Accountability

[Burgold]

It's a weird thing and easy to dislike. In the new Redskin's era Rogers isn't starting just because he's a first round pick, Arrington is a second stringer and situational player, until he proves he's healthy, back, and understands the system, Brown was put on notice for his fumble... a kick return was already taken away and yesterday there was talk of the people on roster who could be used for that role.

Ramsey had a really uneven game. Made some great third down throws, got a couple of big plays, but generated zero points and lost the ball three times (the clothesline shouldn't count, but it does) Now, my sympathies lie with Ramsey, but if another player say a wide receiver has major dropsies and fumbles multiple times a game wouldn't you pull him. It's about accountability. It's not about the coach's integrity. Gibbs said that he would be the starter and he was. The question is whether he did enough to warrant staying the starter. If Arrington doesn't start, if Brown is demoted, if the first rounder is not starting, if other draft picks are outright cut and not even re-signed to the practice squad-- there is something good in all that.

[TheGreek1973]

It's a weird thing and easy to dislike. In the new Redskin's era Rogers isn't starting just because he's a first round pick, Arrington is a second stringer and situational player, until he proves he's healthy, back, and understands the system, Brown was put on notice for his fumble... a kick return was already taken away and yesterday there was talk of the people on roster who could be used for that role.

Ramsey had a really uneven game. Made some great third down throws, got a couple of big plays, but generated zero points and lost the ball three times (the clothesline shouldn't count, but it does) Now, my sympathies lie with Ramsey, but if another player say a wide receiver has major dropsies and fumbles multiple times a game wouldn't you pull him. It's about accountability. It's not about the coach's integrity. Gibbs said that he would be the starter and he was. The question is whether he did enough to warrant staying the starter. If Arrington doesn't start, if Brown is demoted, if the first rounder is not starting, if other draft picks are outright cut and not even re-signed to the practice squad-- there is something good in all that.

Great post man. This team doens't need excuses any more. It needs players that go out and play hard to win. Example Lavar. How many times did Gregg Williams say its my call and they will play if they can perform better than anyone on the team at that position. If Brunell gives this team the best chance to win, Brunell it must be.

[thompsonbrood]

It's a weird thing and easy to dislike. In the new Redskin's era Rogers isn't starting just because he's a first round pick, Arrington is a second stringer and situational player, until he proves he's healthy, back, and understands the system, Brown was put on notice for his fumble... a kick return was already taken away and yesterday there was talk of the people on roster who could be used for that role.

Ramsey had a really uneven game. Made some great third down throws, got a couple of big plays, but generated zero points and lost the ball three times (the clothesline shouldn't count, but it does) Now, my sympathies lie with Ramsey, but if another player say a wide receiver has major dropsies and fumbles multiple times a game wouldn't you pull him. It's about accountability. It's not about the coach's integrity. Gibbs said that he would be the starter and he was. The question is whether he did enough to warrant staying the starter. If Arrington doesn't start, if Brown is demoted, if the first rounder is not starting, if other draft picks are outright cut and not even re-signed to the practice squad-- there is something good in all that.

The only problem with that, and I would agree with you if this was not the case, is that he didn't get a game to be uneven in---he got a quarter. Unless games have been shortened to 15 minutes. I am for whatever wins games at this point. The only thing we know for sure is that Brunell sucked last year and Gibbs stuck with him and probably cost us a few games by doing so. Here's to hoping that Brunell found the fountain of youth in the offseason.

[arkowi]

While my heart has me very upset about the current QB situation. My head agrees with you very much. If thats the case though, give Brunell 3 series in the game and if he isn't doing anything....pull him...

[Burgold]

The only problem with that, and I would agree with you if this was not the case, is that he didn't get a game to be uneven in---he got a quarter. Unless games have been shortened to 15 minutes. I am for whatever wins games at this point. The only thing we know for sure is that Brunell sucked last year and Gibbs stuck with him and probably cost us a few games by doing so. Here's to hoping that Brunell found the fountain of youth in the offseason.

The problem with your line of thinking is how can you defend losing the ball three time in one quarter? That is attrocious. He did enough wrong in that quarter to lose most games. Luckily, the Bears were so incompetent or the 'skins d so good they couldn't take advantage of any of their opportunities.

btw, I totally agree that Brunell was not held accountable for his play last year. he was horrendous.

