The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

joebagadonuts wrote:i think that most 'ramsey-lovers' here are simply saying that he deserves a fair shake at the job. if he plays crappy this year, i think you'll see most people here calling for campbell or someone else.

i also think that most 'brunnel-haters' feel that mark had his chance last year, and that while the offensive (!) shortcomings weren't all his fault, he certainly did his fair share.

amen! ramsey has not proven himself as a great QB, but he has proven that he deserves a shot to start the whole season. if he sucks it up, then we can put our hopes into campbell.

there is absolutely no point whatsoever in letting mark brunell play at this point. if we do, ramsey will be gone next year and you just KNOW that will end up biting us in the butt- he'll go off to some other team (with our luck, the cowboys) and turn into a very good QB.

the single most important thing in the 2005 season will be getting a final verdict on ramsey.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Oh really?? So Ramsey not being able to throw a deep ball wasn't his fault or his stupid-bad-timing interceptions weren't his fault either?

by "stupid bad-timing interceptions", you mean the one interception he threw against the eagles that lost us that game? (by the way, i am still adamant that replay proves it was NOT an interception... he didn't have control of the ball while any of his body was in bounds).

yes, that was a dumb play, a bad throw, at an extremely inopportune moment. but consider this- who got us into that position to win the game in the first place? RAMSEY. when brunell was playing, he would fumble the ball away and throw a pathetic INT long before the end of the game, and get us down by 14 points or so, making it impossible for us to even have a CHANCE to win the game at the end. ramsey gives us that chance.

...ramsey will be gone next year and you just KNOW that will end up biting us in the butt- he'll go off to some other team (with our luck, the cowboys) and turn into a very good QB.

We shouldn't let fear guide our decision making on an as yet unproven QB.

Ramsey should have a great year. He's in his last year and is hoping to FINALLY get paid.

Gibbs' Hog wrote:YOU'VE BEEN HAD

Okay, first you say this (among other things in that thread):

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Better? What are you smoking?

Kellen Winslow played lights out while at Miami (in a real conference).

I'm tired of these "Cooley" fans hyping him up as if he is the next Bavaro or Christiensen.

By the way, how sad is it that our leading touchdown receiver was an "H-Back"???? That just shows you how incompetent our receivers/passing game was last year.

Hopefully, Gibbs will keep him in to block a lot more and let our small but speedy receivers go deep.]

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13526&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40


Then, you say this:

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I would take Brunell on his worst day than an unproven Ramsey at this point. You admit Brunell is a good leader and has experience. That's all that needs to be said. I really don't think you people get it when Gibbs himself said that "we haven't seen the last of Brunell." Which tells me he will indeed play this upcoming season. So we had all better get used to it.

So you would take an unproven K2; but you refuse to take a so-called "unproven" Ramsey (who has actually PLAYED and WON GAMES in the NFL)???

Make up your mind man! Do players have to prove something in the league? Do college stats matter more, or less, than NFL stats? Does a guy who throws for 58 yards in a game deserve to lead a professional football team?



There's so many inconsitencies in these posts, I don't know what to think.

How many games has Brunell won vs. Ramsey? End of story.

College stats matter when you play in a real conference vs. real competition (not Tulane).

How about a guy that is "supposedly" better than the starter, coming in and throwing multi-interceptions? (Giants game). Oh wait, it wasn't his fault, the sky was too blue, the crowd annoyed him too much..........

Okay. End of story.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:

Gibbs' Hog wrote:YOU'VE BEEN HAD

Okay, first you say this (among other things in that thread):

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Better? What are you smoking?

Kellen Winslow played lights out while at Miami (in a real conference).

I'm tired of these "Cooley" fans hyping him up as if he is the next Bavaro or Christiensen.

By the way, how sad is it that our leading touchdown receiver was an "H-Back"???? That just shows you how incompetent our receivers/passing game was last year.

Hopefully, Gibbs will keep him in to block a lot more and let our small but speedy receivers go deep.]

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13526&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40


Then, you say this:

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I would take Brunell on his worst day than an unproven Ramsey at this point. You admit Brunell is a good leader and has experience. That's all that needs to be said. I really don't think you people get it when Gibbs himself said that "we haven't seen the last of Brunell." Which tells me he will indeed play this upcoming season. So we had all better get used to it.

