Blondie Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 I don't think threads should be posted as "I told you so" material, and I don't *think* this one is. It seems Ghost is merely making his opinion known early so he doesn't look like a reactionary jumping off a particular bandwagon. Postings are not usually posted in the beginning as "I told you so material". They just end up that way. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Your reactionary b/c after one game, you are ready to bench Brunell. Then you have the audacity to insinuate on this thread that everyone that is supporting Brunell are just sheep that are following the main opinion. Well, if that main opinion is coming from Gibbs, ya darn right I'll listen to it. He's got more experience, clout, and "football IQ" (your words ) than you, me, and everybody on this board combined. I'll take his opinion and his football ideas every single time over yours. Geez, you win the game and some folks are STILL not happy Skins Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Too many pages to read all the way thru so I hope I'm not being redundant. I don't think many would dispute Ramsey's arm over Mark's. I don't think it's about that. Right now it's about having a guy who's seen it ALL and will make the right decisions. Someone who will play smart so the other 10 guys will have every opportunity to shine without turnovers or pre-snap mistakes. Mark's a very savvy veteran. I think that's why we didn't unravel after the 3rd period. Ramsey's still learning this offense and I will have no problem watching him take over if we need him but we need stability of a field general right now and it only gives Ramsey time to be the guy we all know he can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avidpoet Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Brady and Manning both had delays of game on Thursday. More than Ramsey had in the preseason, yet people will only look at the negative. Ramsey aint no Brady or Manning and its diffrent having delay of games every now and then than week in and week out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I'm torn on this one. I have to admit that my heart was in my mouth whenever Brunell threw a deep one (although the left side of my brain was reassuring me that a deep INT is more or less equivalent to a punt). However, there just weren't enough deep throws to demonstrate to me that Brunell has "lost it" as a deep passer. Of the few deep throws I can recall, only two appeared to be bad throws. The overthrow to Coles resulted, I believe, from Coles being knocked off his route past five yards (the underthrow should have been pass interference). Brunell also showed that he could scramble in flashes and roll out with ease. I was pleased every time I saw him roll out of the pocket. (In addition, his scramble in the red zone was DEFINITELY a first down; it should have been challenged.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 You beat Tampa by not making mistakes. Brunell made one huge one, but otherwise played the game like the savy -- if a little rusty -- veteran he is. Should be interesting to see if Gibbs opens things up a little more against the Giants next week -- their d looked terrible today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Pure and simple....Ramsey (one of my favorite Redskins) is not yet comfortable with Joe Gibb's offense and his performances in the preseason made that very clear. Patrick is what Gibbs says he is...the future of the Redskins. But for now, and with good reason, Mark Brunell is our QB and will be until Joe says "the future is now". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 IMO if Ramsey had started this game the Redskins would not have won. I think his tentative play in this system and his penchant for throwing the ball into coverages would have resulted in additional turnovers and that would have swung the balance toward TB. The pitfall for guys with a big arm is to think they can solve all their team's problems with a gun shot into coverage. Sometimes playing it close to the vest and playing for field position, as the Skins did in the fourth quarter is the key to winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yonisredskins Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I hate all the negative treads about who will be our downfall or who didn't come to play, after ONE game in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien11 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Wow even in victory it gets ugly here. Well going to throw my little opinion into the pot. During pre-season and today I have noticed that MB puts alot of air under his throws. This is not bad for touch passes and when a reciever gets good seperation. However Mark is not going to complete a "frozen rope" type pass. The fact that he is smart and knows how to manage a game makes up for the lack of zip on his passes. With MB at the helm this offense will be safe and efficent. This is not really good or bad in my opinion. We can and will win with this type of offense. I will say get use to lots of dump off passes and do not expect him to throw laser guided