[bobzmuda]

The only problem with that, and I would agree with you if this was not the case, is that he didn't get a game to be uneven in---he got a quarter. Unless games have been shortened to 15 minutes. I am for whatever wins games at this point. The only thing we know for sure is that Brunell sucked last year and Gibbs stuck with him and probably cost us a few games by doing so. Here's to hoping that Brunell found the fountain of youth in the offseason.

Poor Ramsey. He didn't get to play at all during the off-season mini-camps, OTA's, training camps, practices, or pre-season games. He only got 1 quarter to show Gibbs he couldn't protect the ball.

Each year is a new year. I think it's been apparent to Gibbs from the start of the offseason that Brunell is playing better and protecting the ball better. I'd say that despite Gibbs' better judgment he kept his word and started Ramsey. What happened against the Bears wasn't the full extent of the evaluation, but merely the final straw that broke the camel's back.

[Destino]

That reads real pretty but how do you get around the feeling that this new found "accountability" isn't being evenly applied. Mark played as bad as I've ever seen a starting QB play in my life last year. Not only did he accomplish nothing during his time as the starter, single handedly leaving our team with no passing threat, but he also turned over the ball and actually lost a game or two. Yet he was given 9 games and even allowed to play hurt. Ramsey, despite a lot of talk, was pulled in in little more then a Qtr never being allowed to play through anything.

There had been a lot of talk in the media that Ramsey was never Joe's guy and that he would be yanked quickly. People here have complained about the media, but they are being proven right too often these days. With all I've seen I have to wonder if maybe they weren't right about this the whole time. It certainly looks like Joe favors Brunell and isn't willing to give Patrick much of a shot, just barely enough to keep Patrick from making too much noise about leaving, and thus leaving us with an old man and no experienced back up. Does anyone think Ramsey would have choosen to stay on this team had he known his chance would be this short? I don't. I have to wonder if this wasn't just a ploy to keep a player we needed for the short term from demanding a trade in the offseason and holding out.

After this season we will all start looking harder at Campbell. The formula tends to be sit for a year and learn, and then put them in the competition for the starting spot.

[TimFolk]

QB is the leader of the team, if your QB keeps putting your defense on the field you need a change point blank.

[TimFolk]

I have to wonder if this wasn't just a ploy to keep a player we needed for the short term from demanding a trade in the offseason and holding out.

I wish he would have so we could have kept Tim.

[Burgold]

You may be right and if I were Ramsey I would feel royally screwed over today. Last year, Brunell got an insane ammount of leash for someone who has never proven himself with this coach. Ramsey when he was finally put in was held on the shortest leash possible. Basically, only screen passes and three yard passes in that first Eagle's game. Still, I can say without feeling hypocritical that Ramsey played a bad enough game to warrant being pulled. Ironically, I can also feel simultaneously that he is being ripped off. As I began with, it's a strange thing.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

There had been a lot of talk in the media that Ramsey was never Joe's guy and that he would be yanked quickly. People here have complained about the media, but they are being proven right too often these days. With all I've seen I have to wonder if maybe they weren't right about this the whole time. It certainly looks like Joe favors Brunell and isn't willing to give Patrick much of a shot, just barely enough to keep Patrick from making too much noise about leaving, and thus leaving us with an old man and no experienced back up. Does anyone think Ramsey would have choosen to stay on this team had he known his chance would be this short? I don't. I have to wonder if this wasn't just a ploy to keep a player we needed for the short term from demanding a trade in the offseason and holding out.

After this season we will all start looking harder at Campbell. The formula tends to be sit for a year and learn, and then put them in the competition for the starting spot.

Maybe there is a legitimate REASON that Ramsey is not Joe's guy...no wait, that's crazy talk.

Seriously, does anyone ever point to the turnovers as a potential reason for Joe preferring Brunell. Ramsey comitted more turnovers last season. He looked shaky and was outplayed all preseason. He started the regular season with a 2 turnover (almost 3) quarter. He's gotten some shots to take the job! He hasn't done it.

[codeorama]

Great thread. I don't think WHO a player is should matter, it's the results.

[Underwater Ally]

Accountability is necessary, but just how far do we take it? And do we obsess over turnovers more than winning? Brunell gives us fewer turnovers, but also fewer of those big plays that everyone raved were so crucial and necessary during the offseason. If Brunell plays relatively mistake free, but fails to spark the offense and get the ball into the end zone, how quick is this "accountability hook"?

