Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

Just overall, I think we shouldn't get our hopes up too high in what we'll get in return for Ramsey, despite what Mortensen says. As Redskin fans, I think a lot of us tend to think highly of PR and try to look at the times when he has flashed his potential and put up good games. But we seem to forget all the inconsistency, the holding onto the ball until a DE causes a fumble, the inability to scramble, and the deep-ball inaccuracy. Ramsey has not done anything in this league for any non-Redskin fan (or any non-Redskin GM) to believe he is the next QB for their team. He's very comparable to Joey Harrington in trade value, if you ask me. What would you trade for Joey Harrington to join your team? I don't know if I'd give a 3rd rounder.

If we get better than a 3rd rounder for Ramsey, that's gravy to me. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. But I'm not getting my hopes up, he just hasn't done enough in this league to warrant a big trade offer.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Just overall, I think we shouldn't get our hopes up too high in what we'll get in return for Ramsey, despite what Mortensen says. As Redskin fans, I think a lot of us tend to think highly of PR and try to look at the times when he has flashed his potential and put up good games. But we seem to forget all the inconsistency, the holding onto the ball until a DE causes a fumble, the inability to scramble, and the deep-ball inaccuracy. Ramsey has not done anything in this league for any non-Redskin fan (or any non-Redskin GM) to believe he is the next QB for their team. He's very comparable to Joey Harrington in trade value, if you ask me. What would you trade for Joey Harrington to join your team? I don't know if I'd give a 3rd rounder.

If we get better than a 3rd rounder for Ramsey, that's gravy to me. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. But I'm not getting my hopes up, he just hasn't done enough in this league to warrant a big trade offer.[/QUOTE]

I would definitely agree with this sentiment...I remember a lot of excitement over what we would get for "former first round pick" Rod Gardner. What we got wasnt much, though it even though it later proved to be way too much!

Frankly, the rumors I heard about John Abraham consisted of Ramsey AND Arrington, and getting a #1 pick for Ramsey is nonsense in my opinion. A 3rd is what Im thinking, and my thought when starting this thread was that the Rivers/Brees issue might bump us up in the round or even into the 2nd...

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]What is there to joke about?

PR looked shaky all preseason, and Brunell looked sharp. I don't see how that can be disputed.

Gibbs was obviously looking/hoping for Ramsey to seal the deal in the offseason, take take the job and run with it. Can you say he really did that?

Of course Gibbs didn't have much confidence in him, despite the fact the majority of fans supported Gibbs' claim that Ramsey was the starter, I guarantee you in the back of our minds we were all concerned given Ramsey's mediocre showing during the preseason.

I love how people make it seem like Ramsey was tearing it up during the 1st half of the Bears game. He threw a pick and fumbled twice, to Gibbs he had seen enough and couple that with his unimpressive offseason, he made the quick hook.

The opportunity that presented itself that I was referring to was when Ramsey went down, that was all Gibbs needed to get Brunell back in.[/QUOTE]

PR did look shakey in the preseason and MB did look sharp but as many were saying, PR was playing against the starters and MB was playing against the scrubs. So comparisons were hard to make. I guess my point is that now every skins fan makes it sound like MB was the obvious choice to be the starter when all the signs showed otherwise. I also recall lots of people who are now saying PR is average and inconsistent in the past saying how he was the QB of the future. PR has the same stats now as he did when he was proclaimed the QB of the future (because he hasnt played at all to change them). So the only thing that changed is MB did the job and PR never got the cahnce because Gibbs didnt have confidence that he could.

For the record, I was not a PR fan (as you may remember my preseason prediction which was 3 week off), and I thought MB was washed up, so going into this season I thopught the skins were screwed at QB. I was only sort of correct.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=irish]PR did look shakey in the preseason and MB did look sharp but as many were saying, PR was playing against the starters and MB was playing against the scrubs. So comparisons were hard to make. I guess my point is that now every skins fan makes it sound like MB was the obvious choice to be the starter when all the signs showed otherwise. I also recall lots of people who are now saying PR is average and inconsistent in the past saying how he was the QB of the future. PR has the same stats now as he did when he was proclaimed the QB of the future (because he hasnt played at all to change them). So the only thing that changed is MB did the job and PR never got the cahnce because Gibbs didnt have confidence that he could.

