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

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:37 pm**

No, he had it right. It's an accepted colloquialism.
Not quite making fart noises with your mouth, but along those lines.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:39 pm**

GoSkins wrote:I don't want to sound anal, but MB will be 36 this September.

That's really anal of you to say that.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:49 pm**

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:These are the same arguments used against Brunell last offseason. He's way too old, he won't hold up, he can't produce.

In my opinion, the arguments were much stronger before this past season. Brunell is one year older: it's not the end of the world.

And, did we seriously just have a debate as to whether or not Gibbs is a man of his word?

Dear Fan,

The arguments against Brunell last year were correct. He didn't hold up, he did get hurt, and he was slipping fast before he got hurt. He was tired.

In relation to Ramsey, Gibbs did not keep his word. He was not given a fair shot. Period. That's just a fact. He was not beaten out for the job. Brunell did not play better than Ramsey in the first game, but worse. Also, Brunell didn't even play against first class competition in the pre-season.
On top of that, Gibbs held back Ramsey in each of the pre-season games because he didn't want to anyone to see his offense, and Ramsey had already clearly beaten out Brunell in the past season.
It is impossible to say that Gibbs was straight with Ramsey. He told Ramsey he was the QB of the future then drafted Campbell, then told Ramsey he was the QB of O5 and then jerked him for no cause. Facts are facts.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:03 pm**

These are the same arguments used against Brunell last offseason. He's way too old, he won't hold up, he can't produce.

Those arguments were right on though. Brunell did play very well at the begining of the season but as the season wore on his level of play began decreasing and after his injury he was mostly innefective. He still has some gas left in his tank but I think he is pretty much a very good backup at this point in his career. JC needs to get experience at some point so why not play him now instead of simply postponing the inevitable first year starter struggles.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:11 pm**

I just have to think that Gibbs will put in the guy he thinks gives the team the best chance to win and if that works out for us then Gibbs will get the credit BUT if it does not then it will obviously be the players fault :shock:

1 He's too old
2 He's never been given a chance here!!
3 He's not ready to play yet.

I'm hognosticating Brunell with Ramsey backing him up and Campbell ends up the starter by the time the playoffs come around!!

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:05 pm**

SkinsJock wrote:I just have to think that Gibbs will put in the guy he thinks gives the team the best chance to win and if that works out for us then Gibbs will get the credit BUT if it does not then it will obviously be the players fault

1 He's too old
2 He's never been given a chance here!!
3 He's not ready to play yet.

I'm hognosticating Brunell with Ramsey backing him up and Campbell ends up the starter by the time the playoffs come around!!

Not a bad hognostication but will Gibbs rest Brunell when he clearly needs to sit-- somehow, I doubt it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:18 pm**

crazyhorse1 wrote:In relation to Ramsey, Gibbs did not keep his word. He was not given a fair shot. Period. That's just a fact. He was not beaten out for the job.

I may be wrong but I remeber Brunell playing better than Ramsey during the preseason. I also remeber Brunell looking better during training camp.

Its my opinion that it doesn't matter what defense Brunell was playing against in preseason. I dont feel that his throwing mechanics, velocity, timing or touch on the ball are effected by the defense. His reading of the defense, pressure and stuff like that is.

I'll say this much. Ramsey may not have lost the job but he did not win it. Ramsey didn't prove beyond a ressonable doubt that he deserved the spot. It was a question mark up till the very 1st game.

Gibbs went with brains and not brawn. Ramsey would have lasted the season, his arm would have never tired but I seriously have my doubts that he would have led the team like Brunell did.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:11 pm**

SkinzCanes wrote:
These are the same arguments used against Brunell last offseason. He's way too old, he won't hold up, he can't produce.

Those arguments were right on though. Brunell did play very well at the begining of the season but as the season wore on his level of play began decreasing and after his injury he was mostly innefective. He still has some gas left in his tank but I think he is pretty much a very good backup at this point in his career. JC needs to get experience at some point so why not play him now instead of simply postponing the inevitable first year starter struggles.

I do agree that his injury affected his play, but I disagree that this was the only problem. Brunell wasn't really running out of speed before his injury (the injury happened in a game where he led a comeback against the Giants, if you will remember), and after the injury he had a far less effective offense surrounding him. Brunell didn't run out of gas alone; our entire team was running out of gas and injured coming into the playoffs. Combine Brunell's troubles with a lack of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th receiver(!), a Cool

ey that was well covered by teams, and an offensive line that was suffering, and then you have the full picture. I still don't buy the "Brunell didn't hold up" line of thinking.

