More people for the bench Brunell bandwagon?

[portisizzle]

I did not take the time to read the whole thread, but count me in on the whole Ramsey bandwagon thingy.

[Stormy]

Teams are visibly giving us the underneath, curl, safety routes in exchange for a.) the ability of keeping our receivers in front of them b.) to keep 8 stacked in the box to limit Portis and c.) to shorten the field... Brunell concedes and plays into the hands of opposing defenses on almost every drive/down. He's always looking for the safe throw (i.e. 4 yards on 3rd and 7, throwing the 6 yard curl that's open rather than trying to look at the guy running a deep post who is equally open etc...). You'd think with those tactics, he'd atleast inflate/pad his stats and be a 60% passer, but even that's not the case. This approach won't keep any defense honest, won't allow the offense to make big plays or engage in sustained drives, and will negatively impact the running game as well. Any defense will gladly concede the underneath/flats to a guy with an iffy completion% in exchange for not being killed by the run, not giving up big plays, not having to commit to double coverage on deep routes/the perimeter. And so far, 4 pretty bad teams have done so, and had great success as a result.

It won't work with Brunell... we said so before the start of the year; we said so after we Won the first game; And it continues to be the case after Week 4, throughout he easiest part of our schedule.

[Skins11]

Our receivers did not drop many balls today. A lot of the balls they did catch, or tried to catch, were way over their heads. Why should our guys be going up for the jump ball for short passes underneath the coverage? That stuff was reminiscent of Tim Hasselbeck....

It just seems that Brunell does not fit the offense as it stands today. If he sticks with Brunell, maybe Gibbs will change it. But that much is obvious, since after all the offense is struggling.

[Ghost of]

Stormy

These people won't listen.

I've been watching football since I was 5. I JUST MIGHT know something, even if it's more of an instinctive feel.

For all the talk about how Tom Brady "doesnt have a great arm" he's confident throwing deep and DOES HAVE an arm. It's just not a Pat Ramsey-like arm.

[MumboSauce]

I thought you were dogging Brunell a little too early Ghost...at first..but I'm starting to see it, each week is pretty evident.

Id take Ramsey's growing pains 2 turnovers a game or so, "if" and i guess that's the big if....he can get scoring drives and get 2-3 touchdowns or at least put the O in scoring position more often, which I think he can do if he can play a tad bit smarter and throw the ball away when nothing is there.

I also noticed by brunell throwing short stuff, short curls, dinks and dumps to TE and short wr routes, and the O being so ultra conservative, when we dont move the ball we end up punting deep in our own territory which gives the opposing teams offense good field position every time..vs Ramsey possibly getting the ball down field and if we have to punt at least the other team has alot more work cut out for them yardage wise to score.

The running game has to get going better too..and stretching the D and keeping the D/ saftey's etc honest would precipitate that.

[Highway66]

Ramsey's performance in nwe york will keep me off the "start Ramsy" wagon for the forseeable future

[Ghost of]

Just saw a highlight of Kurt Warner scrambling for what was almost a TD(after his scramble last week.) He started his slide before he got in the end zone so they didn't count it, but he showed some mobility.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Teams are visibly giving us the underneath, curl, safety routes in exchange for a.) the ability of keeping our receivers in front of them b.) to keep 8 stacked in the box to limit Portis and c.) to shorten the field... Brunell concedes and plays into the hands of opposing defenses on almost every drive/down. He's always looking for the safe throw (i.e. 4 yards on 3rd and 7, throwing the 6 yard curl that's open rather than trying to look at the guy running a deep post who is equally open etc...).

This makes no sense. You claim that defenses are giving up the underneath/short-passing game in order to keep our receivers in front of them (and, if I'm not mistaken, your claims "a" and "c" are identical). Such an assertion in itself doesn't jibe well with Ghost's assertion that Brunell lacks the arm to make the deep throws.

