What Gibbs is Really Doing

[B.A.M.F.]

The question I pose to you is: Who on Planet Earth is most entitled to make a decision concerning the Redskins starting quarterback? And I mean this in a legal, ethical, and moral sense. In other words, in every way that you can measure it.

If you reach the conclusion that it is Joe Gibbs (as I do), who is the coach of the team, then I would ask what his prime directive is? What is he primarily tasked to do? What is his fundimental mission, that which supercedes all else? Is it not to win ball games?

And if he believes that switching his quarterback raises the probability this will occur? And what if he reaches the conclusion that allowing the quarterback to remain in the game jeapordizes the team's ability to achieve the mission? What should he do then?

If treating PR in the manner some suggest was necessary was not in conflict with his primary mission, he would have done so (I believe). If treating PR in the manner some suggest necessary jeapordizes the primary mission, then I would be appalled if he did anything less than make the switch.

What say you?

Hear hear.

[AJ_Skins]

I do not realize I'm in the minority. Additionally, I do not understand why people believe the following:

1 - Ramsey is owed something

2 - We are owed an accounting of Gibb's thought processes

There is an old saying with which I agree: all debts are settled on payday. Art asked a great question on redskins.com - If you who disagree with Gibbs and are truly disappointed with the manner in which he conducted this situation, why are you not also equally upset about the release of Antonio Brown?

As for you AJ, I always seek what you call the lowest common denominator, however I prefer to call it the very essence of an argument. Ramsey is owed just as much as the other 50 some-odd players on the team, no more, no less. In this instance he did not perform, of this there is little question.

The question I pose to you is: Who on Planet Earth is most entitled to make a decision concerning the Redskins starting quarterback? And I mean this in a legal, ethical, and moral sense. In other words, in every way that you can measure it.

If you reach the conclusion that it is Joe Gibbs (as I do), who is the coach of the team, then I would ask what his prime directive is? What is he primarily tasked to do? What is his fundimental mission, that which supercedes all else? Is it not to win ball games?

And if he believes that switching his quarterback raises the probability this will occur? And what if he reaches the conclusion that allowing the quarterback to remain in the game jeapordizes the team's ability to achieve the mission? What should he do then?

If treating PR in the manner some suggest was necessary was not in conflict with his primary mission, he would have done so (I believe). If treating PR in the manner some suggest necessary jeapordizes the primary mission, then I would be appalled if he did anything less than make the switch.

What say you?

I say...if this is what you end up doing after one quarter of the first regular season game, you should have thrown the competition open in the offseason and let Brunell get more snaps with the first team. Again, the move makes no sense, and you are in the minority in thinking it was totally explainable and a great decision. When you go through the whole offseason saying "Pat's our guy, Pat's our guy, Pat's our guy" and then BAM, you dump him after he gets knocked out by a clothesline in the first half, it looks like you had no clue what you were doing, either when you named him the starter initially, or when you decided out of nowhere that it was time to yank him. Anybody who is even slightly capable of imagining error on Gibbs's part has got to have their confidence in him shaken at this point.

[TheLongshot]

There is an old saying with which I agree: all debts are settled on payday. Art asked a great question on redskins.com - If you who disagree with Gibbs and are truly disappointed with the manner in which he conducted this situation, why are you not also equally upset about the release of Antonio Brown?

Well, for me, it was the way Ramsey was removed from the game. He went out because of injury, and never came back in even tho he was cleared to come back to play. I feel you don't lose your job because you were hurt. Now, would have he been left in if he hadn't gotten his bell rung? Who knows?

Also, there is more invested in Ramsey than there was in Brown. Brown was a nice thing to have, a speedy guy who can return punts. Ramsey, tho, is the centerpiece of the offense. The impact is greater there when you bench the guy, especially when he's probably more physically capable than the other guy.

