Re: Who starts at QB?
 

yall already starting this mess..................

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

We have waited way to long to deal Ramsey. Jets were offering a 3rd or so for him last year, maybe even higher I honestly dont remember. The fact everyone in the league knew after the 1st half of the 1st game that Ramsey was going to be else where at the start of next season has dropped his trade value dramatically. Teams know the skins are going to drop him, no matter what happens. All this who-ha about waiting to see what happens was a load of crap. they wanted teams to offer something in regards of players or draft picks. Fact is, they know we are releasing him, why give away picks when we can get him on FA market and keep the picks. Ramseys Market will pick up when he is released in the next few days. I think they are really crapping on him right now, especially the way he has handled himself the last two years. Never saying anything bad about the team, supporting Brunell and cheering him on. I saw him repeatedly be the first one on the field to congratulate Brunell after thowing a TD pass. I hope Ramsey goes on to become a very good QB in this league. He has the arm,brains, and we all saw the kid take a pounding and kept getting up, so we know his toughness isn't a question. GOOD LUCK PATRICK!

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]I agree with your feelings on Ramsey but I've turned the page on the idea that someday he'd succeed here. Joe Gibbs doesn't like his game. Joe's not a good coaching fit for a young gunslinger who needs patience.

With all the FA signings, I'd like to get very optimistic about the 2006 season but I have serious doubts about our QB situation.

Last year, our passing game was customized for a 35 year-old Mark Brunell who still has the instincts of a scrambler but doesn't have the legs anymore. From the Seattle game through the San Franscisco blowout, Mark and Santana put up some amazing yardage numbers but, after that, their production fell off. At the end, in the weaker part of our schedule, we were very dependent on the running game and defensive turnovers.

At this stage of his career, Brunell's game is very limited and easily defended. Furthermore, Al Saunders' scheme utilizes a pocket passer. Mark doesn't fit the system.

I hope we didn't bring in Al Saunders to adjust his scheme for a 36 year-old ex-scrambler.

Even if the media rumors that Campbell isn't ready are false, how optimistic can we get about the potential of an offense with a QB who has never taken a snap in an NFL game where real bullets were being fired?[/QUOTE]

hypothetically speaking: ... suppose we keep ramsey ...

If Gibbs opens his mind and let's saunders have equal influence in the decision of whom to start at QB, thus guaranteeing a fair competition then what would be the result?

My conclusion is only that our QB depth chart will be much more attractive w/ Ramsey than without.


(no particular order)
1)Brunell --------------------1) Brunell
2)Campbell ----is less then---2)Ramsey
3)Collins--------------------- 3)Campbell

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]Are you talking about drafting them? Theisman was already here (George Allen). Beathard selected Schroeder, Humphries, and Rypien with fifth and sixth round draft choices.

Joe dealt Schroeder and Humphries away after Beathard left (later admitting that he was wrong about Humphries who started and played fairly well for San Diego).

Brunell and Campbell were selected by Gibbs, of course. I'm not sure who picked williams.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if it's so much who picked and drafted them because I'm pretty sure he had a lot of input in that, but I think a lot of it has to do with what he did with them as far as who was starting and who he thought gave them the best chance to win. In fact, it all comes down to what is the common factor to all of these successful qb's - Joe Gibbs was their head coach.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

todd collins will be the starting QB opening day :)

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

Redskins fans LOVE a QB debate, no doubt! ;)

Here's a possibility--the best player in camp will be #1, the next best will be #2, and the third best will be #3. I know this sounds INSANE, and how could Scheffer be wrong, and how could Gibbs not already be sure, but this is what I think maybe, possibly, conceivably, is what's going to happen. :frusty:

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Big C]todd collins will be the starting QB opening day :)[/QUOTE]

Big C.... What are you talking about!!!! Collins the Starter on opening Day! Give me a break. He is a $2.5 million clipboard holder and player/coach to bring Campbell along. Nothing more!

