Fox 5 just quoted us

CRT3 · 09-15-2005, 09:14 AM

Terpskins - Were you on the Bears site last week? Have you visited the Cowpukes site with all of the great talk about Bledsuck.

JansenFan · 09-15-2005, 04:24 PM

Congrats Warpath. Good publicity is always nice, especiialy in light of the "offseason developments" in our line of work.

TheMalcolmConnection · 09-15-2005, 04:34 PM

"Offseason developments" indeed.

Twilbert07 · 09-15-2005, 04:55 PM

Redskins.com just posted a column from ExtremeSkins.com. Are they in bed together?

---------------------------------------------------------------
ExtremeSkins Fan View: Thinking It Through
By Arthur Mills
ExtremeSkins.com
September 15, 2005

Let me see if I have this straight.

A Hall of Fame head coach known for winning three Super Bowls with three different starting quarterbacks benches a starting quarterback and the immediate question is, "What's wrong with the head coach?"

I'm sorry. I just don't get how that question is the one at the forefront of every column written since Joe Gibbs announced he was switching starting quarterbacks.

Incredibly, too many ExtremeSkins fans have spent the week basing their disgust on certain knowledge they are unaware they lack, yet is likely reinforced in incomplete, misleading, "How could he do that?" columns one might stumble across in the papers.

One example of such a column was in The Washington Post where columnist Mike Wise actually went about describing Patrick Ramsey's day against the Chicago Bears without ever bothering to mention that the last play for Ramsey on each of his three drives resulted in one interception and two fumbles.

Uh, anyone else think this was a factor? I mean, I'm sure we're all thrilled with three conversions on third down, but, really, shouldn't we at least brush up against the facts in Ramsey's play when accusing Gibbs of blind support of Mark Brunell?

You're discussing the rationale behind a change at quarterback, right? Shouldn't you at least consider the possibility the change was brought about by something other than blind faith?

Sadly, it appears fans who should know better have lost their minds along with columnists who know too little.

I don't blame the media for their foolishness on many issues, especially not Wise or writers from The Washington Post. They have to pay for their own tickets now. They're going to be petty. Having transformed as a newspaper from one young writers aspired to join, to a tabloid stationing reporters outside the homes of players, to one where it doesn't matter if the facts are wrong, so long as some portion of the story is true, it's hard to take the Post seriously any longer.

It is ExtremeSkins fans who should show a bit more thought when discussing such issues.

I actually like the team. As a fan of the team this should resonate with you. Given that I like the team, it can be said that I follow the team. I follow it so much, when moves are made I have some awareness such moves aren't made with five minutes of thought and only the evidence we see on television as considerations.

Now, if you're a fan of the Redskins or a columnist for The Washington Post and you think the move to Brunell is a head-scratching event caused by a hidden faith-based initiative, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.

Antonio Brown Antonio Brown.

Get it?

Antonio Brown showed flashes of promise as a return man for the Washington Redskins. He was put in the position as the primary return man for the team by Joe Gibbs. He was given every opportunity to take off on the job. He was even given a chance as a receiver in the hope his speed and promise as a return man would translate as a weapon on offense.

Brown was given the job. It was his. He was told it was his. Fans were informed it was his.

He was released this week.

Yet, no one has suggested Gibbs didn't give Brown a fair shot by demoting him during and releasing him after just one game. No one has suggested some inequity in not giving Brown more time. No one has suggested the move was made without thought or supporting evidence. No one has even suggested Gibbs broke his word to Brown, who was owed something because he was given the role as a return man.

Everyone saw Brown's aversion to the ball against Baltimore on accurate, crisp passes from Brunell while playing receiver. Everyone saw his fumble against the Chicago Bears that put the Bears in position to score. Some of us even saw Brown wasn't using his speed to take the ball hard into the wedge on kickoff returns, limiting his production as a return man.

