HailRedskins.com- 'Cup of Schmoe'; fuel for the 'QB controversy' fire

[freakofthesouth]

From Hailredskins.com (some great points, comparisons, from one of the board owners...) great arguements make it postworthy:

CUP OF SCHMOE "Be Careful What You Wish For"

You want no interceptions? No problem. Mark Brunell can do that.

It’s funny, because I could have sworn that all the raging criticism about poor decisions and costly turnovers was focused on Patrick Ramsey. Yet, somehow, Brunell seems to be playing as if he had endured the past two weeks of media crucifixion. The former Jaguar spent the entire game against Cleveland throwing to his shortest possible receiving option, relying on the wicked jukes and deceptive speed of Walter Rasby and Chris Cooley to move the ball.

Look, Rasby’s tough as nails and Cooley will be a great possession guy for years to come. But Dante Hall they’re not.

The problem that has befallen the Redskins’ offense ever since the second drive against Tampa Bay is that defenses are stacking eight or nine men in the box to shut down Clinton Portis. “Well, there’s an easy way to fix that,” you say. “Go deep and make them pay.” Oh, if life were only that simple. Redskins fans were begging, pleading, praying for Mark Brunell to do just that against Cleveland. The result of that hard spiritual effort? A three-yard dump off on third and eight.

Again.

There’s a difference between smart play and overly cautious play, a difference that many ‘Skins fans are beginning to realize as the season wears on. Mark Brunell was brought in because of his veteran experience and leadership. His years of reading NFL defenses had given him the lightning-quick decision-making ability necessary to avoid costly mistakes and keep the ball in the offense’s hands. Unfortunately, in between reading those defenses, Brunell was getting beaten into the ground by them, yielding a quarterback who thinks a long bomb is something carried by a B-52.

This wouldn’t be much of a problem if the team were built just a bit differently. The defense is solid, much better than most thought it would be, but the offense is not built for a grind-it-out, run between the tackles kind of game. It has a deep wide receiving corps and an electrifying, home run-hitting running back, which should mean at least a half-dozen big plays every time the Redskins take the field. However, Mark Brunell is not making those big plays. He’s managing the ball to an absurd level, a level that only wins when the 2000 Ravens’ defense and Jamal Lewis are on the same team. They are not. The Redskins don’t need a Trent Dilfer, they need a Mark Rypien.

The school of thought in the pro-Brunell camp is that by avoiding turnovers and creating time-consuming drives, Washington will usually win. It’s a great theory. Makes perfect sense. The problem is that Brunell is going to such lengths to avoid turnovers that opposing defenses simply do not have to worry about two thirds of the field. Shut down the short game, and you shut down the Redskins. “But that’s not his fault,” say Brunell’s supporters. “Brunell’s game management would have us at 4-0 if the receivers consistently caught the ball and Portis stopped fumbling.” In other words, if absolutely nothing went wrong, Brunell would be winning games. Is that supposed to be some sort of accomplishment? A quarterback who only wins when no one else screws up isn’t much of a quarterback.

I personally believe that one of two things (or a combination of both) is causing Brunell to be so conservative with the ball. The first is that he simply cannot throw that far anymore. Period. His arm strength isn’t there anymore, so he keeps it within his physical limits. So far, he hasn’t exactly shown off a rocket arm, so this could very well be the case. The second possibility is that Brunell is unwilling to go deep. He’s scared. Perhaps because he knows his arm has lost some of that strength, perhaps because defenses are confusing him, perhaps because of so much focus on turnovers. Whatever the reason, the lefty isn’t even attempting to throw the ball down the field. Against Cleveland, he completed one long pass to Coles and attempted one to Gardner. That’s it. After Coles’ catch, the next-longest completion of the day was 13 yards to, you guessed it, Walter Rasby.

Oh, sure, he’s looked better in brief instances. The jump balls he kept heaving Rod Gardner’s way against Dallas worked well enough, but those came late in the second half when Dallas was playing a soft defense. Even with those throws, Brunell is ranked 26th in the league in yards per attempt. And the accuracy of this supposedly savvy veteran? He’s completing 55.6% of his passes, 34th in the league out of 35 QBs that have thrown 50 or more times. In case you’ve forgotten, there are only 32 teams in the entire NFL.

The fact is, not only is Mark Brunell not very good at this style of play, but it just flat-out is not winning ball games. The Redskins need a quarterback who not only can air it out, but will air it out on a regular basis. They need a quarterback who will take risks in order to move the ball down the field. They need a quarterback who will provide the offense with a touchdown, rather than a check-down.

In short, they need Patrick Ramsey.