For the record, I was not a PR fan (as you may remember my preseason prediction which was 3 week off), and I thought MB was washed up, so going into this season I thopught the skins were screwed at QB. I was only sort of correct.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean to say Brunell was the obvious choice, I had my doubts just as I'm sure everyone else did when he first came in for the reasons you pointed out. He looked good against mostly backups in the preseason so the doubt was there that he could keep it going against starters.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

Master4caster:

You neglected to mention a couple of QBs who started in their rookie years who seem to have done pretty well. I'm thinking of Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb (not till about the 10th game of rookie season) here. Going back a bit further, Drew Bledsoe and Troy Aikman started as rookies. Bledsoe has been to a Super Bowl; Aikman has three rings and will be in the HoF later this year. Other names that come to mind are Terry Bradshaw and Fran Tarkenton; they worked out all right too.


The only way Ramsey stays here next year is if his contract is "cap friendly". In the final year of some rookie deals, the baloon payment makes the contract a burden; I don't know what Ramsey's deal calls for next year. I do know that unless Brunell suffers a major injury, Patrick Ramsey will not start another game in Washington. By the time Brunell is ready to hit the showers, Jason Campbell will be the heir to the throne.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=irish]Gibbs pulled PR in the 1st half of the 1st game of the season. PR had not had a chance to do anything good or bad. MB had done nothing last year and people wrote him off for dead but Gibbs believed (correctly) that MB could get the job done better than PR could. Had Gibbs believed PR could get the job done he would not have pulled PR in the 1st game.

If pulling someone (who Gibbs said all preseason was the starter) in the 1st half of the 1st game of the year and replacing him with someone who was a complete stiff the year before is[b] not a lack of confidence, I dont know what is.[/[/b]QUOTE]

Your right, I was trying to be kind! Gibbs had no confidence at that time that PR could pull it off. Can anyone argue with the decision, and the results being enjoyed by the Skins?

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Hog1][If
Your right, I was trying to be kind! Gibbs had no confidence at that time that PR could pull it off. Can anyone argue with the decision, and the results being enjoyed by the Skins?[/QUOTE]
Damn do you really want that answered..it will be closed like every other anti brunell thread! It's best not to ask questions like that....... I said I would stay positive this week why cant everyone else..why do we need Brunell is better... ramsey cant do this.... why not have peace and just talk playoffs....

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

One of the best talent evaluators the NFL has ever seen said Patrick Ramsey would be a very good QB in the NFL, and I tend to believe him over most of the other so called experts. This guy has won superbowls, actually should have gotten credit for one more, because the other guy just stood there and watched, I could have coached that team. I found talent up and down the draft that people didn't give a second look at. He is rarely wrong when evaluating talent.

The guy, Jimmy Johnson.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]One of the best talent evaluators the NFL has ever seen said Patrick Ramsey would be a very good QB in the NFL, and I tend to believe him over most of the other so called experts. This guy has won superbowls, actually should have gotten credit for one more, because the other guy just stood there and watched, I could have coached that team. I found talent up and down the draft that people didn't give a second look at. He is rarely wrong when evaluating talent.

The guy, Jimmy Johnson.[/QUOTE]

Cowboy lover.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]One of the best talent evaluators the NFL has ever seen said Patrick Ramsey would be a very good QB in the NFL, and I tend to believe him over most of the other so called experts. This guy has won superbowls, actually should have gotten credit for one more, because the other guy just stood there and watched, I could have coached that team. I found talent up and down the draft that people didn't give a second look at. He is rarely wrong when evaluating talent.

The guy, Jimmy Johnson.[/QUOTE]

LOL you might want to check his draft record when he was with Miami, it didn't compare to his success with Dallas.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Cowboy lover.[/QUOTE]

Thats funny. Not a cowboy lover, I hate em. But I respect Jimmy Johnson. Hey, we almost had Jimmy Johnson out of retirement when we hired spurrier. Jimmy was a great coach and good at picking talent.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

Why do you guys constantly argue over this Brunell/Ramsey thing? How many times do we have to hear the same crap over and over again. Just accept the fact that Brunell is our starter, not Ramsey. We're in the playoffs and Brunell helped us to get there. Enjoy it. Be a Redskins fan first.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Why do you guys constantly argue over this Brunell/Ramsey thing? How many times do we have to hear the same crap over and over again. Just accept the fact that Brunell is our starter, not Ramsey. We're in the playoffs and Brunell helped us to get there. Enjoy it. Be a Redskins fan first.[/QUOTE]

You just don't understand Ramsey's incredible and limitless potential. We could be sitting at 16-0 if we didn't yank him. ;)

Hell, we'd probably know the answer to Question #3 by now if he was playing.