The move to release Brown despite his promise is perfectly understandable to all of us, whether he's brought back in a few weeks or not. Whether he goes elsewhere and becomes a Pro Bowl return man or not.

The only real difference between the move with Brown this week and the demotion of Ramsey is your willingness to understand the process involved or even that a process exists.

The demotion of Ramsey wasn't because he had a bad week in practice last week. It's not because he's said to have "happy feet" in the pocket. It's not because he had two fumbles and one interception in three possessions against the Bears. It's not because he's routinely high on his throws early in games, preventing big plays from developing. It's not because he took two sacks against the Ravens when he had time to avoid the negative play. It's not because he threw a touchdown to the Steelers. It's not because he threw two bad interceptions against the Bengals.

It's not for any of these reasons and many others that can be listed out as to why Ramsey is currently on the bench.

It's for all of them. This isn't a mystery. This isn't sudden. This isn't knee-jerk. This isn't based just on the things we can see either. Remember, for all the throws we witness on television Gibbs and his staff witness thousands more at practices.

I'm scared to death of having Brunell quarterback this team again. He was horrible last year. I remember that vividly. No one could forget it. No one could deny it, including Gibbs and Brunell. I happen to be a fan of Ramsey. I think he has special qualities to become something greater than he's ever been.

Despite these statements, I have to tell you, the potency of the argument against Brunell being he was so bad last year that he shouldn't play this year simply doesn't make sense because Ramsey hasn't looked good THIS year while not setting the NFL on fire a year ago.

Brunell dramatically outplayed Ramsey in the preseason, compiling an 85.8 quarterback efficiency rating compared to Ramsey's rating of 65.6. You win with Brunell's rating. You lose with Ramsey's.

Patrick Ramsey As pensive as you may be at the prospects of Brunell playing again given last year's performance, some part of you has to be at least a little curious as to what the Washington Redskins could achieve with quarterback play somewhat close to Brunell's play in the preseason.

Yes, he was going against backups, which undoubtedly helped him look better. He was also playing with backups like Brown who dropped several easy passes, which undoubtedly prevented him from looking even better.

It's perfectly okay for you not to consider a strong preseason performance and steady (if not inspired) play in reserve against the Bears as compelling evidence that Brunell is again capable of being a reliable starter in the league. He may not be that player ever again.

What's not okay is refusal to acknowledge his play as obviously better and different from any point a year ago while insisting Ramsey be given more time to overcome the exact same flaws he's shown since arriving in Washington.

For the most part, Ramsey appears to play today the exact same way he played when he took his first snap with the team. How much more opportunity can you give him to show he's capable of consistently being better?

As a fan of Patrick Ramsey, I hope he returns to the lineup one day and never allows the position to be taken from him.

As a fan of the Washington Redskins, I am perplexed by those who appear to think the starting quarterback position was settled by Gibbs' word when it was certainly never settled by deed.

Ramsey was given a job he never earned. He was handed a secured starting role as one might expect a quarterback who'd achieved some level of success might be. Told he wouldn't have to compete for the position, the goal being to instill some confidence, some swagger, in Ramsey.

If Gibbs has made a mistake with the quarterback position it was to give a player who'd not proven himself an unchallenged role as the starter.

Still, the visceral reaction of fans fed by the clueless media has led to suggestions that Gibbs owed something more to Ramsey or that Ramsey deserved better. All I can think given the reaction is Gibbs was owed something more by us, as fans. Gibbs deserved better from us. He deserved better from the media.

Gibbs deserved our trust--trust he's earned--that whether Brunell plays well or poorly the move was based on his thoughtful belief it gives the team the best chance to win. Somehow, inconceivably, Ramsey's demotion has been met with the suggestion that a coach who won championships with three different quarterbacks suddenly has no concept of what it takes at the position to win.

The fact that Brunell may not be the answer is irrelevant to the conversation. Gibbs isn't making the move to Brunell with fixed knowledge he is the answer. As Gibbs said, he's hoping for a player to establish himself as the quarterback of this team. It may be Brunell. It may not.