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

One thing I think has to be said about Brunell's inability to create an offensive production at the end of last season is that it wasn't simply due to his injuries. At the end of last season Mark had noone to throw the ball to. Moss was double teamed, Patten was on IR, Jacobs and Thrash were simply absymal, and short passes to Cooley and Portis couldn't give us the downfeild threat necessary to get the db's on their heels and to keep frequent blitzes from coming. I think that it is very possible that Brunell in the same condition he ended this past season, could have enough options now with the addition of Randle El and Lloyd, and a healthy Patten in rotation, (And also Saunders' throroughly productive offenssive system) to put up enough points to win in the playoffs, especially with an increaingly efficient Williams defense keeping them on the feild. At this point Jason Campbell hasn't proved he can perform in the NFL. So if I were to put money on whether Brunell or Campbell have a better chance to win us a superbowl, Id put it all on Brunell. Last year with no other downfeild threat then moss, was able to pass for just as many or more TD's then he ever did in Jacksonville. I dont think we should discount him simply because he showed signs of wear at the end of the season. Yeah Gibb's got Campbel for the Redskins future, but the team is Brunells until he proves to be more competant. I for one wouldn't feel comfortable with a second year QB at the helm of the offense. And for those who are inevitably going to mention Rothlisberger, you cannot base your argument for Campbells ability on another players success. So until the season I guess we'll have to wait, but for now Im sold on Brunell.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]We have waited way to long to deal Ramsey.[/QUOTE]

I know in hindsight, the redskins should have dealt him a long time ago - but you can't live by hindsight, we don't have the power to go back in time. We can't really look at it like that, if we did then you can make the argument that the redskins shouldn't have really drafted him if they knew that he wasn't really going to have a chance. But they didn't really know that. You can only decide and plan things on what you know and what you feel. I'm sure gibbs didn't know that he was planning to pull out Ramsey before the first game was through, but he went with his gut and look how that turned out. And with Ramsey, I personally can't back a player that doesn't get that stamp of approval from gibbs. I couldn't argue with his success of qb decisions, which includes Brunell.

The best thing to do at this point is - keep Ramsey and hope the market for him heats up. The redskins may be able to keep him until the rookies sign because that cap space would have to be reserved for them anyways.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

Maybe R-El will get some snaps. ;-)

Seriously, the QB position is the scariest part of this roster. The Campbell move last year was a gigantic gamble.

The pre-season will be fodder for lots of great discussions.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=scowan]Big C.... What are you talking about!!!! Collins the Starter on opening Day! Give me a break. He is a $2.5 million clipboard holder and player/coach to bring Campbell along. Nothing more![/QUOTE]

I think the C in Big C stands for Comedian...he was joking, weren't you Big C?

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=NFLeurope]I apologize in advance to anyone this post might annoy or if this momentarily brings back to life...the old ass tired Ramsey-Brunell debate.

It is my personal belief that Ramsey given the weapons we now have...could...(and i think and have thought for a long time) should be the guy to lead us deep into the playoffs. I just really wish he had gotten a shot here.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with nearly everything you wrote, NFLeurope, except for your opening apology. I will not apologize for calling the way that the 'Skins have treated Ramsey a disgrace. I hope that he lands in a good situation for next season.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

true. they might have shafted him just a touch, but still its obvious he was not the better QB.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Grayacre]I agree with nearly everything you wrote, NFLeurope, except for your opening apology. I will not apologize for calling the way that the 'Skins have treated Ramsey a disgrace. I hope that he lands in a good situation for next season.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be that harsh in calling the treatment of Ramsey (or Arrington, for that matter) a disgrace. There have been great players that have played for other teams that have been treated with a lot less consideration. These decisions have been made for what the redskins think is best for the team. I don't think they intentionally treated them unfairly. Maybe Snyder was upset at Arrington or Ramsey or both, but I don't think the recent decisions were made based on his opinion of them.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Grayacre]I agree with nearly everything you wrote, NFLeurope, except for your opening apology. I will not apologize for calling the way that the 'Skins have treated Ramsey a disgrace. I hope that he lands in a good situation for next season.[/QUOTE]
I really hate to get back into this but it bugs the hell out of me.. How was the way Ramsey treated 'a disgrace'? The 2 training camps that he flopped? The 2 pre-seasons he played crappily thru? The turnovers when he played in the regular season? The sacks because he held the ball for......ev......er....?

Guys, he didn't step up and grab the job, electrify the team, wow the coaches, establish that he was unquestionably, unequivocably THE MAN so please spare us the 'Ramsey never had a chance' bs..

If he came in and played like Elway or Favre (both of whom he's been compared to in this thread) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.. He came in and played like Gus Frerotte and his career path is following accordingly..

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]I know in hindsight, the redskins should have dealt him a long time ago - but you can't live by hindsight, we don't have the power to go back in time. We can't really look at it like that, if we did then you can make the argument that the redskins shouldn't have really drafted him if they knew that he wasn't really going to have a chance. But they didn't really know that. You can only decide and plan things on what you know and what you feel. I'm sure gibbs didn't know that he was planning to pull out Ramsey before the first game was through, but he went with his gut and look how that turned out. And with Ramsey, I personally can't back a player that doesn't get that stamp of approval from gibbs. I couldn't argue with his success of qb decisions, which includes Brunell.

