The offense.... it's Brunell.

[visionary]

Maybe, but with that winning QB being Brunell, it makes it a heck of a lot harder.

If it were someone else, or if Brunell were losing, it might be easier. I don't know, this whole thread is really depressing me.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

One more issue that needs to be addressed about our lack of offensive output.

I can't recall a team that has been healthier on the offensive line. We have five guys - all of whom were relatively high draft picks our sought-after free agents - and they have not missed one game. Moreover, our top three offensive weapons - Portis, Moss, and Cooley - have been healthy all year.

The wide receiver position has collapsed in recent weeks, but that sort of thing happens when you only carry four of them to start with. Seattle lost all of their receivers at one point this year too.

Part of my frustration with this season is that I think we have a narrow window. Brunell can't last forever, though Gibbs seems to think he can. And we may never be this healthy on offense again. Portis carries the ball 350 times a year. He's going to get dinged at some point.

[Ghost of]

This thread has been Ramsey fanboyism at it's finest...

Way to contribute. Apparently the Brunell and Gibbs boosterism eluded your keen perceptory abilities.

[Die Hard]

I've seen the pass protection break down a number of times this year. We only had a few games where the protection was solid all game. (Denver and 49ers are the only games that come to mind)

Ramsey with no protection = disaster.

I don't think Patrick will ever be given the reigns long enough to prove himself here.

Ramsey is leaving one way or another this offseason. that's about the only thing I'm certain of right now.

The ONLY rationale behind him staying... and I mntioned this about a month ago... is he's still under contract for 1 more year at a minimum salary. That's as good a reason as any I suppose.

However, there are too many other better reasons to move on.

[jrockster21]

To be fair, how can you say the same wouldn't have happened with Ramsey? We have a better offense players all around - Jansen back, Rabach, blocking schemes utilizing Portis better - and we have Moss, who has been HUGE.

I like what Brunell has done up to the Raiders game. But since then it has been a downward spiral.

I didn't say Ramsey wouldn't have improved his play, only that there was no guarantee he would have. Maybe its a minor distinction, but to me, Ramsey has looked the same his entire 4 year career here...spots of brilliance encompassed by multiple horrible decisions.

Who knows? Maybe he would have turned it around this year....maybe if Gibbs had given him a little longer of a leash, he would have shown something. But my guess is that he would not have, and we'd probably be at 6-7 or 5-8 right now....that's just my gut feeling, however, and is probably worth less than the crap you took this morning.

[DonkeyTeeth]

And for those that forgot about the Dallas debacle... look at the drive chart:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drives/NFL_20050919_WAS@DAL

I mean LOOK AT IT!!!!

It's amazing what 2 drives totalling 2:17 minutes and gaining 156 total yards in the last 4 minutes will do... when you're trailing by 13 points. Hardly reflective of the actual game.

There was plenty else going on other than an ineffective MB early in that game. The OL deserves plenty of blame for our 0-13 deficit. 6 holding or false start penalties. 3 sacks. Only 3 yards per carry for Portis.

Prior to the long TD's Brunell had completed a 38 yarder to Moss, a 12 yarder to Patten, an 18 yarder to Thrash, a 20 yarder to Thrash, and couple of shorter passes for first downs. He also scrambled for 25 yards to get us in position for the first Moss TD.

You can twist the game stats any way you want, but it seems to me that Brunell is responsible for almost all of the offense that allowed us to pull out that great win. We won that game because of him, not in spite of him.

[Whiskeypeet]

This team has underachieved for sure.

I don't fault the defense this year. We pulled off a miracle last year with our talent (no d-line) ranking as high as we did. We're about right this year (even without an upgrade)... and that is a tribute to our coach.

Do I think we have the talent on offense? Yes.

I think this offense is limited by the QB play. Has all season (with the exception of the odd game of 13).

I'm pulling for Ramsey right now.... and not because I'm a Ramsey apologist... but because he's the best option we have right now.

Not so sure we have underachieved.

To be honest I think our offensive line, specifically in pass protection, is more suspect than many like to believe. That above all, IMO, has slowed us down this year.

That being said I firmly believe, as you do, that MB in not getting the job done. I'm not in love with Patrick but at this point he can't be much worse than MB.

[jrockster21]

ramsey was better in the last few games CERTAINLY with inferior players and no Jansen than Brunell has been in several games.

Now, would he need time to catch up again? Sure. However, it might have been better to just leave him in.

It's becoming clear to me that what was said about Brunell being Gibbs' boy is accurate. That bunk about "gut feeling" only applies when it's not his guy in at QB.

The whole thing makes me sick because we still have the usual suspects on here going down with the ship.

It's almost too late to put Ramsey in, sadly. (or campbell until the season is over.)