By demoting Ramsey, Gibbs isn't saying he knows the answer.

He's saying he suspects the answer isn't Ramsey. At least not now.

For a head coach with his track record, you'd think that statement would inspire someone to ask the question, "What's wrong with the starting quarterback?"

It's a wonder that hasn't been more noticeable.

What's your take on the Redskins' quarterback change? Discuss it on the message boards at ExtremeSkins @ Redskins.com

BrudLee · 09-15-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Redskins.com just posted a column from ExtremeSkins.com. Are they in bed together?

Redskins.com Adds Forum, Chats

Link courtesy of The Warpath, your home for unfiltered Redskins discussion.

MTK · 09-15-2005, 05:08 PM

In case you missed the last month or so of developments, Redskins.com acquired Extremeskins.

Twilbert07 · 09-15-2005, 05:10 PM

Down here in Atlanta, that acquisition didn't make the papers. Your smartass attitude makes me wish I could take back the $25 I just donated to Warpath.net.

illdefined · 09-15-2005, 05:17 PM

none of my business, but i don't think that was meant to be sarcastic at all.

Twilbert07 · 09-15-2005, 05:23 PM

My fault, if that's the case.

MTK · 09-15-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Down here in Atlanta, that acquisition didn't make the papers. Your smartass attitude makes me wish I could take back the $25 I just donated to Warpath.net.

Huh???????

Sorry for the straight forward answer I guess.

RedskinRat · 09-15-2005, 06:51 PM

I guess it must be Rivalry week.....

Some very highly strung people on here these days.

That Guy · 09-15-2005, 07:01 PM

i can't stand the ES articale though, they're kinda rambling, unfocused and hopelessly apologist/optimistic... (imho of course)

CRT3 · 09-15-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twilbert07

Down here in Atlanta, that acquisition didn't make the papers. Your smartass attitude makes me wish I could take back the $25 I just donated to Warpath.net.

Just wait we are all a bunch of smart ass people who give smart ass answers. Talk about football and watch the insults fly. You should ask for a Avatar, maybe Chad Morton.

MTK · 09-15-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

i can't stand the ES articale though, they're kinda rambling, unfocused and hopelessly apologist/optimistic... (imho of course)

There's some good points mixed in there. But yeah it's a little unfocused.

09-15-2005, 09:14 AM	#61
CRT3 Impact Rookie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Rockville Age: 61 Posts: 795	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us Terpskins - Were you on the Bears site last week? Have you visited the Cowpukes site with all of the great talk about Bledsuck. __________________ 16-0 for 2007

09-15-2005, 04:24 PM	#62
JansenFan Camp Scrub Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: theHogs.net Posts: 4	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us Congrats Warpath. Good publicity is always nice, especiialy in light of the "offseason developments" in our line of work.

09-15-2005, 04:34 PM	#63
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,233	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us "Offseason developments" indeed. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