So you would take an unproven K2; but you refuse to take a so-called "unproven" Ramsey (who has actually PLAYED and WON GAMES in the NFL)???

Make up your mind man! Do players have to prove something in the league? Do college stats matter more, or less, than NFL stats? Does a guy who throws for 58 yards in a game deserve to lead a professional football team?



There's so many inconsitencies in these posts, I don't know what to think.

How many games has Brunell won vs. Ramsey? End of story.

College stats matter when you play in a real conference vs. real competition (not Tulane).

How about a guy that is "supposedly" better than the starter, coming in and throwing multi-interceptions? (Giants game). Oh wait, it wasn't his fault, the sky was too blue, the crowd annoyed him too much..........

Back to the 1 game that Ramsey came off the bench with limited practice and NO playing time... not going back there, you should have watched the rest of the season like I've said before.

Gibbs' Hog it appears that you have busted our resident genius.... However I must defend SKINZ_DOMIN8 on this one.

He'd take KW2 over ey based on last years stats alone and of course he would want Mark leading the Redskins instead of Ramsey.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 thrives off the projected troubles of the Skins. And is very happy to share those projections with us

I wonder if we'll mis him during the 2005 season since there won't be much for him to thrive off (by week 8 it will have been the 3rd Gints game.... his got to let go sometime)

Back on the true topic of the post
If Gibbs had so much confidence in Brunell as a starter this year, why would he spend so much to get Campbell.
Brunell is locked in for the next 5 years if the Skins wanted to keep him, why would you move up into the 1st round to get a guy thats going to take time to develope?

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:How many games has Brunell won vs. Ramsey? End of story.

if every team took that approach, brunell would still be starting in jacksonville. and peyton manning would be holding a clipboard.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:How about a guy that is "supposedly" better than the starter, coming in and throwing multi-interceptions? (Giants game). Oh wait, it wasn't his fault, the sky was too blue, the crowd annoyed him too much..........

as opposed to multi-fumbles? is that any better?

1niksder wrote:Brunell is locked in for the next 5 years if the Skins wanted to keep him, why would you move up into the 1st round to get a guy thats going to take time to develope?

I thought "locking" up Brunell for so long was just a way of making his deal more cap friendly in the latter years, when he more than likely will have retired. I may be wrong.

As much as I like Brunell's current underdog/doghouse role on the depth chart, I don't foresee him playing out his contract with the Skins. Just a hunch.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

1niksder wrote:Brunell is locked in for the next 5 years if the Skins wanted to keep him, why would you move up into the 1st round to get a guy thats going to take time to develope?

I thought "locking" up Brunell for so long was just a way of making his deal more cap friendly in the latter years, when he more than likely will have retired. I may be wrong.

As much as I like Brunell's current underdog/doghouse role on the depth chart, I don't foresee him playing out his contract with the Skins. Just a hunch.

Mark's Cap hit thru 2010 I see him gone real soon

2005 = 3.433
2006 = 5.433
2007 = 6.633
2008 = 7.833
2009 = 9.033
2010 = 8.800

1niksder wrote:Mark's Cap hit thru 2010 I see him gone real soon

2005 = 3.433
2006 = 5.433
2007 = 6.633
2008 = 7.833
2009 = 9.033
2010 = 8.800

Bye, Mark!

Relating to the following comment "Mark's done extremely well. He's terrific as a leader." Don't get to excited. When a Driver or Football player is struggling JG will be positive and say good things to encourage his team members. This is his style, just keep that in mind.

its seems pretty obvious to me that brunell is undoubtedly the backup despite crappy play. i believe cambell will have a solid future with the skins, yet hes just not ready to adjust to the NFL competition or Gibbs' system just yet.

If people start hyping brunell again after last years debacle i think i might throw up

gay4pacman wrote:If people start hyping brunell again after last years debacle i think i might throw up

i second that.

Six months from now all your doubts and fears will be answered. Maybe, just MAYBE at the conclusion of the 05 season we can finally put an end to the conjecture.

No way will gibbs start brunell.I think gibbs is a man of his word.I can remember gibbs saying that if a qb gets the starting position than he is the starter until he proves otherwise.Just like last year gibbs gave brunell every chance in the world to get it going and he couldn't.Gibbs will give the same to ramsey this year and if ramsey doesn't peform, which I'm hoping he does for the sake of us all.Then the question will be for gibbs does he start the old fart or the new young gun.