Certianly, this could be a cooling off period for Ramsey, and that could be part of the reason for this, but Gibbs does trust Brunell, and believes that he could start multiple games, and probably will if he's successful. There are many people who are suggesting that this is similar to 1997. I'm not yet a believer in Brunell, since he has a lot to prove out there.

I do believe that AJ is taking this a bit too far. I don't like the way Gibbs handled things, but we have to deal with what we've got, and hope for the best.

Jason

[SamSneed36]

Maybe the decision was made as far as Gibbs was concerned by the time Ramsey was hurt. Maybe he wanted to get Brunell playing time in a game situation with the starting team since he had not had that all offseason due to Gibbs commitment to Ramsey, hoping he would come along given the confidence of the starting postion and the time with the first stringers. Would you rather Brunell be starting with no field time with his first string? If in Gibbs' mind the decision was made when Ramsey threw yet another pick, why leave him in?

[smalczak]

1 - Ramsey is owed something

I certainly dont think that Ramsey did anything to make Gibbs or the Skins 'owe' him something.

But what would have been nice would have been trading him in the off-season for something worthwhile. Now that he has been effectively discarded, it will be a tougher sell to trade him to another team (he'll be a year older, with still little playing time, and obviously in disfavor with his coach).

If Gibbs is such an excellent judge of QBs (we've all heard the 3 SBs with 3 QBs yadda yadda), then why did it take so long to discover that Ramsey isnt a good fit for him? He had a lot of film to watch from 2003 and he had half of the 2004 season to evaluate. If, in that time he didnt see what he wanted, he should have acted then and secured a trade while Ramsey could have had real value.

If this benching wasnt a spur of the moment decision (and I dont think it was per se), then he either mismanaged the personnel decision to keep Ramsey or else he doesnt have the 'eye' for QBs that everyone seems to think he does.

To me the timing is about the worst that could be invented. If done earlier, we get a draft pick and a stable situation at QB (even if its MB, its stable). If he waited till after Dallas, either Ramsey would win it and the need to pull him might not be there or else he would stink it up on national TV and Gibbs would have the obvious support to pull him during the off week.

Now, we are relying on MB to come out and take charge, after having gone all off-season not playing with the 1st team. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME. All of the adjustments to the new WRs and the level of comfort between QB and WRs is gone. Now we are back at square one, with the QB needing to adjust to the new WRs and vice versa. But instead of it happening in OTA and Preseason, it will be happening as we watch them try to win real game.

Bah...it just seems to me that the real point is being lost in the PR vs MB argument and that is that Gibbs (IMO) dropped the ball by not seeing that PR was not going to develop into a QB he could be comfortable with. If he had seen it sooner, then all of this could have been avoided. Since he didnt, IMO he should have waited until Ramsey once and for all proved he couldnt do it in the 'big game'. Either way, the QB controversy is muted and the distractions are minimized.

Does anyone here seriously think the team needs a distraction like this on the week of Dallas?

[AJ_Skins]

Well, for me, it was the way Ramsey was removed from the game. He went out because of injury, and never came back in even tho he was cleared to come back to play. I feel you don't lose your job because you were hurt. Now, would have he been left in if he hadn't gotten his bell rung? Who knows?

Also, there is more invested in Ramsey than there was in Brown. Brown was a nice thing to have, a speedy guy who can return punts. Ramsey, tho, is the centerpiece of the offense. The impact is greater there when you bench the guy, especially when he's probably more physically capable than the other guy.

Certianly, this could be a cooling off period for Ramsey, and that could be part of the reason for this, but Gibbs does trust Brunell, and believes that he could start multiple games, and probably will if he's successful. There are many people who are suggesting that this is similar to 1997. I'm not yet a believer in Brunell, since he has a lot to prove out there.

I do believe that AJ is taking this a bit too far. I don't like the way Gibbs handled things, but we have to deal with what we've got, and hope for the best.

