Ranking the league's best QB packages

Redskins8588 · 06-17-2004, 10:23 PM

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2491416

12. REDSKINS

Mark Brunell
Patrick Ramsey
Tim Hasselbeck
Gilbran Hamdan This group doesn't have the juice of other individual QBs, but forget about 2003. Brunell is still a dependable QB who can win in this league, but he was on a Jags team in rebuilding mode. Ramsey was in the worst situation in football as a pocket punching bag in Steve Spurrier's failed offense. But both these guys are solid, tough players whom Washington can build around. Even Tim Hasselbeck has some experience, giving Joe Gibbs a fine posse of passers to work with.

I can not belive the QB packages that they have listed above us, they have teams like the Colts, Cowboys, the Giants, Browns, it just gets worse.

See for your selves, it is pretty bad....

Redskins8588 · 06-17-2004, 10:30 PM

My bad I went the wrong way on the list, either way it is still pretty bad....

SKINSnCANES · 06-17-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

I can not belive the QB packages that they have listed above us, they have teams like the Colts, Cowboys, the Giants, Browns, it just gets worse.

See for your selves, it is pretty bad....

none of the teams you mentioned are listed above the Skins except teh Colts.
We all think we have the best set but from an outsiders point of view we have an old QB that didnt play but the first three games last year, and a guy who didnt play the end of the season because he kept getting killed. And when he did play he made bad decision after bad decision thorwing picks just trying not to get killed. Ramey looked like the worst QB in the league for the last couple weeks he played. Other that the first three or four games he wanst over impressiver at all.

We all know his potential, and no offense Daseal, but know a lot of it had to do with Spurrier. But as usual the Skins have more on paper then they do in real numbers to show for it.

SKINSnCANES · 06-17-2004, 10:35 PM

heh, i guess you wrote that while I was typing that.

Hopefully after this year we can earn repect from the league and from fans again with actual production, and mabye even a ring.

Hogskin · 06-17-2004, 10:49 PM

Actually, as much as I love the Redskins, I could not list their package of QB's any higher than #12 going into the season. But as far as the listing in this article, some of it was EXCELLENT - if you are looking for a good laugh.

And, Canes, I agree with you, we have a great shot under gibbs to be WAY up the list after the season. I sure hope it pans out, and they perform up to the limit of their potential.

SmootSmack · 06-17-2004, 10:57 PM

You can make a good argument for most of the teams listed above the Redskins I suppose. However, the Colts and Chiefs should not be above the Skins. The Colts are done if Manning goes down. And does anyone really think Todd Collins or Damon Huard can step in and fill Trent Green's shoes?

SKINSnCANES · 06-17-2004, 11:10 PM

I think Huard is a good backup and could probably step in and give the ball to Priest as well as anyone. And if you were to assign a ranking to every QB, then take the average of the three and do the list that way then the Colts probably wouldnt be ranked that hihg, Even if you gave manning a 100, and the other two guys a 75 and a 65 it wouldnt beat out most teams.
At the same time what team wouldnt want their three QBs to lead their team, for the sole purpose of having Manning.

Redskins8588 · 06-17-2004, 11:23 PM

I understand what you mean about earning respect from the league, and 7 out of the first ten teams have a ligimiate reason to be listed.

The teams that I question are the Colts, yes they have Manning but look at his back up Cory Sauter he has 5 years exp. with only playing in 1 game attempting 9 passes and completing 6 of them.

Another team is New England Brady does a good job as the starter but look at his back up Rohan Davey, he did good in NFLE but look at the caliber of players he played against, then look at his NFL stats 3 year exp. 3 games with 9 attempts and 4 completions.

Then there is KC'S back up Todd Collins he does have 10 years exp. but from 98' to 00' he is 0's across the board. When he did play for KC he had 9 games with 22 attempts with 17 completions all over 3 years.

I understand that they are only backups but we have at least 3 QB's with real game exp. more than just a snap here or there.

I also would rather have Ramsey or Brunell, depending on who the starter is, than the 3 QB's I mentioned.

Hogskin · 06-18-2004, 08:37 AM

Well, I agree the Chiefs should not be up there. The only reason is because of their RB and TE, not the quality or depth of their QB. But I definitely would list the Colts even higher than they are. I feel they have the best QB in the NFL right now. As I said in another thread, I would trade all of our QB's for Peyton, even with Dexter Manley as the backup. Manning and the best free agent QB's is a better combination than most team's QB squad.

As far as the ratings specifics - the Panthers, Bucs, and Chiefs should be below the Redskins, but (and I know a lot of you will argue with these) The Dolphins, Bengals, and most of all Falcons should be ahead of the Redskins (RIGHT NOW). The Redskins have much better depth than #12, but the QUALITY of their #1 keeps them out of the top 12. Hopefully, Brunell will stay well and have a comeback season, or Ramsey will overcome his decision-making and slowness issues to become a top QB, and fullfill his "potential", to put them much higher, but we are looking at it on paper as it stands now.

