Ramsey wants to be traded (1 Viewer)

[vacaver1]

Granted, it was under Norv Turner's regime, but I'm starting to have visions of Heath Shuler. Are we getting close to seeing Patrick Ramsey Realty?

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously that compares Ramsey to Shuler.

Allow me to clarify: I'm not comparing Ramsey to Shuler, I'm comparing the treatment he is receiving from Skins management/coaching to what happened to Shuler in D.C. Seriously, when have the Skins not screwed with a QB since Shuler?

 

[cstu]

Granted, it was under Norv Turner's regime, but I'm starting to have visions of Heath Shuler. Are we getting close to seeing Patrick Ramsey Realty?

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously that compares Ramsey to Shuler.

Allow me to clarify: I'm not comparing Ramsey to Shuler, I'm comparing the treatment he is receiving from Skins management/coaching to what happened to Shuler in D.C. Seriously, when have the Skins not screwed with a QB since Shuler?

Ok, gotcha. You are right then, Norv Turner bungled the handling of Shuler by throwing him to the wolves too early and then giving up on him to quickly.

 

[vacaver1]

Allow me to clarify: I'm not comparing Ramsey to Shuler, I'm comparing the treatment he is receiving from Skins management/coaching to what happened to Shuler in D.C. Seriously, when have the Skins not screwed with a QB since Shuler?

Ok, gotcha. You are right then, Norv Turner bungled the handling of Shuler by throwing him to the wolves too early and then giving up on him to quickly.

And under Snyder/Spurrier, they wanted to give up Ramsey before he even got there (via a trade with the Bears). I'm just not shocked at how the Skins are still struggling to find a solid QB. This is a long and storied pattern.

 

[redman]

I just finished watching the extended highlights of the game and here's what I saw happening with Ramsey. He looked good passing the ball (6/11 for 105 yards) though he threw a pick on the first series. After that he settled down and played well leading the team down the field. He should have had a TD to Cooley that was called back for a push off by Cooley. Also, the play in which he lost the fumble was a clothesline that should have been called for a penalty (hard to hold on to a ball when you are getting choked).

How does that justify benching the guy?

He also had a second fumble that resulted from holding the ball too long. Last year he had a combined 18 INT's and fumbles in the 9 games he either started or played most of. These are problems that he's had since being a rookie, and I think it's the fact that he's never improved upon them that has the team and Gibbs looking elsewhere. When the strength of your team is defense and the run game, you can't have a QB that gives away the ball a couple of times per game.

 

[jurb26]

This is a QB that has not only received a broken and beaten body from his time in Wash, but worse yet a broken spirit. A change of scenery is w/o a doubt the best possible thing for him at this point I'm afraid.

 

[jbz]

Jon Jansen, Ramsey's best friend on team, even said that Ramsey's benching was not due to just the Bears game. That performance (INT, 2 fumbles, zero points) was the final straw for the Redskins coaching staff (Gibbs got feedback from all the coaches on the decision). Gibbs gave Ramsey from last year to all this preseason to show he has improved and won't be as prone to turn the ball over. Gibbs went off like he never has before after the Ravens scrimmage this preseason when Ramsey threw an INT in the endzone and there was several other TOs. After that, Ramsey had a very shaky preseason with more TOs and little points to show, while Brunell moved the offense better and more importantly, took care of the ball. Once Ramsey continued this trend into week 1, he sealed the deal.

 

[jwvdcw]

Wait a few games before ripping coach Joe Gibbs' switch to Mark Brunell. Gibbs is trying to win now, and Brunell has looked healthy and surprisingly sharp in limited time.

-Charles Robinson

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-r...=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[kellumsboys]

Brunell definitely is no physical match for Ramsey, HOWEVER, Ramsey turns the ball over entirely too much and Gibbs is sick of it. Ramsey threw 4 INTs in 4 preseason games then starts off the regular season with a pick and a fumble before he leaves with injury in the 2nd qtr. Gibbs does not trust the guy and it's clear why he shouldn't. I know Brunell is not going to light it up but at least he protects the ball and our D will have a shot to keep us in some games.

