TheLongshot Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I was watching the news last night, and when Tim Brandt came on, he suggested the reason Gibbs didn't commit to a starter, was to force Dallas to prepare for both QB. Seems to make sense, since Ramsey and Brunell are very different QBs, and what works for one probably won't work as well for another. Also makes sense considering the inexperience of the players on the defensive side of the ball. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Word. Even if that's not his intent, it will have that affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 How can I trust Tim Brandt after hearing that God-awful song on his promo commercials? If he can approve that song, he can't know what he's talking about, can he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Didnt think about this. Now I think he should hold off until gameday . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSCNZ20 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 i agree.. since they are different QB styles it makes sense.. this morning on 980, they were saying gibbs prolly tell the media by mid week.. but why? keep it under wraps till the last minute.. keep dallass guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 This happened last year, didn't help much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I was watching the news last night, and when Tim Brandt came on, he suggested the reason Gibbs didn't commit to a starter, was to force Dallas to prepare for both QB. Seems to make sense, since Ramsey and Brunell are very different QBs, and what works for one probably won't work as well for another. Also makes sense considering the inexperience of the players on the defensive side of the ball.Jason I thought of that myself.. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truant Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 This happened last year, didn't help much. Yeah, you're right. Brunell threw for around 350 yards and a few touchdowns. This from a guy who had a streak of not throwing over 100 yards for 3 or 4 games last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vman2k6 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Even if that is Gibbs strategy, if Ramsey doesn't start against the Cowboys, this team has no chance. Go RAMSEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Yeah, you're right. Brunell threw for around 350 yards and a few touchdowns. This from a guy who had a streak of not throwing over 100 yards for 3 or 4 games last year. all those yards and 18 points :applause: BTW most of those yards came against Jaque Reeves, a 7th round pick forced into the starting lineup when Pete Hunter tore his ACL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 How can I trust Tim Brandt after hearing that God-awful song on his promo commercials? If he can approve that song, he can't know what he's talking about, can he? It was actually worse last year, with Brant pointing at the camera as if to say "Yeah -- that's right --Tim Brant style is in the hizzle, beeotch." But regarding his point, I think I can at least agree that Gibbs wants to win this game to such an extent that I can only imagine, and he's smart enough to know that if he holds out from naming the starter until the last minute, it will disrupt Dallas' game planning during the week. Tim Brant did play college football and has been around the game ever since, so I can respect his opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsniper1 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Its just another card Gibbs wants to hold over Parcells. Anything to gain a slight advantage should be used for us 6-10 redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 all those yards and 18 points :applause:BTW most of those yards came against Jaque Reeves, a 7th round pick forced into the starting lineup when Pete Hunter tore his ACL. Not exactly. Rod Gardner made most of his plays against Newman and even Roy Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Not exactly. Rod Gardner made most of his plays against Newman and even Roy Williams. no, unless your counting the PI yards. Gardner had the TD against Newman, but the rest of the big plays were on Reeves (the last play of the game was atleast 40 yards, where Garner jumped over Reeves caught the ball and got drilled by Williams) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mammy487 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 hell just say that jason Campbell is the starter and then change it at the last second. I know that would suck to be Campbell, but whatever it takes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I doubt Brandt is right. It really makes no sense. Do you think it really matters to Dallas who starts? I mean if this gimmick actually worked, why name starter in the first place? Let's go the entire season not naming a starting QB until game time to "confuse" our opponents. Hell, let's not stop there, Portis and Betts are two totally different runners, let's not name a starter at RB either and keep the defenses guessing. We beat Dallas by our QB, whomever it is, making plays on the field, not by "confusing" Dallas prior to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 I doubt Brandt is right. It really makes no sense. Do you think it really matters to Dallas who starts? It does matter for the simple reason that everything is flipped from one side of the field to the other between the right handed Ramsey and the left handed Brunell. Brunell's mobility is also an issue when you are talking about rushing the passer. Normally, it wouldn't make sense, but considering that this board can't come to a consensus about who is going to be starting next week, what makes you think Parcells can? Gibbs is taking advantage of the confusion, I'm pretty sure of it. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Gibbs: "Our week 2 starting QB is Patmark Brunsey." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camyj15 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Gibbs: "Our week 2 starting QB is Patmark Brunsey." :laugh: Now if only we could actually merge those two together - Ramsey's arm, Brunell's game experience - One good quarterback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzplay Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 If anybody here seriously thinks that Mike Zimmer is losing sleep, worrying about Brunell or Ramsey...... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I was watching the news last night, and when Tim Brandt came on, he suggested the reason Gibbs didn't commit to a starter, was to force Dallas to prepare for both QB. Seems to make sense, since Ramsey and Brunell are very different QBs, and what works for one probably won't work as well for another. Also makes sense considering the inexperience of the players on the defensive side of the ball.Jason I believe he kindof did the same thinglast year for some reason, week 2, against the Cowboys with a big fat L as a result. I am not sure that it matters if the Cowboys know who our starting QB is, because they looked pretty dam good yesterday from the highlight reels I have seen yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Gibbs: "Our week 2 starting QB is Patmark Brunsey." This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thanks! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan44 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 How can I trust Tim Brandt after hearing that God-awful song on his promo commercials? If he can approve that song, he can't know what he's talking about, can he? tim brandt is a good-guy..he played the game and has been around making great analysis for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I will help them prepare: If Brunell starts, play short and if Ramsey starts, wear your stick-um. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MScowboy Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 It wont make much difference who your starter is. Neither one is going to beat you running the ball.. ie vick, so you dont have to have a spy. Both are pretty accurate passers given time. So i think you apporach them basically the same. Get pressure on them and make them run to thier left. It shortens the field alot for right handed qb's. With Ramsey you might try to get in his face alittle more and rattle the kid,, and with brunell you might have to mix up your coverage alittle more, nothing major though. I dont see where this is much of an advantage at all. If nothing else it is a distraction for the team. Name the starter and start preparing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.