[Destino]

Maybe there is a legitimate REASON that Ramsey is not Joe's guy...no wait, that's crazy talk.

Seriously, does anyone ever point to the turnovers as a potential reason for Joe preferring Brunell. Ramsey comitted more turnovers last season. He looked shaky and was outplayed all preseason. He started the regular season with a 2 turnover (almost 3) quarter. He's gotten some shots to take the job! He hasn't done it.

Maybe there is, no one at all is saying otherwise so do us all a favor and put the strawman away. What I'm saying is why all the BS? Why did we hear about how the media was wrong about Ramsey not being Joe's guy and that Joe would stick by his pick blah blah blah.....but when the stuff hit the fan all of you changed your tune. Now the same people are screaming the same thing the mediots said all summer long and looking to justify their new position. It looks to me like Joe told Ramsey what Ramsey wanted to hear in order to keep him from trying to leave the team in the offseason. We need him here for a year maybe two tops.

Also anyone willing to be honest about last year can say that between Ramsey and Brunell, it was Pat that outplayed his rival in real games. Not only did Mark produce nothing, but he also spotted the other team points and gave the Ravens a win. He coughed up the ball a lot, and produced less then Ramsey in terms of a passing game. We all saw it, no point in pretending otherwise.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Accountability is necessary, but just how far do we take it? And do we obsess over turnovers more than winning? Brunell gives us fewer turnovers, but also fewer of those big plays that everyone raved were so crucial and necessary during the offseason. If Brunell plays relatively mistake free, but fails to spark the offense and get the ball into the end zone, how quick is this "accountability hook"?

That's a good point, but knowing Joe Gibbs, there is no way he's ever going to prefer a "high-risk/high-reward" QB over a stable and smart QB. So this line of thinking is useless to an extent. :2cents:

[jwebst1]

Not sure if this has been posted, but you are right about accountability... however, it should also apply to the coach himself. If Brunell, who he signed for 40 mill and a draft pick when other teams weren't even offering half that much, plays as badly as he did last year, Gibbs should also be held accountable for his decision to get him, play him as long as he did last year, then go back to him without giving Ramsey a fair shot.

[Underwater Ally]

That's a good point, but knowing Joe Gibbs, there is no way he's ever going to prefer a "high-risk/high-reward" QB over a stable and smart QB. So this line of thinking is useless to an extent. :2cents:

True, in the past Gibbs has been able to have his cake and eat it too. With Ramsey and Brunell its an either/or type deal. Unfortunately in today's NFL, the winners are those who take chances and succede. Those who are afraid of taking chances often end up only marginally better than those who took chances and failed.

[Burgold]

that's fair, jwebst1. Coach Gibbs will be held accountable pro or con. He will either be fired (accountable for failure), extended (I really miss the playoffs and consistent winning) or retire (could go either way, a ride into the sunset or being ridden off on the rails.)

My judgement of Gibbs will always be impacted by my youth or seeing the Redskins being the best and consistently the best. He still has a certain ammount of grace, but he does need to be accountable. If there is not a marked improvement between this year and last... felt like fewer penalties last week on the o-line and they were certainly better at third down... then he needs to be held to the fire. Hard to hold him accountable negatively for a decision that led to a win and protected a player. I would not have wanted to see Ramsey out there with a sprained neck getting hit again and again last Sunday, would you?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

True, in the past Gibbs has been able to have his cake and eat it too. With Ramsey and Brunell its an either/or type deal. Unfortunately in today's NFL, the winners are those who take chances and succede. Those who are afraid of taking chances often end up only marginally better than those who took chances and failed.

Yes and no. There are conservative teams that take chances after establishing the run and things like that.

I don't think it's fair to assume we know what Gibbs' gameplan will be with Brunell in there. He's going to throw the ball downfield some. The offense is different than last year.

[Underwater Ally]

Not sure if this has been posted, but you are right about accountability... however, it should also apply to the coach himself. If Brunell, who he signed for 40 mill and a draft pick when other teams weren't even offering half that much, plays as badly as he did last year, Gibbs should also be held accountable for his decision to get him, play him as long as he did last year, then go back to him without giving Ramsey a fair shot.

