Character and Joe Gibbs...

[Larry Gude]

...pro football is a tough business. You can only have so many players. A critical guy can be gone for the year in one play. The average career is around 4 years. The salary cap makes moving from team to team common and, obviously, team chemistry, which takes time, much more difficult.

Only one team a year is happy with their season. Very good coaches get fired like they have no idea what they are doing. Bad coaches get a chance next year just because they are the new guy.

So, Joe Gibbs. He saw something in Mark Brunnel, a guy who was deemed expendable by those who knew him best; his ex-team, the Jags. He pays him way out of proportion to the market and tells the Redskin incumbent, in no uncertain terms, you are not my guy. Ramsey, correctly, says 'if I'm not your guy, let me go'. Gibbs says "no, you'll get a fair chance!." Pat buys the scam. That's fine. It's Gibbs job, he makes the calls and if he is privately unsure, as he obviously was, you gotta hang onto the kid, right? Also, why wouldn't Ramsey trust Gibbs word?

So, Gibbs II begins and no clear winner comes out of camp so, of course, the guy the coach put the money on is gonna start in case of a tie...Brunnel plays and is what he is; done. Lost a step or even two, lost some arm, things that signal the end, which, as stated, Jacksonville already knew.

So, once the season is pretty much lost, Gibbs hands the ball to the kid. An optimist would say it was because Gibbs had become convinced Mark is done and Pat is either the future or not. Let's find out. A cynic would listen to what Gibbs was saying here and there; Brunnel is not finished with this team. He has a future with us. In other words, Gibbs simply gave in to fan pressure and let them have Ramsey in a lost cause.

So, year two. Gibbs had said Ramsey would now get his shot and, not even a half game in, he pulls the rug out from under him. It doesn't matter if you are a Ramsey fan or not, the fact it Ramsey was leading the team and moving the ball. An iffy call takes away a touchdown pass to Cooley and a no call on roughing the passer takes away a short field goal opportunity.

Sorry, Pat, that's the year for you, two plays, because even WHEN Brunnel fails again and/or gets hurt Ramsey finally has the truth from coach; it does NOT matter what you do, you are not and will not be my guy. Great way to play.

Remember, Ramsey had a TD called back and we lost a fg because roughing was not called. Those extra 3-7 points change the whole complexion of a 9-7 game and Brunnel had a horrible interception called back on a iffy call against the Bears. Any faith out there that Brunnel would have done what he has not done much at all, drive the field and score had the Bears scored then?

Gibbs is saying pathetic things like 'this was a hard call' and 'Mark didn't really get a chance last year' and 'We are way better than last year and I want Mark to have a chance to play with this so much better team".

Horseshit, coach. Horseshit.

You waited 1 and 1/2 quarters, first chance you got, to jerk Pat while he was playing good, moving the team, throwing downfield. It was an easy decision because your mind was made up last year when you got Mark and you've been telling us every chance you get. "Marks not done, Marks gonna help us yet...".

Mark, with this 'great new, much better team' looked EXACTLY like he did last year; like an old guy. Shall we point out that he did NOT move the ball? He did not throw downfield. He did not make critical third down plays.

With Mark we can NOT make any mistakes, like the interception Mark got away with, because he CAN'T throw it downfield anymore. There's no room for error. You need chunks of yards here and there to help the running game, for balance, keep the D guessing.

So here we go, Dallas week and the team and the fans now know what Gibbs should have said last year; Ramsey has no role on the team. It is barely justifiable to not get a guy back in the game when he was playing well. You can claim you were worried about his health even though that would be a lie.

That's bad for the team.

It is completely unjustifiable to not let the guy start the following week when you know he's fine.

That's bad for the team.

Joe Gibbs has now laid it all out; Validating his choice of ONE player is more important than the team.

I really, really can't believe this but, he, Joe, has been laying hints since last year. Should have expected it and, in a way, I did.

Get ready Jason Cambell. Back you bags Pat Ramsey.

I'm disgusted.