& the Colts did not win any preseason games. Preseason means nothing.Ramsey is getting such a raw deal it's ashame.

Pre-season does mean everything for a QB who hasn't proven anything. We aren't talking about Manning, Culpepper, or McNabb here. If you are a coach trying to win games you aren't going to continue to allow your QB to throw games away.

When Ramsey was actually given a shot (not under Gibbs) he started to look like he had potential. Yea, Brunell was great last year.

Whoever said Brunell had a great year, I guess you just wanted to use a smiley Again Gibbs is sick of Ramsey's turnovers. Gibbs has decided that the 11 picks in 9 appearances last season, 4 in preseason, and another 2 turnovers in limited action Sunday is enough.

no one seemed to notice that Brunell also threw a pick in the game sunday.it was just called back because of a defensive penalty.

other than that , all he did right was hand off to Portis.

I just can't wait to see Demarcus Ware chase Brunell around on monday night.

 

[jbz]

Well the defensive penalty is what caused the INT, so that means little. The DB grabbed Santana Moss' jersey and pulled him back from going for the ball.I still think Brunell sucks, but it's pretty clear to me that Gibbs was tired of Patrick Ramsey turning the ball over.

 

[cstu]

Brunell definitely is no physical match for Ramsey, HOWEVER, Ramsey turns the ball over entirely too much and Gibbs is sick of it. Ramsey threw 4 INTs in 4 preseason games then starts off the regular season with a pick and a fumble before he leaves with injury in the 2nd qtr. Gibbs does not trust the guy and it's clear why he shouldn't. I know Brunell is not going to light it up but at least he protects the ball and our D will have a shot to keep us in some games.

& the Colts did not win any preseason games. Preseason means nothing.Ramsey is getting such a raw deal it's ashame.

Pre-season does mean everything for a QB who hasn't proven anything. We aren't talking about Manning, Culpepper, or McNabb here. If you are a coach trying to win games you aren't going to continue to allow your QB to throw games away.

When Ramsey was actually given a shot (not under Gibbs) he started to look like he had potential. Yea, Brunell was great last year.

Whoever said Brunell had a great year, I guess you just wanted to use a smiley Again Gibbs is sick of Ramsey's turnovers. Gibbs has decided that the 11 picks in 9 appearances last season, 4 in preseason, and another 2 turnovers in limited action Sunday is enough.

no one seemed to notice that Brunell also threw a pick in the game sunday.it was just called back because of a defensive penalty.

other than that , all he did right was hand off to Portis.

I just can't wait to see Demarcus Ware chase Brunell around on monday night.

As a Cowboys fan, I'm at the Redskins. Watching MNF with my roommates from Virginia is going to be a blast.

 

[cscmtp]

I am a big Ramsey fan, but come on, Ramsey does hold the ball too long, has been sacked TONS of times, and often loses the ball when he goes down. He's also thrown a lot of INTs. Yes, he has a cannon. Yes, he's a classy stand up guy. But is he really that accurate? No. Has he made good decisions in the red zone? NO. I don't like saying that, but its 100% true. Brunell may not have Ramsey's arm, but he is better at avoiding the rush, even at his age. And he does seem to understand the concept of throwing away the ball instead of taking a sack or a bad INT. Fact is, Campbell is the future, and he's going to be playing sooner than people think IMO. But this team's D and running game is good enough to keep the competitive, as long as the offense doesn't turn the ball over all day. And THAT is why Ramsey was benched.

 

[red]

i've got the dallas def at home on MNF....i actually wish gibbs left ramsey in for at least one more week...

 

[realamerican85]

How bout the Chiefs... old QB with no decent backup?