Since I'm probably one of "usual suspects," I'll answer. I think Ramsey got the hook too fast, but you're right...Brunell is Gibbs' boy. He never had faith in Ramsey, and probably never will.

People say Ramsey didn't have his shot, but he did. I believe that if Ramsey had looked better in preseason, like much better, Gibbs would have stuck with him. He didn't, and Gibbs didn't. End of story. Would it have been better written differently? Who knows.

But what makes me sick is we've got the same usual suspects saying Ramsey would have saved all.

[Die Hard]

One more issue that needs to be addressed about our lack of offensive output.

I can't recall a team that has been healthier on the offensive line. We have five guys - all of whom were relatively high draft picks our sought-after free agents - and they have not missed one game. Moreover' date=' our top three offensive weapons - Portis, Moss, and Cooley - have been healthy all year.

The wide receiver position has collapsed in recent weeks, but that sort of thing happens when you only carry four of them to start with. Seattle lost all of their receivers at one point this year too.

Part of my frustration with this season is that I think we have a narrow window. Brunell can't last forever, though Gibbs seems to think he can. And we may never be this healthy on offense again. Portis carries the ball 350 times a year. He's going to get dinged at some point.[/quote']

Somebody who thinks along the same lines as me I said it in the NFL FORUM. I almost envy the Eagles this year... get all those injuries over with all in one season. You have to be healthy to make a run... and since they were out of it already... as good a time as any to get rid of bad ju ju.

We're probably among the most healthy teams on offense this year. Our WR position isn't truly ALL that bad considering.. we still have our #1 guy and a former 2nd round pick (3rd year player) looking for an opportunity. It could be a lot worse.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

We won that game because of him, not in spite of him.

We won that game because of Santana Moss. Both of Brunell's late game passes were underthrown. Either one could have been broken up, and honestly should have been. Moss had to slow down considerably to catch those balls.

As for his scrambling, that was flat out outstanding work. Unfortunately he has slowed down as the season has progressed and I doubt he is capable of making those plays on his feet again.

[jrockster21]

There was plenty else going on other than an ineffective MB early in that game. The OL deserves plenty of blame for our 0-13 deficit. 6 holding or false start penalties. 3 sacks. Only 3 yards per carry for Portis.

Prior to the long TD's Brunell had completed a 38 yarder to Moss, a 12 yarder to Patten, an 18 yarder to Thrash, a 20 yarder to Thrash, and couple of shorter passes for first downs. He also scrambled for 25 yards to get us in position for the first Moss TD.

You can twist the game stats any way you want, but it seems to me that Brunell is responsible for almost all of the offense that allowed us to pull out that great win. We won that game because of him, not in spite of him.

Great call....very well said! :applause: :notworthy

We won that game because of Santana Moss. Both of Brunell's late game passes were underthrown. Either one could have been broken up, and honestly should have been. Moss had to slow down considerably to catch those balls.

As for his scrambling, that was flat out outstanding work. Unfortunately he has slowed down as the season has progressed and I doubt he is capable of making those plays on his feet again.

Neither ball was underthrown -- the first ball was inaccurate, and Moss went about 5-10 yards across the field to catch it. The second ball was perfectly thrown; I didn't see Moss slow down at all. Not to mention the perfect throw to Moss down the sideline on a Brunell scramble....that might have been the sweetest play of the game.

[Ghost of]

What of accountability, jrock?

Sure, you say Patrick got his chance, but he's still a young player who could show some things you didn't see before. That DOES happen.

How often does an ancient QB who relied on his mobility earlier in his QB, who consistently seems to lose zip and leg strength and pocket confidence get better? And why is he not held responsible for what he does?

Mark has had HIS shot. now it's time for someone else. ANYONE else.

[The Sisko]

Gibbs' insistence on holding on to veterans that have lost a step is another reason we need a good, competent GM. I still contend that the only reason Gibbs keeps Cerrato around is that he has a hard to find quality--he's malleable.

[Oldfan]

Really....I see Ramsey as a career back-up.

He's got a great arm and is a good character guy' date=' but that's about it. He has terrible pocket presence, makes bad decisions, and has no mobility. He also might be punch drunk from the Spurrier Era.

I'm sure someone will take a chance on him for a third or fourth round pick. But I doubt teams are going to be wearing out the phone lines to Ashburn. Not with Philip Rivers and possibly David Carr on the market.[/quote']

David Carr won't go anywhere.

Let's see. Philip Rivers has beaten Duke, North Carolina, Clemson...

