ExtremeSkins Fan View

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by offiss

Your really contradicting yourself, you say Gibbs is going to make changes and he'll be darned if he waits 5,6,or 9, games, who are you trying to kid here, he waited not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, but 9 games before he replaced Brunell last season, who played the position as bad as I have ever seen.

The rest of your statements are all over the place I really don't know were to begin but I will try.

You stated that our offense is in constant flux and that all players should be afforded the same opportunity as Ramsey? Then you say we all can agree on the fact that he's had more than 19 minutes to prove himself, was he playing a pickup game in the parking lot I missed? What is it about the comparison between a KR and a QB you don't understand? Why is the QB the highest paid player in the league, and kick returners on the bottom of the food chain? Could it be becuase it's the most difficult position on the field and takes the longest to learn, it's taken some of the great QB's 3 years to develope in the same system playing every game, not 6 or 7 quarters in the pre-season.

Give me your reasons for say a player like Antonio Brown and how you believe his growth is stunted on special's. Because I know I can give you a 100 reason's and example after example, on why a QB need's time to develope, SIR!

I won't defend my response point for point - take from it what you may. That's fine.

When I said Ramsey had more than 19 minutes to prove himself, obviously I was talking about more than just those 19 minutes. Ramsey has been with the Redskins for a few seasons now, entering his second with coach Gibbs. I think that certainly counts for more than 19 minutes of play.

[Daseal]

One guy turned the ball over and cost us points as did the other.

The score was 9-7. The Bears got a TD off Browns fumble. They made the extra point. TD + Extra Point = 7 points. I fail to see how Ramsey gave them any points.

[LadyT]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I won't defend my response point for point - take from it what you may. That's fine.

When I said Ramsey had more than 19 minutes to prove himself, obviously I was talking about more than just those 19 minutes. Ramsey has been with the Redskins for a few seasons now, entering his second with coach Gibbs. I think that certainly counts for more than 19 minutes of play.

And the only other regular season games he played in under Gibbs were last season. Last year, his winning percentage in games he started was better than Brunell's. Ramsey 3-4 (43%), Brunell 3-6 (33%).

In the final analysis, winning games is the ONLY thing that really matters.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You can absoultly compare Brown and Ramsey. You can't have drastically different standards for players on the team. One guy turned the ball over and cost us points as did the other. Whether one is a 4th year QB or a 2nd year kick returner doesn't matter. The message has been sent. DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER! If you say that and then ignore it in certain cases it can be a big morale killer. A good example is Nemo. Nemo looked like a beast in pre-season. He was pretty much heralded all over this board. We thought he'd make the team and play. Everyone was worried he'd take Rocks spot because he outplayed him a bit. But he couldn't control the ball much in preseason either and in the end he made the team but Nemo was inactive in game one. Message: DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER! Even in preseason.

every coach in the league has different rules for different players... LT could smoke crack and parcells wouldn't care, other rookies would be off the team for sleeping in a meeting.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

The score was 9-7. The Bears got a TD off Browns fumble. They made the extra point. TD + Extra Point = 7 points. I fail to see how Ramsey gave them any points.

Ramsey's last fumble cost us the chance to at least kick a fieldgoal therefore most likely denying us points.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by That Guy

every coach in the league has different rules for different players... LT could smoke crack and parcells wouldn't care, other rookies would be off the team for sleeping in a meeting.

So that makes it right? Maybe Joe doesn't look at it that way.

[paulskinsfan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So that makes it right? Maybe Joe doesn't look at it that way.

Oh, Joe looks at it that way alright. John Riggins was a BIG partier, Joe accepted it even though he didn't like it. Sean Taylor runs around with criminals and has pending felony charges, but beleive me, Joe ain't cuttin Mr. Taylor. It just depends on who you are, different rules for different people. Joe likes Brunnell, a veteran, whom he paid big bucks to, so Brunnell plays by a different set of rules than Ramsey does. If you don't believe it, wait until Brunnell has 2 turnovers in one game, I bet he stays in the game and isn't yanked.

[kingerock]

I think the point being missed is this:

Ramsey had 3 turnovers in 3 possesions and hasn't looked any better, this presason or any of the last 3 years, than his first snap in the NFL.

Like several others on this forum, I like Ramsey and want it to work out for him, but I tell my employees something all the time: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity, not loyalty. Nothing Ramsey has done with this team, in the length of his career here, has pointed to him doing anything different than being sub-par and turning the ball over.

I hope everything works out, but I am not going to thrash Gibbs over the decision.

I think it's ironic that we were calling for Mark Brunell to be benched in week 2 last season because of his poor play in week 1 against the Bucs, even with the win. Now Gibbs makes the tough call and we're calling for his (Gibbs) head.

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by kingerock

I think the point being missed is this:

Ramsey had 3 turnovers in 3 possesions and hasn't looked any better, this presason or any of the last 3 years, than his first snap in the NFL.

