has made his choice, for good or ill, and will stick by it. This is something the players will probably respond to as it signifies a sea change from the majority of the Snyder years.

[QUOTE=Shane]
Joe Gibbs doesn't say one thing in public and then say another behind closed doors. There is no equivocation in the above statement.
[/QUOTE]
I think his former players might beg to differ

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I think his former players might beg to differ[/QUOTE]

Joe Gibbs does not present one face publicly and then contradict that privately. No one honest would beg to differ about that.

It's not to say that he doesn't say things privately that he doesn't publicly - of course that is the case and that is entirely appropriate.

Here we have a definite statement from Joe about the quarterback situation. There is no way that he then goes behind the scenes and then says anything that contradicts that.

Joe is as honorable and good hearted a man as I know and he is honest. I know you didn't mean to say otherwise, but that statement might have led people to be confused about that.

I can't say for sure. But I think Matty might have been referring to this from today's Washington Post:

[QUOTE]Gibbs defended the play of reserve running back Ladell Betts this week, but Betts's inability to block Baltimore's Ed Reed on a safety blitz led to Reed stripping quarterback Mark Brunell of the ball and returning his fumble for a touchdown, reversing the course of the game. Joe Theismann, a former quarterback under Gibbs and an ESPN analyst who was broadcasting the Redskins-Ravens game, said he believes that Betts is getting a much different message in private. "I would not want to be Ladell Betts this week in practice," Theismann said during a phone interview. "I know Joe had some nice things to say about him [publicly], but you just can't miss a block like that." [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Shane]"I would say if there's any person we could change on our football team that would help us, we would do it. ... I don't think I would hesitate to do it," Gibbs said. "But I also think that if somebody's earned that job and they're fighting their guts out doing everything they could and you look at it and say this guy's not the problem, that would be the wrong thing to do."

- Joe Gibbs

Joe Gibbs doesn't say one thing in public and then say another behind closed doors. There is no equivocation in the above statement.

Joe Gibbs isn't going to Pat Ramsey because Pat Ramsey just isn't ready to lead this football team, and Mark Brunell is not the problem. There are a host of reasons why the team isn't performing well on offense.

It wouldn't be wise to put Ramsey in there right now with the status of our transitionary offensive planning, our protection issues, and other issues on offense. It wouldn't be wise to put Ramsey in there with his current level of development as a quarterback. It would be too much to ask him to manage the offense effectively and also be an inspiring leader.

Furthermore it would send a message to the team that when the going gets tough, it's time to scapegoat someone - someone who is fighting his guts out and doing everything he can. That's not the Gibbs way, and that's not the Redskin way.

The best way to be happier is to change your expectations not your quarterback.[/QUOTE]


The one thing I would say about that is this, what did Brunell do in the pre-season to really earn this job? Other than 1 TD pass to McCant's against the scrub's of whoever we were playing, and that is pretty much it, he was no better than Ramsey, and Ramsey a lot of the time was up against the opposing team's starter's with some second string talent around him, that competition wasen't the best gauge for determining the QB, I will tell you what Brunell did better than Ramsey to earn this starting job, he signed a 43 mil. dollar contract, I believe Gibb's really stacked the odd's in Brunell's favor in the pre-season to avoid a QB controversy, and to ensure Brunell was his starter, which in itself, I don't have a big prob., if you know Brunell is a much better QB, but if he isn't, it can backfire, which I believe it has, I think Gibb's assumed that a veteran with a resigme like Brunell, would be a much better QB to run his offense, than a young kid like Ramsey, who's only experience is running a convoluted offensive scheme under SS.

And one last thing about that, IMO throwing the ball away half the time, especially when there is no real pressure, is not what I would call fighting your gut's out, I believe Gibb's is trying to be positive, and encouraging of Brunell, but those word's don't describe the QB I have been watching. I have had the opportuntiy to watch Ramsey all last year, I know when a QB is fighting his gut's out, and Ramsey was the poster boy for fighting your gut's out!

[QUOTE=Shane]Joe Gibbs does not present one face publicly and then contradict that privately. No one honest would beg to differ about that.

It's not to say that he doesn't say things privately that he doesn't publicly - of course that is the case and that is entirely appropriate.

Here we have a definite statement from Joe about the quarterback situation. There is no way that he then goes behind the scenes and then says anything that contradicts that.