 

[tlatchaw]

Good thing they won!



:rimshot:

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

Good thing they won!



:rimshot:

...otherwise I would have been upset.

 

[aps45819]

So, year two. Gibbs had said Ramsey would now get his shot and, not even a half game in, he pulls the rug out from under him. It doesn't matter if you are a Ramsey fan or not, the fact it Ramsey was leading the team and moving the ball. An iffy call takes away a touchdown pass to Cooley and a no call on roughing the passer takes away a short field goal opportunity.

Sorry, Pat, that's the year for you, two plays, because even WHEN Brunnel fails again and/or gets hurt Ramsey finally has the truth from coach; it does NOT matter what you do, you are not and will not be my guy. Great way to play.

He daym near had his neck broken. Makes sense to conserve a valuable asset. Pluse, which QB does Dallas prepare for? The left hander or the right? Totally different defensive set ups required for each.
Joe is crazy like a fox

 

[Larry Gude]

Sigh...

He daym near had his neck broken. Makes sense to conserve a valuable asset. Pluse, which QB does Dallas prepare for? The left hander or the right? Totally different defensive set ups required for each.
Joe is crazy like a fox

...I was once so blissfully niave...

Pat is fine and what QB do THOSE PEOPLE prepare for? The one who can hurt us or the one who can't?

 

[mainman]

I have been a Skins fan for a long time, and one thing I have noticed during all of this time.... It seems no matter who is in the front office or on the field, the Redskins do not seem to understand that at some point you need to rebuild. Always spending money to put guys on the field for a quick transparent win.

When was the last time we drafted a Qb and nurtured him to fruition? Tell me, cuz I do not remember... When was the last time we started a season without a qb controversy? I think we need to once and for all lose the, I need to win now mentality..(cuz that aint working) Granted we have had losing seasons that could be misconstrued as rebuilding, but we keep sticking for the most part high dollar players that are only here for a year or 2 to begin with....

 

[huntr1]

Sorry, I agree with benching Ramsey.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why?

Sorry, I agree with benching Ramsey.

After telling him he was #1 going into camp and starting him all through pre-season and the first game, what did he do that deserves benching?

 

[huntr1]

I think Mark did better in pre-season play. Pat had 3 unsuccessful series' in the game. And I don't mean that they were unsuccessful for reasons beyond his control either. If the receivers had dropped the ball, fumbled the ball or running backs just weren't able to get the yardage, I would not hold that against Pat. I also think that Mark did a decent job during the game. However, I do not feel that he should have a "lock" on the starting position. If he screws the pooch, bench him and bring back Pat.

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess we were watching a different game...

I think Mark did better in pre-season play. Pat had 3 unsuccessful series' in the game. And I don't mean that they were unsuccessful for reasons beyond his control either. If the receivers had dropped the ball, fumbled the ball or running backs just weren't able to get the yardage, I would not hold that against Pat. I also think that Mark did a decent job during the game. However, I do not feel that he should have a "lock" on the starting position. If he screws the pooch, bench him and bring back Pat.

Ramsey was 6-11, over 100 yards in 20 minutes and had the TD to Cooley, which was a great throw, called back. Plus 5 first downs and 9 1/2 yards per attempt.

Mark was 8/14 in 40 minutes, 5 yards a try and 5 first downs plus the interception that was called back.

It seemed pretty clear to me Ramsey was playing well. Brunnel didn't do much.

Brunnel didn't play against anyone's starters all pre season and we already know how he played last year and that Ramseys numbers last year were much better, 13 points better on completions alone, 49% to 62%.

Mark won't 'screw the pooch' per se. He'll have some solid games and maybe a great one or two but we simply know what he has left and it isn't much. There is no upside. Ramsey clearly played better last year and this is supposed to be the year where either he is the guy or he is not.

We already know Brunnel is NOT.

Gibbs is begging for chaos now pulling a guy he named as starter after only a quarter or so. The pressure now on Brunnel is immense which it would not have been had Gibbs been put in a position of having to make a change by letting Pat play himself out as opposed to CHOOSING to make a change based on NOTHING.