But you then go further and lambast Brunell for attempting those short throws that you yourself are claiming the defense is GIVING us. If they're giving it to us, we should be taking it. If they're defending the short game because Brunell can't throw deep, then that's completely contradictory to what you said.

I think you might need to get your story straight.

[The Sisko]

Beyond playing the QB he thinks is best, I think Gibbs may be trying to "save" Ramsey from the fans. We Skins fans can be a pretty impatient group and I think Gibbs wants to protect him from the local media/fans before starting him.

[codeorama]

Wow... this whole thread is hilarious.

Joe Gibbs, the guy everyone here has wanted and dreamed about finally returns, but a bunch of web coaches know that Ramsey is the answer, that Gibbs is just plain wrong about preferring Brunell.

Mark my words, NO COACH can ever please the fans here. If the Skins fans can't be satisfied with Gibbs and his decisions, why would any coach EVER want to coach here.

[Ghost of]

Code

And was Gibbs right on Desmond Howard?

Just because Gibbs thinks Mark is going to manage a game better doesn't mean he doesn't have doubts in his own mind about a QB that CANNOT MOVE THE CHAINS.

Brunell lobs up balls, even 12 yards downfield. That fumble by Coles was as much his fault as anyone else's. Why does he keep throwing up jump balls? Is he afraid to throw it low because the DB will break on it? Or is he just inaccurate right now? This ain't Michigan with Braylon Edwards jumping for balls all the damn time. That works in college(to an extent) but not in the pros.

So basically, code, the rule for the future is don't go counter to Joe Gibbs, PERIOD. EVER. Just sit there and not even chat on Extremeskins unless it's in praise of Joe.

Do I have it right?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Code

And was Gibbs right on Desmond Howard?

Just because Gibbs thinks Mark is going to manage a game better doesn't mean he doesn't have doubts in his own mind about a QB that CANNOT MOVE THE CHAINS.

Brunell lobs up balls, even 12 yards downfield. That fumble by Coles was as much his fault as anyone else's. Why does he keep throwing up jump balls? Is he afraid to throw it low because the DB will break on it? Or is he just inaccurate right now? This ain't Michigan with Braylon Edwards jumping for balls all the damn time. That works in college(to an extent) but not in the pros.

So basically, code, the rule for the future is don't go counter to Joe Gibbs, PERIOD. EVER. Just sit there and not even chat on Extremeskins unless it's in praise of Joe.

Do I have it right?

Based on the other Gibbs bashing threads, no, he wasn't responsible for Howard, the GM was.

I'm not saying that no one can say anything, all I'm saying is that it amazes me that any of us think that we know more.

For all you know, Ramsey could look like total crap on the practice field. But you nor I are at practice.

Once Ramsey gets in the lineup, I'm 100% behind him, just as I'm 100% behind Brunell now. I've been consistant since I've been on Extremeskins, I'm in support of the coach and his decisions. It's way too early to question Gibbs.

[Ghost of]

That's fine, Code.

I just don't see a big difference between a final acknowledgment of what's wrong by sitting Mark and what I'm doing. What if Pat comes in against the BEars(or whoever we play after the Ravens?) Doesn't that mean that basically this thread(or some points in it, at least) was on target?

Ooh, one week later? And since I've been saying it since Tampa(though I did agree that Mark should be given a chance to improve) shouldn't that merely be seen as evidence of my foresight on this matter? The same flaws many of us have been pointing to REMAIN problems.

Ramsey threw 3 INTs against the Giants but he started off down 20-7. He also threw for 140 yards or so on fewer completions. He's just more of a threat with his arm but he PROVED LAST YEAR against NEw England that he could manage a game. He threw no picks while Brady threw two.

Give the FUTURE a chance. We're going nowhere with Mark. If we go 1-6, will you still be cool with Mark at QB if it's the offense that remains a problem, even while Mark gets good protection?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

That's fine, Code.