Jason

Taking it too far in what way? I think what I was trying to piece together is some way in which two disparate things that I consider facts can be reconciled:

1) Brunell's play last year was too bad to adequately describe in words, and his performance against the Bears was no better (70 yards passing and one desperation heave that would have been picked had it not been for a lucky penalty).

2) Gibbs named Ramsey the starter and went through the entire offseason before pulling him out in the first half of the first game due to an injury in favor of Brunell.

There are only three explanations:

1) Gibbs is lost, and/or he gave up on the season after one quarter of play.

2) Giibbs sees some kind of proof that Brunell has gotten into a time machine and gone back to 1998, despite the fact that this greatly improved performance has yet to show up on the field.

3) Gibbs knows Brunell probably won't cut it, and he's banking on Ramsey coming through for the team down the stretch.

The last one is the only one where Gibbs looks good.

[AJ_Skins]

Maybe the decision was made as far as Gibbs was concerned by the time Ramsey was hurt. Maybe he wanted to get Brunell playing time in a game situation with the starting team since he had not had that all offseason due to Gibbs commitment to Ramsey, hoping he would come along given the confidence of the starting postion and the time with the first stringers. Would you rather Brunell be starting with no field time with his first string? If in Gibbs' mind the decision was made when Ramsey threw yet another pick, why leave him in?

You don't go through the whole offseason and then make the decision that quickly, unless there is some other motivation. As is the point of my initial post, the only one I can come up with that makes any sense is that this is not a decision to go with Brunell because he thinks that's the answer, it's a very pointed message to Ramsey that it's time to wake up.

[thinker]

Stop avoiding the thoughtful answer - here is my earlier post:

After the events of this week, I am now prepared to look backwards and interpret what actually happened along the way with Gibbs and the qb situation.

1) When Gibbs was hired, the first thing he did was look at film and in doing so he determined that he had serious doubts about the ability of PR to be his and/or an NFL qb. This explains why his very first player move was to acquire Brunell (for what seemed like a very high price).

2) Last offseason PR had the broken foot and recovered slowly and in preseason did not distinguish himself. I don't think Gibbs promised the job to Brunell - PR didn't win it though either.

3) Early in the year, Brunell sustained a fairly serious hamstring injury (Giants game). After that his mobility was very limited - a big part of his game - and his plant leg was weak and this caused his passes to float and have no zip on them.

4) Despite Brunell's injury, Gibbs was still slow to put in PR. Why? Because Gibbs did not have confidence in him.

5) Ultimately the switch is made and PR does just ok finishing out the season. Gibbs decides that PR needs a boost of confidence - maybe that will get the "switch" to flip. The switch is that internal thing that PR seems to lack which would allow him to internally know when to throw the ball before being sacked and where to throw it without being intercepted. So Gibbs says all the right things and names PR the irrevocable starter.

6) PR has the whole offseason, now with a new qb coach Musgrave. He works every day. He is in every OTA. He gets most of the snaps. Gibbs does NOT see the improvement he is looking for as we are headed into the draft.

7) About a week before the draft, I believe the team in locked in on Stefan LeFlours of Louisville - with their 4th round pick. Gibbs & Co see that PR is quite possibly not the answer. This is when they make the trade for Denver's pick. Campbell was not to my knowledge on the team's radar screen until just before the draft. This means to me they didn't decide to go in that direction until seeing PR's offseason up until that point. Getting your new qb a year early is huge. They paid the heavy price to get their guy to have him for an additional year.

8) Still Gibbs says the right things - we want PR to lead us to the playoffs. I am positiive that this is true. It's just that Gibbs no longer believes it will actually happen.

9) Preseason rolls around and PR stinks in practice and stinks in the games. A good throw is followed by a miserable throw. He still holds the ball too long, he still goes to the wrong guy, he still misfires on the long throws to Patten and Moss. Even on his supposed best pass of preseason - the td to Cooley, he threw to the wrong guy. That pass was into tight coverage where Cooley had to make a great catch. On the five yard line with no one in front of him Sellers could have caught a simple dump off and crawled into the endzone. Even on the great play PR had made the wrong read.

