Gibbs defends Brunell

[aehs77]

Well boy's it looks like were going to see brunell again in two weeks.

[SKINSnCANES]

yea i figured. i hope he just says that now but changes his mind later. no one usually changes qb after a win. but 8/22 for less thatn 100?!?!?

[SmootSmack]

Were you just watching the post game press conference as well? It sounded like he said the two weeks will give Brunell a chance to get healthy meaning Brunell is definitely playing against GB. I know he said Mark played smart. I don't think a lot of those throws out of bounds were intentional I think he just missed his receivers.

[Jamaican'Skin]

I think this is one of the few rhings that I have to disagree with Gibbs on.

[SKINSnCANES]

brunell would throw more picks if he was mor eaccurate. hes throws are almost to far off to be picked off.

[aehs77]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

brunell would throw more picks if he was mor eaccurate. hes throws are almost to far off to be picked off.

agreed

[SKINSnCANES]

lame that thats the truth...atleast ramsey drives down the field. even if he throws a pick he alteast kept the d off the field and moved the ball. gives us a better chance to score then brunell. I dont think we have any chance to score under brunell

[SUNRA]

When an offense is struggling like this offense, the defense has to make up their minds that they can decide the outcome of the game. Sean Springs, Sean Taylor, Fred Smoot, Marcus Washington and Antonio Pierce has that mindset and it shows. The Ravens won a Superbowl with an offense that was as bad as this one. With Lavar returning in two weeks, this defense should be at full throttle. We all know what Brunell is able or unable to do. He's playing with a brace on his knee which makes it virtually impossible to run and pass out of the pocket. If he can heal and run to make the short 20 to 30 yd passes he will be successful. The timing is still not there for Brunell and Jacobs on the long pass. Chicago stacked the box and Portis was still able to run for 171 yds.

I'm not sure that Ramsey is approaching his secondary role to Brunell in good favor. No question he is more talented than Brunell, but he obviously doesn't understand what Gibbs is trying to do. Otherwise he would have started this week. Two weeks, Green Bay in our house. Let's get it started in here!

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by SUNRA

I'm not sure that Ramsey is approaching his secondary role to Brunell in good favor. No question he is more talented than Brunell, but he obviously doesn't understand what Gibbs is trying to do. Otherwise he would have started this week.

I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

APPARENTLY brunell has been injured, or so Gibbs says. But if gibbs thinks its a team and play calling problem then I agree we should stick with brunell. the last thing we need is to make the matter worse. if gibbs feels that the team needs more time to learn his system and for brunell to get on the same page as his receivers then ill go ahead and hope hes right for now. i think ramsey will throw more picks anyways, but I think ramsey gives us the best chance to move the ball and score

[ZackMills]

attaboy gibbs, finally a smart move sticking with mark

[SUNRA]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

I don't buy that at all. This has nothing to do with Ramsey's performance in practice or otherwise, and everything to do with Gibbs presenting a consistent message of confidence in Brunell. He has stated repeatedly-- ad nauseum-- that he doesn't believe Brunell is the problem, and that the inefficacy of the offense is a product of poor team play and poor coaching. Making a quarterback change would have been totally inconsistent with that message of team accountability.

While I understand and respect that team-oriented approach-- Gibbs knows a hell of a lot more about coaching than I do-- I totally disagree with his assertion that replacing Brunell wouldn't improve the offense, and I feel his heartfelt loyalty to Brunell is blinding him to the cold truth about Brunell's glaring deficiencies.

If Gibb's message is consistentcy and confidence in a QB then I will defend him to the end because that's something we didn't have for the last two years. If the Redskins win the next 3 games, (Packers, Lions and Bengals)
with Brunell, there should be some kind of an apology thread to Gibbs for accusing him of being blind to the obvious facts. And what are the obvious facts? A young talented QB who threw 3 INTS in his only game appearance. 2 sacks in the same. Seems incapable of moving in the pocket. On the other hand, an injured veteran with a proven record, whose skills have deminished, but still able to lead his team with a weak O line. Now loyalty to Brunell has nothing to do with Ramsey on the bench. Ramsey had his chance and blew it. If Rasmey won the game against the Giants, do you think Gibbs would have benched him anyway?

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by SUNRA

If the Redskins win the next 3 games, (Packers, Lions and Bengals) with Brunell, there should be some kind of an apology thread to Gibbs for accusing him of being blind to the obvious facts. And what are the obvious facts? A young talented QB who threw 3 INTS in his only game appearance. 2 sacks in the same. Seems incapable of moving in the pocket.

To be fair, SUNRA, Brunell was responsible for two turnovers himself in that game (1 interception, 1 fumble lost on a sack), and was ineffective once the Giants unleashed their pass rush and started blitzing. Ramsey came in with very little practice and forced passes, trying to lead the team from behind. He also scrambled for 17 yards on one play, despite his alleged immobility.

Originally Posted by SUNRA

On the other hand, an injured veteran with a proven record, whose skills have deminished, but still able to lead his team with a weak O line. Now loyalty to Brunell has nothing to do with Ramsey on the bench. Ramsey had his chance and blew it. If Ramsey won the game against the Giants, do you think Gibbs would have benched him anyway?

Brunell has "led" this team to 2 victories over very weak teams, and 4 losses that could have been avoided, had the offense shown any signs of life prior to the 4th quarter in those games. If Ramsey had won the game against the Giants, it wouldn't have mattered. Gibbs would have put Brunell back in there, because that's the guy who "earned" the starting job in the preseason.

Ramsey would've had to go in and throw 5 touchdowns and won the game for Gibbs to have even considered benching Brunell. That's not a fair expectation, either. On the other hand, Brunell has 5 touchdowns in a little over five and a half games, and there have been no signs of improvement.

[Gmanc711]

I openly disagree with Gibbs on this move, as I'm pretty sure everyone does. 3 Superbowl rings or not... this is a bad move in my opinon.

[SUNRA]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I openly disagree with Gibbs on this move, as I'm pretty sure everyone does. 3 Superbowl rings or not... this is a bad move in my opinon.

Well I don't disagree with Gibbs until Ramsey can prove to Gibbs in practice that he understands his system and knows when to throw the ball and not take a sack. This is why he's isn't playing now, so why should he allowed to learn now that we won. If we had loss this game I could understand, but a victory sealed Brunell's position for another two weeks.