The best thing to do at this point is - keep Ramsey and hope the market for him heats up. The redskins may be able to keep him until the rookies sign because that cap space would have to be reserved for them anyways.[/QUOTE]

Gibbs knew Ramsey was not his guy when he got here. The signing of Brunell, the drafting of Campbell. That pretty much sums it up. I know we can go back in time, (unless my experiment works, in which I am going to be really, really rich and buy the skins from Danny). That was a decision that should have been made earlier, that is all I am saying. The writing was on the wall when he signed Brunell and drafted Campbell. We could have gotten a much higher pick, hell a pick at all since now we get dick!!

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

1) Campbell
2) Brunell
3) Collins

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Gibbs knew Ramsey was not his guy when he got here. The signing of Brunell, the drafting of Campbell. That pretty much sums it up. I know we can go back in time, (unless my experiment works, in which I am going to be really, really rich and buy the skins from Danny). That was a decision that should have been made earlier, that is all I am saying. The writing was on the wall when he signed Brunell and drafted Campbell. We could have gotten a much higher pick, hell a pick at all since now we get dick!![/QUOTE]

But why would he then keep him and let him start the first game ? Just so he can stick it to ramsey and say i'll waste one of your years in the nfl - I don't think that Gibbs is vindictive like that, and if he was - he had nothing against ramsey. Like someone posted - Theisman was with the redskins before gibbs, and i'm sure he would have liked ramsey to succeed just as well. I just don't understand why he would intentionally wait to deal ramsey, if he knew that he wouldn't give ramsey a chance. It just sucks for everyone involved - the redskins team, ramsey, and gibbs, himself.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]But why would he then keep him and let him start the first game ? Just so he can stick it to ramsey and say i'll waste one of your years in the nfl - I don't think that Gibbs is vindictive like that, and if he was - he had nothing against ramsey. Like someone posted - Theisman was with the redskins before gibbs, and i'm sure he would have liked ramsey to succeed just as well. I just don't understand why he would intentionally wait to deal ramsey, if he knew that he wouldn't give ramsey a chance. It just sucks for everyone involved - the redskins team, ramsey, and gibbs, himself.[/QUOTE]
I think that in looking for a villain in the Ramsey situation, we are forgetting the facts.

1) Gibbs gave the job, grudingly, to Ramsey after Brunell's horrible 2004 season - one that was marred by injury. Clearly he preferred Brunell's decision-making, but Ramsey's arm was measurably better than Brunell's.

2) Ramsey made several mistakes in his opening game - understandable mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless. Ramsey threw an interception on his second pass of the game, and his other two drives ended with fumbles, including the one on his injury that was recovered by Chicago. Ramsey finished 6 of 11 for 105 yards with two sacks and a 49.4 passer rating. Brunell, while not explosive, managed three scoring drives. Error-free football wins the day, and Brunell emerges the starter.

3) Trade overtures from the Jets (and other teams) at the deadline, would have left the team scrambling for a credible backup. The only other QB on the roster was Campbell, who was not ready for the job. While the offers were reportedly better than the ones we are hearing now, we would have left the franchise to a player who wasn't healthy enough to finish the previous year, with a rookie or someone off the street to replace him in case of injury.

Though we didn't [u]need[/u] Ramsey on the team (he played only sparingly in blowouts the remainder of the season), that couldn't have been clear in late September, when the Jets were making overtures. Keeping Ramsey wasn't a question of Gibbs trying to screw Ramsey or anyone else, it was Gibbs trying to field the best roster he could in 2005.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]I think that in looking for a villain in the Ramsey situation, we are forgetting the facts.

1) Gibbs gave the job, grudingly, to Ramsey after Brunell's horrible 2004 season - one that was marred by injury. Clearly he preferred Brunell's decision-making, but Ramsey's arm was measurably better than Brunell's.

2) Ramsey made several mistakes in his opening game - understandable mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless. Ramsey threw an interception on his second pass of the game, and his other two drives ended with fumbles, including the one on his injury that was recovered by Chicago. Ramsey finished 6 of 11 for 105 yards with two sacks and a 49.4 passer rating. Brunell, while not explosive, managed three scoring drives. Error-free football wins the day, and Brunell emerges the starter.

3) Trade overtures from the Jets (and other teams) at the deadline, would have left the team scrambling for a credible backup. The only other QB on the roster was Campbell, who was not ready for the job. While the offers were reportedly better than the ones we are hearing now, we would have left the franchise to a player who wasn't healthy enough to finish the previous year, with a rookie or someone off the street to replace him in case of injury.