One other point on the list. Detroit should be a LOT higher than #26. (But not as high as the Redskins). Harrington is a lot better than his numbers have shown. He should finally have a running game to help him out this year. He has 2 speed-demon WR's (with Rogers' injury, he had no one to throw to last year). And they have a very credible backup in McMahon.

SmootSmack · 06-18-2004, 01:12 PM

Hogskin, I'm not sure I agree that the Bengals should be above the Redskins right now. Right now their starting quarterback Carson Palmer has never taken an NFL snap so how can he and Kitna rank above Brunell/Ramsey?

Big C · 06-18-2004, 01:23 PM

The colts, pats, chiefs, and panthers are all weaker at depth at the QB position.
Colts- Peyton Manning is the best QB in the game, but he has no backup
Chiefs- Trent Green is pretty good, but once again there is no backup. Todd Collins was supposed to replace Jim Kelley, but he never really did much
Pats- Rohan Davey hasnt done anything in THIS league, and they should not believe that because he was good over in Europe, that he will be a good backup
Panthers- Delhomme is a good QB, but Rodney Peete is what, 90 years old? and had one decent season. Personally, i dont think Delhomme is as good a QB as others do, but i do think he is pretty good.

We should be in the top 10 in my opinion. The reason we are so low is most likely because ppl are beginning to doubt Brunells skills, although i dont understand why.

RedskinRat · 06-18-2004, 01:25 PM

I'm with you SmootSmack, it seems crazy to rate a player on his college stats.

SKINSnCANES · 06-18-2004, 02:15 PM

The list is based on all three, so it doesnt take into account that Palmer is a starter. It just means they have Palmer and Kitna. Kitna had a great year last year, plus they have the nubmer one pick in the draft from last year. Together is looks pretty good on paper. It would be a different list if it was just based on backups.

Hogskin · 06-18-2004, 02:39 PM

Thanks, Canes - exactly my point. And as far as Big C's comment about depth, that is just ONE aspect of it. If you had Manning, Dexter Manley, and Joe Jacoby as your QB's, I would STILL rather have that than Fiedler, Griese, and Frerotte. Sure there is more depth there, but which one has the BEST chance of taking you anywhere? Brunell has had some very good years, but not the last couple injury-laden seasons. Ramsey has promise. That does not hold a candle to the top-rated QB going into the season. Grab a couple decent free agents to replace Manley and Jacoby, and help them learn all they can under Manning until/incase he gets injured. Much stronger. I can assure you any GM out there would trade his entire QB staff for Manning before he would trade it for the entire Redskin QB staff. Not even close.

Don't get me wrong, I DO like our QB corps. But I am being realistic with the evaluation.

memphisskin · 06-18-2004, 03:06 PM

I think we're lucky to be #12. Just the presence of Hasselbeck should put us in the bottom half. I mean, does that Dallas game really count as game experience? Don't you have to complete a pass to your own guys in order for it to count?

06-17-2004, 10:35 PM	#4
SKINSnCANES Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Age: 42 Posts: 5,454	heh, i guess you wrote that while I was typing that. Hopefully after this year we can earn repect from the league and from fans again with actual production, and mabye even a ring. __________________ "I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis

06-17-2004, 10:49 PM	#5
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 83 Posts: 659	Actually, as much as I love the Redskins, I could not list their package of QB's any higher than #12 going into the season. But as far as the listing in this article, some of it was EXCELLENT - if you are looking for a good laugh. And, Canes, I agree with you, we have a great shot under gibbs to be WAY up the list after the season. I sure hope it pans out, and they perform up to the limit of their potential. __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

06-17-2004, 10:57 PM	#6
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	You can make a good argument for most of the teams listed above the Redskins I suppose. However, the Colts and Chiefs should not be above the Skins. The Colts are done if Manning goes down. And does anyone really think Todd Collins or Damon Huard can step in and fill Trent Green's shoes? __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

06-17-2004, 11:10 PM	#7
SKINSnCANES Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Age: 42 Posts: 5,454	I think Huard is a good backup and could probably step in and give the ball to Priest as well as anyone. And if you were to assign a ranking to every QB, then take the average of the three and do the list that way then the Colts probably wouldnt be ranked that hihg, Even if you gave manning a 100, and the other two guys a 75 and a 65 it wouldnt beat out most teams. At the same time what team wouldnt want their three QBs to lead their team, for the sole purpose of having Manning. __________________ "I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis

06-17-2004, 11:23 PM	#8
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	I understand what you mean about earning respect from the league, and 7 out of the first ten teams have a ligimiate reason to be listed. The teams that I question are the Colts, yes they have Manning but look at his back up Cory Sauter he has 5 years exp. with only playing in 1 game attempting 9 passes and completing 6 of them. Another team is New England Brady does a good job as the starter but look at his back up Rohan Davey, he did good in NFLE but look at the caliber of players he played against, then look at his NFL stats 3 year exp. 3 games with 9 attempts and 4 completions. Then there is KC'S back up Todd Collins he does have 10 years exp. but from 98' to 00' he is 0's across the board. When he did play for KC he had 9 games with 22 attempts with 17 completions all over 3 years. I understand that they are only backups but we have at least 3 QB's with real game exp. more than just a snap here or there. I also would rather have Ramsey or Brunell, depending on who the starter is, than the 3 QB's I mentioned. __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