10) Say what you will about Wilbon - he has said that EVERYONE he talked to over the Summer - scouts, players, gms said they were doubters about PR. Wilbon talked early in the Summer about the two HoF qbs who talked about the over/under on when Jason Campbell would play for the Redskins and they agreed it should be about game 10. You see, everybody in the league saw the same thing that Gibbs saw - PR was simply not developing. But Gibbs still wanted to give PR a chance. On Redskins Report, renowned homer Sonny picked the team to go 8-8 because of his lack of confidence in PR. Now even George Micheals could see that PR wasn't likely to get it done.

11) Game one - the Bears. PR throws an inexcusable overthrown pass to an open receiver (when PR was not even uder pressure) for an int. PR held the ball too long, takes an unecessary hit and fumbles the ball - Jansen recovers. In the red zone PR takes a really hard hit (not really his fault) and puts the ball on the ground again. It's just always that way with PR though it seems. The Redskins win 9-7 in a game they gave up 160 yards to the Bears, playing incredible defense, and had a great running game.

12) Joe Gibbs doen't need to see anything more. PR has made no progress on the critical areas that had to be improved - pocket presence, getting rid of the ball to avoid sacks, and making the right reads and accurate passes. Gibbs knows that Brunell give the Skins a better chance of winning most games than does PR. PR's tenure with Washington is likely over.

13) Post script - Gibbs isn't really hesitant to pull a qb or excessively loyal. He left Brunell in last year because he felt even hurt he was better than PR. Now he sees the switch never flipped for PR and what's the point of seeing any more of him. I'd say that 10 games is a pretty fair guess at this point of when we'll see Jason Campbell in a game.

I'm sorry Patrick. I think you're about the nicest guy I've seen in the NFL. I'd love for you to date my sister. You're a standup guy, a great friend, a great team mate, a great person. But at this point you're not able to lead a winning NFL team as a qb. Gibbs is too classy of a guy to come out and say that - although his actions of the last 1 1/2 years show us he always feared this to be true.

_________________________________________________________________

You have to follow my whole sequence for it to make sense. Just do that - it will make sense then.

[SamSneed36]

Taking it too far in what way? I think what I was trying to piece together is some way in which two disparate things that I consider facts can be reconciled:

1) Brunell's play last year was too bad to adequately describe in words, and his performance against the Bears was no better (70 yards passing and one desperation heave that would have been picked had it not been for a lucky penalty).

2) Gibbs named Ramsey the starter and went through the entire offseason before pulling him out in the first half of the first game due to an injury in favor of Brunell.

There are only three explanations:

1) Gibbs is lost, and/or he gave up on the season after one quarter of play.

2) Giibbs sees some kind of proof that Brunell has gotten into a time machine and gone back to 1998, despite the fact that this greatly improved performance has yet to show up on the field.

3) Gibbs knows Brunell probably won't cut it, and he's banking on Ramsey coming through for the team down the stretch.

The last one is the only one where Gibbs looks good.

He looks good in scenario number two, despite your sarcasim, if Brunell is in fact healthy and plays anything like he did in the preseason. People would go all the way back to last year when he went out and got him, and theyd say he was right all along.

Brunell prolly wont light it up, but atleast he wont lose games for us with turnovers. He didnt blow up against the Bears, but he was pretty solid, especially just being thrown in without warning. Atleast he didnt come in a throw 3 picks against the G-men

[AJ_Skins]

You have to follow my whole sequence for it to make sense. Just do that - it will make sense then.

I already read your post, you didn't have to paste it here.

For me, your whole argument falls apart on the fact that you totally discount Brunell's performance in a Redskins uniform. Barring a MIRACLE, putting the offense back in Brunell's hands is tantamount to giving up on the entire season. In my opinion.