However, I will agree with CLL that, in an ideal world, Brunell would be our backup. Until we have a better solution (when Campbell matures), Mark gives us the best shot at winning week in, week out.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:44 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I may be wrong but I remeber Brunell playing better than Ramsey during the preseason. I also remeber Brunell looking better during training camp.

I seem to have that same memory :hmm:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Its my opinion that it doesn't matter what defense Brunell was playing against in preseason. I dont feel that his throwing mechanics, velocity, timing or touch on the ball are effected by the defense. His reading of the defense, pressure and stuff like that is.

Yeah but did Gibbs let him run the full offense? Considering it is constantly pointed out that Patrick ran a waterdown/vanilla offense. Mark had to have the full playbook against all those backuos. Right?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'll say this much. Ramsey may not have lost the job but he did not win it. Ramsey didn't prove beyond a ressonable doubt that he deserved the spot. It was a question mark up till the very 1st game.

Ramsey did lose the job, due to injury (most fell that shouldn't happen). When Brunell replaced him in game 1 the Redskins had a different offense. There was no reason to reinsert Ramsey based on what Mark was doing and what Patrick had done (with the same unit).

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Gibbs went with brains and not brawn. Ramsey would have lasted the season, his arm would have never tired but I seriously have my doubts that he would have led the team like Brunell did.

I agree with this, what you forget to mention is... They'd be calling Gibbs a offensive guru again. Patrick would have average 300 yards a game. And the Washington Redskins would have watched the 2005 NFL playoff from the same spot they had in recent years (home)

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:16 am**

1niksder wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I may be wrong but I remeber Brunell playing better than Ramsey during the preseason. I also remeber Brunell looking better during training camp.

I seem to have that same memory

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Its my opinion that it doesn't matter what defense Brunell was playing against in preseason. I dont feel that his throwing mechanics, velocity, timing or touch on the ball are effected by the defense. His reading of the defense, pressure and stuff like that is.

Of course Brunell looked better than Ramsey in the pre-season. Brunell was playing against 2nd stringers and guys about to be cut. His receivers had separation and he wasn't rushed. Makes a difference, Chris, Ask anybody. Besides, Gibbs had the first string under wraps, as always in pre-season, I remember reading he let them run about 5-7 plays the first 2 games and after that got them off the field as soon as possible. The "stars" of the pre-season were all second stringers or lower, like Nemo and that linebacker whose name I've forgotten, and Farris, etc.
Yeah but did Gibbs let him run the full offense? Considering it is constantly pointed out that Patrick ran a waterdown/vanilla offense. Mark had to have the full playbook against all those backuos. Right?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'll say this much. Ramsey may not have lost the job but he did not win it. Ramsey didn't prove beyond a ressonable doubt that he deserved the spot. It was a question mark up till the very 1st game.

Ramsey did lose the job, due to injury (most fell that shouldn't happen). When Brunell replaced him in game 1 the Redskins had a different offense. There was no reason to reinsert Ramsey based on what Mark was doing and what Patrick had done (with the same unit).

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Gibbs went with brains and not brawn. Ramsey would have lasted the season, his arm would have never tired but I seriously have my doubts that he would have led the team like Brunell did.

I agree with this, what you forget to mention is... They'd be calling Gibbs a offensive guru again. Patrick would have average 300 yards a game. And the Washington Redskins would have watched the 2005 NFL playoff from the same spot they had in recent years (home)

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:46 am**

CH? You didn't say anything.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:44 am**

1niksder wrote:Ramsey did lose the job, due to injury (most fell that shouldn't happen). When Brunell replaced him in game 1 the Redskins had a different offense. There was no reason to reinsert Ramsey based on what Mark was doing and what Patrick had done (with the same unit).

There was no reason to reinsert Ramsey? I think there was, the starter's job was his. As I recall we were playing Chicago. Does anyone remember how tough the Chicago defence was? I remember winning the game 9-7. Brunell got us to the playoffs, but we were a two-faced team. Our offense, while ranked 11th, was erratic.

Examples...

9-7 win over Chicago, 323 net yards
14-13 win over Dallas, 346 net yards (no scores until 4th)
36-0 loss to N.Y. Giants, 125 net yards (shades of playing Tampa Bay in the playoffs)
16-13 loss to Oakland, 246 net yards (and their bad defense)

36 points, 1,040 net yards

against...