 

[redman]

I am a big Ramsey fan, but come on, Ramsey does hold the ball too long, has been sacked TONS of times, and often loses the ball when he goes down. He's also thrown a lot of INTs. Yes, he has a cannon. Yes, he's a classy stand up guy. But is he really that accurate? No. Has he made good decisions in the red zone? NO. I don't like saying that, but its 100% true. Brunell may not have Ramsey's arm, but he is better at avoiding the rush, even at his age. And he does seem to understand the concept of throwing away the ball instead of taking a sack or a bad INT. Fact is, Campbell is the future, and he's going to be playing sooner than people think IMO. But this team's D and running game is good enough to keep the competitive, as long as the offense doesn't turn the ball over all day. And THAT is why Ramsey was benched.

 

[jbz]

I am a big Ramsey fan, but come on, Ramsey does hold the ball too long, has been sacked TONS of times, and often loses the ball when he goes down. He's also thrown a lot of INTs. Yes, he has a cannon. Yes, he's a classy stand up guy. But is he really that accurate? No. Has he made good decisions in the red zone? NO. I don't like saying that, but its 100% true. Brunell may not have Ramsey's arm, but he is better at avoiding the rush, even at his age. And he does seem to understand the concept of throwing away the ball instead of taking a sack or a bad INT. Fact is, Campbell is the future, and he's going to be playing sooner than people think IMO. But this team's D and running game is good enough to keep the competitive, as long as the offense doesn't turn the ball over all day. And THAT is why Ramsey was benched.

well said. All I hear from people who AREN'T Redskins fans is how Ramsey got a raw deal, Ramsey's good he just never got a chance, Spurrier ruined him, etc. All excuses quite frankly and it's not going to cut it already. He's in his 4th year yet he still has the same faults as cscmtp pointed out in this post above. Big arm, but Jeff George had a big arm too. Takes more then that to be a QB in the NFL.

 

[Native]

Ramsey never got a fair shake. Plain and simple. And to say your going with qb. to go with him through training camp and preseason. And to bench him after a quarter, is just plain idiotic. Give him to the bye week at the very least. Im a redskins fan, and i think Gibbs is an idiot!!!! him and snyder.

Agreed. I still feel that he has talent and hope he gets a chance somewhere else. He played at Tulane, just a short drive from Nick Saban at LSU. Maybe Nick will come calling after the season?

 

[pfine1165]

Ultimate Skins homer here....and I dont blame Ramsey in the least bit, hes been kicked around ever since he got in town (and especially since Gibbs came back) theres no way he can ever be successful in DC now, they need to get what they can for him and move onim telling you now, if he gets in the right system, he can do good things in this leauge.

 

[dgreen]

i've got the dallas def at home on MNF....i actually wish gibbs left ramsey in for at least one more week...

 

[fatness]

i've got the dallas def at home on MNF....i actually wish gibbs left ramsey in for at least one more week...

Brunell vs. Dallas last year (one game):M. Brunell 25/43 325 2 0

 

[wdh76]

of the league in 2-3 years, being a journeyman backup like Frerotte, or landing on his feet as a good starter like Trent Green did.  He's got nice talent; he also makes bad mistakes.  Given the obstacles he's faced in Washington, it's hard to know which is more indicative of his future.

Ex-Redskins QBs have a way of doing that. Look at Green, Brad Johnson and now even Frerotte.

Green I grant you. Brad Johnson's arm was shot and he couldn't throw the deep ball after about week 7 in 1999. That remained the case in Tampa, though the WCO system with its shorter routes was kinder to him.

Frerotte is a guy we ought to watch for a couple of more weeks before we annoint him, finally in his 11th season, as a successful NFL starter, don't you think?

I might be mistaken but wasnt Gannon a Redskin at one time?

 

[redman]

I might be mistaken but wasnt Gannon a Redskin at one time?

Yes, back in 1993.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now. Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

 

[Clayton Gray]

I pray the Bears don't go for him. I'd rather bring back Hutchinson (yes I said it) back from surfing.