darts.. And to the people that think PR would have lost this game think about the following. How can anyone really know since he did not play? MB did a good job today, the defense looked awesome. We won folks, lets enjoy it and the many more wins that are soon to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I was one of the first here to predict - five or six weeks ago - that Brunell would start the season for us and Ramsey would be our starter by the end. I stand by that prediction. That being said, I'm not ready to throw dirt on Brunell's grave just yet. Remember that the Tampa defense is a Cover-2 zone, which is meant to prevent the deep pass. That fact, plus their ability to generate pass rush up front with only their D-line makes them tough to go deep on. And their fast LB's make it tough to throw underneath. That's not a slouchy defense in the least. We were fortunate that Portis busted a big play early because they made us earn everything after that point. So give Tampa credit, and recognize that in a game like this the best service that Brunell can do is not turn the ball over or make a stupid error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Brunell was simply awful. Only by the grace of God were 3 separate dead ducks he floated into coverage not picked off. 2 of those would have been out in the flats where the DB would have returned them for unimpeded TDs. He also literally handed the Bucs their only touchdown of the day by trying to make a handoff while falling to the ground, a play where a veteran should know you just take the loss deep in your own territory at that juncture of the game. But even his numerous mistakes, even though they didn't all haunt us, weren't his primary problem. And even his one alleged positive characteristic of veteran leadership he didn't demonstrate, despite the W. He was the primary reason that the Bucs could load up and hold Portis to 3 yards per carry over his next 28 touches, after the breakaway run. Tampa adjusted to the fact that he was inaccurate on anything deeper than 10-15 yards. They keyed on the fact that there was not velocity on his deep throws, and the knowledge that he wasn't even going to look vertical, because he can't. Coles, a superb pass catching H-back, and 2 other receivers were running free much of the day, but it was irrelevant as he couldn't reach them. And as Tampa was often stacking 8, and bringing 6-7 guys against the run, there were numerous times that Gardner and Coles were facing single coverage and soft zones. Brunell's fear of throwing the deep ball led to him continually checking down and throwing the dump off underneath - innumerable times throwing for less than half the yardage we needed on 3rd and long. He would settle for 3 yards on 3rd and 10. Brunell makes Portis an easy mark. He removes the fear of the devastating play action fakes we should be able to run off of Portis, with guys like Coles, Jacobs, even Gardner. We sacrificed receivers to give him incredible protection and time, and he still couldn't find open receivers and had a horrid completion% which was inflated by dump-offs and underneath looks on long yardage situations. Add in his errors of omission, commission, and near fatal mistakes that were dropped by opposing DBs, and he was a solid D performer. Yes he got the win, but not because he played like a savvy veteran, rather because our great defense + Tampa's inept offense = a game which could be won with terrible QB play, and 13-16 points (some created by defense giving us field position). The guy didn't direct a single legitimate drive for nearly 3 quarters of the game after Portis 1 gamebreaking run. Ramsey will be the answer... and Brunell will be our undoing if we stick with him into the heart of the schedule. I'm not sure there is a QB in the league with less left in his arm and overall QB skills than Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Geez. Tell us how you really feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Coles, a superb pass catching H-back, and 2 other receivers were running free much of the day, but it was irrelevant as he couldn't reach them. Interesting. Were you at the game? I could not determine how open the receivers were from the Fox coverage, but being there would have allowed for a better assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Let's give Mark a couple more games before we pull him, okay? It seems that all the Ramsey fans on this board have already completely forgotten how miserable Pat was in the preseason, missing wide open receivers and looking rattled against the most basic defensive formations. Brunell played fair at best today but there's a lot more to playing this game than having a cannon for an arm. I remember us letting another veteran with a weak arm go a couple years back. His name was Brad Johnson and he won a Superbowl for the Bucs one year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat~man Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 QBs arent only about accurate long ball passes and completions , he will grow with this offense , Gibbs is a difficult offense to run and brunell has only been with one team his career ...and also we