For the Ramsey folks I'm just kidding around.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]You just don't understand Ramsey's incredible and limitless potential. We could be sitting at 16-0 if we didn't yank him. ;)

Hell, we'd probably know the answer to Question #3 by now if he was playing.

For the Ramsey folks I'm just kidding around.[/QUOTE]

I think Patrick Ramsey actually created Sean Taylor from one of his ribs

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I think Patrick Ramsey actually created Sean Taylor from one of his ribs[/QUOTE]

Ahhh now we're talkin!

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

I think it'll help Ramsey's value. And yes, I do think the Skins should trade him and start breaking in Campbell.

Looks like its the status quo in San Diego for 2006 - Brees the francised starting QB and Rivers the high-priced inexperienced backup. It's too bad for everyone here, cause Rivers deserves a chance to get OFF that bench! But did anyone see Rivers play that last game? well, he sure looked like a rookie. I just needs to play, but I seriously do not see him leading a team to the playoffs his first year.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]One of the best talent evaluators the NFL has ever seen said Patrick Ramsey would be a very good QB in the NFL, and I tend to believe him over most of the other so called experts. This guy has won superbowls, actually should have gotten credit for one more, because the other guy just stood there and watched, I could have coached that team. I found talent up and down the draft that people didn't give a second look at. He is rarely wrong when evaluating talent.

The guy, Jimmy Johnson.[/QUOTE]

Well, since we're relying on cowboy coaches - Parcells has said that Ramsey just doesn't have what it takes and will never be a winning QB in the NFL.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I think Patrick Ramsey actually created Sean Taylor from one of his ribs[/QUOTE]

Sage wisdom

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Hog1]Sage wisdom[/QUOTE]

Uh-oh now Sage Rosenfels is in the mix! LOL

Was he the original savior, or should I say Ramsey, by chance?

Perhaps another clue for Question #3? Hmmmmmm

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Well, since we're relying on cowboy coaches - Parcells has said that Ramsey just doesn't have what it takes and will never be a winning QB in the NFL.[/QUOTE]

