Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

e16bball · 09-13-2005, 02:31 PM

I actually can't believe that PRESEASON games are being cited as more relevant than last year's regular season games. Should the Steelers have benched Roethlisberger after this preseason, and gone with Tommy Maddox? After all, Roethlisberger had about a 20 passer rating in the preseason, and turned the ball over quite often. (NOTE: I can't find the actual numbers for either of those players in the preseason, probably because most outlets for that sort of information realize that the PRESEASON DOESN'T MATTER). Sure Ben outplayed Maddox last season, but, hey, this preseason they've both looked like different men. And sure, Maddox was only playing bumbling idiots out there in the preseason, and Ben was playing first string Ds, but Maddox's stats are better and frankly he LOOKED better.

My point is, you cannot seriously judge a player on his preseason performance, unless there is no prior basis for comparison (a rookie, or a newly signed FA perhaps). And with Brunell and Ramsey, we HAVE A BASIS FOR COMPARISON. It's called last season. Brunell was horrible, Ramsey was better. Sure, hamstring this and arm strength that, but why take a chance on a guy who has proved nothing in a Redskins uniform other than he cannot play football anymore. Hoping the frog that is Brunell to turn into a prince is literally like wishing for a fairy tale. At least Ramsey has demonstrated he can win ballgames against teams that come close to matching our talent level. Remember the Vikings game? That was a playoff team that we simply outplayed with Ramsey at the helm. He turned the ball over a few times, but overcame that by playing like a real QB. People act like a turnover is the end of the world. It sucks, yes, but 2 turnovers in a game is better than 8 3-and-outs. Our defense is strong enough to help us withstand turnovers, and we need some aggressiveness on our offense, some risk-taking. What's the point in having speedsters like Moss and Patten if you are just going to check down every play for fear of making a turnover?

A starter losing his job based on 6 quarters of preseason play, no matter how shaky, is simply ludicrous. Patrick's play in the preseason is NOT a sufficient reason for him losing the job in this day and age, or else numerous other QBs would have been benched as well. The fact of the matter is, Gibbs feels more "comfortable" with Brunell in there. However, I, in my admittedly limited knowledge of football, feel that this is "ill-advised." If you're comfortable going through a season where we beat Chicago, San Francisco, Arizona, the Giants once, and possibly the Raiders, then so be it. Brunell simply doesn't give us a chance to beat teams of a similar caliber. The offense is far too stagnant, and we'll never put enough points on the board to outscore teams with a decent offense. Sounds kinda like 2004, doesn't it? This move to Brunell might as well come with a time machine.

09-13-2005, 02:31 PM	#85
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Ramsey/Brunell: a closer look I actually can't believe that PRESEASON games are being cited as more relevant than last year's regular season games. Should the Steelers have benched Roethlisberger after this preseason, and gone with Tommy Maddox? After all, Roethlisberger had about a 20 passer rating in the preseason, and turned the ball over quite often. (NOTE: I can't find the actual numbers for either of those players in the preseason, probably because most outlets for that sort of information realize that the PRESEASON DOESN'T MATTER). Sure Ben outplayed Maddox last season, but, hey, this preseason they've both looked like different men. And sure, Maddox was only playing bumbling idiots out there in the preseason, and Ben was playing first string Ds, but Maddox's stats are better and frankly he LOOKED better. My point is, you cannot seriously judge a player on his preseason performance, unless there is no prior basis for comparison (a rookie, or a newly signed FA perhaps). And with Brunell and Ramsey, we HAVE A BASIS FOR COMPARISON. It's called last season. Brunell was horrible, Ramsey was better. Sure, hamstring this and arm strength that, but why take a chance on a guy who has proved nothing in a Redskins uniform other than he cannot play football anymore. Hoping the frog that is Brunell to turn into a prince is literally like wishing for a fairy tale. At least Ramsey has demonstrated he can win ballgames against teams that come close to matching our talent level. Remember the Vikings game? That was a playoff team that we simply outplayed with Ramsey at the helm. He turned the ball over a few times, but overcame that by playing like a real QB. People act like a turnover is the end of the world. It sucks, yes, but 2 turnovers in a game is better than 8 3-and-outs. Our defense is strong enough to help us withstand turnovers, and we need some aggressiveness on our offense, some risk-taking. What's the point in having speedsters like Moss and Patten if you are just going to check down every play for fear of making a turnover? A starter losing his job based on 6 quarters of preseason play, no matter how shaky, is simply ludicrous. Patrick's play in the preseason is NOT a sufficient reason for him losing the job in this day and age, or else numerous other QBs would have been benched as well. The fact of the matter is, Gibbs feels more "comfortable" with Brunell in there. However, I, in my admittedly limited knowledge of football, feel that this is "ill-advised." If you're comfortable going through a season where we beat Chicago, San Francisco, Arizona, the Giants once, and possibly the Raiders, then so be it. Brunell simply doesn't give us a chance to beat teams of a similar caliber. The offense is far too stagnant, and we'll never put enough points on the board to outscore teams with a decent offense. Sounds kinda like 2004, doesn't it? This move to Brunell might as well come with a time machine.