You certainly have a point, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by accountability in Gibbs' case. I certainly don't favor firing him. I agree that we paid too much to get Brunell, but he is a solid and steady backup. The problem I see with starting him like this at this stage of the season is the huge risk that is involved. While we pointed out that risk is what makes Ramsey unappealing to Gibbs, the personl risk he takes by starting Brunell is huge. If Ramsey starts and we lose, its Ramsey's fault. If Brunell starts and loses, Gibbs' credibility and legacy are damaged in a major way. My fear is that accountability for Gibbs will come in the form of irreparable damage to his image and legacy.

:2cents:

[wsniper1]

How many times last year did a Ramsey interception lose us a game? I can count one, there could be more.

How many times last year did Brunell cost us a game? I can count atleast three.

[Underwater Ally]

I don't think it's fair to assume we know what Gibbs' gameplan will be with Brunell in there. He's going to throw the ball downfield some. The offense is different than last year.

I hope so. Lets hope Brunell is up to the task of capitalizing on those changes.

[bobzmuda]

Maybe there is, no one at all is saying otherwise so do us all a favor and put the strawman away. What I'm saying is why all the BS? Why did we hear about how the media was wrong about Ramsey not being Joe's guy and that Joe would stick by his pick blah blah blah.....but when the stuff hit the fan all of you changed your tune. Now the same people are screaming the same thing the mediots said all summer long and looking to justify their new position. It looks to me like Joe told Ramsey what Ramsey wanted to hear in order to keep him from trying to leave the team in the offseason. We need him here for a year maybe two tops.

Also anyone willing to be honest about last year can say that between Ramsey and Brunell, it was Pat that outplayed his rival in real games. Not only did Mark produce nothing, but he also spotted the other team points and gave the Ravens a win. He coughed up the ball a lot, and produced less then Ramsey in terms of a passing game. We all saw it, no point in pretending otherwise.

I think your argument presumes that Ramsey was performing better than Brunell at practices last year. I don't know if you heard this or not, but while Brunell was struggling in 04 Bugel kept hammering home the fact that they would start Ramsey if he was an upgrade, but he wasn't. I was shocked to hear that Ramsey could be worse than Brunell as far as turning the ball over.

Our first impressions of Ramsey last year showed that the coaching staff wasn't just blowing smoke. Ramsey stuck up the joint in games against the Giants and Bengals. Ramsey lost the ball 5 times against the Giants, and 3 times against the Bengals (though who knows how many INT's he would have thrown if the Bengals could catch).

In all Ramsey lost the ball 17 times last year in about 8 games worth of action. About 2 turnovers per game. If you look at the pre-season games and the Bears game Ramsey is STILL averaging 2 turnovers per game. He hasn't improved, while Brunell obviously has with increased zip and accuracy on his passes.

Brunell didn't get a longer look last year for any reason other than Ramsey simply could not refrain from turning the ball over. It's the same reason why Brunell will be starting against Dallas - Ramsey continues to turn the ball over while not generating enough positive plays to offset those turnovers.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

How many times last year did a Ramsey interception lose us a game? I can count one, there could be more.

How many times last year did Brunell cost us a game? I can count atleast three.

Directly costing us a game? Maybe just one.

However, what good does it do to look at last season? Did Ramsey look as good to you this preseason and on Sunday as he did toward the end of last year?

To me, he has not. He has had two full off-seasons under Gibbs to figure it out and has not.

[jwebst1]

How many times last year did a Ramsey interception lose us a game? I can count one, there could be more.

How many times last year did Brunell cost us a game? I can count atleast three.

That's what I don't understand...... that's why I'm royally pissed over this decision.

Gibbs hates turnovers and mistakes, right? So let's look at Brunell last season and tell me he is not hypocritical.

1st game, he fumbles the ball for a TD against the Bucs... could have cost us the game.

2nd game, responsible for at least 2 turnovers before getting hurt, including the ugliest INT I have ever seen which is returned for a TD...

Ravens game... we all remember the ED Reed play... another TD return, cost us the game. Also throws a pick to Deion in that one.

Bears game... had a pick returned for a TD in a close game.

Detroit... throws for 17 yards in the second half.

Cincy... starts 1-8 including a incompletion on 4th down where he had coles wide open.

And I know I am forgetting more.........

Is this the mistake-free football he is talking about? Someone disagree with me here........ and don't say, well in pre-season, b/c Brunell is going up against 2nd and 3rd teamers. If this was going to happen in the 1st quarter of the 1st game, Gibbs should have started him in the pre-season a few games.