Parcells also thought Cooley wasn't starting material. :laughing2

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

What's wrong with keeping Ramsey around if he is willing to stay and be the backup? Some seem to think it is imperative that Campbell be elevated because he is the heir. Can't he be the heir to the heir? The argument that there are a bunch of successful QBs who started right away or in their second year has a pretty big loop hole. All the guys mentioned put together have won 0 SBs. In fact the only guy lately to have won a SB early was Brady and even then he didn't actually win the Super Bowl. Bledsoe did. Not that he wouldn't have also but he didn't so he doesn't get credit there. Look, all I care about is having a sound and complete solution at QB. To me that means a guy starting who can lead a team into the playoffs with a backup who can come in and do the same. Most teams don't have this. Most have two guys about the same though one might be a little better or just a little different in a way to fit the scheme better. But neither can be expected to lead them into the playoffs consistently. Other teams like the Colts have a great QB but they are dead in the water after that. How many teams have two guys they can trust to lead a team? I am not saying PR can lead us to the playoffs consistently but I am assuming he can for my argument. Or actually I am assuming the Skins think he can(same for Brunell). In that case I would think they'd like to keep him if possible while letting Campbell mature into a guy they can trust to lead them to the playoffs maybe 3 or 4 years from now. You'll never convince me that letting Campbell sit 3 years is going to prevent him from becoming good. There is a ton of evidence that QBs who sit and leanr become more complete and successful QBS in the long run. I know this is a different approach than just about every team takes now but there are only like two real successful teams over the last few years. The Pats and the Figgles. The Patriots by luck had this arrangement with Bledsoe and Brady initially and have been lucky enough since to keep Brady healthy and stay at the top. The Eagles never had two guys but were also lucky enough to keep McNabb healthy enough that having a good second stringer didn't keep them from being the best NFC team. Until now and look what happened. Maybe investing a ton at the qb position to create depth is the way to go to stay on top in the long run.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]What's wrong with keeping Ramsey around if he is willing to stay and be the backup? Some seem to think it is imperative that Campbell be elevated because he is the heir. Can't he be the heir to the heir? The argument that there are a bunch of successful QBs who started right away or in their second year has a pretty big loop hole. All the guys mentioned put together have won 0 SBs. In fact the only guy lately to have won a SB early was Brady and even then he didn't actually win the Super Bowl. Bledsoe did. Not that he wouldn't have also but he didn't so he doesn't get credit there. Look, all I care about is having a sound and complete solution at QB. To me that means a guy starting who can lead a team into the playoffs with a backup who can come in and do the same. Most teams don't have this. Most have two guys about the same though one might be a little better or just a little different in a way to fit the scheme better. But neither can be expected to lead them into the playoffs consistently. Other teams like the Colts have a great QB but they are dead in the water after that. How many teams have two guys they can trust to lead a team? I am not saying PR can lead us to the playoffs consistently but I am assuming he can for my argument. Or actually I am assuming the Skins think he can(same for Brunell). In that case I would think they'd like to keep him if possible while letting Campbell mature into a guy they can trust to lead them to the playoffs maybe 3 or 4 years from now. You'll never convince me that letting Campbell sit 3 years is going to prevent him from becoming good. There is a ton of evidence that QBs who sit and leanr become more complete and successful QBS in the long run. I know this is a different approach than just about every team takes now but there are only like two real successful teams over the last few years. The Pats and the Figgles. The Patriots by luck had this arrangement with Bledsoe and Brady initially and have been lucky enough since to keep Brady healthy and stay at the top. The Eagles never had two guys but were also lucky enough to keep McNabb healthy enough that having a good second stringer didn't keep them from being the best NFC team. Until now and look what happened. Maybe investing a ton at the qb position to create depth is the way to go to stay on top in the long run.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea why you're suggesting that Jason Campbell can't step up and be a #2 QB capable of leading a team to the playoffs in his second year. Where are you getting this idea? Have you read something that says Campbell is not progressing very well? If so, please post it. Otherwise, I see no reason to believe that a first round pick in his 2nd year isn't capable of performing BACKUP DUTIES for a team with a great RB, a good offensive line, a stud deepthreat, and an emerging H-back.

Secondly, I think all of this is besides the point. Ramsey won't be around next year because he wants to head to greener pastures. What would you do? Stay here and compete with Brunell until he retires, and then compete with Jason Campbell; or would you ask to be traded someplace where you could compete with one QB instead of two? It's a no-brainer. Ramsey will want out, and Gibbs will want to accomodate that.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

Ramsey isnt going to be satisfied being a backup for another year when there are opportunities to play somewhere else. Jason Campbell will be a more than servicable backup next season. Why do people think Joe Gibbs drafted this guy, so he can take over when Joe leaves? He will back up next year and start in 2.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]What's wrong with keeping Ramsey around if he is willing to stay and be the backup? Some seem to think it is imperative that Campbell be elevated because he is the heir. Can't he be the heir to the heir? The argument that there are a bunch of successful QBs who started right away or in their second year has a pretty big loop hole. All the guys mentioned put together have won 0 SBs. In fact the only guy lately to have won a SB early was Brady and even then he didn't actually win the Super Bowl. Bledsoe did. Not that he wouldn't have also but he didn't so he doesn't get credit there. Look, all I care about is having a sound and complete solution at QB. To me that means a guy starting who can lead a team into the playoffs with a backup who can come in and do the same. Most teams don't have this. Most have two guys about the same though one might be a little better or just a little different in a way to fit the scheme better. But neither can be expected to lead them into the playoffs consistently. Other teams like the Colts have a great QB but they are dead in the water after that. How many teams have two guys they can trust to lead a team? I am not saying PR can lead us to the playoffs consistently but I am assuming he can for my argument. Or actually I am assuming the Skins think he can(same for Brunell). In that case I would think they'd like to keep him if possible while letting Campbell mature into a guy they can trust to lead them to the playoffs maybe 3 or 4 years from now. You'll never convince me that letting Campbell sit 3 years is going to prevent him from becoming good. There is a ton of evidence that QBs who sit and leanr become more complete and successful QBS in the long run. I know this is a different approach than just about every team takes now but there are only like two real successful teams over the last few years. The Pats and the Figgles. The Patriots by luck had this arrangement with Bledsoe and Brady initially and have been lucky enough since to keep Brady healthy and stay at the top. The Eagles never had two guys but were also lucky enough to keep McNabb healthy enough that having a good second stringer didn't keep them from being the best NFC team. Until now and look what happened. Maybe investing a ton at the qb position to create depth is the way to go to stay on top in the long run.[/QUOTE]