Dude, you don't really want that.

 

[The Carnage]

If the only issue was who the QB was, we wouldn't have any problems...

 

[cscmtp]

Just reported that Ramsey will NOT be traded before Feb of 2006.

 

[beefcake]

Everyone who leaves the redskins turns out to be gold.Everyone who stays smells like skunk.

 

[gorf]

Just reported that Ramsey will NOT be traded before Feb of 2006.

where did you hear this? (not that i don't believe it, because honestly, why would they trade him now?)

 

[el-gato-grande]

I just don't understand any of this. We're talking about a HOF coach. He didn't mishandle his QBs like this during those Superbowl years. I lived in the area back then and I seem to remember him generally making the right calls on who should be the starter and then sticking with him until injury dictated otherwise. Theisman, Williams, Schroeder etc...What the heck is going on out there in Washington? Is Synder really pulling the strings behind the scenes and Gibbs is being the good company guy by not complaining? Hard to believe this is the same Joe Gibbs from the eighties.

 

[redman]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

 

[jurb26]

I just don't understand any of this. We're talking about a HOF coach. He didn't mishandle his QBs like this during those Superbowl years. I lived in the area back then and I seem to remember him generally making the right calls on who should be the starter and then sticking with him until injury dictated otherwise. Theisman, Williams, Schroeder etc...

What the heck is going on out there in Washington? Is Synder really pulling the strings behind the scenes and Gibbs is being the good company guy by not complaining? Hard to believe this is the same Joe Gibbs from the eighties.

I don't get it either, but this has got to be on of the worst handled situations in the NFL.

 

[cstu]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

So you put in Brunell? I could understand if he replaced Ramsey with a good QB, but Brunell is washed up, old and no better than Ramsey.

 

[redman]

I just don't understand any of this. We're talking about a HOF coach. He didn't mishandle his QBs like this during those Superbowl years. I lived in the area back then and I seem to remember him generally making the right calls on who should be the starter and then sticking with him until injury dictated otherwise. Theisman, Williams, Schroeder etc...

What the heck is going on out there in Washington? Is Synder really pulling the strings behind the scenes and Gibbs is being the good company guy by not complaining? Hard to believe this is the same Joe Gibbs from the eighties.

Guys, it's not like Gibbs was never under fire before. He's the guy who removed a clearly struggling and over-the-hill Theismann from the lineup only after LT rearranged his leg bones.

He's the guy who replaced Jay Schroeder as the starting QB with Doug Williams the week before the first playoff game in 1987 when they won Super Bowl XXII.

He's the guy who when the team was struggling in 1988 and the first part of 1989 (from the start of 1988 through week 11 in 1989, they went 12-15) was hearing chants in RFK Stadium of "Joe must go!", as ridiculous as that sounds now.

It wasn't always smooth sailing, but he's always been his own man and ignored the critics . . . and been successful. I've supported Ramsey and was willing to see more before I made up my mind. If this was Spurrier, I'd be very disconcerted. Because it's Gibbs I want to watch this for a few weeks at least before I cry foul.

 

[redman]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

So you put in Brunell? I could understand if he replaced Ramsey with a good QB, but Brunell is washed up, old and no better than Ramsey.

Brunell's healthy for the first time in three years. He looked like a different guy in the preseason (that he was playing against scrubs is irrelevant to the new zip he had on his throws). Maybe he will still be washed up when it's all said and done, but I want to see what he can do healthy with a good o-line in front of him and an improved running scheme supporting him. The key stat to understand this move is this:

Last year in the 7 games (he had two starts that he was pulled from due to injury/ineffectiveness) in which he played the majority of the snaps, he had 10 turnovers (that were either INT's or his own fumbles). In Ramsey's 9 games, he had 18 turnovers. THAT's what this boils down to.

 

[redman]

Everyone who leaves the redskins turns out to be gold.

Everyone who stays smells like skunk.

