freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 When I first heard the news yesterday from Gibbs how Brunell would be the starter w/o question, a few thoughts went through my mind, w/ one standing out in particular... WTF? Why? My God, this man has played terribly. Just awfully. I then began to ponder Gibbs' conviction and near stubbornness on this issue. How could he possibly be thinking this? And then it hit me, like a brick. Well, sorta. Gibbs has taken the first step in restoring something this team has not has for years: Continuity. As fans, we have been conditioned for the past decade or so to completely change a situation if it's not working. Dan Snyder, and his accompanying Snyderia (a terrible condition!) has brainwashed us all into thinking that a quick, easy solution is just within reach. IMO, it is this type of thinking that has made this team as terrible as it has become. The statement and accompanying gesture that Gibbs made yesterday at that press conference showed quite a bit to his players- that he beleives in them; that they are the answer; that they are capable. He basically empowered them, and endorsed them, by completely supporting his offensive leader in his darkest hour. This type of charachter can define a franchise. Now, don't get me wrong...I totally want Pat Ramsey in. But I also realize that I know very little compared to what Joe Gibbs thinks, and this recent, simple gesture of standing behind his players promotes positivity, and establishes a sense of a base, or foundation, if you will, for continuity within a team. I know many will not agree w/ me here; I am actually comtradicting myself a little. But, trying to look at this objectively, without focusing on the specific notion that Brunell is terrible for this team, Gibbs came out, and publically stuck by his players, and took the first steps in creating an environment that encompasses the single most important intangible found in winning teams- Continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I would agree somewhat, but as a body of fans, the Redskins fans have ALWAYS wanted the head of a QB who is not playing well. I mean that started way back with Jurgenson/Kilmer/Theissman. You can't fault the fans for screaming and yelling at an underperforming QB, however, it is ultimately up to the coach to make the final decision based on his own preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 actually I hadnt thought about that. Your probably right this might not be so much of a perfomance based decision as a stability issue. GOOD POINT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Yeah. I said this yesterday in this thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76773&highlight=continuity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aluadan Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 It would be one thing if Brunell actually looked like he was capable of doing anything to help win the game but he hasn't. I personally feel that losing and Brunell will continue to go hand-in-hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Your post defines why everyone calling for Brunnell's head needs to give the guy a break, and time. New system, new players, new coaches tinkering with new system and new players. Not to mention I we lost our best offensive player IMO for the year at the HOF game. I never expected our offense to skyrocket and envisioned our team getting wins in the fashion we did against Tampa. The answer to our offensive woes is continuity, everyone playing together to the point they know each other and what each other expects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Good post. I agree with you. If this same team had been together for a year or two and our offense was performing this way, then I think Gibbs might have made a change at QB. He's done so in the past, but the fact that we're all new to this, makes me think that you're onto something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins0128 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 So for the sake of continuity... How long do you leave Brunell in if he continues to play this way? At what point in time does the defense get fed up with the offenses poor play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 This is the only possible reason I can see for leaving him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by NoCalMike I would agree somewhat, but as a body of fans, the Redskins fans have ALWAYS wanted the head of a QB who is not playing well. I mean that started way back with Jurgenson/Kilmer/Theissman. You can't fault the fans for screaming and yelling at an underperforming QB, however, it is ultimately up to the coach to make the final decision based on his own preferences. Right on. Yeah, I'm not trying to fault the fans in any way...I actually want to help everyone try and see the rationale here, and help to come to terms w/ it. The QB is the one player who will take the brunt of the offensive troubles, but what Gibbs is eluding to is that it is the enitre unit, not one player. It's not Brunell, it's the whole offense, and even he takes the blame for that. The point is, though this seems like a terrible thing, leaving in Brunell, it might be just the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey66 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I like this post. I would also add that Gibbs said he is "interested" to see who can step up and get the team out of this mess. Let's see who can step up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Brunell isn't really losing games for us, he's just not winning them. I agree that continuity probably is one of the mitigating circumstances in the whole decision making process but as long as Brunell doesn't outright lose a game for us I don't see him making a swtich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by KevinthePRF Your post defines why everyone calling for Brunnell's head needs to give the guy a break, and time. I have to say, it was tough to write, because I wanted to give