[SamSneed36]

You don't go through the whole offseason and then make the decision that quickly, unless there is some other motivation. As is the point of my initial post, the only one I can come up with that makes any sense is that this is not a decision to go with Brunell because he thinks that's the answer, it's a very pointed message to Ramsey that it's time to wake up.

You should try not to make everything you say an ultimatum. You cant deny Brunell has looked better than last season. What makes you say a light bulb went on in Gibbs' head on sunday that he should pull Ramsey? Im sure he was watching all offseason for some sign of improvment and as Thinker said, he didnt see it. Maybe he thought hey, ill give him one actual game day to prove it, maybe he steps up. Ramsey throws a pick, fumbles twice, sacked twice. Then the powers that be give Gibbs the chance to make the switch.

[s0crates]

Disagreements?

What if Brunnell throws 3 touchdowns (and unlikely scenario i know) Monday? and beats Dallas? He's the unquestioned starter then, right?

[AJ_Skins]

You should try not to make everything you say an ultimatum. You cant deny Brunell has looked better than last season. What makes you say a light bulb went on in Gibbs' head on sunday that he should pull Ramsey? Im sure he was watching all offseason for some sign of improvment and as Thinker said, he didnt see it. Maybe he thought hey, ill give him one actual game day to prove it, maybe he steps up. Ramsey throws a pick, fumbles twice, sacked twice. Then the powers that be give Gibbs the chance to make the switch.

I don't buy it. If you had that much reason to think you were going to go with Brunell, you should have given him more time with the first team offense in the preseason. And if thinker's view of things is right, you should have traded Ramsey or just cut him instead of wasting so much time, and brought some other vet, because banking on Brunell is insane.

[s0crates]

I think AJ has some good points, but takes it too far. Is it a ploy to get PR to play better? No. Does Gibbs think that MB is the better of the two at the moment? Yes. Does Gibbs hope that some tough love will snap PR into more focused play and get him to improve? You bet ya.

I don't think it was a planned thing, I think he saw what was going on and did what he had to do to give us a chance in the next few games. I also think he hopes to all heck that PR steps up and plays like we know he should be able to, and that this "ploy" will help.

Nose to the grindstone Patrick, we may need you later on!

right on! agree 100%

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[AJ_Skins]

What if Brunnell throws 3 touchdowns (and unlikely scenario i know) Monday? and beats Dallas? He's the unquestioned starter then, right?

Yep, and I'll be glad to see it. But then the problem arises-- can he hold up for an entire season-- which is an even more unlikely scenario.

[s0crates]

Well, for me, it was the way Ramsey was removed from the game. He went out because of injury, and never came back in even tho he was cleared to come back to play.

he went out because he fumbled

[Epistopheles]

There is still some possibility that the offense, and therefore the team, can be successful with Brunell, although I have my doubts. I don't see him lasting the entire season. I guess we will see where we are then with respect to whether we see Ramsey again.

I don't think Ramsey getting another chance is guaranteed, even if Brunell can't get it done. It relies on his attitude, determination and improved performance in practice. If Brunell fails, and if Ramsey does not show signs of improvement, we may very well see Campbell this year. Even though Gibbs would prefer not to play him yet, he may have no other choice.

[AJ_Skins]

There is still some possibility that the offense, and therefore the team, can be successful with Brunell, although I have my doubts. I don't see him lasting the entire season. I guess we will see where we are then with respect to whether we see Ramsey again.

I don't think Ramsey getting another chance is guaranteed, even if Brunell can't get it done. It relies on his attitude, determination and improved performance in practice. If Brunell fails, and if Ramsey does not show signs of improvement, we may very well see Campbell this year. Even though Gibbs would prefer not to play him yet, he may have no other choice.

In the worst-case scenario, Brunell struggles/is injured, and Ramsey totally throws in the towel. If that happens, I would expect to see Ramsey start until the team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and then maybe Campbell would play.