focused on running the ball today and other than that fluke brunell did not turn the ball over now i love ramsey as well but if he can "hit" the receivers so well howcome he lost both pre-season games he started and he didnt "hit" the receivers in a Gibbs watered down offense ....hes just not ready yet but he will be ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Stormy Brunell was simply awful. Only by the grace of God were 3 separate dead ducks he floated into coverage not picked off. 2 of those would have been out in the flats where the DB would have returned them for unimpeded TDs. He also literally handed the Bucs their only touchdown of the day by trying to make a handoff while falling to the ground, a play where a veteran should know you just take the loss deep in your own territory at that juncture of the game. But even his numerous mistakes, even though they didn't all haunt us, weren't his primary problem. And even his one alleged positive characteristic of veteran leadership he didn't demonstrate, despite the W. He was the primary reason that the Bucs could load up and hold Portis to 3 yards per carry over his next 28 touches, after the breakaway run. Tampa adjusted to the fact that he was inaccurate on anything deeper than 10-15 yards. They keyed on the fact that there was not velocity on his deep throws, and the knowledge that he wasn't even going to look vertical, because he can't. Coles, a superb pass catching H-back, and 2 other receivers were running free much of the day, but it was irrelevant as he couldn't reach them. And as Tampa was often stacking 8, and bringing 6-7 guys against the run, there were numerous times that Gardner and Coles were facing single coverage and soft zones. Brunell's fear of throwing the deep ball led to him continually checking down and throwing the dump off underneath - innumerable times throwing for less than half the yardage we needed on 3rd and long. He would settle for 3 yards on 3rd and 10. Brunell makes Portis an easy mark. He removes the fear of the devastating play action fakes we should be able to run off of Portis, with guys like Coles, Jacobs, even Gardner. We sacrificed receivers to give him incredible protection and time, and he still couldn't find open receivers and had a horrid completion% which was inflated by dump-offs and underneath looks on long yardage situations. Add in his errors of omission, commission, and near fatal mistakes that were dropped by opposing DBs, and he was a solid D performer. Yes he got the win, but not because he played like a savvy veteran, rather because our great defense + Tampa's inept offense = a game which could be won with terrible QB play, and 13-16 points (some created by defense giving us field position). The guy didn't direct a single legitimate drive for nearly 3 quarters of the game after Portis 1 gamebreaking run. Ramsey will be the answer... and Brunell will be our undoing if we stick with him into the heart of the schedule. I'm not sure there is a QB in the league with less left in his arm and overall QB skills than Brunell. Are you usually this much of an a$$, or is today special? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peckerwood Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 nibbs, stormy: i would HATE to see what you guys have to say when we actually LOSE a game... sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by Stormy Brunell was simply awful. Only by the grace of God were 3 separate dead ducks he floated into coverage not picked off. 2 of those would have been out in the flats where the DB would have returned them for unimpeded TDs. He also literally handed the Bucs their only touchdown of the day by trying to make a handoff while falling to the ground, a play where a veteran should know you just take the loss deep in your own territory at that juncture of the game. But even his numerous mistakes, even though they didn't all haunt us, weren't his primary problem. And even his one alleged positive characteristic of veteran leadership he didn't demonstrate, despite the W. He was the primary reason that the Bucs could load up and hold Portis to 3 yards per carry over his next 28 touches, after the breakaway run. Tampa adjusted to the fact that he was inaccurate on anything deeper than 10-15 yards. They keyed on the fact that there was not velocity on his deep throws, and the knowledge that he wasn't even going to look vertical, because he can't. Coles, a superb pass catching H-back, and 2 other receivers were running free much of the day, but it was irrelevant as he couldn't reach them. And as Tampa was often stacking 8, and bringing 6-7 guys against the run, there were numerous times that Gardner and Coles were facing single coverage and soft zones. Brunell's fear of throwing the deep ball led to him continually checking down and throwing the dump off underneath - innumerable times throwing for less than half the yardage we needed on 3rd and long. He would settle for 3 yards on 3rd and 10. Brunell makes Portis an easy mark. He removes the fear of the devastating play action fakes we should be able to run off of Portis, with guys like Coles, Jacobs, even Gardner. We sacrificed receivers to