FRPLG, what do you mean Bledsoe won the Super Bowl, not Brady?

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

I firmly believe that we would not be in the playoffs if Ramsey was our QB this year.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Well, since we're relying on cowboy coaches - Parcells has said that Ramsey just doesn't have what it takes and will never be a winning QB in the NFL.[/QUOTE]

Is that true? He really came out and said that or are you extracting that meaning from a different statement?

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]FRPLG, what do you mean Bledsoe won the Super Bowl, not Brady?[/QUOTE]
I misremembered. Bledsoe led them to win the AFC championship game that year not the Superbowl. Either way it doesn't matter to me as Brady has proven he has the goods and he showed he ahd them that year. I'd concede he was a guy who won a SB early but he is the exception and not the rule.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=skindogger47]I firmly believe that we would not be in the playoffs if Ramsey was our QB this year.[/QUOTE]
I firmly believe that none of us has even a clue what this team would have done with Ramsey as QB this year. It really is hard to predict. He did a decent job last year when asked but he looked real bad in camp. So who knows? I am glad Gibbs made the move and we are in the playoffs now.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=celts32]Is that true? He really came out and said that or are you extracting that meaning from a different statement?[/QUOTE]
It has been reported that during the draft process before Cooley was drafted Parcells told Cooley, during a visit to the Cowboys, that he was no better than a depth/backup player in the NFL based on the film Parcells had watched on him. Parcells is clearly a master talent evaluator as well as a master talent motivator. Or maybe he is just a master asshole.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]I firmly believe that none of us has even a clue what this team would have done with Ramsey as QB this year. It really is hard to predict. He did a decent job last year when asked but he looked real bad in camp. So who knows? I am glad Gibbs made the move and we are in the playoffs now.[/QUOTE]

He followed up that crappy preseason with a crappy game against the Bears. There's no way Ramsey hits 2 TDs to Moss in the last five minutes of the game against Dallas. That alone would have given the Cowboys one more win and one more loss for us, meaning we'd be watching Dallas play the Bucs this weekend.

I think you're nuts, FRPLG. You need to let go of this love affair with Patrick Ramsey. At what point do you move on and realize he's not going to cut it as a championship QB? How many more inconsistent performances do you need to see?

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]He followed up that crappy preseason with a crappy game against the Bears. There's no way Ramsey hits 2 TDs to Moss in the last five minutes of the game against Dallas. That alone would have given the Cowboys one more win and one more loss for us, meaning we'd be watching Dallas play the Bucs this weekend.

I think you're nuts, FRPLG. You need to let go of this love affair with Patrick Ramsey. At what point do you move on and realize he's not going to cut it as a championship QB? How many more inconsistent performances do you need to see?[/QUOTE]
Woah woah woah!
Love affair with Ramsey? Where the hell did you get that from? You'll need to go back and search through my posts. I am an ardent Gibbs supporter and always thought he was doing what was best. And I haven't said anything to contradict that here in thsi thread. My posts, I thought, clearly stated I was assuming that the SKINS THEMSELVES believe Ramsey could do the job. And that was simply a pragmatic assumption for the sake of the discussion. They may or may not believe that but it was part of my assumption about how THEY are handling this andhow THEY may in the future. Not necessarily how I would. I think the general principle of having depth at the position is good, yet contrary to general league think, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I want PR as part of depth or not. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I have no idea why you're suggesting that Jason Campbell can't step up and be a #2 QB capable of leading a team to the playoffs in his second year. Where are you getting this idea? Have you read something that says Campbell is not progressing very well? If so, please post it. Otherwise, I see no reason to believe that a first round pick in his 2nd year isn't capable of performing BACKUP DUTIES for a team with a great RB, a good offensive line, a stud deepthreat, and an emerging H-back.