09-15-2005, 04:55 PM	#64
Twilbert07 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Age: 60 Posts: 594	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us Redskins.com just posted a column from ExtremeSkins.com. Are they in bed together? --------------------------------------------------------------- ExtremeSkins Fan View: Thinking It Through By Arthur Mills ExtremeSkins.com September 15, 2005 Let me see if I have this straight. A Hall of Fame head coach known for winning three Super Bowls with three different starting quarterbacks benches a starting quarterback and the immediate question is, "What's wrong with the head coach?" I'm sorry. I just don't get how that question is the one at the forefront of every column written since Joe Gibbs announced he was switching starting quarterbacks. Incredibly, too many ExtremeSkins fans have spent the week basing their disgust on certain knowledge they are unaware they lack, yet is likely reinforced in incomplete, misleading, "How could he do that?" columns one might stumble across in the papers. One example of such a column was in The Washington Post where columnist Mike Wise actually went about describing Patrick Ramsey's day against the Chicago Bears without ever bothering to mention that the last play for Ramsey on each of his three drives resulted in one interception and two fumbles. Uh, anyone else think this was a factor? I mean, I'm sure we're all thrilled with three conversions on third down, but, really, shouldn't we at least brush up against the facts in Ramsey's play when accusing Gibbs of blind support of Mark Brunell? You're discussing the rationale behind a change at quarterback, right? Shouldn't you at least consider the possibility the change was brought about by something other than blind faith? Sadly, it appears fans who should know better have lost their minds along with columnists who know too little. I don't blame the media for their foolishness on many issues, especially not Wise or writers from The Washington Post. They have to pay for their own tickets now. They're going to be petty. Having transformed as a newspaper from one young writers aspired to join, to a tabloid stationing reporters outside the homes of players, to one where it doesn't matter if the facts are wrong, so long as some portion of the story is true, it's hard to take the Post seriously any longer. It is ExtremeSkins fans who should show a bit more thought when discussing such issues. I actually like the team. As a fan of the team this should resonate with you. Given that I like the team, it can be said that I follow the team. I follow it so much, when moves are made I have some awareness such moves aren't made with five minutes of thought and only the evidence we see on television as considerations. Now, if you're a fan of the Redskins or a columnist for The Washington Post and you think the move to Brunell is a head-scratching event caused by a hidden faith-based initiative, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Antonio Brown Antonio Brown. Get it? Antonio Brown showed flashes of promise as a return man for the Washington Redskins. He was put in the position as the primary return man for the team by Joe Gibbs. He was given every opportunity to take off on the job. He was even given a chance as a receiver in the hope his speed and promise as a return man would translate as a weapon on offense. Brown was given the job. It was his. He was told it was his. Fans were informed it was his. He was released this week. Yet, no one has suggested Gibbs didn't give Brown a fair shot by demoting him during and releasing him after just one game. No one has suggested some inequity in not giving Brown more time. No one has suggested the move was made without thought or supporting evidence. No one has even suggested Gibbs broke his word to Brown, who was owed something because he was given the role as a return man. Everyone saw Brown's aversion to the ball against Baltimore on accurate, crisp passes from Brunell while playing receiver. Everyone saw his fumble against the Chicago Bears that put the Bears in position to score. Some of us even saw Brown wasn't using his speed to take the ball hard into the wedge on kickoff returns, limiting his production as a return man. The move to release Brown despite his promise is perfectly understandable to all of us, whether he's brought back in a few weeks or not. Whether he goes elsewhere and becomes a Pro Bowl return man or not. The only real difference between the move with Brown this week and the demotion of Ramsey is your willingness to understand the process involved or even that a process exists. The demotion of Ramsey wasn't because he had a bad week in practice last week. It's not because he's said to have "happy feet" in the pocket. It's not because he had two fumbles and one interception in three possessions against the Bears. It's not because he's routinely high on his throws early in games, preventing big plays from developing. It's not because he took two sacks against the Ravens when he had time to avoid the negative play. It's not because he threw a touchdown to the Steelers. It's not because he threw two bad interceptions against the Bengals. It's not for any of these reasons and many others that can be listed out as to why Ramsey is currently on the bench. It's for all of them. This isn't a mystery. This isn't sudden. This isn't knee-jerk. This isn't based just on the things we can see either. Remember, for all the throws we witness on television Gibbs and his staff witness