give him incredible protection and time, and he still couldn't find open receivers and had a horrid completion% which was inflated by dump-offs and underneath looks on long yardage situations. Add in his errors of omission, commission, and near fatal mistakes that were dropped by opposing DBs, and he was a solid D performer. Yes he got the win, but not because he played like a savvy veteran, rather because our great defense + Tampa's inept offense = a game which could be won with terrible QB play, and 13-16 points (some created by defense giving us field position). The guy didn't direct a single legitimate drive for nearly 3 quarters of the game after Portis 1 gamebreaking run. Ramsey will be the answer... and Brunell will be our undoing if we stick with him into the heart of the schedule. I'm not sure there is a QB in the league with less left in his arm and overall QB skills than Brunell. From reading this you'd think we got throttled 64-0. Whatever happened to "In Gibbs we Trust"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peckerwood Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 on second thought... please do post when we lose, so we all know you're harmlessly ****ing at home, and not heading over to redskins park with a sniper rifle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qb18_200400 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 did he have any turnovers? i don't know how he can be our downfall after one game dude? plus he didn't make any horrible decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstimac Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I'm late to this post because I was out celebrating a WIN, and call me crazy but I liked the way we played. We controlled the game on offense and our defense was awesome. We didn't throw the ball a lot because we didn't need to. The "Dirtbags" played great and we moved the ball well on the ground. Why should Brunell throw a deep pass if there's no reason to? A win is a win, and it's not like the Buc's are the Arizona Cardinals. They are a solid team with a very fast defense. Ramsey makes me a lot more nervous than Brunell the way he holds the ball too long and keeps clutching it. Brunell atleast makes quick decisions and gets rid of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I loved the win. I've praised it elsewhere. I've lavished praise on our brilliant defensive coordinator today (and on guys like Bowen, M. Washington, Pierce etc...for exceptional games). I've praised Bugs for elevating our O-Line play by an immeasurable amount. I'm also not a guy who has carried a torch for Pat Ramsey (though I think he does fit the mold of the Rypien type QB who can really make the most of Gibbs desire to complement the running game, with big plays and play action bombs). However, I was there and saw just how horrible Brunell's reads were today. I saw how fortunate we were not to have other wobblers he threw be intercepted in the open field and returned for TDs. I saw the numerous times he missed our bigplay receivers running open against a D which was coming full force to stop the run, and his innumerable checks down to dump short yardage completions in situations where we needed much more for a 1st down. Here's a nice portrait, a few possessions after Portis broke his fantastic run, here's what Brunell put together. Over the span of 9 consecutive drives, Brunell led us to 8 Punts and his own Fumble. On those 9 drives, 7 of the drives lasted 4 plays or less, and produced 6 yards or less. That is incompetence defined. Had the Defense not given us field position in Tampa territory twice, we don't kick the FGs which gave us our 10th and 13th points. Aside from Portis' run, Brunell really never led us on a drive all game... and when we face a strong opposing Offense, even our great D isn't going to be able to pitch a shutout consistently. I don't believe this team can reach it's potential with the inherent weakness Brunell brings to the table. I'm sorry to state that on the day of a GREAT win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Dude, the reason you think Ramsey is purely asthetic. He has more zip on his passes and you only remember the times he was fortunate enough to thread the needle last season. You don't remember all the times that he forced the ball into double or triple coverage causing a crucial pick, or put too much mustard on a throw underneath causing an incompletion. Ramsey has the physical tools and I believe 100% that he is our QB of the future. He just needs to sharpen up his mental skills a little bit. He is not comfortable under center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Bottom line, Brunell led the team to a win. And its Brunell thats getting nitpicked to death here, not Ramsey. I've always thought it was amusing how beloved and perfect the backup/potential #2 QB saviour, until they actually have to play. No matter how many compelling 'facts' and 'assessments' are put forward here, the gist of the argument is that YOU know better than a 3 time SB winning head coach. Me thinks not. Gibbs isn't perfect. But he's a damn sight closer than we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.