Yeah, it's amazing how bad Portis, Jansen, Cooley, Arrington, Samuels, Griffin, Washington, Springs, Taylor, etc. are. Exaggerate much? In truth, most Redskins fans have marveled at the fact that Smoot and Pierce were quality players but largely ignored during the time with the 'Skins by the media, but when they leave they're suddenly huge losses to the team. WTF?

If you dumb down your analysis of the 'Skins this much you're going to miss a lot.

 

[redman]

If the only issue was who the QB was, we wouldn't have any problems...

What are the other issues you see? The only ones that bother me at all are the fact that they had to bring in a new kicker due to Hall being injured and they cut their return man, Antonio Bryant, due to fumbles.

This is not a roster or a team devoid of talent at all. Where are their holes exactly aside from QB and those special teams issues?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, red. My point is that those 3 series against the Bears didn't change anything. Ramsey had already gone over Gibbs' "enough!" line in the preseason, but Gibbs must have felt forced to start him in week one. Why? Because he (Gibbs) foolishly proclaimed him the starter about two seconds after last season ended.ETA: It could well be that Gibbs thought naming him the starter early would relax him (read: take away any excuses). I can buy that. But by Sept. 11th, 2005 Gibbs knew that Ramsey wasn't what he wanted. He should have named Brunell the starter after the 3rd preseason game.

 

[cstu]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

So you put in Brunell? I could understand if he replaced Ramsey with a good QB, but Brunell is washed up, old and no better than Ramsey.

Brunell's healthy for the first time in three years. He looked like a different guy in the preseason (that he was playing against scrubs is irrelevant to the new zip he had on his throws). Maybe he will still be washed up when it's all said and done, but I want to see what he can do healthy with a good o-line in front of him and an improved running scheme supporting him. The key stat to understand this move is this:

Last year in the 7 games (he had two starts that he was pulled from due to injury/ineffectiveness) in which he played the majority of the snaps, he had 10 turnovers (that were either INT's or his own fumbles). In Ramsey's 9 games, he had 18 turnovers. THAT's what this boils down to.

Why pick and choose stats and throw out the games in which Brunell was ineffective? Brunell was beyond horrible last year and the only good thing you can say about him is that he didn't turn the bal over much. Also, look at the horrible teams Brunell played against: Bucs, Giants, Cowboys, Browns, Bears, Lions. The only decent teams he played against were the Ravens and Packers (they lost both these games by the way). He went 3-5 against these teams despite 6 easy games.

Now let's look at who Ramsey was thrown in against. Bad teams: Giants (W), 49ers (W) and Cowboys (L @DAL). The rest of his games were against good teams: Bengals, Eagles (TWICE!), and Steelers. Any surprise that he was 3-5?

I think the only reason Gibbs is starting Brunell this week is that he had by far his best game last year (25/43, 325, 2/0) against the Cowboys (@Wash). It was the only game in which he threw for over 218 yards or had more TD's than INT's.

 

[Christo]

The real question is whether he should still be sitting on my dynasty roster. Well?

 

[redman]

The real question is whether he should still be sitting on my dynasty roster. Well?

Frustrating answer but I don't know. He's the kind of guy who at worst I could see out of the league in 2-3 years, and at best could turn into a Matt Hasselbeck or Trent Green, at least sporadically. I'm beginning to suspect that he'll hang around in a backup and/or verge-of-starter capacity, but that he's not going to do much more with his career than Gus Frerotte or Rob Johnson did with theirs.

I can virtually guarantee you that the 'Skins won't trade him until the offseason, but that that's the plan at this point. They still need him as a viable backup to Brunell, and who knows, maybe he'll reemerge this year after a Brunell injury and look solid. But I see him on another roster next year in all likelihood. What that means exactly is hard to say.