Ramsey in 2004 finished 3-3 in a Gibbs offense that featured L. Coles and the formidable WR screen. He beat the Giants in a blowout, San Francisco, and the Vikings with D. Culpepper having an outstanding year. Two of the three losses were to Pittsburgh (15-1) and Philadelphia (13-3) in which he performed fairly well.

But you'd rather have Rivers?

[jrockster21]

What of accountability, jrock?

Sure, you say Patrick got his chance, but he's still a young player who could show some things you didn't see before. That DOES happen.

How often does an ancient QB who relied on his mobility earlier in his QB, who consistently seems to lose zip and leg strength and pocket confidence get better? And why is he not held responsible for what he does?

Mark has had HIS shot. now it's time for someone else. ANYONE else.

Like I said -- I think Ramsey got the hook a little too early. I would have liked to see at least a half of football from him before he got yanked...and in retrospect, we now know that the Bears defense is a very good one.

Accountability? Sure, you can say Brunell contributed to some of the losses we've had this year, but to say he's accountable for them is slightly biased. If not for the Rabach holding penalty, Brunell led us to a victory against LT and the Chargers. If not for a false-start on the half-ending FG by Novak, Brunell would have probably taken us to victory against the Broncos. If not for terrible officiating, Brunell would have led us to victory against the Bucs...the list goes on.

Accountable? No. The wrong decision? We will never know....so throwing the Brunell supporters under the bus is a little unfair, because there is no guarantee Ramsey would have done anything better.

[Jumbo]

Does no one remember the article about how coaches pointed out to Gibbs that Art Monk just couldn't do it anymore and how Gibbs resisted them?

The odd thing though is that Gibbs didn't have Brunell for years and win titles with him. I can't figure out this loyalty.

What's worse is all the people who endlessly and MINDLESSLY bash Ramsey but apparently forgot the end of last year and even that last few bits of play vs. NYG. He uses the pocket better than Brunell. PERIOD.

The idea that we'd "be out of it" without Brunell is hogwash. No one knows what Ramsey would have done because we didn't get to see it. That's why that move will persist in creating such divisions, we never gave Pat the chance to make it clear what he would or would not do.

meanwhile, Brunell is going into his second season of mediocrity with a few bright spots. This will be the second year we wasted on this guy.

I swear we'd have 3-4 more wins over the last 2 seasons with Ramsey in earlier. (i think we beat Oakland, at least this year.)

Ghost, and I ask this philospohically bro, not to be a penis, I'm just curious. When it looked at 5-2 that Mark was a good choice, Ramsey prefer-ers (a non-perjorative term which could also be applied to Brunell when needed ) could only continue to advocate their case with any visible credibility by predicting eventual QB collapse. Of course some just said "I guess we were wrong" which is awfully open-minded for any of us :laugh: .

Those that continued to state that cause had to wait for the appearance of that collapse before a real regrouped-attack of the Brunell decision could be fully unleashed. Now, we can only speculate what they would have done if Mark had not weakened at all; maybe wait and hope Ramsey would lead his next team to the Superbowl or something before seeking their just recogntition, or just giving it up and saying "Yeh. Brunell was the right chocie I guess". But that's not where we're at, and Brunell has weakened, and some are claiming "just as predicted". So, a long but important set-up for my question:

In the spirit of your own personal "I've been saying this would happen all along" premise (don't mistake any of my quote marks for sarcasm, they're not, I'm doing this respectfully), if by some miracle we win out with Brunell, even ugly, and get to the play-offs, or if Brunell actually plays great and we get to the play-offs, is that when you personally would re-cant on your belief that when it happened, benching Ramsey for Mark was a mistake ? Or if not in those scenarios, when? Or would you ever? Just interested in getting how you (and thus maybe others) consider such things. Thanks. :dallasuck

[jrockster21]

David Carr won't go anywhere.

Let's see. Philip Rivers has beaten Duke, North Carolina, Clemson...

Ramsey in 2004 finished 3-3 in a Gibbs offense that featured L. Coles and the formidable WR screen. He beat the Giants in a blowout, San Francisco, and the Vikings with D. Culpepper having an outstanding year. Two of the three losses were to Pittsburgh (15-1) and Philadelphia (13-3) in which he performed fairly well.

But you'd rather have Rivers?

Ramsey cost us one of the Philly games with a terrible decision to throw downfield that Dawkins made him pay for. The Giants were decimated by injury last year, and were terrible at that point in the season. And Minnesota, despite the "oustanding" year from Culpepper, was doing their normal late-season moonwalk into the playoffs. And San Fran is....well, San Fran. And Ramsey led us to an eye-popping 19 points offensively...not exactly awe-inspiring.