thousands more at practices. I'm scared to death of having Brunell quarterback this team again. He was horrible last year. I remember that vividly. No one could forget it. No one could deny it, including Gibbs and Brunell. I happen to be a fan of Ramsey. I think he has special qualities to become something greater than he's ever been. Despite these statements, I have to tell you, the potency of the argument against Brunell being he was so bad last year that he shouldn't play this year simply doesn't make sense because Ramsey hasn't looked good THIS year while not setting the NFL on fire a year ago. Brunell dramatically outplayed Ramsey in the preseason, compiling an 85.8 quarterback efficiency rating compared to Ramsey's rating of 65.6. You win with Brunell's rating. You lose with Ramsey's. Patrick Ramsey As pensive as you may be at the prospects of Brunell playing again given last year's performance, some part of you has to be at least a little curious as to what the Washington Redskins could achieve with quarterback play somewhat close to Brunell's play in the preseason. Yes, he was going against backups, which undoubtedly helped him look better. He was also playing with backups like Brown who dropped several easy passes, which undoubtedly prevented him from looking even better. It's perfectly okay for you not to consider a strong preseason performance and steady (if not inspired) play in reserve against the Bears as compelling evidence that Brunell is again capable of being a reliable starter in the league. He may not be that player ever again. What's not okay is refusal to acknowledge his play as obviously better and different from any point a year ago while insisting Ramsey be given more time to overcome the exact same flaws he's shown since arriving in Washington. For the most part, Ramsey appears to play today the exact same way he played when he took his first snap with the team. How much more opportunity can you give him to show he's capable of consistently being better? As a fan of Patrick Ramsey, I hope he returns to the lineup one day and never allows the position to be taken from him. As a fan of the Washington Redskins, I am perplexed by those who appear to think the starting quarterback position was settled by Gibbs' word when it was certainly never settled by deed. Ramsey was given a job he never earned. He was handed a secured starting role as one might expect a quarterback who'd achieved some level of success might be. Told he wouldn't have to compete for the position, the goal being to instill some confidence, some swagger, in Ramsey. If Gibbs has made a mistake with the quarterback position it was to give a player who'd not proven himself an unchallenged role as the starter. Still, the visceral reaction of fans fed by the clueless media has led to suggestions that Gibbs owed something more to Ramsey or that Ramsey deserved better. All I can think given the reaction is Gibbs was owed something more by us, as fans. Gibbs deserved better from us. He deserved better from the media. Gibbs deserved our trust--trust he's earned--that whether Brunell plays well or poorly the move was based on his thoughtful belief it gives the team the best chance to win. Somehow, inconceivably, Ramsey's demotion has been met with the suggestion that a coach who won championships with three different quarterbacks suddenly has no concept of what it takes at the position to win. The fact that Brunell may not be the answer is irrelevant to the conversation. Gibbs isn't making the move to Brunell with fixed knowledge he is the answer. As Gibbs said, he's hoping for a player to establish himself as the quarterback of this team. It may be Brunell. It may not. By demoting Ramsey, Gibbs isn't saying he knows the answer. He's saying he suspects the answer isn't Ramsey. At least not now. For a head coach with his track record, you'd think that statement would inspire someone to ask the question, "What's wrong with the starting quarterback?" It's a wonder that hasn't been more noticeable. What's your take on the Redskins' quarterback change? Discuss it on the message boards at ExtremeSkins @ Redskins.com

09-15-2005, 05:08 PM	#66
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,568	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us In case you missed the last month or so of developments, Redskins.com acquired Extremeskins. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

09-15-2005, 05:10 PM	#67
Twilbert07 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Age: 60 Posts: 594	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us Down here in Atlanta, that acquisition didn't make the papers. Your smartass attitude makes me wish I could take back the $25 I just donated to Warpath.net.

09-15-2005, 05:17 PM	#68
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us none of my business, but i don't think that was meant to be sarcastic at all.

09-15-2005, 05:23 PM	#69
Twilbert07 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Age: 60 Posts: 594	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us My fault, if that's the case.

09-15-2005, 06:51 PM	#71
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us I guess it must be Rivalry week..... Some very highly strung people on here these days.

09-15-2005, 07:01 PM	#72
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Fox 5 just quoted us i can't stand the ES articale though, they're kinda rambling, unfocused and hopelessly apologist/optimistic... (imho of course)

Fox 5 just quoted us

Locker Room Main Forum