The offense has to adjust and they obviously have no idea what playing time is based on now. The #1 recievers have no time with Brunnel.

This is a bad, bad move.

 

[Otter]

I hate to argue with the Hitman..but I agree with Huntr, Ramsey looked terrible during the preseason IMO. He looks like he was playing scared, nothing he did was fluid. Brunel looked more comfortable and played better even tho he was playing against the scrubs. I think this is the right call, if something happens to Brunel or he screws up badly, Ramsey will be back without the spectre of Brunel looking over his shoulder. I absolutely believe Ramsay is going to be a great quarterback once he gets comfortable and starts having fun out there. Whether it happens here or someplace else, he will be a bonafide starter.

Gibbs has laid down the gauntlet, he will not hang with someone as long as he did with Brunel last year. Brunel has looked 10 times better this year than last, I don't believe he was 100% healthy last year. Add to the fact that in the first 5 or 6 games last year, how many very catchable balls were dropped by Coles and Gardner??

Even tho I agree with the benching of Ramsay, I would be much more comfortable with Brunel coming off the bench than Patrick. I hope cooler heads prevail and Ramsay takes this as a learning experience. Someone should point out to Ramsay that Gibbs and Co. made a superbowl MVP out of a much less talented Mark Rypien. He should live and learn.

 

[Oz]

Ramsey is a cancer. He should call is realtor and not look back...

 

[Larry Gude]

I predict you'll get your wish...

Ramsey is a cancer. He should call is realtor and not look back...

...wether you're right about him or wrong how is he ever gonna play for Gibbs again? In any event he has been removed from the teams future as effectively as if he were a cut out cancer.

He's been lead on for two years and the nervous play, the lack of confidence that otter cites, is a direct effect of knowing he doesn't have his coaches' confidence, that the hook is just around the corner AND a guy whose already proven he's done is next in line! Pat has not been given a chance.

The clipped remarks of the players about this reveal all; there is none of the relief that Oz feels because a 'cancer' has been removed. There is tight lipped reserve that 'it's up to the coach' and 'it won't make any difference as long as we do our job.'

There's really no reason to not expect a trade sometime soon. Patrick can't play for Gibbs, Gibbs has made that abdundantly clear. If you won't give a guy more than a 1/4 in order to get back to the guy you really want, fine, play Brunnel and IF he somehow happens to turn out to be a 35 year old has been, play your rookie. At least you picked him so there will be SOME support and no baggage.

Gibbs will look like a desperate, unsure coach who the game has passed if he flips back to Ramsey, worse than he does now. This isn't college. Just imagine the theatre of the absurd if Mark gets beat around like an egg for almost the whole game and Joe hands the ball to Pat with 3 minutes left in a game that's over. Go get 'em, son!

Again, I say, all Gibbs had to do to avoid the divisiveness for the fans and however the team is going to take this, is simply let Ramsey play. Not even one or two games was worth avoiding this???

Now, Gibbs is all in with a King/Queen off suite and there's already an Ace on the flop and everyone at the table is reaching for their chips.

This was a terrible, ill timed, dumb move.

 

[Larry Gude]

otter...

...who cares about preseason?

He looked good against the Steelers which was the end of his serious playing time.

He looked like he was getting in a groove, to me, against the Bears, including three straight 3rd down throws for a first and the pass to Cooley. The deep ball to Moss.

Honestly, did he look like a guy who was playing bad to you?

I hear you about 'cooler' heads but that is the very essence of Gibbs, being the cooler, objective head. If he ain't cool, who's gonna be?

I think he has put himself in position where he feels it is more important to justify Mark than give Pat a chance. I think that's as clear as can be, to everyone; Mark, Pat, the team, opponents.

The Post hinted that coaches were privately saying Cambell is the best of the three right now.

So, here we go, chaos season, what, 8?

 

[Otter]

...who cares about preseason? He looked good against the Steelers which was the end of his serious playing time.