Secondly, I think all of this is besides the point. Ramsey won't be around next year because he wants to head to greener pastures. What would you do? Stay here and compete with Brunell until he retires, and then compete with Jason Campbell; or would you ask to be traded someplace where you could compete with one QB instead of two? It's a no-brainer. Ramsey will want out, and Gibbs will want to accomodate that.[/QUOTE]
Where did I suggest that?
Dude, learn to read and read to learn. My point wasn't that Campbell can't, rather it was that maybe the Skins think Ramsey can and why not keep both for depth. If they do then Campbell as a less experienced younger guy would be the third stringer. I don't see why letting Campbell stay the third for another year hurts us or him if Ramsey can handle the job and is willing. It can only help him really. I am really discussing more of a theoretical approach to the qb position than this specific situation. Substitute other names if you wish. I am talking about depth here. Letting guys grow and mature without pressure.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

We traded a lot to get Campbell, which we WOULD NOT HAVE DONE if Joe Gibbs had faith in PRam. Ramsey is an immobile JP Losman. Which is bad, though I'm sure some of you think Losman is the real deal, even though he has done NOTHING to prove it.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Where did I suggest that?
Dude, learn to read and read to learn. My point wasn't that Campbell can't, rather it was that maybe the Skins think Ramsey can and why not keep both for depth. If they do then Campbell as a less experienced younger guy would be the third stringer. I don't see why letting Campbell stay the third for another year hurts us or him if Ramsey can handle the job and is willing. It can only help him really. I am really discussing more of a theoretical approach to the qb position than this specific situation. Substitute other names if you wish. I am talking about depth here. Letting guys grow and mature without pressure.[/QUOTE]

Well there are so many goofy things going on with your argument, I don't know where to start.

#1 You seem to want to assume that Ramsey wants to stay and be a backup here. Where the hell are you getting that idea? Or is this just another one of your assumptions for arguments' sake? Ramsey requested a trade earlier in the season, and his situation has not gotten better, there's no way he'll want to stay, and Gibbs doesn't like to keep guys who don't want to be here. Let's deal in reality, not a bunch of who-struck-John assumptions.

#2 You seem to suggest that it will help Campbell if he's the #3 instead of the #2. Newsflash man, but the #3 never sees the field. At least the #2 has a shot at seeing some real live action at some point. Guys need to play to get any better, or at least get a decent share of practice reps. Nobody gets better by sitting idle. Eli progressed by playing, Roethisberger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, all of them.

#3 Letting Campbell stay as the 3rd and keeping Ramsey as our second does hurt us, in the salary cap department. Ramsey would take up a couple million of room next year. Instead we could make Campbell the #2 which he will be perfectly capable of, and we can get another rookie or some vet in for minimum pay. Plus, if we keep Ramsey through this year, it hurts us from a GM perspective because he'll fly the coop in January 2007 as a free agent, I'd rather get a 3rd or 4th rounder for him this year.

#4 There is no such thing as growing and maturing without pressure at the QB position. The QB position is all about pressure and how you handle it. If QBs need to be shielded from pressure, then they're in the wrong line of work. If anything, you want to expose young QBs to pressure to see how they'll respond. We all could see Tom Brady was going to be a good one in his first year of action, because how poised and calm he remained in big pressure situations. 2006 would be a good time to expose Campbell to that as a #2 and find out how he'll respond. We already know Ramsey doesn't respond well to those situations.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=diehardskin2982]with the Saints in the #2 spot they will either take Lienarht or Young. If they hire Mike Martz they will get Leinarht. I wanted to trade for Darren Howard. But if the Abraham for Ramsey trade goes through, I'd take it in a heart beat. My question is what will they do with Arrington?[/QUOTE]
Abraham is a better rushing the passer off the edge than anyone we have by miles - you take that deal for Ramsey, and restructure Abraham's contract if necessary. Sadly, the Skins almost certainly will have to part ways with LaVar. His $12M cap figure next year makes that a virtual forgone conclusion. Thank goodness we have Marcus Washington locked up at a lesser figure.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Well there are so many goofy things going on with your argument, I don't know where to start.