As someone who was 10 feet away from Gibbs when he said it, I can assure you that there is no qb controversy. Unless Ramsey looses his right arm and can't figure out how to throw with his left, he will be THE quarterback.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I say this because you people love to give Ramsey every excuse but you bash Brunell despite the fact that not all of last year was his fault (sorry receivers, gibbs readjusting,)

Just what if Brunell does a "Rich Gannon" and leads the Redskins to wins...I bet you will all be hyping him up too.

Theres a difference. Brunells problem wasn't his reads. Brunell did a great job of picking the correct people to throw to. His problem was his arm. He's 1000 years old. The man was either injured or he has just lost it.

Ramseys problem is that he's be eff'ed by this team with the QB, Coaching, and scheme carousels. Look at Brady, Peyton, and McNabb they've been seated in consistency. They dont have to relearn mechanics every year from new people with new opinions and new plays. Ramsey has the arm, Brunell doesn't.

You can teach somenoe to make correct reads, you cannot teach someones muscle to make itself unhurt and or younger. Brunell is past his prime.

No offense to Ramsey, but I am not ruling out that Brunell has the better right arm. Not sure about the left.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I say this because you people love to give Ramsey every excuse but you bash Brunell despite the fact that not all of last year was his fault (sorry receivers, gibbs readjusting,)

Just what if Brunell does a "Rich Gannon" and leads the Redskins to wins...I bet you will all be hyping him up too.

Theres a difference. Brunells problem wasn't his reads. Brunell did a great job of picking the correct people to throw to. His problem was his arm. He's 1000 years old. The man was either injured or he has just lost it.

Ramseys problem is that he's be eff'ed by this team with the QB, Coaching, and scheme carousels. Look at Brady, Peyton, and McNabb they've been seated in consistency. They dont have to relearn mechanics every year from new people with new opinions and new plays. Ramsey has the arm, Brunell doesn't.

You can teach somenoe to make correct reads, you cannot teach someones muscle to make itself unhurt and or younger. Brunell is past his prime.

well said, CLL.

Skinz Domin* is Mark Brunell's agent...its true.

Ignore the All Hail Brunell posts from him. He obviously is thinking of the 60 year old Brunell that won games in Jacksonville and not the 86 year old noodle arm that we have on our roster.

The Hogster wrote:Skinz Domin* is Mark Brunell's agent...its true.

Ignore the All Hail Brunell posts from him. He obviously is thinking of the 60 year old Brunell that won games in Jacksonville and not the 86 year old noodle arm that we have on our roster.

good one brunnell is a senior citizen

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I say this because you people love to give Ramsey every excuse but you bash Brunell despite the fact that not all of last year was his fault (sorry receivers, gibbs readjusting,)

Just what if Brunell does a "Rich Gannon" and leads the Redskins to wins...I bet you will all be hyping him up too.

Theres a difference. Brunells problem wasn't his reads. Brunell did a great job of picking the correct people to throw to. His problem was his arm. He's 1000 years old. The man was either injured or he has just lost it.

Ramseys problem is that he's be eff'ed by this team with the QB, Coaching, and scheme carousels. Look at Brady, Peyton, and McNabb they've been seated in consistency. They dont have to relearn mechanics every year from new people with new opinions and new plays. Ramsey has the arm, Brunell doesn't.

You can teach somenoe to make correct reads, you cannot teach someones muscle to make itself unhurt and or younger. Brunell is past his prime.

For the millionth time, stop with the "consistency" excuse. Other qb's have adjusted Ramsey to this point has not. I hate this excuse. More proof you Ramsey-ites love giving him every excuse known to mankind. He better perform this year otherwise he is gone. He deserves to be the #1 qb for now-- but his leash is very short. And I am glad for that.

And you say he's been "effed" by this team?? Awwwwwww poor Patrick-baby. So you are in effect blaming the Redskins for your mancrush's "problems"? I didn't see Eli Manning or David Carr or Joey Harrington blame their team for their lack of success yet to date. I am glad you showed your true colors with that one. Yes, its never Ramsey's fault. Not the stupid interceptions, the extreme lack of accuracy, the lack of being able to hit an open, deep receiver. No, that's the team's fault. Typical Bandwagoner excuses.

p.s. Ramsey might have the "arm" (which doesn't matter a hill of crap) but Brunell has the wins.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:I say this because you people love to give Ramsey every excuse but you bash Brunell despite the fact that not all of last year was his fault (sorry receivers, gibbs readjusting,)

Just what if Brunell does a "Rich Gannon" and leads the Redskins to wins...I bet you will all be hyping him up too.