In terms of the way a quarterback carries himself, I care. Ramsey never looked confident to me in any of the preseason games no matter how he played. He did have that awful interception in the Pitt game, but that could have been because the receiver(Thrash?) ran the wrong route or read something differently.

He looked like he was getting in a groove, to me, against the Bears, including three straight 3rd down throws for a first and the pass to Cooley. The deep ball to Moss.

Honestly, did he look like a guy who was playing bad to you?

Yes, he did look like he was getting into a groove and no, I didn't think his performance was bad before the injury. He just seemed very mechanical to me and has never seemed to have the arrogant confidence that most quarterbacks have. Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't the ball to Moss was a 10 to 15 yarder with a 20 to 30 yd run after the catch?

I hear you about 'cooler' heads but that is the very essence of Gibbs, being the cooler, objective head. If he ain't cool, who's gonna be?

Gibbs was the cooler head last year and went with Brunnell way too long. Was this switch an over-reaction on his part?? Maybe, I really don't think so. All thru preseason, it appeared to me that Brunnell had a better grasp of the offense and if I had to call it, I would have given Brunnell the starting job. Gibbs was very wishy-washy in his backing of Ramsay all thru the off season, he never seemed to strongly back him. Is Ramsey a tick slow upstairs?

I think he has put himself in position where he feels it is more important to justify Mark than give Pat a chance. I think that's as clear as can be, to everyone; Mark, Pat, the team, opponents.

Can't really argue that point, we'll never know his reasons. I don't think its a case of justifying Mark, I just believe Gibbs is not comfortable with Ramsey for whatever reasons.

The Post hinted that coaches were privately saying Cambell is the best of the three right now.

Big guy, strong arm; physically thats probably true, tho practice is worse than the preseason to judge a player.

So, here we go, chaos season, what, 8?

Chip: Remain calm. All is well!

 

[Tonio]

I hate to argue with the Hitman..but I agree with Huntr, Ramsey looked terrible during the preseason IMO. He looks like he was playing scared, nothing he did was fluid. Brunel looked more comfortable and played better even tho he was playing against the scrubs.

On DC101 this morning, Joe Thiesmann said almost the same thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's a fact...

and has never seemed to have the arrogant confidence that most quarterbacks have

Maybe that's what Joe doesn't see in him?

Theisman was as cocky as they come.

So was Shroeder.

Williams was reserved but carried himself like he KNEW he was the 'man', never looked nervous.

Ryp had that thing, that, 'yeah, I know I'm awkward. Now, try and stop me."

Gibbs, OBVIOUSLY, is with these guys nearly night and day and just as obviously isn't seeing what he wants from Pat.

My fear is the 'Gibbs as GM' guy. He HAD to work with whomever Beathard got him, he had only some say and perhaps less choice. Sometimes guys you may not have picked yourself are just right for the job.

Whatever his flaws, Patrick has had 26 starts in 4 years, not even two full seasons and that just doesn't wash with me given the upside he has shown. Hell, his stats for those games are actually pretty good.

In any event, he'll leave here still and unknown and that reflects poorly on the coaches.

 

[Larry Gude]

You can take what Theisman says...

On DC101 this morning, Joe Thiesmann said almost the same thing.

...to heart all you want. He's an announcer now and says that whatever jsut happened is what was supposed to happen.

In any event, we got Dallas Monday night, Brunnel starting, a dark cloud hanging over him and the whole team because of the way Gibbs handled this and I ain't feeling very good about it.


Good luck, Mark.

 

[Otter]

...to heart all you want. He's an announcer now and says that whatever jsut happened is what was supposed to happen.

In any event, we got Dallas Monday night, Brunnel starting, a dark cloud hanging over him and the whole team because of the way Gibbs handled this and I ain't feeling very good about it.


Good luck, Mark.

Skins 26 boys 10...defense takes two to the house.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not exactly...

Skins 26 boys 10...defense takes two to the house.

...215-0 but I'll take it.