#1 You seem to want to assume that Ramsey wants to stay and be a backup here. Where the hell are you getting that idea? Or is this just another one of your assumptions for arguments' sake? Ramsey requested a trade earlier in the season, and his situation has not gotten better, there's no way he'll want to stay, and Gibbs doesn't like to keep guys who don't want to be here. Let's deal in reality, not a bunch of who-struck-John assumptions.
[/quote]
Now YOUR ASSUMING he doesn't want to stay. It has been denied numerous times by all involved that he ever asked for a trade. Whether it's true or not it HAS been denied. Even if he did ask for a trade is it hard to fathom that he could change his mind? Maybe he thinks all of a sudden this is a great opp for him. I don't know but it is possible. Point is we don't know.
I was postulating a theoretical idea that, admittedly I wasn't clear about, I applied to this situation. If you don't want to discuss a theoretical idea then that's fine but don't denigrate someone for it.
[QUOTE=Schneed10]
#2 You seem to suggest that it will help Campbell if he's the #3 instead of the #2. Newsflash man, but the #3 never sees the field. At least the #2 has a shot at seeing some real live action at some point. Guys need to play to get any better, or at least get a decent share of practice reps. Nobody gets better by sitting idle. Eli progressed by playing, Roethisberger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, all of them.
[/quote]
Young QBs don't "need to play to get better" For every guy you mentioned there can be 3 or 4 that were given similar opps and never panned out. I don't think it is unreasonable to say a second year guy can still get value out of being the third stringer. Maybe he can get more value out of that than being the second stringer and getting forced into action before he is mentally ready. I don't know but it seems to me that it cant hurt. Seeing as this is how Gibbs did it in the past I would guess he thinks much the same way. I agree letting Campbell play more could well get him to super star status within a couple seasons. Or it could have him flipping burgers back in Alabama by the time he is 26. I don't really want to argue this because neither of us is really right. Some guys it will help to play and some it won't. Plus I am not arguing that the best thing to do for Campbell is to sit him as the 3rd guy. I am saying for the Skins having him as the 3rd guy increases the likelihood that he will be great and provides future depth. This is down the line but it most likely increase those things By how much? Who knows.
[QUOTE=Schneed10]
#3 Letting Campbell stay as the 3rd and keeping Ramsey as our second does hurt us, in the salary cap department. Ramsey would take up a couple million of room next year. Instead we could make Campbell the #2 which he will be perfectly capable of, and we can get another rookie or some vet in for minimum pay. Plus, if we keep Ramsey through this year, it hurts us from a GM perspective because he'll fly the coop in January 2007 as a free agent, I'd rather get a 3rd or 4th rounder for him this year.
[/quote]
Now your debating whether the idea of keeping 3 good QBs is good or not and that's cool to me. I personally think that I am not sure. How's that for confusing? The thought I presented came from looking at what they did this year and wondering if they might try it again next year. If they do and it is successful maybe the way the rest of the league handles the position isn't always the right way to go and keeping the three is a good long term solution to the position. I know it ties up money in the cap but maybe it is worth it. As far as getting value for Ramsey I guess that gets weighed against what value you have for him as your second stringer. I'd love to end up getting something for him too if they aren't going to keep him. I'm not suggesting we keep him for no good reason.
[QUOTE=Schneed10]
#4 There is no such thing as growing and maturing without pressure at the QB position. The QB position is all about pressure and how you handle it. If QBs need to be shielded from pressure, then they're in the long line of work. If anything, you want to expose young QBs to pressure to see how they'll respond. We all could see Tom Brady was going to be a good one in his first year of action, because how poised and calm he remained in big pressure situations. 2006 would be a good time to expose Campbell to that as a #2 and find out how he'll respond. We already know Ramsey doesn't respond well to those situations.[/QUOTE]
Well that's a fundamental argument. Could it be that having a QB trained well in his mechanics and understanding the offense completely enough to have supreme confidence when he finally gets put into pressure situation will be even more successful than trial by fire? Maybe, maybe not. I tend to go with my more conservative approach while many others go with yours. Again it depends on the player in question I can't honestly comment on Campbell since I have no idea what the guy can handle. I would say that maybe Ramsey would respond better now knowing the offense more completely and seeing how it was run by a vet. I look at PRs deficiencies as not being in the "pressure-handling" area but more in the decision making area. But that's just me.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]He followed up that crappy preseason with a crappy game against the Bears. There's no way Ramsey hits 2 TDs to Moss in the last five minutes of the game against Dallas. That alone would have given the Cowboys one more win and one more loss for us, meaning we'd be watching Dallas play the Bucs this weekend.