 

[redman]

ETA: It could well be that Gibbs thought naming him the starter early would relax him (read: take away any excuses). I can buy that. But by Sept. 11th, 2005 Gibbs knew that Ramsey wasn't what he wanted. He should have named Brunell the starter after the 3rd preseason game.

I suspect that this was part of the plan. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that this is less than an ideal way to handle it. Gibbs probably would privately acknowledge that too. But the point is that Gibbs had seen enough after the third series of the Bears game and made his move. He certainly wasn't going to wait longer to make the switch look better for the swirling hoards of doubting columnists and fantasy footballers.

We'll see the wisdom of that move or lack thereof over the coming weeks.

 

[fatness]

The key stat to understand this move is this:

Last year in the 7 games (he had two starts that he was pulled from due to injury/ineffectiveness) in which he played the majority of the snaps, he had 10 turnovers (that were either INT's or his own fumbles). In Ramsey's 9 games, he had 18 turnovers. THAT's what this boils down to.

That's one side of the coin. The other side, which I think you and I understand, is that Ramsey moves the team down the field better and more frequently than Brunell. It remains to be seen if suddenly Brunell can generate some offense for the Redskins. If he can, then this change was probably the best move. If he cannot, nobody is going to see the wisdom in not turning the ball over, when the means of accomplishing that is short passes, incompletions, runs into the middle, and punts. Part of being a functional QB is not turning things over to your punter and defense all the time. A punt is effectively a turnover. That's usually only an effective strategy at the end of games, and nearing the end of the season when teams are beat up. Using it as your weekly strategy after 1/2 of week 1 is just slow death. If Brunell plays like last year, that's what will happen ---- slow death. If he generates enough decent drives and some scores, then the offense will be carrying their fair share of the load. With a defense this good, that can be a successful season right there.

Ramsey: more yards, more turnovers

Brunell: fewer yards, fewer turnovers.

Tough choice.

 

[rowdyroddypiper]

Nice to see Ramsey's family here.

Yeah I can't imagine why Gibbs doesn't stick it out with Ramsey, who just sucks game after game after game after game after.......

Yeah Ramsey is not great. Brunell is worse. Im a huge fan, but the skins are not competing this year. Give the kid a chance. The locals I think have a much higher opinion of Ramsey than the crowd that only looks at his fantasy value, which was worthless well before he lost his job. In my mind, Skins season ran out of hope on Monday morning.

 

[dannyboy]

Everyone who leaves the redskins turns out to be gold.

Everyone who stays smells like skunk.

Man, I see Rod Gardner just lighting it up in Carolina. He's Gold Jerry.. GOLD.Wow, did you see the game Lav. Coles had last week??? He has hands of Gold Jerry...pure gold!

 

[Mr. Jinx]

The key stat to understand this move is this:

Last year in the 7 games (he had two starts that he was pulled from due to injury/ineffectiveness) in which he played the majority of the snaps, he had 10 turnovers (that were either INT's or his own fumbles).  In Ramsey's 9 games, he had 18 turnovers.  THAT's what this boils down to.

That's one side of the coin. The other side, which I think you and I understand, is that Ramsey moves the team down the field better and more frequently than Brunell. It remains to be seen if suddenly Brunell can generate some offense for the Redskins. If he can, then this change was probably the best move. If he cannot, nobody is going to see the wisdom in not turning the ball over, when the means of accomplishing that is short passes, incompletions, runs into the middle, and punts. Part of being a functional QB is not turning things over to your punter and defense all the time. A punt is effectively a turnover. That's usually only an effective strategy at the end of games, and nearing the end of the season when teams are beat up. Using it as your weekly strategy after 1/2 of week 1 is just slow death. If Brunell plays like last year, that's what will happen ---- slow death. If he generates enough decent drives and some scores, then the offense will be carrying their fair share of the load. With a defense this good, that can be a successful season right there.

Ramsey: more yards, more turnovers

Brunell: fewer yards, fewer turnovers.

Tough choice.