Though we didn't [u]need[/u] Ramsey on the team (he played only sparingly in blowouts the remainder of the season), that couldn't have been clear in late September, when the Jets were making overtures. Keeping Ramsey wasn't a question of Gibbs trying to screw Ramsey or anyone else, it was Gibbs trying to field the best roster he could in 2005.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Let me also add something to this - I personally think one of the greatest if not the greatest decision of 2005 was the decision to pull Ramsey and replace him with Brunell. It took a lot of courage for Gibbs to go with his instinct which went against the conventional reasoning of the masses- this was really the first time he did this since he has unretired. I know how there are some that disagree with his treatment of and decisions on ramsey, but I can't argue with the success of 2005.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

i dont think anyone can argue with the success.. of course its hard to say, but i think many of us would have liked to have maybe seen ramsey in the playoffs because of brunells bum knee.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

well i guess there are two types of people in this world.

1) those who need closure ...

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain]I really hate to get back into this but it bugs the hell out of me.. How was the way Ramsey treated 'a disgrace'? The 2 training camps that he flopped? The 2 pre-seasons he played crappily thru? The turnovers when he played in the regular season? The sacks because he held the ball for......ev......er....?

Guys, he didn't step up and grab the job, electrify the team, wow the coaches, establish that he was unquestionably, unequivocably THE MAN so please spare us the 'Ramsey never had a chance' bs..

If he came in and played like Elway or Favre (both of whom he's been compared to in this thread) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.. He came in and played like Gus Frerotte and his career path is following accordingly..[/QUOTE]

Marvelous post.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED][/QUOTE]

Hey PWNED, I have the answer to your signature below your posts - i bet it would win me THE prize too.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED]well i guess there are two types of people in this world.

1) those who need closure ...[/QUOTE]
Finish, damnit!!!

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain]I really hate to get back into this but it bugs the hell out of me.. How was the way Ramsey treated 'a disgrace'? The 2 training camps that he flopped? The 2 pre-seasons he played crappily thru? The turnovers when he played in the regular season? The sacks because he held the ball for......ev......er....?

Guys, he didn't step up and grab the job, electrify the team, wow the coaches, establish that he was unquestionably, unequivocably THE MAN so please spare us the 'Ramsey never had a chance' bs..

If he came in and played like Elway or Favre (both of whom he's been compared to in this thread) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.. He came in and played like Gus Frerotte and his career path is following accordingly..[/QUOTE]

I gotta agree with Schneed. That post really summarizes the feelings a lot of us have about Ramsey. Especially the part about him following the career path of Frerotte. That's my fear (for lack of a better word) about what Ramsey's career will be. He'll be steady for a long time, but this is as good as he'll be...Of course, I could be wrong

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]I agree. Let me also add something to this - I personally think one of the greatest if not the greatest decision of 2005 was the decision to pull Ramsey and replace him with Brunell. It took a lot of courage for Gibbs to go with his instinct which went against the conventional reasoning of the masses- this was really the first time he did this since he has unretired. I know how there are some that disagree with his treatment of and decisions on ramsey, but I can't argue with the success of 2005.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Ramsey got replaced. Did he get as much of a chance to prove himself as Brunell did? No. That's because Brunell already proved himself in Jacksonville. Ramsey is not proven yet. So Gibbs yanked him against Chicago, and Brunell's prior experience in Jacksonville gave Gibbs a good idea that he'd succeed again here, and what do you know, he was right.

A young Mark Brunell once got the same shot that Ramsey got from Spurrier and Gibbs. Brunell got a shot to be a starting quarterback, and in his first full season he took the league by storm and took the Jags to the championship game. Ramsey came into the league, showed courage, gained respect, but in the end was only mediocre.

Brunell has established that he can lead a team, that's why Gibbs went to him.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]Hey PWNED, I have the answer to your signature below your posts - i bet it would win me THE prize too.[/QUOTE]

It's Lois Lane

[font=Arial Black]i am to superman as [u]Lois Lane[/u] is to clark kent.[/font]

Because both of you were secret lovers to both. J/K :) I wanted to type something funnier, but I know this is a family site :)

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Finish, damnit!!![/QUOTE]

:biggthump thanks brud. i had to have SOMEONE say that.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]It's Lois Lane

[font=Arial Black]i am to superman as [u]Lois Lane[/u] is to clark kent.[/font]

Because both of you were secret lovers to both. J/K :) I wanted to type something funnier, but I know this is a family site :)[/QUOTE]

yes the people that DIDNT want the prize thought it would be funny to send me a PM of that too. drew54 happened to answer me correctly and will be receiving an auto'd card in the mail. :)