I think you're nuts, FRPLG. You need to let go of this love affair with Patrick Ramsey. At what point do you move on and realize he's not going to cut it as a championship QB? How many more inconsistent performances do you need to see?[/QUOTE]
Maybe He wouldn't have needed 2 desperate passes either?

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]It has been reported that during the draft process before Cooley was drafted Parcells told Cooley, during a visit to the Cowboys, that he was no better than a depth/backup player in the NFL based on the film Parcells had watched on him. Parcells is clearly a master talent evaluator as well as a master talent motivator. Or maybe he is just a master asshole.[/QUOTE]


Absolutly! Parcells was dead on with that one. And as far as talent evaluation when it comes to QB's, he passed on Delhome because he didn't believe he was worth an extra million which Delhome recieved from Carolina, only to winde up with the million dollar arm, and the ten cent brain in Bledsoe for his QB, nice job Bill! :biggthump

As far as Ramsey is concerned, nobody here has seen him in a legitamate offense in the NFL, all he did was run for his life when SS was here, and he threw it extremly well under SS whenever he wasen't being lambasted by a defender after 3 step's. He then played some last season in a Gibbs offense that was going no where. Then he get's outplayed by Brunell in the pre-season, of coarse he was facing mostly starters, while a seasoned veteran in Brunell moved the ball against the A-P bag boys, Brunell had more success but he wasen't anything remotly spectacular in the pre-season.

Then comes the Bears game, a reciever runs the wrong route and Ramsey is blamed for the INT, he then gets closed line and fumbles on a personel foul and nothing is called, after he drove the ball twice down the throats of what has become the best defense in the NFL. Enter Brunell, now everyone wants to focus on Patrick's TO's yet we are not to look at Brunells 2 TO's the very next game against the cowboys, now Gibbs allowed Brunell to redeem himself, and he did with 2 miracle throws in the last 4 minutes after being as pathetic as a QB can be for the first 56 minutes.

To bad Patrick wasen't given that same chance by Gibbs, the deck was always stacked in Brunells favor, Ramsey has been treated like the redheaded step child since Gibbs arrived.

The real killer here is Gibbs can succeed with just about anyone at QB, Rypien, Williams, and Schroeder, so it is no surprise that he is now succeeding with Brunell, who IMO is better than the 3 I just mentioned, but to say Ramsey wouldn't succeed either is nonesense, Ramsey IMO is better than those 3 as well, and would be enjoying the same kind of success that Brunell is now, he has not had a real opportunity to prove himself PERIOD! If you want to believe that he won't succeed if given a fair chance [you know like Brunell recieved all last season] then fine, but to say he's already failed is nonesense.

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister]Abraham is a better rushing the passer off the edge than anyone we have by miles - you take that deal for Ramsey, and restructure Abraham's contract if necessary. Sadly, the Skins almost certainly will have to part ways with LaVar. His $12M cap figure next year makes that a virtual forgone conclusion. Thank goodness we have Marcus Washington locked up at a lesser figure.[/QUOTE]

Actually, from a cap standpoint it costs about $500k more to cut Lavar than to keep him. So unless Snyder wants to save actual dollars, theres really no reason to get rid of him unless we get blown away with a trade offer...

Re: Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey
 

It is a point that Ramsey is in his final year of his contract if it were me and if it were an option I would redo my contract in the offseason to bring his cap figure down from the 3 million it is now. Make the deal more of that of a backup but not less than the kid and aim to start next year as a Redskin.

Given the number of first round picks in previous years that have dropped totally out of the NFL (Cade McCown, Alki Smith, Tim Couch?) and with no clear cut chances on better or equal teams might Ramseys best option not be here and be the interim/insurance guy between Brunell and Cambell?

In 2004 he spent much of the year rehabbing his injury and didn't have a fair shot at unseating Brunell, in 2005 he had the entire offseason to get more comfortable with Gibbs offence but still didn't get it (not long enough) but 2006 is a new year a new chance to show coach how much he has grown and try and win the now three way competition a new .