36-35 loss to Tampa Bay, 389 net yards (and their good defense)
35-7 win over Dallas, 334 net yards
35-20 win over N.Y. Giants, 380 net yards
52-17 win over San Francisco, 457 net yards (should of saved some of those points for the shutout we took against the Giants the very next week)

157 points, 1,560 yards.

That's an erratic offence and I didn't even get into the passing game. How do you score 52 points one week and 0 the next? How do you only get 13 points against Oakland but put up 35 against Tampa Bay? 24 offensive points against St Louis and then the next week we only get 10 against perrenial losers Arizona (one TD was a kickoff return)? Our very best and our very worst was seperated by 121 points (including defensive and special teams TDs) and 520 yards offensive net.

Now, we don't know what Ramsey would of done with our offense because we only got to see him play for less than a half against Chicago and was brought in and looked decent against Philly. I do suspect that he would of been more consistant than these lopsided numbers, good or bad and was promised the spot.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:45 am**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:CH? You didn't say anything.

I'm not touching that! :wink:

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:10 pm**

Raindog wrote:
Now, we don't know what Ramsey would of done with our offense because we only got to see him play for less than a half against Chicago and was brought in and looked decent against Philly. I do suspect that he would of been more consistant than these lopsided numbers, good or bad and was promised the spot.

HAHHAHA. Are you serious? Ill tell you why the offense had issues.

1. The running game didn't get started till the 2nd half of the season.
2. We did NOT have a #2 WR at ANY point of the season. David Patten did not contribute anything to the passing game aside from drawing attention from Santana.
3. Mark Brunell was injured by an offensive line break down.

Now, Kyle Boller was out for 6 weeks because of a toe injury. Mark Brunell got his knee twisted and finished the season at 37 years old. Ramsey has a hard enough time with his accuracy when healthy, he would have been an even worse QB if he had been injured also. If Ramsey had got twisted like Brunell did he would have got hurt to.

Now if Ramsey is this mythical being who can play QB, block for Portis and play WR at the same time like you all make it seem, then I'd say you were right. Until then I believe that you are wrong.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:00 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:HAHHAHA. Are you serious? Ill tell you why the offense had issues.

1. The running game didn't get started till the 2nd half of the season.
2. We did NOT have a #2 WR at ANY point of the season. David Patten did not contribute anything to the passing game aside from drawing attention from Santana.
3. Mark Brunell was injured by an offensive line break down.

Now, Kyle Boller was out for 6 weeks because of a toe injury. Mark Brunell got his knee twisted and finished the season at 37 years old. Ramsey has a hard enough time with his accuracy when healthy, he would have been an even worse QB if he had been injured also. If Ramsey had got twisted like Brunell did he would have got hurt to.

Now if Ramsey is this mythical being who can play QB, block for Portis and play WR at the same time like you all make it seem, then I'd say you were right. Until then I believe that you are wrong.

Did I call him mythical or anything of the sort? I just said that we didn't know what he would of done with the offense since we didn't get to see him play enough this year. I also said he probably would of been more consistant, good or bad (meaning better or worse) than Brunell and provided numbers showing the Redskins inconsistency on offense this past season.

I'm not turning Ramsey into our lord and savior the way we did with Gus Ferrotte when Heath Shueler was our QB. I was also backing up the argument that Ramsey had been promised the starter spot. Personally, I would really like to know how the team would performed had that happened.

As for the running game...

The running game fell apart in the middle of the season, around the first N.Y. Giants game and picked back up against St. Louis. The Redskins problem wasn't in netting yards or our run game or our pass protection, it was in getting close enough to the endzone to score touchdowns with consistent pass play that weren't Santana bombs. Justify that however you may, but Portis ran for 1,500 yards this year but didn't get an offensive TD until we played San Fran in week 7. He had two 100 yard games (and a 90 yarder) in that span with a 5.8 and 5.2 average per attempt in those two games. Why no touchdowns?

I wont bother with Patten; you're mostly right about that. I do, however, recall Moss performing better when Patten was on the field and Santana going on a TD drought when Patten was placed on IR. However, Patten was an overachieving slot reciever with New England who did next-to-nothing with us. Hopefully next year he'll step up. As for Brunell getting hurt, refresh my memory as to the last year he did not get hurt.

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

Does anybody see whats happening