Brunell the boot. But, from Gibbs' decision, my eyes are opened to the idea that it's not so much Brunell, as it is the offense as a whole. Now, if this persists throughout the entire season, things will be different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Good post, tough call. Brunell is obviously floundering out there. As a coach that has his QBs confidence in mind do you leave him out there to the point where he goes into each game thinking "...at what point am I going to loose this one?". I have no answer, I am glad that I am not in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I'd rather have continuity with Ramsey at QB for the next 5 years (and beyond) than have it just this one, possibly two, years... But that's just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 There is some truth to what you posted about continuity. But it may also be that Ramsey doesn't look that great in practice yet, and Gibbs knows that he is not ready with this new offense. After all we don't really know what goes on behind the scenes and in practice. But if the Skins are 1-5 at the bye, with playoff hopes really gone, it will no longer make sense to continue to start Brunell. Ramsey needs the experience if he is to further develop. Another point I made on a post months ago -- although personally I had high expectations for this team at the time -- was that there may be serious problems at the beginning because of the high turnover in team personnel and all the new players learning the new systems. Gibbs brought in 28 new players on the roster since last year. In the past his teams would only have a turnover of about 25% or 15 new players. Anytime you bring in a 50% turnover or more, you are usually asking for trouble. Schottenheimer brought in 30 new players and started out 0-5. Spurrier brought in 20-25 new players in each year he was the head coach. John Gruden brought in about 25 new players for Tampa Bay, and now they are also 1-4 on the year. George Allen who brought in 31 new players in his first season as the Redskins HC, was the only HC I'm aware of who could handle the turnover. He had the Redskins in the playoffs his first season as HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Nice observation. If we can somehow sting a few wins together than your point is validated; however, what happens if we continue to lose and see no visible signs of improvement week in and week out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds' Continuity for continuity's sake is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by Skins24 I'd rather have continuity with Ramsey at QB for the next 5 years (and beyond) than have it just this one, possibly two, years... But that's just me... Now, this is a good point too. I think Gibbs' logic is that he simply wants to show his players this year that he is behind them. While I don't fully agree w/ the idea of leaving in Brunell, I do applaud his resolve w/ his initial QB decision. He wants to show that when the chips are down, the team will not come unglued under him. Now, maybe next year, if Brunell plays terribly late into the season, we can expect to see Ramsey take the reigns then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I'm not so sure it's Brunell that is the problem. The guy doesn't really make any mistakes. He's not setting the field on fire, but he's making the right decisions with the ball. Dropped passes, a weak O-line, poor running game, and a vanilla scheme are the teams problems, IMHO. I said the other day that Mark is just not doing anything "offensive." By thia I mean he's not pushing the ball downfield in big chunks. However, he's not exactly "handing the game over" to other teams. If gets protected he'll shine, just like any QB. I want Ramsey to start, however, because eventually that's the way it's going to be so why not get his reps in NOW? We could have gone 1-4 with a learning Patrick Ramsey instead of an aging Mark Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Perhaps the problem this team is struggling (similar to '81) is that both QB's are still learning the system. The difference between Brunell and Ramsey (as demonstrated against the Giants) is that Brunell will pull the ball down or throw it out of bounds if he's confused or something isn't there. Ramsey has demonstrated that he gets impatient and forces things. I think Gibbs would rather have a QB who doesn't make mistakes at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Good post,...a QB can be made to play even worse looking over his shoulder, lets players know that JG is behind them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Nice post!!! Short term stinkin, long term thinkin;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by inmate running the asylum Anytime you bring in a 50% turnover or more, you are usually asking for trouble. Schottenheimer brought in 30 new players and started out 0-5. Spurrier brought in 20-25 new players in each year he was the head coach. John Gruden brought in about 25 new players for Tampa Bay, and now they are also 1-4 on the year. I completely agree. We tend to compare Gibbs' season w/ the likes of Bill Parcells, and even Couglin, to some extent. However, there success is directly related to the level of player continuity there. In each case, there was little turnover. This can answer the other points brought up about if Brunell is terrible the whole year, then what? I am almost certain that Brunell's performance will improve dramatically as the season progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by inmate running the asylum Gibbs brought in 28 new players on the roster since last year. In the past his teams would only have a turnover of about 25% or 15 new players. Anytime you bring in a 50% turnover or more, you are usually asking for trouble. I think this is definitely one of the hugest problems. By chance, does anyone know how much turnover each of the Gibbs' teams had each year, to compare with their record those years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.