Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
But suppose - just suppose - that you have already seen the absolute BEST that Patrick Ramsey has to offer....
|
I would suppose that outlook would be rather short-sighted, wouldn't you? Which makes more sense: to assume that a 25 year-old has realized his full potential, or that an accomplished 34 year-old veteran has given the best he has to offer?
Let me ask you this: how old was Mark Brunell when he began his ascent to the realm of "accomplished" quarterbacks? The year was 1995, Mark Brunell was in his third season as a pro, in his first season in Jacksonville, and he was the tender young age of-- you guessed it!-- 25 years old. In his two seasons prior to taking the reigns of the Jacksonville offense, he had played in exactly two games, completed 12 of 27 passes for 97 yards, and posted a 53.8 QB rating. He went from that, to completing 58 percent of his passes, throwing 15 touchdowns to 7 interceptions, and posting an 82.6 quarterback rating in his third season.
Now, suppose the folks in charge had judged him based on his limited and unimpressive experience, rather than choosing to explore his vast potential.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
Jets' coach Herman Edwards - also an excellent coach and a solid citizen - said that the only reason you play is "to win the game". You don't play to win some game that might happen next year or the season after next; you play to win the game on this Sunday. Ramsey is there in case Brunell gets hurt. Other than that, he'll start when he convinces Coach Gibbs in practice that he is a better QB THIS WEEK than Mark Brunell.
|
First of all, Brunell IS HURT. Secondly, Brunell has lost more games than he has won as a Redskin, and those losses are due in no small part to Brunell's inability to throw the ball with accuracy and velocity-- ostensibly because
he's injured. If that's the case, then the healthy second-string guy (whether that's Ramsey or Hasselbeck or
YoYo Ma) should be playing shouldn't he?
I have a hard time believing Mark Brunell looked splendid in practice all these weeks, and then suddenly became incompetent at kickoff. I also have a hard time believing that Coach Gibbs has seen enough of
either of his backup quarterbacks in practice the past few weeks to make any determination as to whether they would be a better option than an injured Brunell. According to most reports I've read-- and based on the reality of regular season practice rep distribution-- Brunell has been taking the vast majority of the snaps since the latter portion of Dallas week.
As for Herm Edwards' oft-referenced quote regarding winning games and winning them now... well, I do believe that's the whole reason this debate began isn't it? Folks would be fine with Brunell if his performance produced 4 wins in six games instead of 4 losses, and he were able to put away a Bears team that ranked near the bottom of the league in pass defense, instead of staggering to a 13-10 wimper of a win over another one-win team. The bottom line is, if Brunell were winning more games than he were losing, this debate wouldn't be happening.