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

Though we didn't [u]need[/u] Ramsey on the team (he played only sparingly in blowouts the remainder of the season), that couldn't have been clear in late September, when the Jets were making overtures. Keeping Ramsey wasn't a question of Gibbs trying to screw Ramsey or anyone else, it was Gibbs trying to field the best roster he could in 2005.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ about Ramsey. Once the season started, we DID need him. Jason Campbell was not ready to step in should Brunell have gone down and we basically had two starters to work with. I also agree with other fans on this site that believe Ramsey was given every opportunity to be the starter and he just did not do enough to make it happen. That is why the Gibbs decision was so tough to make and so contriversial.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I gotta agree with Schneed. That post really summarizes the feelings a lot of us have about Ramsey. Especially the part about him following the career path of Frerotte. That's my fear (for lack of a better word) about what Ramsey's career will be. He'll be steady for a long time, but this is as good as he'll be...Of course, I could be wrong[/QUOTE]

Hopefully the redskins will be winning so many games plus the superbowl, to even notice what ramsey is doing. My point: the redskins should focus on what they have instead of what they don't have - winning would acheive this, they wouldn't have to worry about him or anyone else that doesn't have an indian on their helmet.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=warriorzpath]Hopefully the redskins will be winning so many games plus the superbowl, to even notice what ramsey is doing. My point: the redskins should focus on what they have instead of what they don't have - winning would acheive this, they wouldn't have to worry about him or anyone else that doesn't have an indian on their helmet.[/QUOTE]

... unless of course that "other" player is a free agent :)

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413]hypothetically speaking: ... suppose we keep ramsey ...

If Gibbs opens his mind and let's saunders have equal influence in the decision of whom to start at QB, thus guaranteeing a fair competition then what would be the result?

My conclusion is only that our QB depth chart will be much more attractive w/ Ramsey than without.


(no particular order)
1)Brunell --------------------1) Brunell
2)Campbell ----is less then---2)Ramsey
3)Collins--------------------- 3)Campbell[/QUOTE]

I can't imagine paying two million a year to hire an OC and then not giving him the final say on who plays QB in his scheme. Joe Gibbs will have input surely but Saunders will make the call.

However, the Ramsey Bridge was burned before Saunders got here. He doesn't want to play here.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Ramsey got replaced. Did he get as much of a chance to prove himself as Brunell did? No. That's because Brunell already proved himself in Jacksonville.[/QUOTE]

And, young Mark Brunell got a chance to prove himself in Jacksonville because some dumb ass in Green Bay didn't give it to him.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I think the C in Big C stands for Comedian...he was joking, weren't you Big C?[/QUOTE]

of course, cant believe someone took me seriously! :towel: :towel:

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Ugh, no offense man and my rant isn't directed at you specifically, but when can we finally drop this debate??

Ramsey is on his way out, his time here is done. He wasn't drafted by Gibbs, and Gibbs obviously doesn't think as highly of Ramsey as some of his fanboys do. Why do we have to keep rehashing this every other day?[/QUOTE]

The real benefit to Ramsey leaving is that Matty won't have to rant about this anymore. It'll make things much easier on the Gibbs fanboys.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=scowan]Though we didn't [u]need[/u] Ramsey on the team (he played only sparingly in blowouts the remainder of the season), that couldn't have been clear in late September, when the Jets were making overtures. Keeping Ramsey wasn't a question of Gibbs trying to screw Ramsey or anyone else, it was Gibbs trying to field the best roster he could in 2005.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ about Ramsey. Once the season started, we DID need him. Jason Campbell was not ready to step in should Brunell have gone down and we basically had two starters to work with. I also agree with other fans on this site that believe Ramsey was given every opportunity to be the starter and he just did not do enough to make it happen. That is why the Gibbs decision was so tough to make and so contriversial.[/QUOTE]

I dont know anybody is saying we didn't need him. What I am saying is he obviously wasn't in any of the long term plans for the Redskins. What we are saying is we could have gotten a pretty good draft pick for him last year, instead of getting nothing this year. Gibbs always wants two, if not three good QBs, so keeping him was better than having a rookie as the #2, no doubt.

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

the ramsey topic is getting almost as old as the spurrier threads used to!

Re: Who starts at QB?
 

[QUOTE=JET]The real benefit to Ramsey leaving is that Matty won't have to rant about this anymore. It'll make things much easier on the Gibbs fanboys.[/QUOTE]

Did you just get pwned Matty?