Punts typically give the defense a 40yd cushion to work with. Turnovers don't. There's a big difference there. Don't even try to pretend there isn't Functional QB's win games regardless how the box scores pan out. In this case it's possible neither Brunell nor Ramsey is "functional"... but the coaching staff thinks Brunell gives the team the best chance to win. At this point I can't help but agree. Ramsey lead the team on 3 drives Sunday. He fumbled twice and threw an INT in those 3 drives. Say what you want about his ability to "move" the team downfield... You can't be that careless with the ball and hope to win games in the NFL - even against offensively challenged teams like the Bears.

 

[jbz]

Everyone who leaves the redskins turns out to be gold.

Everyone who stays smells like skunk.

yeah, Michael Westbrook, Albert Connell, Desmond Howard, Derrius Thompson to name a few all are kicking butt right now.

 

[jbz]

Gibbs could have saved himself a ton of bashing by the public if he hadn't named Ramsey the starter last winter. He then reiterated it several times during the offseason.

If he had just declared "open competition" at some point in the spring, he could have started Brunnell against the Bears (since he outplayed Ramsey by a mile during the preseason) & this wouldn't be the firestorm it is now.

Though I'm not a Redskins fan, I respect the heck out of Gibbs. But he handled this situation wrong & opened himself up to the criticism he's facing now.

Here's the thing: Gibbs doesn't care. In his view, he gave Ramsey not 3 series but 9 months to demonstrate improvement in his reads of defenses and the quickness with which he makes those reads, and also in the avoiding reckless throws into traffic. As part of that he gave him 7 starts last year, snaps with the first team all through the mini-camps and training camp and the preseason games, and the start in Week 1. Ramsey has done nothing to show improvement for more than a couple of quarters at a time and Gibbs finally said "Enough!".

The thing people need to remember is that the other 21 positions on the team are manned by adequate all the way up to outstanding players. Only the QB position with Ramsey has this level of doubt associated with it. In short, this is a team that is geared from top to bottom as any other in the league with the exception of the handful of elite teams (NE, Pittsburgh, Philly, perhaps Indy) to make a playoff run; don't accuse me of being a homer - break down the positions and you tell me. With that in mind, you can't have a QB that gives the ball away 2-3 times per game via poor throws leading to INT's or hesitation that leads to sacks and fumbles. That's what I think has been on Gibbs' mind.

I'm a Ramsey fan and always will be on a personal level. He's a class act, a hard worker and a tough guy. The understated and classy way in which he's handling this speaks volumes about why 'Skins fans like him. That's not the same thing as being a good QB however.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, red. My point is that those 3 series against the Bears didn't change anything. Ramsey had already gone over Gibbs' "enough!" line in the preseason, but Gibbs must have felt forced to start him in week one. Why? Because he (Gibbs) foolishly proclaimed him the starter about two seconds after last season ended.ETA: It could well be that Gibbs thought naming him the starter early would relax him (read: take away any excuses). I can buy that. But by Sept. 11th, 2005 Gibbs knew that Ramsey wasn't what he wanted. He should have named Brunell the starter after the 3rd preseason game.

You're probably right. But Gibbs was most likely IMO, trying to do some psychological work on Ramsey. Give him the starting job early. Let him work with the starters. Support him 100%. Hopefully this would have lead to confidence and Ramsey being Drew Brees part 2. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Ramsey started turning the ball over from the first scrimmage vs the Ravens. Gibbs was the most pissed I've ever heard him after that scrimmage and it all was focused on turnovers. So what did Ramsey proceed to do in every preseason game after? Turn the ball over. Gibbs gives Ramsey one more shot and he turns the ball over 2 out of 3 possessions (and it easily could have been 3 for 3 had they not recovered his fumble). The straw that broke the camels back I'm afraid. To the unknowing fan, Ramsey got pulled after 1 bad quarter and a raw deal regarding the starting job. To the Redskins fan following the situation closely and knowing Gibbs' tendencies, Ramsey was playing on a very short leash and that leash was growing shorter every preseason game. At this point, we Skins fans have to trust Gibbs and the staff. They see both practices every day at practice, they watch the tapes, and so forth.

yes, the handling of the situation was ugly for PR purposes. But Gibbs isn't here to win over the media and his critics. He's here to win games and if he feels less turnovers from Brunell will help that, then so be it. All I know is Jason Campbell better be a stud and SOON.