I just don't see a big difference between a final acknowledgment of what's wrong by sitting Mark and what I'm doing. What if Pat comes in against the BEars(or whoever we play after the Ravens?) Doesn't that mean that basically this thread(or some points in it, at least) was on target?

Ooh, one week later? And since I've been saying it since Tampa(though I did agree that Mark should be given a chance to improve) shouldn't that merely be seen as evidence of my foresight on this matter? The same flaws many of us have been pointing to REMAIN problems.

Ramsey threw 3 INTs against the Giants but he started off down 20-7. He also threw for 140 yards or so on fewer completions. He's just more of a threat with his arm but he PROVED LAST YEAR against NEw England that he could manage a game. He threw no picks while Brady threw two.

Give the FUTURE a chance. We're going nowhere with Mark. If we go 1-6, will you still be cool with Mark at QB if it's the offense that remains a problem, even while Mark gets good protection?

IMO, if we are out of the playoff hunt, Ramsey should 100% be playing because he is more of the future than Brunell.

For now, I honestly don't care. If Gibbs plays Hasslebeck, that's fine by me. I see all the upside of Ramsey, but I also remember him holding the ball way too long.

Spurrier got alot of blame for a ton of stuff that was Ramsey's fault.

I just figured that most people here would be a little more patient with Gibbs considering the past.

That's all.

[Ghost of]

OK, cool.

Actually, I stated in that one thread that I think Brunell should continue to start because I THOUGHT I'd see improvement from HIM. We can talk about dropped balls all we want, but Brunell can't continue to hurl balls 11 feet in the air and expect them to come down with all of them. And it's not like all NFL teams don't drop balls, they do.

We're not good enough to overcome his limitations, it seems to me. Ramsey is perfect for the two-man pass route because he can thread the needle or throw it deep after the target beats the CB and FS.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

We're not good enough to overcome his limitations, it seems to me. Ramsey is perfect for the two-man pass route because he can thread the needle or throw it deep after the target beats the CB and FS.

You also have to see that our OL is not good enough to overcome Patick's limitations, you have to play the person who gives you the best chance of winning, and right now the way our OL is playing it is Brunell.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

OK, cool.

Actually, I stated in that one thread that I think Brunell should continue to start because I THOUGHT I'd see improvement from HIM. We can talk about dropped balls all we want, but Brunell can't continue to hurl balls 11 feet in the air and expect them to come down with all of them. And it's not like all NFL teams don't drop balls, they do.

We're not good enough to overcome his limitations, it seems to me. Ramsey is perfect for the two-man pass route because he can thread the needle or throw it deep after the target beats the CB and FS.

I don't know this for a fact, but the TV announcers kept saying that those severely over thrown balls were "throwaways" that Gibbs told Brunell to do.

I'd love to see overhead shots of the game to see if there were receivers open or not.

[Lowghost]

I have been in Ramsey's corner since we drafted him, but if Gibbs thinks Brunell should be starting, Brunell should be the man.

:2cents:

[illone]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Ooh, one week later? And since I've been saying it since Tampa(though I did agree that Mark should be given a chance to improve) shouldn't that merely be seen as evidence of my foresight on this matter? The same flaws many of us have been pointing to REMAIN problems.

The thing is, we may never see Ramsey in there until next year. As long as Brunell stays healthy, I don't see Gibbs making the switch. In Gibbs eyes Brunell is his guy.

You can keep shouting on the mountain top for Ramsey, then when he gets in there next year you can say "I was right all along":laugh:

Really though, how long do we have to hear about your aversion of Brunell?

I know that you and I have something in common. Once our entire offense starts clicking things will start working and the attitudes around here will simmer down. Part of the real problem is our line. We have to control the line of scrimmage. Proof of that was the shotty protection yesterday. We had glimmers of improvement and good protetion on some plays, then horrible on others. Our running attack was the worst it's been all year, and not simply because our passing game was weak.

I agree with code here, Gibbs picks Brunell therefore I trust the pick.