Joe is as honorable and good hearted a man as I know and he is honest. I know you didn't mean to say otherwise, but that statement might have led people to be confused about that.[/QUOTE]

I agree that Gibbs is an honest man, but after 23 years of dealing with them from leading teams in two different sports, he knows how to work the media. Yes, he is showing that Brunell has his full support, which he should, but we don't know how much he may be "challenging" him in practice. Plus, Mark has been in the league and he knows how it works. It is very hard to believe that his struggling is from a lack of commitment to work as hard as possible. He knows what Ramsey can do. I think Brunell with really look improved on Sunday, due to his drive to play better, combined with scheme adjustments to maximize all of the players' talents better.

My conspiracy theory is as follows:
Gibbs is sticking with Brunell because he knows the offense isn't clicking and doesn't want to inflict any more damage on Ramsey. Ramsey is the future QB and if he went in and struggled, everybody would be then calling for his head and where would that leave us?
Gibbs is going to stick with Brunell so he shows the TEAM that he sticks with his guys. When the offense is clicking and Ramsey gets in, he'll be in for a while.

[QUOTE=Shane] "But I also think that if somebody's earned that job and they're fighting their guts out doing everything they could and you look at it and say this guy's not the problem, - Joe Gibbs

The best way to be happier is to change your expectations not your quarterback.[/QUOTE]
18/29 for 83 yards is not playing your guts out. Yea there have been drops by hs recevers. but there have been far more overthrown balls and one hops one short hitch routes. I am not sure if i Could lower my expectations that much if i was watching a little league game. Much less a Professional football team that has the highest payroll in the league.

[QUOTE=redwagonskins]My conspiracy theory is as follows:
Gibbs is sticking with Brunell because he knows the offense isn't clicking and doesn't want to inflict any more damage on Ramsey. Ramsey is the future QB and if he went in and struggled, everybody would be then calling for his head and where would that leave us?
Gibbs is going to stick with Brunell so he shows the TEAM that he sticks with his guys. When the offense is clicking and Ramsey gets in, he'll be in for a while.[/QUOTE]

Let's hope it's somthing like that.

[QUOTE=aehs77]18/29 for 83 yards is not playing your guts out. Yea there have been drops by hs recevers. but there have been far more overthrown balls and one hops one short hitch routes. I am not sure if i Could lower my expectations that much if i was watching a little league game. Much less a Professional football team that has the highest payroll in the league.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is that the O-line, RB's, TE's, and WR's also played a part in those numbers. One completion instead of a drop can change the entire course of a game (i.e. getting a 1st down and keeping the ball, instead of having to punt), not to mention missed blocking assignments (Betts), and so on. Yeah, a good QB should be able to overcome those things to an extent, but considering the fact that everyone is learning as they go, changing the personnel may not be the best option....yet. (BTW, I'm a big supporter of putting in Ramsey, but I have faith in Gibbs decisions)

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Gibbs is NEVER going to call out one of his players in the media, it's just not gonna happen no matter how poorly a player is performing. Standing behind his players in the press is his MO. He'll always deal with issues in-house.

Keep in mind that just because he publicly has Brunell's back it doesn't mean behind closed doors at Redskins Park he has the same stance. Gibbs has to see Brunell struggling, he also has to know that Ramsey's strong arm could add an interesting dimension to the offense.

Gibbs will make a change when he feels he has no choice. That choice could be coming soon. My prediction is Ramsey will be the starter after the bye if Brunell stinks up the joint in Chicago, and I wouldn't rule out Brunell getting the hook at halftime in Chicago if Brunell is playing poorly.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, Brunell, as ineffective as he has been at moving the ball, never actually plays as "poorly" as, say, ... oh, I don't know -- tossing 3 interceptions in less than one half of a game.

That outing against the Giants sealed the fate of Ramsey for many, many games. Gibbs saw that performance as the reason Brunell is his guy and why he will stick with him until he's injured.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]The problem is, Brunell, as ineffective as he has been at moving the ball, never actually plays as "poorly" as, say, ... oh, I don't know -- tossing 3 interceptions in less than one half of a game.

That outing against the Giants sealed the fate of Ramsey for many, many games. Gibbs saw that performance as the reason Brunell is his guy and why he will stick with him until he's injured.[/QUOTE]
If throwing 3 INT's is so much worse, I guess you would bench Favre after his awful performance on Monday???
Consider the situation....Ramsey came in to put the ball down the field and try to come back and win the game. At least he didn't "hand" the ball to the defense so they could run it for a TD....in multiple games!

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]The problem is, Brunell, as ineffective as he has been at moving the ball, never actually plays as "poorly" as, say, ... oh, I don't know -- tossing 3 interceptions in less than one half of a game.

