Ramsey wants to be traded (merged)

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

Okay, I think everyone should just calm down.

Ramsey obviously wasn't cutting it. Personally, I think he made some great throws but for every stellar pass he threw downfield he really killed momentum with poor decision-making that lead to turnovers.

Gibbs knows that we have a great defense and a terrific running game. Ramsey just doesn't fit the scheme because of the turnovers.

I really think all the fans who are blasting Gibbs' decision here really need to take a xanax or smoke a joint, and calm down a bit.

I have an enormous amount of respect for Gibbs, but, knowing that Ramsey's neck is fine, I disagree in a big way with his decision to start Brunell. Brunell threw for 70 yards in nearly three quarters of play. Granted, he didn't throw a pick, but he didn't exactly prove himself to be a different quarterback than he showed himself to be in 2004. Is anyone impressed with Brunell's play of 2004. Also, I'm sorry but I don't buy into "he had a bum ankle last year" argument. Brunell flat out stunk, wounded ankle or not.

[SmootSmack]

Someone mentioned somewhere on one of these threads, and I think it's a good point, that the Redskins did what they had to do to beat the Bears. They didn't need to explode offensively or show various wrinkles. No need to show too much before Dallas. Just get the win and go home.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Someone mentioned somewhere on one of these threads, and I think it's a good point, that the Redskins did what they had to do to beat the Bears. They didn't need to explode offensively or show various wrinkles. No need to show too much before Dallas. Just get the win and go home.

If we could win 10 games this year by playing the way we did against the Bears, I will be a very, very happy man. However, I don't think our offense will be able to play the way it did against the Bears week-in-week-out and expect to get 10 wins, or even 9, or even 8.

[skinsfan0201]

Gibbs will not trade Ramsey at this point in the season it would be a crazy risk. He was also speaking in terms of seeing how this immediate game goes and seeing who emerges throughout the season. Don't count Patrick out yet. He is upset right now and is thinking of making rash decisions, a good night sleep will probably cure. I know this situation will work out!!!!

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by skinsfan0201

Gibbs will not trade Ramsey at this point in the season it would be a crazy risk. He was also speaking in terms of seeing how this immediate game goes and seeing who emerges throughout the season. Don't count Patrick out yet. He is upset right now and is thinking of making rash decisions, a good night sleep will probably cure. I know this situation will work out!!!!

I agree with part of this. Ramsey also started demanding a trade after they brought Brunell in, in the first place.

If we drop about three or four though, I have a feeling it might be Campbell and not Ramsey, who we see put in there.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

I agree with part of this. Ramsey also started demanding a trade after they brought Brunell in, in the first place.

If we drop about three or four though, I have a feeling it might be Campbell and not Ramsey, who we see put in there.

Ramsey was smart to ask for that first trade, he saw what was coming and it would've been the best thing for him and us. the entire off-season we wasted on believing Gibb's word we could have been giving Campbell and yes even Brunell more time with the new receivers. now we have yet more crappy drama, uncertainty and unhappy players (dont think its just Patrick).

[SUNRA]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

I agree with part of this. Ramsey also started demanding a trade after they brought Brunell in, in the first place.

If we drop about three or four though, I have a feeling it might be Campbell and not Ramsey, who we see put in there.

Exactly what I was thinking. Gibbs is not going to play see-saw like Spurrier did. He's going to start working towards the future which is intelligent for the amount of picks he gave up.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SUNRA

Exactly what I was thinking. Gibbs is not going to play see-saw like Spurrier did. He's going to start working towards the future which is intelligent for the amount of picks he gave up.

If he doesn't want to play see-saw, why did he bench Ramsey after 1 quarter? If he's working towards the future, then why is he starting a 36 year old quarterback next Monday?

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

If we could win 10 games this year by playing the way we did against the Bears, I will be a very, very happy man. However, I don't think our offense will be able to play the way it did against the Bears week-in-week-out and expect to get 10 wins, or even 9, or even 8.

I think before it is all said and done, the Bears defense is going to be ranked as a top 10 defense. That line is pretty sick and their LB corps are also pretty tough.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Someone mentioned somewhere on one of these threads, and I think it's a good point, that the Redskins did what they had to do to beat the Bears. They didn't need to explode offensively or show various wrinkles. No need to show too much before Dallas. Just get the win and go home.

Oh stop it Taf, come on do you really believe that? We won by 2 points, if Gibbs believes that a 2 point victory 9-7 is a safe bet he needs to retire now! We were 1 big play away from losing that game, come on Taf your better than that!

On another note, do you think Gibbs is going to come up with something Parcells hasen't seen? If that were the case Taylor would not have been in on offense, IMO that is a move of deperation.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by offiss

On another note, do you think Gibbs is going to come up with something Parcells hasen't seen? If that were the case Taylor would not have been in on offense, IMO that is a move of deperation.

with the lack of big targets in our WR corps for the red zone (see? it *was* a problem), having Taylor for that limited situation makes tons of sense, and was actually a very resourceful move.

no, going back to Brunell as the starter after the first 19 minutes of the regular season was clearly the desperation move.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by illdefined

with the lack of big targets in our WR corps for the red zone (see? it *was* a problem), having Taylor for that limited situation makes tons of sense, and was actually a very resourceful move.

no, going back to Brunell as the starter after the first 19 minutes of the regular season was clearly the desperation move.

I understand that and agree with you ill, but the purpose of that comment was to something TAFKAS wrote in stating basically we held back our offense and didn't want to show any wrinkles to the boy's and thats why we didn't do to much on offense, and thats why I brought up the Taylor move, if that were the case why allow dallas a chance to prepare for a guy like Taylor.

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I have an enormous amount of respect for Gibbs, but, knowing that Ramsey's neck is fine, I disagree in a big way with his decision to start Brunell. Brunell threw for 70 yards in nearly three quarters of play. Granted, he didn't throw a pick, but he didn't exactly prove himself to be a different quarterback than he showed himself to be in 2004. Is anyone impressed with Brunell's play of 2004. Also, I'm sorry but I don't buy into "he had a bum ankle last year" argument. Brunell flat out stunk, wounded ankle or not.

Hmm...70 yards does pretty much suck. Then again, I don't think it is completely his fault. I think they called a very conservative game in the second half.