Post Game Thoughts

[MTK]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

Part of the problem with opening the competition again has to do with the way Gibbs distributes practice reps. The starter gets the vast bulk of the reps (90% for the starter, 10% for everyone else). The only reason it was different this past offseason was that Gibbs had promised an open competition between Brunell and Ramsey, so that 90% was split, and each got around 45% of the daily practice reps throughout the late spring minicamps and training camp practices.

Looking back on that decision, Gibbs may very well decide it was a mistake to not commit to a starter early in the offseason, and in the future, he will name a starter early in the offseason, and give that QB the bulk of the reps throughout the offseason camps and training camp.

If he does this for Ramsey or Brunell or Hasselbeck (gotta make everyone happy here!), it will give that QB the necessary reps on the field to develop a complete understanding of-- and comfort level with-- the offense, and enter the season confident of everything that needs to be done in the game to manage Gibbs' offense the way Gibbs intended.

For this reason, I think Gibbs will select a starter early, and will not jeopardize the learning curve for his starting QB-- and his offense as a whole-- by holding an open competition at QB throughout the offseason and training camp.

If Ramsey can flourish in these last 3 games, Gibbs should name him the starter for 2005, and focus on fully preparing him for that role from the first QB schools in March, through the start of the 2005 season.

I couldn't agree more.

As long as PR plays at the same or better level that he's been playing at, once the season is over I'd like to see Gibbs name him the starter for 2005 and settle any offseason QB debates before they start. At that point Ramsey would become the main focus of the offseason camps and we can work on getting him coached up for next year.

It seems like every offseason we have major questions at QB, for once I'd like to have that problem taken care of early on. Then we can focus our more pressing needs elsewhere.

[irish]

I read it more than once in the Wash Post and I heard Wilbon say it on the Tony Kornheiser show just this morning. In fact I've heard him say it for about 3 weeks now.

last week the entire team looked great because they played the worst team in the league and the skins are not quite that bad. The O looked way better last week than they really are so of course everyone was certain PR et al are future pro bowlers.

[Shane]

I buy the idea of letting Ramsey play out the rest of the season, but what I don't buy is that he wins the starting job for next year unless he shows himself to be a superb quarterback. He doesn't get the mantle in my view just by avoiding "stumbling mightily." That's not a winning standard. I don't want the stability of sticking with someone who doesn't earn the job.

For the sake of the team, who plays has to be based on performance. That is the message to send because then players know that they play based on factors they control. Marvin Lewis didn't do that this year when he just handed the job to one player who hadn't earned it. The team went down. It was the message of saying my judgment is more important than your opportunity to prove yourself. It was an egotistical move.

I think you set a period up where the competition runs, from this time to that time. If you don't want to go until the last preseason game for whatever reason, that's fine, just pick a time, set aside preconceptions and prejudices, and let the players play, and let the player who plays best win the job.

As far as the concern about who gets 90% of the snaps in practice during the regular season - that to me doesn't seem relevant to the basic need to let the players play themselves into a job.

I agree that Gibbs should make the decision in that he is the judge; there simply has to be a fair, equal playing field where players are chosen based on how they perform not on other factors.