Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)

[NFLeurope]

Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.

Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NFLeurope

Guys guys...relax...

There is no reason to start insulting people or whatever... Everyone should be able to talk about there opinions calmly without letting things get personal...

I dont know why anyone would question whether someone is really a skins fan or not... I feel like offiss is obviously stating his frustration with Brunell...not because he hates him or hates this team...but because he feels that the team would be in a better position right now if Patrick Ramsey were starting. That is in no way an attack on the redskins...or making him less of a fan. That is simply stating an opinion about how he feels we could make the most out of our personnel.

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."

Oh...and one question for skinsguy
With regard to this statement:
"Secondly, You're the one suggesting Patten is inferior. Never did I say he and Thrash were inferior. I am saying Moss is the only deep threat - that doesn't mean the other receivers are inferior, it just means that I believe they are good possession receivers who can make the clutch catches and occasionally get behind the defenders."

I may be mistaken but i thought one of the main reasons Patten was brought here was precisely because he was supposed to be a deep threat. I remember reading that at the time we signed him.

Its been a while since we signed him though...and i wasnt able to find any articles supporting it in a quick search...so i guess people let me know if im mistaken. I just thought one of the things that was touted about our "revamped receving corps" in the offseason was its speed and so i thought patten was considered a deep threat before coming here and that that was one of the main reasons we signed him.

Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."




Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.

Really? OK now I get it your just messing with us SG, Patten wasen't brought in to be a deep threat, now I can laugh, the purpose of both Patten and Moss was to provide a deep threat, Gibbs felt our recievers last year couldn't stretch the defense. So what was it about Pattens play in New England that led you to beleive he isn't a deep threat? Was it all his TD's, or his yards per catch? Or did you base it on his 4.2 speed? Or is that occasional 4.2 speed?

Pay attention, the reason a lot of us wanted a big WR in the draft was because most of felt that we needed a big target to be a possession type WR, because all we had was deep threats in Moss and Patten.