“Hold up,” I hear the Brunellians say. “Ramsey’s a pick machine. Remember the game against the Giants?” Yes, yes, we’ve all been through this argument, and, to sum up what I demonstrated with stats last week, Ramsey is not, in fact, a pick machine. He hasn’t even thrown one interception per game. The “What have you done for me lately?” mentality has taken over those who label Ramsey a turnover-prone quarterback.

That’s not to say that he wouldn’t throw more picks than Mark Brunell. I’m almost entirely sure that he would. But that is the result of a style of play that does not take the safest option every single time. To take no risks on offense is to line up in the wishbone and run a halfback dive three times. By taking no risks, Brunell is protecting the ball, but he is only protecting it long enough to kick it away. He is the offensive equivalent of the prevent defense.

Ramsey’s aggressiveness will result in more wins for this team, not only because it result in more points, but because the Redskins are built to make up for Ramsey’s problems, not Brunell’s. Brunell has difficulty making big plays and stretching the defense. Our offense is unable to compensate for that. Ramsey, on the other hand, has no problem stretching the defense. He occasionally holds onto the ball too long, but so does Brunell. He isn’t one of the most accurate quarterbacks in the league, but Brunell has lost whatever ability he had in that department. He’s not very mobile, but age combined with injuries has left Brunell little better. The only argument left is that Ramsey throws more interceptions. That is something the rest of the team can compensate for if someone in burgundy and gold could just get in the end zone.

Do you know how many points the Giants scored in the second half of that disastrous game? Zero. None. Zilch. For all the gloom and doom Brunell’s supporters have brought up about that day, for all the times they have pointed to it as a clear example of why Ramsey should be on the bench, the fact is that the Giants did not score a single point off of those picks. The Redskins’ defense is good enough to handle a couple turnovers. It is not good enough to win a 13-10 ballgame.

Washington’s offense can look one of two ways the rest of the season. It can stick with Brunell, continue to stall 90% of the time, and give the ball away with punts instead of interceptions, or it can score five or six times a game and, every other week or so, yield a couple interceptions in the process. That’s what Ramsey will do. He’s a quarterback in the mold of Doug Williams and Mark Rypien, immobile men with cannons for arms. Mark Brunell is in the mold of Trent Dilfer, a guy who won by being smart and cautious. They’re different styles for different teams, but after watching the same thing happen three weeks in a row, it’s clear which one will work for the Redskins.

-Hailredskins.com

[Skins11]

Haven't finished reading, but this part made me bust out laughing:

"The former Jaguar spent the entire game against Cleveland throwing to his shortest possible receiving option, relying on the wicked jukes and deceptive speed of Walter Rasby and Chris Cooley to move the ball. "

[Skinsramazing]

you couldnt be more right reamsey is the quaterback gibbs needs one who can air out to make room for the run. gurantee if ramsey got in to air it out portis would have more yeards rushing

[Skins24]

Can't say I disagree with the article.

If Brunnell continues to do the same thing on Sunday...I'll be fully on the PR bandwagon (win or no win).

[freakofthesouth]

If the season begins a downward spiral of some sort, I hope that somewhere in there, we give Ramsey a start, and a chance to show what he can really do come gametime.

I feel like Gibbs is putting a great deal of emphasis on pure practice-players, which is the right thing to do. But there are certain players that have particular intangibles that may not be present in practice. For example, McCants is a great game-day player. I feel the same way about Ramsey, w/ his intangibles. For some reason, these folks just aren't playing, because they are being outshown in practices.

[sweepea436]

The article makes some pretty good points. If we lose our next couple, I don't see the harm in trying it out.

[bubba9497]

The question he seems to miss is are the WR open down the field???

In a MAX protect blocking scheme the field is not flooded with 3 OR 4 wr's, usually only two maybe only one. If the first 2 options are not open, what's a QB supposed to do??

[sweepea436]

The way Brunell is getting pounded, I don't think we're MAXing anything on our OL

[freakofthesouth]

Good point Bubba. I thought about how defenses can simply stack the box, even when we do pass. W/ only 2, maybe 3 WRs in a pass play, and max protect the forte, defenses don't lose anything by stacking the box, because that leaves 3 deep coverages on 2, sometimes 3 WRs.

The difference is this: Ramsey will take his shot at threading that ball in there w/ his strength and balls. Brunell, though, IMO, not particularly lacking in the armstrength position, is very gun-shy, when he really can't afford to be.

And that's the point of the article. Brunell is a game-manager, and won't make too many mistakes. While Ramsey will inevitably be more mistake-prone than Brunell, he will at the very least move the offense.