But I agree...saying you'd rather have Rivers over Ramsey is a little silly, considering he's never played a down in the NFL.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Both of those balls were inches at most from being knocked away. Optimally they would have been thrown deeper. That being said, they were completed and were a couple of the most memorable moments I have ever had (I am forced to watch the games in Dallas country and their reactions were priceless).

Anyhow, I got to go. But I must repeat the earlier sentiments that this is one of the best threads I have ever read on this board.:applause:

Cheers fellas for the excellent input and the minimal name calling:cheers:

[Die Hard]

Not so sure we have underachieved.

To be honest I think our offensive line, specifically in pass protection, is more suspect than many like to believe. That above all, IMO, has slowed us down this year.

That being said I firmly believe, as you do, that MB in not getting the job done. I'm not in love with Patrick but at this point he can't be much worse than MB.

No, we don't have a dominant 0-line in pass protection. Admittedly.

I don't know what to think about our offensive line. And I don't know how to fix the problems (too many guys with big contracts).

[Jumbo]

Way to contribute. Apparently the Brunell and Gibbs boosterism eluded your keen perceptory abilities.

:laugh: Acerbic and accurate ghosty.

[Die Hard]

We won that game because of Santana Moss. Both of Brunell's late game passes were underthrown. Either one could have been broken up, and honestly should have been. Moss had to slow down considerably to catch those balls.

As for his scrambling, that was flat out outstanding work. Unfortunately he has slowed down as the season has progressed and I doubt he is capable of making those plays on his feet again.

Agreed. He looks so slow now when he breaks the pocket. He cannot even outrun defensive linemen. I don't think he's gotten more than 4 yards on any runs since

[visionary]

Like I said -- I think Ramsey got the hook a little too early. I would have liked to see at least a half of football from him before he got yanked...and in retrospect, we now know that the Bears defense is a very good one.

Accountability? Sure, you can say Brunell contributed to some of the losses we've had this year, but to say he's accountable for them is slightly biased. If not for the Rabach holding penalty, Brunell led us to a victory against LT and the Chargers. If not for a false-start on the half-ending FG by Novak, Brunell would have probably taken us to victory against the Broncos. If not for terrible officiating, Brunell would have led us to victory against the Bucs...the list goes on.

Accountable? No. The wrong decision? We will never know....so throwing the Brunell supporters under the bus is a little unfair, because there is no guarantee Ramsey would have done anything better.

Brunell was the main reason that we lost the game against the Chargers. His decision making in that game in the fourth quarter was awful. The defense kept us in it most of the game, but the offense kept counteracting them. Against the Broncos, Gibbs refusal to use Portis despite the yards he was getting cost us big time, and the defense had a lot of problems in that game too.

As for the Bucs...Brunell played very well in the second half, except that he put us in the position to lose in the first and then blew it on the last drive, with a little help from the o-line. We could have really used a quick drive there, but instead we got a lot of desperation plays that eventually got us no where. That may not be Brunell's fault, but it was inexcusable.

The defense did suck in that game too though, so it was a team loss.

The last few games though the d and the o-line has been playing better and progressing and Brunell has been playing worse and well, it looks like he is regressing to last year. If they had thrown the ball more and on longer plays in the second half of the Cardinals game or if they had been forced to by the defense, who really think there would not have been more picks or fumbles and that we probably woudl have lost.

If we keep up that kind of a performance we will not have much of a chance agasint Dallas. It will take a miracle and a lot of effort by Portis, the defense and Moss and maybe even some interesting play calling to pull something out. I'm not saying that it can't happen, far from that. But right now, Gibbs and Brunell are making it especially hard to achieve.

[wilbur58z]

Way to contribute. Apparently the Brunell and Gibbs boosterism eluded your keen perceptory abilities.

Please. This thread turned into a joke the second the "Brunell is done" comment was made in the original post. It was then that I knew I was reading the work of a committed Ramsey fanboy...

[wilbur58z]

Santana Moss himself has said he's been getting coverage rolling his way the entire 2nd half of the season.

This to go along with what the other offensive players and coaches have said.

But a moderator of a message board goes to one game and claims to be able to read an NFL defense, says the opposite of what the Redskins offensive players have been saying, and declares a QB done and "we're going to get killed" in his conclusion?

And this is taken seriously?

Someone enlighten me here?

Because I just see this as frustrated fans who see a stifled offense and blame the usual suspect (the QB) once again and don't see what's going on with the offense overall.

Sounds like 2004.

[visionary]

Yes it does sound like 2004...that my friend, is the problem...except that we have already passed through another year and are on the verge of possibly getting into the playoffs, and yet once again our offense may save us from victory.

I mean, you do realize that we had a bad season last year and Brunell was a big part of it right?

I'm not discounting his outstanding performance earlier this year, which I am forever thankful for, but you do understand that he sucked last year don't you?