That outing against the Giants sealed the fate of Ramsey for many, many games. Gibbs saw that performance as the reason Brunell is his guy and why he will stick with him until he's injured.[/QUOTE]
so you'll judge ramsey by one bad half, but brunell gets a free pass on his many many bad halves and the 21 points he gave up...

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]I agree that Gibbs is an honest man, but after 23 years of dealing with them from leading teams in two different sports, he knows how to work the media. Yes, he is showing that Brunell has his full support, which he should, but we don't know how much he may be "challenging" him in practice.[/QUOTE]
That was basically my point. Thanks SkinsRock.

I wasn't questioning Gibbs' honesty, I was just trying to make the point that Gibbs knows how to deal with the media and he doesn't do his dirty laundry in the public's eye.

Some coaches do so and are great at it, Parcells being the obvious one. Gibbs deals with things behind the scenes and keeps a positive spin on things in the media.

[QUOTE=That Guy]so you'll judge ramsey by one bad half, but brunell gets a free pass on his many many bad halves and the 21 points he gave up...[/QUOTE]

Whoa, whoa, whoa there. That was just my feeling as to Gibbs' reasoning for sticking with Brunell.

I think Ramsey should play. I just don't think his performance against the Giants did him any favors.

(sorry for the delay in response, I've been away)

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]If throwing 3 INT's is so much worse, I guess you would bench Favre after his awful performance on Monday???
Consider the situation....Ramsey came in to put the ball down the field and try to come back and win the game. At least he didn't "hand" the ball to the defense so they could run it for a TD....in multiple games![/QUOTE]

First of all, I don't think it's fair to compare Brett Favre with Patrick Ramsey. Favre has shown slightly more than Ramsey has at this point. Don't you agree?

Secondly, Ramsey didn't come in to "put the ball down the field" -- he came in to win -- and very obviously didn't come anywhere close. As far as "handing" the ball to the defense, I don't know how you can describe three interceptions any other way.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]The problem is, Brunell, as ineffective as he has been at moving the ball, never actually plays as "poorly" as, say, ... oh, I don't know -- tossing 3 interceptions in less than one half of a game.

That outing against the Giants sealed the fate of Ramsey for many, many games. Gibbs saw that performance as the reason Brunell is his guy and why he will stick with him until he's injured.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're right with regards to what Gibbs saw. Here's what I saw.

I saw the Giants score 10 points off Brunell's turnovers and 0 off Ramsey's. I saw Brunell leave the game after leading the Redskins to a 20-7 deficit at half time (not that this was all his fault). I saw Ramsey come into the game in a bad position and lead his team with authority down the field before Gardner dropped an easy pass in the endzone. I saw Ramsey drive the offense impressively down the field again and score a TD. I saw Ramsey throw 2 picks that were arguably not his fault and a third, in the end zone, that definitely was his fault. I saw Ramsey throw 2 of those picks late in the game when the offense had to throw the ball because of a non-existant running game and time was running out.

I saw that my friends and I actually had hope that we could win the game because Ramsey was playing. If Brunell had stayed in the game, did anyone seriously have a shred of hope that we could mount a comeback?

Personally, though Ramsey made some mistakes, I feel he showed he has a lot of promise. Hopefully Gibbs will admit that Brunell isn't playing as we all had hoped and will give Ramsey a chance in the upcoming weeks.

[QUOTE=RedHokieSkin]Maybe you're right with regards to what Gibbs saw. Here's what I saw.

I saw the Giants score 10 points off Brunell's turnovers and 0 off Ramsey's. I saw Brunell leave the game after leading the Redskins to a 20-7 deficit at half time (not that this was all his fault). I saw Ramsey come into the game in a bad position and lead his team with authority down the field before Gardner dropped an easy pass in the endzone. I saw Ramsey drive the offense impressively down the field again and score a TD. I saw Ramsey throw 2 picks that were arguably not his fault and a third, in the end zone, that definitely was his fault. I saw Ramsey throw 2 of those picks late in the game when the offense had to throw the ball because of a non-existant running game and time was running out.

I saw that my friends and I actually had hope that we could win the game because Ramsey was playing. If Brunell had stayed in the game, did anyone seriously have a shred of hope that we could mount a comeback?

Personally, though Ramsey made some mistakes, I feel he showed he has a lot of promise. Hopefully Gibbs will admit that Brunell isn't playing as we all had hoped and will give Ramsey a chance in the upcoming weeks.[/QUOTE]



ABSOFREAKINLUTLY!

Ramsey had one bad half, as far as turnovers are concerned. Brunell had one good half period. I've made my choice.

if only my choice mattered... oh well, go skins!