Like several others on this forum, I like Ramsey and want it to work out for him, but I tell my employees something all the time: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity, not loyalty. Nothing Ramsey has done with this team, in the length of his career here, has pointed to him doing anything different than being sub-par and turning the ball over.

I hope everything works out, but I am not going to thrash Gibbs over the decision.

I think it's ironic that we were calling for Mark Brunell to be benched in week 2 last season because of his poor play in week 1 against the Bucs, even with the win. Now Gibbs makes the tough call and we're calling for his (Gibbs) head.

.


Here's how it breaks down. I don't like the decision, because last year Ramsey lead our team to a few wins and some great games against the best teams in the leage, even with the outdated offensive schemes and players that brunell got killed with. Fuck the first half of the first game of this year. Mark Brunell has done nothing outside of the preseason to earn any merit from anyone on the Redskins. Hell I could go out there and just not turn the ball over. I could throw it out of bounds and at the ground in front of my feet and finish the game with not TO's but no offense either.

I think this article is BS because it implies that if you don't agree with the decision being made, or even question it, then you are ignorant of facts... but then it gives no real facts. This asshole got bought out by the skins and is spreading propaganda to sway public opinion. Do you think they would've posted an article asking if JG had lost his freaking mind on Redskins.com?

I'm not saying that's how I feel, but don't go on my teams website and act like you know some shit by a feeble attempt at alienation to those who oppose a particular decision.

[EternalEnigma21]

btw...art of recieving....






thats the second coolest name on the warpath lol

[tommynoker]

Originally Posted by 4mrusmc

How about this, what happened last year with Brunell was last year. The guy is a much smarter qb than Ramsey is now. I always thought that Brunell was like Favre but left handed. I don't want to lose this game 31-28 and have people say that "well atleast he scored points." Just WIN!!!!!!! I can't take this not making the playoffs stuff. What we as fans need to do is rally around our qb and our TEAM and will them to victory. I know a little faith can't hurt either. I think that coach Gibbs is better judge of talent then all of us. Hell, he has forgotten more football then all of us. And wouldn't this be a nice little ruse that that coach Gibbs is using to try to have dallas think that our qb and offense is so much turmoil. Just give Brunell a second chance to make us believe that he is the man. Just WIN DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right on one point; Gibbs has FORGOTTEN football!! Annnnd, Brunell is just a has been, retread that Gibbs favors because he too is "born again"!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by tommynoker

You are right on one point; Gibbs has FORGOTTEN football!! Annnnd, Brunell is just a has been, retread that Gibbs favors because he too is "born again"!

please don't troll, thanks.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the ball has to break the plane... cooley was in the end zone waiting, but brunell underthrew him (pretty badly for such a short throw) and so he had to run back a bit to grab it.

Colley only made his cut a foot or less in the endzone and was coming back to the ball when it was thrown. He did not run his rout deep enough and that can't be put on Brunell.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by paulskinsfan

What this guy conveniently leaves out of this article is that at least half of us wouldn't question Gibbs' decision if (1) He wasn't the one who went out and overpaid for a washed up Brunell and (2) He hadn't shown patience with Brunnell for 9 freaking games last year and yanked Ramsey in the first freaking quarter! Gibbs historically stuck with his qbs, even through dismal times. So what's the difference this time? The difference is Gibbs is responsible for bringing the ancient one here, so Gibbs is still trying to save face. Remember when Gibbs told us last year that we hadn't seen the last of Brunnell? How could he say that after witnessing such horrible QB play? He said it, cause he was trying to save face after what 99% of all football fans criticized him for overpaying for Brunnell in the first place.

Nevertheless, you can't pick your family, and you can't pick your starting QB, so on Monday night Im rooting for the old fart while downing multiple Buds to ease the pain. Please Mr. Brunnell, please don't return to your sucky play this week, hold off for just a couple of weeks, PLEASE! Go Skins. 100th post, god I waste a huge part of my day on here.....

So how is saving face by playing a QB who is washed up the two do not go together. What your saying is that Gibbs is saying screw the other 51 players, screw the owner, screw all the fans I'm playing Brunell to make me look better and don't care if we win games it will make me look better.

[paulskinsfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So how is saving face by playing a QB who is washed up the two do not go together. What your saying is that Gibbs is saying screw the other 51 players, screw the owner, screw all the fans I'm playing Brunell to make me look better and don't care if we win games it will make me look better.

No, Im saying that he stuck with Brunnell through 9 horrific games last year because it was Joe Gibbs who went out and overpaid for him, so Joe gave him chance after chance after chance. The fans went nuts, because Brunnell was sooooo bad, that the fans finally booed the guy out of his last starting game. Now, Joe is going back to Brunnell again and he is giving him yet another chance, in the hopes that somehow someway he can show us that he did not make a huge free agency blunder. Ask yourself this: If Mark Brunnell was not brought in by Joe Gibbs himself, would he still be with the Skins and would he be getting this second opportunity? I think the answer is clearly "No".