Theres a difference. Brunells problem wasn't his reads. Brunell did a great job of picking the correct people to throw to. His problem was his arm. He's 1000 years old. The man was either injured or he has just lost it.

Ramseys problem is that he's be eff'ed by this team with the QB, Coaching, and scheme carousels. Look at Brady, Peyton, and McNabb they've been seated in consistency. They dont have to relearn mechanics every year from new people with new opinions and new plays. Ramsey has the arm, Brunell doesn't.

You can teach somenoe to make correct reads, you cannot teach someones muscle to make itself unhurt and or younger. Brunell is past his prime.

For the millionth time, stop with the "consistency" excuse. Other qb's have adjusted Ramsey to this point has not. I hate this excuse. More proof you Ramsey-ites love giving him every excuse known to mankind. He better perform this year otherwise he is gone. He deserves to be the #1 qb for now-- but his leash is very short. And I am glad for that.

And you say he's been "effed" by this team?? Awwwwwww poor Patrick-baby. So you are in effect blaming the Redskins for your mancrush's "problems"? I didn't see Eli Manning or David Carr or Joey Harrington blame their team for their lack of success yet to date. I am glad you showed your true colors with that one. Yes, its never Ramsey's fault. Not the stupid interceptions, the extreme lack of accuracy, the lack of being able to hit an open, deep receiver. No, that's the team's fault. Typical Bandwagoner excuses.

p.s. Ramsey might have the "arm" (which doesn't matter a hill of crap) but Brunell has the wins.

Look man. I am not Ramsey lover...but Brunell?? It would be different if you were criticizing Ramsey in favor of someone who played BETTER, but Brunell played leaps and bounds worse. I take it you were not at any games, and only saw the limited screen on TV.

I sit near the goal post, and when Brunell was in there, he basically operated with a half of a field. He would always run out to his left when he felt any pressure. We would only have two receivers out on routes, and he did not have the arm strength to throw across his body. Sometimes he tried and threw an interception.

Most of the time the guy threw the ball into the dirt or fumbled. He was the LOWEST RATED STARTING QB in the league. He threw for 60 yards or less more than once.

Give it up. You sound ridiculous by degrading Ramsey to make Brunell look good. Everything you say about Ramsey can be said 12 times for Brunell so what is your point??

I am not convinced that Ramsey is the guy for this team, and I was glad we drafted Campbell. But Brunell is the armpit of the QB position...get off his jock.

You keep making that "Brunell has the wins argument"??? Well so does Terry Bradshaw, and Joe Namath, BUT THEIR OLD and hances are if they played for the Skins, they would be just like Brunell, the lowest rated passer. As a matter of fact, Terry at 60 years old could outplay what Brunell did last year.

Not defending Brunell but did you guys not question the choice to bring him in any way it use obvious he was past his prime when we paid millions to sign him. I mean after all he was replaced by Leftwich a kid that has true grit and determination but is not destain for greatness. Is it too taboo to talk about Synder and some of his off-season signings?? Fuss if you must but this is the guy who thought it a good idea to sign Bruce Smith and let us not forget about our "Prime Time" disaster.

ShortDawg wrote:Not defending Brunell but did you guys not question the choice to bring him in any way it use obvious he was past his prime when we paid millions to sign him. I mean after all he was replaced by Leftwich a kid that has true grit and determination but is not destain for greatness. Is it too taboo to talk about Synder and some of his off-season signings?? Fuss if you must but this is the guy who thought it a good idea to sign Bruce Smith and let us not forget about our "Prime Time" disaster.

Bruce and TAFKAPT I'll give you, but Brunell was all Gibbs.

Gibbs based is choice of Mark on old game film due to the fact that he hadn't played in a year. Gibbs wasn't the only person/team that was after him so he did what he had to do to get him before he hit the free agency market. To date it appears to have been a bad move but hindsight is 20/20. Other than Mark and Barrows I have know complaints about the player brought in since Gibbs returned