My point, Ramsey doens't need the WRs to be standing alone to have the moxy to make the throw.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by sweepea436

The way Brunell is getting pounded, I don't think we're MAXing anything on our OL

????? The OL gave up some sacks against the Cowboys (5) but Brunell was clean in the Tampa Game, and against the Browns (0 sacks) in fact at times Sunday Brunell had all day to find aWR. Since the TV viewer rarley gets to see the entire field it is hard to guess what is going on downfield, but my assumption is the WR and Brunell haven't developed the timing yet, and the WR aren't getting open downfield much.

[Destino]

He’s completing 55.6% of his passes, 34th in the league out of 35 QBs that have thrown 50 or more times. In case you’ve forgotten, there are only 32 teams in the entire NFL.

:doh:

Please tell me that isn't true.

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by sweepea436

The way Brunell is getting pounded, I don't think we're MAXing anything on our OL

I really don't think this is the case.

Is it 9 sacks in 4 games? I wouldn't say that's pounded.

We gave up 0 sacks last week. On the contrary, the beating that Ramsey took last season was a 'pounding'.

[apickmans]

wow. I caught myself nodding a lot while reading that piece. Ive been a fan of Ramsey from the beginning and when I found out about Brunnell I thought it would be good for Ramsey to sit out and learn from a good vet such as brunnell, but ive caught myself yelling at brunnell so many times especially when he stands in the pocket for what seems like forever with good pass protection and cannot find an open receiver. Sure Ramsey will try to force some big plays, sometimes they work and sometimes they wont, but when they do they will be setting up chances to score, a lot more with brunnell at the helm. Ramsey isnt afraid to go deep and I like his deep balls a lot more than Brunnell. I say give Brunnell one more chance, but at 1-4, i think its time for Ramsey to come on in for good.

[skins4eva]

I agree, at some point, I'd rather lose with Ramsey but at least see some points, then lose with Brunell and watch our offense deevolve

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by Destino

:doh:

Please tell me that isn't true.

It's true: there are 32 teams in the NFL. :laugh:

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by freakofthenorth

Good point Bubba. I thought about how defenses can simply stack the box, even when we do pass. W/ only 2, maybe 3 WRs in a pass play, and max protect the forte, defenses don't lose anything by stacking the box, because that leaves 3 deep coverages on 2, sometimes 3 WRs.

The difference is this: Ramsey will take his shot at threading that ball in there w/ his strength and balls. Brunell, though, IMO, not particularly lacking in the armstrength position, is very gun-shy, when he really can't afford to be.

And that's the point of the article. Brunell is a game-manager, and won't make too many mistakes. While Ramsey will inevitably be more mistake-prone than Brunell, he will at the very least move the offense.

My point, Ramsey doens't need the WRs to be standing alone to have the moxy to make the throw.

But Gibbs has said to Brunell he doesn't want him trying to thread the needle, if it's not open,look for the short pass, or throw it away.

Now not being fully comfortable with his WR, and their abilities, and the defensive schemes you mentioned, Brunell is going to take less risk at first... but things will improve. I love Ramsey, and want to see him play, but I trust Joe Gibbs decisions, and making knee jerk changes doesn't help a team after only 4 games.

[freakofthesouth]

Another good point Bubba...you're right in a sense that this team simply needs continuity, and not fluxuation. Sooner than later, we should see a turnaround.

Beyond that, Brunell production is directly related to the offense's inability as a whole to move the football. It's not necessarily his fault.

But.

If this offense continues to struggle w/ Brunell' lack of play-making, at what point do you consider another option behind center? I mean, does anyone here think that if Brunell leads us to an abysimal record, he will be leading this team next season? At what point do you groom for the future?

[Cool Hand Loki]

So we're supposed to plan on fumbling and drops as given parts of our performance each week, and therefore a risk-taking QB is a better fit? I'm not buying it. It's not like Favre is sitting on the sidlelines behind Brunell. I'm frustrated with the offense too, but I think the logic in the original post is a stretch.

[Darth Tater]

Some good points were made here. However, the writer made a bad assumption about the mistakes. That only if we'd played perfect we'd be 4-0. You do NOT have to negate all our mistakes to find we could be 4-0. For instance, against the Giants its take your pick of any one of 2 fumbles and a dropped TD (you could also make argument for a couple of other mistakes as options). In that game, we could have come out with 6 TOs and a myriad of other mistakes and still have won. The thing to remember is that Joe Gibbs teams don't usually win by the big play, they win by making fewer errors than their opponents (and most big plays come because your opponent screwed up anyway).

[Chokingdogs]

Originally posted by bubba9497

The question he seems to miss is are the WR open down the field???

