Thoughts on Ramsey and Brunell...

[FirstandTen]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Of course not. But, if you look at the QBs who win close games (Tom Brady comes to mind), they lead the offense to points late in the game.

Ok what has Ramsey ever lead us too?

[Twilbert07]

Originally Posted by FirstandTen

Ok what has Ramsey ever lead us too?

I'm not calling for Ramsey. I'm just saying that the jury still is out on Brunell. He had a good stretch starting with the fourth quarter of the Dallas game but has been only OK recently (as in 2-6 as a starter in the past eight games). I know it all does not lie with the QB, but winning QBs are winning QBs because of their teams' records.

[FirstandTen]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

I'm not calling for Ramsey. I'm just saying that the jury still is out on Brunell. He had a good stretch starting with the fourth quarter of the Dallas game but has been only OK recently (as in 2-6 as a starter in the past eight games). I know it all does not lie with the QB, but winning QBs are winning QBs because of their teams' records.

We all know Brunell is not a Top QB whats ur point?

[Twilbert07]

Originally Posted by FirstandTen

We all know Brunell is not a Top QB whats ur point?

Just what I said in my previous post: The jury's still out on him, and we need to consider our options at QB for next season. Brunell is the perfect veteran back-up who Gibbs likes to have around. His record as a starter this year (4-6), regardless of whose fault the close losses are, doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Are you satisfied with a losing team this year?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Just what I said in my previous post: The jury's still out on him, and we need to consider our options at QB for next season. Brunell is the perfect veteran back-up who Gibbs likes to have around. His record as a starter this year (4-6), regardless of whose fault the close losses are, doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Are you satisfied with a losing team this year?

Wait! Are you saying that even if it isn't Mark Brunell's fault that we are 5-6 right now, benching him is still the answer? That doesn't make any sense.

[Twilbert07]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Wait! Are you saying that even if it isn't Mark Brunell's fault that we are 5-6 right now, benching him is still the answer? That doesn't make any sense.

No, we need to stick with Brunell for the rest of the year.
However, we need to settle the QB situation before the start of next season, and I don't see much good in picking someone who will be 36 to be our starter for 2006, that's all.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

No, we need to stick with Brunell for the rest of the year.
However, we need to settle the QB situation before the start of next season, and I don't see much good in picking someone who will be 36 to be our starter for 2006, that's all.

But, because the guy is 36, is that any reason to bench him? John Elway won two Super Bowls in his upper 30's. His quarterback rating this year is probably either the best in his career or it's right up there with his best rating. If MB was playing behind the hogs right now, he'd probably be considered greater than Joe Montana.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Just what I said in my previous post: The jury's still out on him, and we need to consider our options at QB for next season. Brunell is the perfect veteran back-up who Gibbs likes to have around. His record as a starter this year (4-6), regardless of whose fault the close losses are, doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Are you satisfied with a losing team this year?

Apparently so, no one wants to take into account the inability of the offense under Brunell to salt the game away with nothing more than 1 firstdown late in a game, kind of ironic that the QB everyone inc. Gibbs has so much stock in, are scared to death to possibly put the ball in the air on a high percentage pass play late in the game.

[Twilbert07]

Originally Posted by offiss

Apparently so, no one wants to take into account the inability of the offense under Brunell to salt the game away with nothing more than 1 firstdown late in a game, kind of ironic that the QB everyone inc. Gibbs has so much stock in, are scared to death to possibly put the ball in the air on a high percentage pass play late in the game.

I agree with you completely about the offense's inability to move the chains late in the game. It's cost us the past two games.

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

I agree with you completely about the offense's inability to move the chains late in the game. It's cost us the past two games.

A over rated line and over paid!!! The truth hurts to the tune of 5-6!

[offiss]

Originally Posted by FirstandTen

Ok what has Ramsey ever lead us too?

Thats kind of the point here, Ramsey really hasen't been given a chance under Gibbs.

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by offiss

Thats kind of the point here, Ramsey really hasen't been given a chance under Gibbs.

Offiss I think your one of the few that understands all this ..thank god your on this board

[MTK]

Originally Posted by railcon56@comcast.net

Offiss I think your one of the few that understands all this ..thank god your on this board

Seriously, thank god. I can't understand why you guys aren't advisors to Gibbs by now.

[/playful jab not to meant to start a firestorm or criticism of my warpath ego]

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Seriously, thank god. I can't understand why you guys aren't advisors to Gibbs by now.

[/playful jab not to meant to start a firestorm or criticism of my warpath ego]

its all good matty i love this board as far as i'm concerned its the #1 sports site in the world!!
humor never hurts

[FirstandTen]

Originally Posted by offiss

Thats kind of the point here, Ramsey really hasen't been given a chance under Gibbs.

Ramsey been given pleanty of chances.. He played under the OBC and last year under Gibbs and he didn't play well. He's played in the preseason and looked like shit. Look at his number from last year in 9 games.

Ramsey gp att comp % yds avy td lng INT rat
2004 9 169 272 62.1 1665 6.1 10 51 11 74.8