06-17-2004, 10:23 PM	#1
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	Ranking the league's best QB packages http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2491416 12. REDSKINS Mark Brunell Patrick Ramsey Tim Hasselbeck Gilbran Hamdan This group doesn't have the juice of other individual QBs, but forget about 2003. Brunell is still a dependable QB who can win in this league, but he was on a Jags team in rebuilding mode. Ramsey was in the worst situation in football as a pocket punching bag in Steve Spurrier's failed offense. But both these guys are solid, tough players whom Washington can build around. Even Tim Hasselbeck has some experience, giving Joe Gibbs a fine posse of passers to work with. I can not belive the QB packages that they have listed above us, they have teams like the Colts, Cowboys, the Giants, Browns, it just gets worse. See for your selves, it is pretty bad.... __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

06-17-2004, 10:30 PM	#2
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 46 Posts: 2,519	My bad I went the wrong way on the list, either way it is still pretty bad.... __________________ "I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor

06-18-2004, 08:37 AM	#9
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 83 Posts: 659	Well, I agree the Chiefs should not be up there. The only reason is because of their RB and TE, not the quality or depth of their QB. But I definitely would list the Colts even higher than they are. I feel they have the best QB in the NFL right now. As I said in another thread, I would trade all of our QB's for Peyton, even with Dexter Manley as the backup. Manning and the best free agent QB's is a better combination than most team's QB squad. As far as the ratings specifics - the Panthers, Bucs, and Chiefs should be below the Redskins, but (and I know a lot of you will argue with these) The Dolphins, Bengals, and most of all Falcons should be ahead of the Redskins (RIGHT NOW). The Redskins have much better depth than #12, but the QUALITY of their #1 keeps them out of the top 12. Hopefully, Brunell will stay well and have a comeback season, or Ramsey will overcome his decision-making and slowness issues to become a top QB, and fullfill his "potential", to put them much higher, but we are looking at it on paper as it stands now. One other point on the list. Detroit should be a LOT higher than #26. (But not as high as the Redskins). Harrington is a lot better than his numbers have shown. He should finally have a running game to help him out this year. He has 2 speed-demon WR's (with Rogers' injury, he had no one to throw to last year). And they have a very credible backup in McMahon. __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

06-18-2004, 01:12 PM	#10
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Hogskin, I'm not sure I agree that the Bengals should be above the Redskins right now. Right now their starting quarterback Carson Palmer has never taken an NFL snap so how can he and Kitna rank above Brunell/Ramsey? __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

06-18-2004, 01:23 PM	#11
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	The colts, pats, chiefs, and panthers are all weaker at depth at the QB position. Colts- Peyton Manning is the best QB in the game, but he has no backup Chiefs- Trent Green is pretty good, but once again there is no backup. Todd Collins was supposed to replace Jim Kelley, but he never really did much Pats- Rohan Davey hasnt done anything in THIS league, and they should not believe that because he was good over in Europe, that he will be a good backup Panthers- Delhomme is a good QB, but Rodney Peete is what, 90 years old? and had one decent season. Personally, i dont think Delhomme is as good a QB as others do, but i do think he is pretty good. We should be in the top 10 in my opinion. The reason we are so low is most likely because ppl are beginning to doubt Brunells skills, although i dont understand why.

06-18-2004, 01:25 PM	#12
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	I'm with you SmootSmack, it seems crazy to rate a player on his college stats.

06-18-2004, 02:15 PM	#13
SKINSnCANES Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Age: 42 Posts: 5,454	The list is based on all three, so it doesnt take into account that Palmer is a starter. It just means they have Palmer and Kitna. Kitna had a great year last year, plus they have the nubmer one pick in the draft from last year. Together is looks pretty good on paper. It would be a different list if it was just based on backups. __________________ "I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis

06-18-2004, 02:39 PM	#14
Hogskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hartselle, Alabama Age: 83 Posts: 659	Thanks, Canes - exactly my point. And as far as Big C's comment about depth, that is just ONE aspect of it. If you had Manning, Dexter Manley, and Joe Jacoby as your QB's, I would STILL rather have that than Fiedler, Griese, and Frerotte. Sure there is more depth there, but which one has the BEST chance of taking you anywhere? Brunell has had some very good years, but not the last couple injury-laden seasons. Ramsey has promise. That does not hold a candle to the top-rated QB going into the season. Grab a couple decent free agents to replace Manley and Jacoby, and help them learn all they can under Manning until/incase he gets injured. Much stronger. I can assure you any GM out there would trade his entire QB staff for Manning before he would trade it for the entire Redskin QB staff. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, I DO like our QB corps. But I am being realistic with the evaluation. __________________ John Shaffer National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc. Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990

06-18-2004, 03:06 PM	#15
memphisskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Age: 53 Posts: 960	I think we're lucky to be #12. Just the presence of Hasselbeck should put us in the bottom half. I mean, does that Dallas game really count as game experience? Don't you have to complete a pass to your own guys in order for it to count?

Ranking the league's best QB packages

Locker Room Main Forum