 

[jbz]

The real question is whether he should still be sitting on my dynasty roster. Well?

Frustrating answer but I don't know. He's the kind of guy who at worst I could see out of the league in 2-3 years, and at best could turn into a Matt Hasselbeck or Trent Green, at least sporadically. I'm beginning to suspect that he'll hang around in a backup and/or verge-of-starter capacity, but that he's not going to do much more with his career than Gus Frerotte or Rob Johnson did with theirs.

I can virtually guarantee you that the 'Skins won't trade him until the offseason, but that that's the plan at this point. They still need him as a viable backup to Brunell, and who knows, maybe he'll reemerge this year after a Brunell injury and look solid. But I see him on another roster next year in all likelihood. What that means exactly is hard to say.

Personally, I don't think Ramsey will ever be a solid starting QB. He's got Rob Johnson disease. Great arm, but just holds on to the ball too damn long. I love the kid, showed great toughness getting hammered in his Spurrier days. Looked like a gamer early on in his career, but something went wrong. Whether he's shellshocked, confused by the change of the systems, whatever. He just has regressed and he's making the same mistakes rookie QBs make. I expect more from a 4th year QB. I wish him the best when the inevitable move to another team is made, he seems like a very nice guy. Just not the QB for the Skins future.

 

[fatness]

Punts typically give the defense a 40yd cushion to work with. Turnovers don't. There's a big difference there. Don't even try to pretend there isn't

Looking at only one play a punt is better than a turnover, yes. But a 40-yard drive ended by a turnover is preferable to a 3-and-out and a punt, because at least you keep your defense off the field for awhile. My point is that if Brunell's passing ability is no better than last year, there will be many 3-and-outs. Whereas with Ramsey there will be more long drives, some of which end up in turnovers. I guess we can hypothetical this one to death. It all depends on how they play.

 

[dgreen]

Punts typically give the defense a 40yd cushion to work with. Turnovers don't. There's a big difference there. Don't even try to pretend there isn't

Looking at only one play a punt is better than a turnover, yes. But a 40-yard drive ended by a turnover is preferable to a 3-and-out and a punt, because at least you keep your defense off the field for awhile. My point is that if Brunell's passing ability is no better than last year, there will be many 3-and-outs. Whereas with Ramsey there will be more long drives, some of which end up in turnovers. I guess we can hypothetical this one to death. It all depends on how they play.

Just an interesting tidbit: The Redskins had no 3-and-outs against the Bears Sunday.I wonder if there was one game all of last season that they accomplished that.

 

[dgreen]

Punts typically give the defense a 40yd cushion to work with. Turnovers don't. There's a big difference there. Don't even try to pretend there isn't

Looking at only one play a punt is better than a turnover, yes. But a 40-yard drive ended by a turnover is preferable to a 3-and-out and a punt, because at least you keep your defense off the field for awhile. My point is that if Brunell's passing ability is no better than last year, there will be many 3-and-outs. Whereas with Ramsey there will be more long drives, some of which end up in turnovers. Even in their 31-7 win over the Giants, when the offense was at its best, they had a 3-and-out very late in the 4th.I guess we can hypothetical this one to death. It all depends on how they play.

Just an interesting tidbit: The Redskins had no 3-and-outs against the Bears Sunday.I wonder if there was one game all of last season that they accomplished that.

Answer: No. Well, maybe. They had one 3-and-out against the Giants in a 31-7 win, but I think it might have been three kneel downs and a punt with less than 20 seconds left in the game.