In a MAX protect blocking scheme the field is not flooded with 3 OR 4 wr's, usually only two maybe only one. If the first 2 options are not open, what's a QB supposed to do??

they have been, every single game this year, ive seen it with my own eyes. the problem lies in the fact they are open on intermediate to deeper routes, the exact routes that brunell is "unable" to throw.

i couldnt agee more with that guys piece.

[Riggo-toni]

I so agree with this post. As for the WRs being open, I think they need to be much more open for Brunell (particularly downfield) to get it in there then they do for Ramsey. I give Brunell this much credit; he definitely understands his limitations.

Ramsey was so awful in the preseason, I thought Brunell deserved to start (though they both looked abysmal), but the Giant game actually convinced me he's a better fit. If I could change the outcome of just one play this year, I would have Gardner catch that easy TD pass he dropped. Ramsey would've finished w/ 2 TDs, only one or 2 INTs, we would've won, and he would likely have won the starting job.

[bird_1972]

If I didn't know any better, I would've thought this was Mr. McPimpin doing a cameo appearance on another site.

I have to say, this is one of the most eloquent and concise reviews of the QB dillemma Washington now faces. Although I agree with most of what he says, I still think Ramsey has a tendency to get sacked way more often. That said, if he were taught (on the job) to throw away the ball when nothing is there rather than holding onto it or forcing it into triple coverage, I think he may start to gain confidence.

Lets face it, Ramsey looked like a star last year until opposing teams started to blitz the crap out of him. He lead the team in 4th Q drives and showed poise and confidence. I don't have a problem having him sit behind a veteran, but not if the vet ain't getting the job done.

This week will be a litmus test. I wonder what Gibbs is thinking about this...

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by SkinsFan03

So we're supposed to plan on fumbling and drops as given parts of our performance each week, and therefore a risk-taking QB is a better fit? I'm not buying it. It's not like Favre is sitting on the sidlelines behind Brunell. I'm frustrated with the offense too, but I think the logic in the original post is a stretch.

So you think the reason we have lost is because of other players' drops, fumbles, etc.

That is most likely the case...

The point this article is making is that Brunell is too cautious to overcome any other player's mistakes, and that Ramsey could overcome them, w/ his gunslinger mentality

But, once those mistakes diminish from the team as a whole, we could be in better shape w/ Brunell leading the team.

[Skins26]

Its true, we need Ramsey.

People have mentioned that the Panthers took this exact offense to the superbowl last year, so it works. However, I dont know if everyone realized that when the Panthers passed, they REALLY passed if you know what I mean. When they did drop back to throw it, they made it worth their while, they threw it down the field, not little dinks and dunks.

What Ramsey needs to get better at is SOMETIMES throwing to the H Back, TE, or RB. But I have no doubt that if he comes in we will score more points, and win more games.

Some of you say, well are the receivers even open for Brunell, if they arent then the change wont make a difference. Well I beg to differ. I broke down Ramsey's performance in that Giants game closely, and I must say, the WR's were not open, he got the ball there anyways.

The TD pass to Portis that Ramsey made in that Giants game, was he open?? Hell no, he was almost double covered, but you cant put that ball in any better spot, if Portis didnt catch it, nobody would have, so it wasnt much of a risk, low risk/high reward kind of throw. Last year, the WR's were not open often, but Ramsey got it there anyways. The two TD passes that Ramsey made in the Seahawks game last year, two of the best i've ever seen, they were covered very well.

After that game I believe some Seahawks DB's were quoted as saying something about how it doesnt matter how good of coverage you have when Ramsey is back there b/c the ball comes so fast you dont have time to make a play on it. They cant turn their heads and make a play to knock it away.

The only thing that held Ramsey back last year (in his first year starting) was the blitz, he couldnt read it and get it out in time. But it looks to me like Gibbs is teaching him well, in preseason I saw him make a great read on a blitz and get the ball out perfectly, it was dropped though, but it was a great read. He read it a few times in the Giants game and got it out as well, if he has fixed that part of his game he may just be what the doctor ordered.

Gibbs wont pull Brunell though, too much respect, and Brunell isnt doing anything to get pulled. But Brunell is fragile, so maybe Ramsey will get a shot soon.

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by bird_1972

Lets face it, Ramsey looked like a star last year until opposing teams started to blitz the crap out of him. He lead the team in 4th Q drives and showed poise and confidence.

Ramsey could be really amazing. He displayed fantastic fight last season, despite his lack of a running threat, and flawed blocking schemes.

Think about this: What can Ramsey do w/:

-a running threat (CP)

-good protection schemes (JB)

-and an effective and proven mentor (MB)

Could be pretty amazing.