[jrockster21]

Most of the assumptions being made are that Gibbs is done with Ramsey, that Gibbs is irrationally attached to Brunell, or that he's willing to throw this season away rather than start a QB he thinks will never meet his expectations.

Ahhh....which option is Brunell and which option is Ramsey? Starting Brunell is definitely not throwing the season away, but the other one sounds like you mean Ramsey. If you read the threads and actually LISTENED to what people said, you would see AJ that it has been apparent throught OTAs, minicamps, training camp and preseason games that Brunell looks 100 times better than he did last year. You would also know, if your head wasn't up your butt, that Ramsey has continued to look the same; that is he still holds onto the ball too long, he still turns it over, and he still can't read the field.

Now pay attention, AJ, this is the last time I'm going to say this for you. After this, you're on your own: BRUNELL HAS LOOKED BETTER THAN RAMSEY THIS YEAR. That is the reason he is in and Ramsey is out. Get it through your thick skull, man!!

Gibbs's move definitely stunned all of us. I myself, up to this point, have been fuming and flailing trying to understand what he was thinking.

Only those of us who can't read, listen or watch the news and interviews of players and coaches. Only those people were surprised by this move.

Q: Is Brunell really good enough to carry us through this season, and does he give us any realistic chance to make the playoffs?

A: No.

You are basing that solely on his performance last year on a bad hamstring with a bad elbow. He is healthy now. AJ, remember that guy Laverneous Coles? Remember him? Yeah, when he was healthy, he was really good. Then he hurt his toe, and he wasn't good anymore. When players are injured, it affects their performance to varying degrees, depending on the injury. This is one of the most basic concepts of football, in fact one of the most basic concepts in life. I'm really surprised that you fail to grasp this concept; it doesn't speak highly of your intelligence.

I'm not saying Brunell is going to come in and be Joe Montana, but give the guy a chance to play healthy before you ostracize him.

The reason this doesn't immediately jump out as the thought process is that it doesn't really fit the mold of what most coaches do with QBs these days. Generally what happens is teams draft a young QB, (Carr, Harrington, Manning, Palmer, take your pick) maybe wait a while for him to learn the offense, and then turn the reigns over to him and let him play until he gets it together, or if he fails to do so, boot him out to go play somewhere else.

Of the QBs you mentioned, only Palmer was not thrown immediately to the wolves.

So maybe we should all cool off, and hope Brunell can hold it together long enough for Ramsey to come back stronger than before. Because I think that's what Gibbs is betting, hoping and/or praying is going to happen. And lo and behold, it actually matches up precisely with what he said.

Gibbs is betting on Brunell, because he looke 100 times better this preseason. Gibbs is betting on Brunell because he is a veteran. Google some Redskins history or view the good stuff they have on this site, and read a little about the man you know so little about. He favors veteran quarterbacks. He's not comfortable with young'ins at the position. Especially young'ins who still don't get it.

Sorry if I'm overly insulting in this post, but I'm just sick of hearing about this.

[AJ_Skins]

Gibbs is betting on Brunell, because he looke 100 times better this preseason. Gibbs is betting on Brunell because he is a veteran. Google some Redskins history or view the good stuff they have on this site, and read a little about the man you know so little about. He favors veteran quarterbacks. He's not comfortable with young'ins at the position. Especially young'ins who still don't get it.

Sorry if I'm overly insulting in this post, but I'm just sick of hearing about this.

Again, it doesn't come down to what you think of Ramsey, it comes down to what you think of Brunell. The game on Monday is his best chance to show us something different. He had his best game against Dallas last year, and this is the healthiest he will be all year before the hits start adding up. Considering what he did in the Bears game, I think the chances of him posing a serious passing threat to the Cowboys' D are slim. If he does do it, I think the chances of him performing at a high level through all the beatings of a 16 game season are almost nil.

If you were able to get yourself to consider that possibility, perhaps my thinking would not seem quite so ridiculous to you out there in Hawaii...

[jrockster21]

Considering what he did in the Bears game, I think the chances of him posing a serious passing threat to the Cowboys' D are slim.

What did he do in the Bears game to suggest this??

I directed you to my post in Kevin B.'s "video evidence" thread. I presented distinct reasons as to why Brunell looks much better than he did last year. You probably didn't even read it, because you don't listen to what anyone else has to say.

Oh, and by the way, last year a hobbled Brunell put up 325 yards, 2 touchdowns and no picks against the Girls. If Gardner doesn't get interfered with (the one that wasn't called), it would have been up around 360-370 yards and 3 TDs with no picks.

[Epistopheles]

Yep. Any of these things, at this point, could easily happen.

For better or for worse, I refuse to learn from my undying hope in years past, which for some reason has managed to survive the last several years of disappointments. I just want our guys to do well, to win games, which means believing Brunell's still got some gas in his tank.

For the record, I think Gibbs was exactly right. The most exciting thing about this game is having absolutely no idea what's going to happen.

:whoknows:

[jrockster21]

For the record, I think Gibbs was exactly right. The most exciting thing about this game is having absolutely no idea what's going to happen.

:whoknows:

I think there are going to be a lot of dumbfounded people on Monday night (Monday afternoon for me ). The Skins are going to come out swinging for the fences and are going to put a lot of points on the board. Gibbs held back on Sunday to not give anything to Parcells. But believe me, Brunell's arm will be tested Monday night. He's going to have another game similar to the one he had last year; 330+ yards passing and 3 TDs, bet on it.

[CaliforniaSkin]

OK, the comparisons to 1987 might be a little overblown but I'm going to come out and admit that I was a Jay Schroeder fan back then. I thought, hey, we have this young QB with a cannon of an arm who was our future. Doug Williams was a good QB but his best days were well behind him. Gibbs benches the promising 3rd year player and puts in the vet. Why? Turnovers.

Well, I've learned my lesson. I'm going to support Gibbs on this one. He clearly believes that Mark Brunell gives us the best chance to win on Monday. That is why Brunell is starting. Reading anything more into this is a stretch. Ramsey simply has not improved enough.

I think Gibbs really wanted Ramsey to step up and entrench himself as the starter. He gave Ramsey the job and expected him to keep it. But then Ramsey went out and followed a good throws with a horrible decisions. He kept locking on to his receivers. He kept failing to improve. Honestly the Ramsey I saw in preseason and in the Bear's game did not look any better to me than the Ramsey I saw in his first game against the Titans. Did he really look different to anyone?

Gibbs gave Ramsey every oportunity to suceed. He took the pressure off by naming him the starter at the end of last season. But Ramsey failed to raise his play. If Ramsey were capable of CONSISTENT play he'd be the starter, no question.

So now we've got Brunell. Brunell looked awfull last year, no question. But he's looked good in preseason, and aparently looked good in practise. Obviously those aren't the same as game conditions but I'll take the player who looks good in practise over the player who doesn't any day of the week. At least untill the player with poor practises proves he's the better gameday player. And Ramsey has not proven that - not by a long shot.

I had a conversation with a friend before the season started. (The friend is a Patriots fan). He said that he thought the only chance the 'skins had was if Brunell was playing QB. Living out in California I've heard similar comments from a lot of knowledgable fans. Very few people outside of DC think Ramsey is capable of being a top-tier QB.

[Epistopheles]

I think there are going to be a lot of dumbfounded people on Monday night (Monday afternoon for me ). The Skins are going to come out swinging for the fences and are going to put a lot of points on the board. Gibbs held back on Sunday to not give anything to Parcells. But believe me, Brunell's arm will be tested Monday night. He's going to have another game similar to the one he had last year; 330+ yards passing and 3 TDs, bet on it.

I hope you're right. It's comforting to know that Gibbs hates the Cowboys just as much as we do, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him hold stuff back so as not to give Parcells a chance to prepare. Man I hope we **** them up this week. :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck