The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

BernieSki wrote:Gibbs does not have to be actively looking for a trade, but if a team makes a reasonable offer he would have a fiduciary obligation to the Redskins to at least consider it. That is why we need a true GM so a coach does not let his emotions get in the way of the betterment of the team. You have to admit that if you are offered a first round pick for your backup quarterback, you have to make that trade.

I endore this three 100% I've been advocating for a true GM for a while now!

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

BernieSki wrote:Gibbs does not have to be actively looking for a trade, but if a team makes a reasonable offer he would have a fiduciary obligation to the Redskins to at least consider it. That is why we need a true GM so a coach does not let his emotions get in the way of the betterment of the team. You have to admit that if you are offered a first round pick for your backup quarterback, you have to make that trade.

I endore this three 100% I've been advocating for a true GM for a while now!

What GM in his right mind would trade Ramsey with no one to back up Brunell but Campbell?

bedsonjo wrote:Jets signed vinny t. back and n. odonell to the squad. So there will be no trade whatsoever

A trade was never a possibility. Do you really think Gibbs would trade his only expierenced backup. We could have 3 wins and no losses after this weekend. If we were 0-3 maybe, but not now.

On Monday,tcwest10 wrote:I think the Jets will likely bring Testaverde back in, seeing as to how Fiedler is probably doomed, too.

Oh, I rock !

any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.
here's how it adds up:

POINT A: we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there.

POINT B: with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

POINT C: the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over. so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him. bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!! PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

die cowboys die wrote:any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.
here's how it adds up:

POINT A: we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there.

POINT B: with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

POINT C: the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over. so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him. bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!! PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

Your entire post centers around the premise that Brunell is just barely capable of getting us to the playoffs, and that Ramsey has no chance of doing so. I have to disagree. I think either, by minimizing turnovers, can lead us to the promised land. You HAVE to have a capable backup in the NFL. Why are you ready to throw away a season that we have started 2-0?

Sportstalk980 reported this morning that several sources within the Redskin organization stated that the Jets appraoched the Skins about a trade for Ramsey and the Redskins turned them away.

Die Cowboys Die,

I respectfully disagree with your assesment of the Ramsey situation, especially the "Play him or trade him" philosophy that you take. Clearly, you're a Ramsey fan and that's your opinion which you have every right to. I would presume, or at least hope, that you're a fan of Ramsey based on his abilities as a football player and your belief that he could lead this team to wins if, and when, he is called upon to be the QB. That being said, why would you suggest with such urgency that we "Play him or trade him". I like Ramsey as well, which is all the MORE reason for us NOT to trade him at this moment. Brunell, who is the starting QB, is highly unlikely to go the entire season without the need for Ramsey to be summoned. Therefore, I would take the opposite of your philosophy of "trade him or play him" and hope that when he is called upon to be the QB, either as a starter or a backup, that he perform at the level he is capable of, and one which has obviously attracted you as a fan of his. Playing the devils advocate, even if we were to trade him right now, the chances of us getting a player who can make an immediate contribution or impact that will assist us in progressing towards the playoffs are minimal at best. Instead, I believe we should keep him as the backup QB, and a capable one at that, allowing us to call on him instead of Campbell, if needed. Even though Gibbs apparently lacks confidence in Ramsey, I don't think his lack of confidence in Ramsey is strong enough to throw Campbell to the wolves if Brunell is unable to play while the playoffs are a mathematical possibility.

any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.

I respect your opinion, and am thankful that that's just what it is, an opinion. I am of the opinion that we're not screwing it up, and also believe that whatever we do vis-a-vis the possible trade of Ramsey will be what is best for the team, not what is best for Ramseys salary.

we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there

Again, this is another point that I strongly disagree with. We've only played two games, and in those two games our passing game (irrespective of which QB it is/was) has had completions of 39, 42, and 70 yards, a clear and important upgrade from our performance ALL of last year. Our defense has been playing as good, if not better, than last year albeit without forcing turnovers. With that in mind, how can you say we only have a "small chance at making the playoffs". I'm not even thinking about what our chances are of making the playoffs right now, I'm just thinking about the game plan for this Sunday's game against Seattle. Our chances for making the playoffs will develop over the next several weeks.

Instead, I think our chances of making the playoffs, whether those chances are small or large, depend largely on the team being focused and ready to play each Sunday. I hope that they're not thinking about things that the fans are focusing on, i.e. whether or not Gibbs is going to trade Ramsey now, or later. I'm not doubting that it's o.k. for fans to gauge our playoff chances based on current and possible personnel decisions or scenarios, but for right now, (and this is just my opinion) let's stay focused on Seattle and see how things play out with the Ramsey trade scenario.

with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

I can understand that you're basing this on Brunells performance last year, and most of his performance this year. But, instead of having a "glass half empty" approach to it, try and have a "glass half full" approach, it's a hell of a lot more fun and exciting. It's normal for fans to have such a wide range of opinions on so many issues, but I've noticed you tend to have a doom and gloom approach to the Redskins, but I would encourage you to try and be a little more optimistic with things. Just a suggestion!!

the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

This is classic "glass half empty" stuff. You use words or phrases like "Ramsey is worse than Brunell", yet the Coaches, and indeed many fans, use phrases like "Brunell gives us the best chance to win". Both phrases can be used, depending on your attitude, but the reality of the situation, at least in my opinion, is that Brunell clearly gives us a better chance to wing games, and hopefully lead us to the playoffs. By saying words like "worse than Brunell", you're implying that the coaching staff think Ramsey is a bad QB. This, I believe, is not the case. It's just that they believe Brunell gives us the best chance to win. If the coaching staff thought that Ramsey was a bad QB, I doubt very much that they would have even let him start one series, much less one game. Gibbs believes that Brunells experience, his leadership abilities, and his grasp of what Gibbs expects is a more viable option for the Redskins right now, and has made the decision to go with Brunell. That should not be construed as the Coaching staff thinking Ramsey is a bad QB.

add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over

No, that's not true. In YOUR line of thinking it might, but not in the Coaching staff. If Brunell goes down, the season will not be over as you suggest, but rather, they'll call on Patrick Ramsey to continue what is hopefully a drive towards the playoffs. Anyone that knows how Joe Gibbs coaches, will agree that as long as the Redskins have even the most remote mathematical chance at going to the playoffs, then he will prepare his team accordingly, and will NEVER, EVER, give up on the season. Gibbs has handled the QB situation in such a way that if Brunell does go down, then Ramsey, who has a knowledge of this offense, will be called upon. If, however, Brunell goes down and we are already mathematically eliminated from Playoff contention, then it's a real possibility that we might see Jason Campbell start. Although I doubt it would happen, if Brunell goes down and Joe Gibbs believes that Campbell gives us the best chance to win, then he'll start Campbell. Why shouldn't he?

so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him

You may be throwing in the towel, but most people haven't. There's a football season going on, and we're trying to reach goals that we've set, so no-one is going to say something like "Well", we "Might as well put in Campbell". It's a little more intricate than that. The Redskins are trying to win during the season, not have a QB competition for next year. If there will be a QB competition next season, then there's a time and a place for it and that time is not during this season.

bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

Having Ramsey on the bench, ready to come in as the QB at a moments notice, is in no way "wasting something". Ramsey has some knowledge of this offense, and has shown he can operate in it. Having him as the backup QB, when you take into consideration that this is a LONG season and Brunell will doubtfully play every down, is not a simple waste of talent. In my opinion, it's a wise tactical and strategic position that Gibbs has created. It's called depth, and we can never have too much depth.

if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

It all comes back to the coaching staff thinking who gives us the best chance to win. Right now, they think it's Brunell. If Brunell is not in a position to play for whatever reason, then they will more than likely think that Ramsey gives us the best chance to win.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!!

We already are. He's our backup QB, and he'll play if Brunell is injured or otherwise unable to play at the level the coaches want and expect.

PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

And leave us with Jason Campbell as the only backup QB? NOT GONNA HAPPEN!! Joe Gibbs will not do what Steve Spurrier did. Spurrier effectively, IMO, ruined Ramseys career by the way he used Ramsey in his offense. Gibbs is NOT going to do the same thing to Jason Campbell. Campbell was drafted for a reason, and the coaching staff have made plans for him. They will not throw him to the wolves for any reason, and will certainly not jeapordaize his career.

Just my

JansenFan wrote:Sportstalk980 reported this morning that several sources within the Redskin organization stated that the Jets appraoched the Skins about a trade for Ramsey and the Redskins turned them away.

It all makes you really wonder if any of these guys know what they are doing!



















No one who knows anything about the NFL today would advocate this team not keeping Ramsey as a back up, at least until we have a better idea on how we are playing.
It's only been 2 games! We are 2-0 - and you know what? We could be 3-0 and then we could be 4-0!
But, you have to be 2-0 first! Well done guys!

Okay, I'll (finally) chime in here. I strongly doubt that the Redskins will trade Ramsey because having him as their #2 makes 'em feel all warm and cozy inside.

Now...if the Jets make some sort of tremendous offer (a la 1st round draft pick + stud player), the Skins would be foolish, at least, not to consider it.

The closer Ramsey gets to free agency, the less he'll be worth to other teams. Like Rod Gardner, we may be in a position late next year basically asking for a 6-pack of BUD for Ramsey, and hoping to get a pint glass instead.

If the need for Ramsey is still there at mid-year....and a substantial offer is made at that time, the Skins should probably seriously consider it.

If a 3rd or 4th round pick is on the table only, there is no way that's gonna happen this year.

JPFair wrote:Die Cowboys Die,

I respectfully disagree with your assesment of the Ramsey situation, especially the "Play him or trade him" philosophy that you take. Clearly, you're a Ramsey fan and that's your opinion which you have every right to. I would presume, or at least hope, that you're a fan of Ramsey based on his abilities as a football player and your belief that he could lead this team to wins if, and when, he is called upon to be the QB. That being said, why would you suggest with such urgency that we "Play him or trade him". I like Ramsey as well, which is all the MORE reason for us NOT to trade him at this moment. Brunell, who is the starting QB, is highly unlikely to go the entire season without the need for Ramsey to be summoned. Therefore, I would take the opposite of your philosophy of "trade him or play him" and hope that when he is called upon to be the QB, either as a starter or a backup, that he perform at the level he is capable of, and one which has obviously attracted you as a fan of his. Playing the devils advocate, even if we were to trade him right now, the chances of us getting a player who can make an immediate contribution or impact that will assist us in progressing towards the playoffs are minimal at best. Instead, I believe we should keep him as the backup QB, and a capable one at that, allowing us to call on him instead of Campbell, if needed. Even though Gibbs apparently lacks confidence in Ramsey, I don't think his lack of confidence in Ramsey is strong enough to throw Campbell to the wolves if Brunell is unable to play while the playoffs are a mathematical possibility.

any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.

I respect your opinion, and am thankful that that's just what it is, an opinion. I am of the opinion that we're not screwing it up, and also believe that whatever we do vis-a-vis the possible trade of Ramsey will be what is best for the team, not what is best for Ramseys salary.

we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there

Again, this is another point that I strongly disagree with. We've only played two games, and in those two games our passing game (irrespective of which QB it is/was) has had completions of 39, 42, and 70 yards, a clear and important upgrade from our performance ALL of last year. Our defense has been playing as good, if not better, than last year albeit without forcing turnovers. With that in mind, how can you say we only have a "small chance at making the playoffs". I'm not even thinking about what our chances are of making the playoffs right now, I'm just thinking about the game plan for this Sunday's game against Seattle. Our chances for making the playoffs will develop over the next several weeks.

Instead, I think our chances of making the playoffs, whether those chances are small or large, depend largely on the team being focused and ready to play each Sunday. I hope that they're not thinking about things that the fans are focusing on, i.e. whether or not Gibbs is going to trade Ramsey now, or later. I'm not doubting that it's o.k. for fans to gauge our playoff chances based on current and possible personnel decisions or scenarios, but for right now, (and this is just my opinion) let's stay focused on Seattle and see how things play out with the Ramsey trade scenario.

with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

I can understand that you're basing this on Brunells performance last year, and most of his performance this year. But, instead of having a "glass half empty" approach to it, try and have a "glass half full" approach, it's a hell of a lot more fun and exciting. It's normal for fans to have such a wide range of opinions on so many issues, but I've noticed you tend to have a doom and gloom approach to the Redskins, but I would encourage you to try and be a little more optimistic with things. Just a suggestion!!

the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

This is classic "glass half empty" stuff. You use words or phrases like "Ramsey is worse than Brunell", yet the Coaches, and indeed many fans, use phrases like "Brunell gives us the best chance to win". Both phrases can be used, depending on your attitude, but the reality of the situation, at least in my opinion, is that Brunell clearly gives us a better chance to wing games, and hopefully lead us to the playoffs. By saying words like "worse than Brunell", you're implying that the coaching staff think Ramsey is a bad QB. This, I believe, is not the case. It's just that they believe Brunell gives us the best chance to win. If the coaching staff thought that Ramsey was a bad QB, I doubt very much that they would have even let him start one series, much less one game. Gibbs believes that Brunells experience, his leadership abilities, and his grasp of what Gibbs expects is a more viable option for the Redskins right now, and has made the decision to go with Brunell. That should not be construed as the Coaching staff thinking Ramsey is a bad QB.

add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over

No, that's not true. In YOUR line of thinking it might, but not in the Coaching staff. If Brunell goes down, the season will not be over as you suggest, but rather, they'll call on Patrick Ramsey to continue what is hopefully a drive towards the playoffs. Anyone that knows how Joe Gibbs coaches, will agree that as long as the Redskins have even the most remote mathematical chance at going to the playoffs, then he will prepare his team accordingly, and will NEVER, EVER, give up on the season. Gibbs has handled the QB situation in such a way that if Brunell does go down, then Ramsey, who has a knowledge of this offense, will be called upon. If, however, Brunell goes down and we are already mathematically eliminated from Playoff contention, then it's a real possibility that we might see Jason Campbell start. Although I doubt it would happen, if Brunell goes down and Joe Gibbs believes that Campbell gives us the best chance to win, then he'll start Campbell. Why shouldn't he?

so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him

You may be throwing in the towel, but most people haven't. There's a football season going on, and we're trying to reach goals that we've set, so no-one is going to say something like "Well", we "Might as well put in Campbell". It's a little more intricate than that. The Redskins are trying to win during the season, not have a QB competition for next year. If there will be a QB competition next season, then there's a time and a place for it and that time is not during this season.

bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

Having Ramsey on the bench, ready to come in as the QB at a moments notice, is in no way "wasting something". Ramsey has some knowledge of this offense, and has shown he can operate in it. Having him as the backup QB, when you take into consideration that this is a LONG season and Brunell will doubtfully play every down, is not a simple waste of talent. In my opinion, it's a wise tactical and strategic position that Gibbs has created. It's called depth, and we can never have too much depth.

if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

It all comes back to the coaching staff thinking who gives us the best chance to win. Right now, they think it's Brunell. If Brunell is not in a position to play for whatever reason, then they will more than likely think that Ramsey gives us the best chance to win.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!!

We already are. He's our backup QB, and he'll play if Brunell is injured or otherwise unable to play at the level the coaches want and expect.

PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

And leave us with Jason Campbell as the only backup QB? NOT GONNA HAPPEN!! Joe Gibbs will not do what Steve Spurrier did. Spurrier effectively, IMO, ruined Ramseys career by the way he used Ramsey in his offense. Gibbs is NOT going to do the same thing to Jason Campbell. Campbell was drafted for a reason, and the coaching staff have made plans for him. They will not throw him to the wolves for any reason, and will certainly not jeapordaize his career.

Just my

JP I feel like I just read a novelette. I agree with you.
I get the point.
The team is 2-0.
The Skins need a capable backup.
Ramsey still has a lot of value to the Skins as a backup.
Don't trade him.
I get it. I think your keyboard went on autopilot.

I agree with you.
I get the point.
The team is 2-0.
The Skins need a capable backup.
Ramsey still has a lot of value to the Skins as a backup.
Don't trade him.

Yep, you get it!!

I get it.

I wish others would, too! *cough..cough....DCD....cough...cough*

JPFair wrote:I wish others would, too!

Some will never get it.




Look at it this way.

They started the week with 3 QBs a youngster with a lot of potential, a seasoned vet at number 2 and a rookie at clipboard. Basically they started last week like the Skins started the season.

Our 1 and 2 flipped-flopped the Jets 1 and 2 dropped.
One of the first places they looked was to the Redskins and were turned away twice I believe. Then they looked at street free agents that could be a STOPGAP for them.
Although Kordell Steward and Rohan Davey had been scooped up while the Jets were calling Gibbs, there were others like the cokehead (rumored ) that was there last year,and that old dude from Pittsburg, they even called the Titans about Volek.
They brought back Vinny because it was the safest thing to do. They still need a QB, and other starters around the league will fall. Other calls will be made about Ramsey in the coming weeks.

If we trade Ramsey we become the Jets as soon as Mark can't go.

If we trade Ramsey we become the Jets as soon as Mark can't go.

The essence.

Oh, and the Jets have a young kid who will start. Vinny is backup. They went shopping, and picked out Vinny; if he's acceptable, then why imagine that the Jets were ready to offer a first round pick for Ramsey? Or a first round plus?

1niksder wrote:If we trade Ramsey we become the Jets as soon as Mark can't go.

This may be the most important (and succinct) statement ever made.

i'm almost impressed at how skillfully everyone has managed to either miss, or intentionally circumvent my point.

Your entire post centers around the premise that Brunell is just barely capable of getting us to the playoffs, and that Ramsey has no chance of doing so. I have to disagree. I think either, by minimizing turnovers, can lead us to the promised land. You HAVE to have a capable backup in the NFL. Why are you ready to throw away a season that we have started 2-0?

my friend, you (along with everyone else) have not responded to (or apparently considered) most of the 3 main points i took the trouble to underline. there is really a simple logical progression-- perhaps some of you have heard of "If/Then" statements? they are one of the most basic forms of rational thought. for example:

* IF Brunell is the starter, THEN the coaches think he is better than Ramsey (or "gives us a better chance to win" than ramsey, if you want to play semantical games, JPFair. let's just express it mathematically-- the coaches believe Brunell > Ramsey). as i stated before, if they thought they were simply equal, there would have been no reason to bench ramsey in favor of brunell, especially after ramsey took all the 1st team work in the offseason/preseason.

* IF Brunell has a small chance of getting us to the playoffs, THEN anyone who is not as good as brunell has very little chance of doing so

we have established that in the coaches' minds, ramsey is not as good as brunell (no that is debatable, there is no other possible rational explanation, i have already gone over all that). the only debatable facet of my argument is how much chance brunell really has to get us to the playoffs. maybe in gibbs' mind, he thinks we will win the superbowl with brunell, but maybe drop off to just the 1st round of the playoffs with ramsey. i am obviously not convinced that is possible yet.

however, i did write a substantial post in a thread about brunell in which i said after watching the cowboys game again, he only threw 5 or 6 good passes the entire game, but the others were usually pretty close-- so i held out hope that he just needs to get some timing/chemistry down with the new WRs. i will still be holding out that hope until we see how he looks in the seahawks game.

JPFair wrote: We've only played two games, and in those two games our passing game (irrespective of which QB it is/was) has had completions of 39, 42, and 70 yards, a clear and important upgrade from our performance ALL of last year.

i appreciate the statistics, JPFair, and i agree this is a very important improvement, and i hope it can be something to build from. however, i am not sold that this means the passing game is suddenly a consistent, viable entity. i simply don't believe you can count on a couple huge plays a game to bail you out. we need to find some consistency, and that has continued to elude us. we need to connect on 3rd down, keep the ball moving. we need to hit on some of those 10-20 yard routes a decent number of times throughout the game.

JPFair wrote:I've noticed you tend to have a doom and gloom approach to the Redskins, but I would encourage you to try and be a little more optimistic with things. Just a suggestion!!

this is not true. observe:

die cowboys die wrote:this is my conservative, cautious breakdown. i have some losses down that probably shouldn't be there, but you know how it is during the season, you always end up losing a few you shouldn't lose.

6 games vs NFC East: 3-3
4 games vs NFC West: 3-1
4 games vs AFC West: 2-2
1 game vs the Bears: win
1 game vs the Bucs: win

TOTAL: 10-6

i posted that on august 30th. after the switch to brunell, i posted this:

die cowboys die wrote:i'll be optimistic and say we will be within the 7-9 and 9-7 range. with ramsey i thought we'd be between 9-7 and 11-5.

i still believe that. i think 10-6 is even possible if brunell can pick up his game a little like he did at the end against dallas.

There is an old expression that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!

dcd - this is simple to me and I also understand that you are totally allowed and should have your own feelings about this, but, in a nutshell:

1) at this time we need a back up QB

2) I do not agree with the "one is better than the other (or worse)" statement. It's not that simple!

3) we are only 2 games into a 16 game season - we have won both games.

4) I think we have the best coach in the NFL and he is doing the best he can - give him a chance to show us that you are right about his choices and his coaching!

DCD,

i'm almost impressed at how skillfully everyone has managed to either miss, or intentionally circumvent my point.

Very interesting that you would say this, but I'll get to that later. First, let me respond to the overall point (if there is one) of your post.

my friend, you (along with everyone else) have not responded to (or apparently considered) most of the 3 main points i took the trouble to underline.

Perhaps you overlooked my particular response to your post, because you wouldn't make such a blanket statement if you had. To be specific, and in defense of my own post, I responded to all points (Points A, B, and C) in my response. In fact, I quoted each point seperately, and responded to such a degree that one poster responded with the statement that they felt like they just read a novelette. So, maybe you need to go back and read my post because it's clear that, whether you agree or not, I responded and considered each and every point that you "took the trouble to underline".

the coaches believe Brunell > Ramsey). as i stated before, if they thought they were simply equal, there would have been no reason to bench ramsey in favor of brunell, especially after ramsey took all the 1st team work in the offseason/preseason.

O.K. If you put it that way, then so be it. That's not really the issue of this thread, at least I don't see it that way based on the fact that the title of this post is "Is there any way Ramsey would go to jets?". But, since you post your comments on whether or not the coaches think that Brunell is better than Ramsey or not, so be it. If what you want to hear is Coaches themselves say publicly that they think Brunell is a better QB than Ramsey, you won't hear it. You might not even hear it from the fans. But, what you will hear is that Brunell makes fewer mistakes than Ramsey. And, when you take into consideration that seven of our losses last year were by less than a touchdown, mistakes are far more important than being able to score 35-40 points per game. And, if your whole point is that the coaches think Ramsey isn't as good as Brunell, then let them think it, that's their job. They have a job to do, and however much you disagree with it, they're the ones that are held accountable for the ultimate success of the team. Dan Snyder has invested a lot of money into giving the coaching staff that authority to determine who they think is, as you say, better or worse than the other.

we have established that in the coaches' minds, ramsey is not as good as brunell (no that is debatable, there is no other possible rational explanation, i have already gone over all that). the only debatable facet of my argument is how much chance brunell really has to get us to the playoffs. maybe in gibbs' mind, he thinks we will win the superbowl with brunell, but maybe drop off to just the 1st round of the playoffs with ramsey. i am obviously not convinced that is possible yet.

Obviously, it's pure opinion whether or not you think that Brunell will get us to the playoffs or not. That's your opinion. Clearly, the coaches think we have a better chance at getting to the playoffs with Brunell as our QB and Ramsey as our backup. What's the problem with that? Clearly, you disagree with their assesment, as is your right, but why be so pessimistic just because their decision goes against your line of thinking? If, as you say, the only debatable facet of your arguement is how much of a chance Brunell has of getting us to the playoffs, then your argument is very weak. If nothing else, why not adopt a "Wait and see" attitude instead of insisting and repeatedly assert that the coaches think that Ramsey is "worse" than Brunell. Ramsey is our backup QB, and when he's called upon, then let's all hope he does damn good. You claim in your original post that Brunell gives us almost no chance of making the playoffs, and if he does, then it's only if he can build on the last five minutes of the Dallas game. Although there's not too much wrong with it, but I think you make way too many assumptions when you assess our chances of success this year. Let's see how things play out instead of presuming this, assuming that, and breaking down what you think our overall record will be. I'll talk more about that aspect of your post in a minute.

however, i did write a substantial post in a thread about brunell in which i said after watching the cowboys game again, he only threw 5 or 6 good passes the entire game, but the others were usually pretty close-- so i held out hope that he just needs to get some timing/chemistry down with the new WRs. i will still be holding out that hope until we see how he looks in the seahawks game.

You won't get any arguement from me on that one. That's what I mean when I say let's take a "wait and see" approach to it. If you think it, and I think it, I can assure you that the Coaches also want to see what Brunell can do with regards to him improving his timing, his improvement from last year, etc.. Again, no arguement from me on that one.

i simply don't believe you can count on a couple huge plays a game to bail you out. we need to find some consistency, and that has continued to elude us. we need to connect on 3rd down, keep the ball moving. we need to hit on some of those 10-20 yard routes a decent number of times throughout the game

We've only played two games, let's wait to make conclusive statements about our consistancy until well into the season. More specifically, Brunell has only played a game and a half, and has shown to have a lot more zip on his passes, and one thing I think is important to note, is that he has shown he can do what needed to be done UNDER PRESSURE. What he did against Dallas in the last four minutes was fantastic. Granted, his play for the previous 56 minutes was not great, but we were playing IN DALLAS and they were blitzing the living daylights out of us. Give credit to Dallas' game planning. But, Brunell was never fazed, never buckled under pressure, and never folded. That, in and of itself, is a sign of improvement. Although it doesn't create an identity for our offense, but it gives us hope that he has improved. Two games into the season, we can't say with any degree of certainty that we need to gain more consistancy. Two games is simply not a barometer to gauge how our offense is going to be this year. From what I've seen though, I think we've got good things coming our way. Moss is proving to be a real, legitimate playmaker threat that will force defenses to respect our deep threat. Let's see how the rest plays out. It's only game three.

die cowboys die wrote:
this is my conservative, cautious breakdown. i have some losses down that probably shouldn't be there, but you know how it is during the season, you always end up losing a few you shouldn't lose.

6 games vs NFC East: 3-3
4 games vs NFC West: 3-1
4 games vs AFC West: 2-2
1 game vs the Bears: win
1 game vs the Bucs: win

TOTAL: 10-6
i posted that on august 30th. after the switch to brunell, i posted this: die cowboys die wrote:
i'll be optimistic and say we will be within the 7-9 and 9-7 range. with ramsey i thought we'd be between 9-7 and 11-5.


i still believe that. i think 10-6 is even possible if brunell can pick up his game a little like he did at the end against dallas.

This is where I think you make your biggest mistake. It's one thing to predict, from a general standpoint, how we're going to do this year, but to make such specific and obviously well thought out predictions, is just wrong. We don't know what lies ahead in terms of injuries, other teams improvements, game planning, etc... to be able to be so detailed as to say that you think we'll be 3-1 in our games vs the NFC west. Such predictions almost never end up being accurate, and certainly in our case where improvement from last year is a must, you can't tell how our offense is going to do. The coaching staff have obvoiusly spent the off-season trying to open up the offense, and from what we've seen so far, it looks like they are in the midst of doing just that. Improvement was a must, and just how improved we are remains to be seen. In the interim, let's enjoy what we're seeing in our team and try to offer the support that the Redskins undoubtedly would like to see. I can appreciate your opinions and your disagreement with the coaches decisions. You obviously oppose the decision to bench Ramsey in favor of Brunell, and that's fine. But, there comes a time when, no matter how much you oppose their decision(s), you simply have to put faith in our Coaching staff. To do otherwise, will serve no purpose other than to have a negative outlook all season long. I differ from you, in the sense that I like to be optimistic about our chances, and actually enjoy watching and witnessing how our coaching staff is assembling our team for both the current season, and the future. You should try it, it's fun when you have fun.

Now, back to this point:

i'm almost impressed at how skillfully everyone has managed to either miss, or intentionally circumvent my point.

Speaking of circumventing points, let me ask you this: Where in your post did you even mention the most important point of this thread, and indeed your own post: Is there any way Ramsey will go to the Jets. You just rambled on ad nauseum about how we missed, or intentionally tried to circumvent your original point(s), when in response, you yourself never even ONCE mentioned the idea of Ramsey being traded to the Jets, and your subsequent assertion that you believe Ramsey should be traded immediately. Remember your "Trade him or play him" comment? Well, you never once mentioned it in your response, yet you accuse US of circumventing your point(s). Respectfully, I think that is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Hoo boy...

skins81 wrote:Hoo boy...

Ramsey. And who are you callin' boy, son?

Ramsey's gonna get another shot to play this season folks. Having two QB's is essential in the NFL. Campbell isn't ready yet - but next year has lots of possible angles.

DCD, your argument is logical but not sound. The reason is because it has not yet been extablished that with Brunell we only have a small chance of making the playoffs or that Ramsey is so much worse that we have no chance with him back there.

Logical arguments must be based on absolute facts in order to be true and yours are just based on conjecture. I think we all understand what you are getting at but just the fact that your first logical statement must start with an "if" shows that this basic principles that your argument is based upon is not verified truth.

I could just as easily say:

* IF Brunell is the starter, THEN the coaches think he is better than Ramsey - that is fair enough I agree.

Now here's where I change it:

* IF Brunell CAN get us to the playoffs, THEN someone who is not quite as good as brunell can too.

Basically, you cannot say Brunell is "barely" good enough because we don't know that. What's more, you don't know HOW much worse Ramsey is than Brunell and those are the two fatal flaws of your argument.

What I'm saying is if you're racing a scooter and your Ferrari's in the shop, you can still win easily with your Geo. It's not nearly as good a car but its still good enough.

Your argumernt is indeed logical and there is some evidence that your conjectures may well be true but they are not verifyable at this time.

Why does one have to be better than the other, must one of them be worst than the other. Maybe the bring different things to the table, and what Mark does is a better FIT for what we need right now.

JPFair wrote:

We've only played two games, and in those two games our passing game (irrespective of which QB it is/was) has had completions of 39, 42, and 70 yards, a clear and important upgrade from our performance ALL of last year.

and DCD replied:

i appreciate the statistics, JPFair, and i agree this is a very important improvement, and i hope it can be something to build from. however, i am not sold that this means the passing game is suddenly a consistent, viable entity. i simply don't believe you can count on a couple huge plays a game to bail you out. we need to find some consistency, and that has continued to elude us. we need to connect on 3rd down, keep the ball moving. we need to hit on some of those 10-20 yard routes a decent number of times throughout the game.

The knock on Brunell as always been he can't throw the deep ball- and that Ramsey is more suited for the wide-open play that's needed in this NFL that has passed by JG. Doesn't fit your rant so you flip it. The only questions I've seen about Mark and that 10-20 route is that alot seem to think he has trouble pushing it that last 5-6 yards. Could you enlighten me on what your promblem with the short to intermediate pass are.

Then you can let me know how you came up with:

die cowboys die wrote:any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.
here's how it adds up:

POINT A: we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there.

POINT B: with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

POINT C: the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

You made 3 statements and called them points
Point A is actually DCD's Opinion as to if Mark Brunell can lead the Redskins to the playoffs or not.Also stated is what needs to happen for it to happen

Point B is out of nowhere... A QB that is any worse than Mark Is that you're opinion of or back-up QB that YOU think should be starting or should this really be Point A1?

Point C is where you lost it and couldn't hold it back any longer. Made the same stance you been making all week - You want Ramsey.

die cowboys die wrote:add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over. so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him. bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

You summarized your three "POINTS" which are only what you think the coaches think. You later posted that no-one replied to your points. That's what prompted me to reply. JP says he replyed, I read a reply from him (Point by point). I don't know how he did it because I found the whole post pointless

That's my take as any other poster...

As far as having to moderate this constant Ramsey vs Burnell debate that WAS popping up in almost every thread.

JP you wrote this in part of one of your reply:

Speaking of circumventing points, let me ask you this: Where in your post did you even mention the most important point of this thread, and indeed your own post: Is there any way Ramsey will go to the Jets. You just rambled on ad nauseum about how we missed, or intentionally tried to circumvent your original point(s), when in response, you yourself never even ONCE mentioned the idea of Ramsey being traded to the Jets, and your subsequent assertion that you believe Ramsey should be traded immediately. Remember your "Trade him or play him" comment?

However in this case DCD Threw his Rant out there and ended it with:

die cowboys die wrote:if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!! PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

Regardless how you look at it that's on topic.

The very next reply was:

JSPB22 wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:any way you look at it, we are screwing this whole situation up.
here's how it adds up:

POINT A: we have a small chance of making the playoffs with brunell at QB, if he can build on the last 5 minutes of the dallas game. he was missing throws all night, it was either the timing or his arm. i'm holding out hope it was the timing but there's no guarantee there.

POINT B: with a QB that is any worse than brunell, there is no possible way we will come anywhere near the playoffs.

POINT C: the coaching staff must believe that ramsey is worse than brunell, otherwise ramsey would still be the starting QB. if they thought they were simply equal, there would be no reason to make the switch and change the status quo-- especially since ramsey had gotten all the work with the 1st team during the off-season/pre-season.

add all those up and at least by the coach's way of thinking, if brunell goes down, the season is over. so you may as well put in campbell and get him some experience. in the meantime, TRADE RAMSEY and get SOMETHING out of him. bring in SOME kind of value to this team instead of just wasting something, having him sit on the bench doing nothing for us.

if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!! PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

Your entire post centers around the premise that Brunell is just barely capable of getting us to the playoffs, and that Ramsey has no chance of doing so. I have to disagree. I think either, by minimizing turnovers, can lead us to the promised land. You HAVE to have a capable backup in the NFL. Why are you ready to throw away a season that we have started 2-0?

I don't see Ramsey -The Jats or Trade anywhere in there even if it did make more sense than what you were replying to.

When we start pointing fingers remember three are point right back at you.

Back on Topic:
The Jets have 5 quarterbacks on there roster as we speak, they don't have two they could give us for Patrick. Why would we leave ourselfs short handed?

hkHog wrote:DCD, your argument is logical but not sound. The reason is because it has not yet been extablished that with Brunell we only have a small chance of making the playoffs or that Ramsey is so much worse that we have no chance with him back there.

Logical arguments must be based on absolute facts in order to be true and yours are just based on conjecture. I think we all understand what you are getting at but just the fact that your first logical statement must start with an "if" shows that this basic principles that your argument is based upon is not verified truth.

I could just as easily say:

* IF Brunell is the starter, THEN the coaches think he is better than Ramsey - that is fair enough I agree.

Now here's where I change it:

* IF Brunell CAN get us to the playoffs, THEN someone who is not quite as good as brunell can too.

Basically, you cannot say Brunell is "barely" good enough because we don't know that. What's more, you don't know HOW much worse Ramsey is than Brunell and those are the two fatal flaws of your argument.

What I'm saying is if you're racing a scooter and your Ferrari's in the shop, you can still win easily with your Geo. It's not nearly as good a car but its still good enough.

Your argumernt is indeed logical and there is some evidence that your conjectures may well be true but they are not verifyable at this time.

hkhog, i really appreciate your response- i feel that you are the only person here who has understood my post (or even come anywhere CLOSE to doing so). i fully respect that you disagree with my assessment of brunell's abilities, and i hope you are right! as i've said, i'm holding out hope that he just needs to get some playing time to get some chemistry with the new WRs and he'll be fine.

but i am obviously a little pessimistic- both in brunell AND in gibb's ability to choose the best QB. and why shouldn't i be? it was pretty obvious to 99% of the world last year that brunell was playing horribly and needed to be benched. and then when ramsey came in and played pretty well, it essentially settled the fact that it was a mistake to leave brunell in so long- the season was wasted on him.

you are correct in saying that we won't know what will happen for sure until later on. but i guess i feel like this:

* if brunell starts losing a bunch of games with lousy QB play, and ramsey comes in and does well, it will seem clear that it was a mistake to bench ramsey in the first place.

* if brunell stinks it up and we switch to ramsey, only to have him be even worse, it will seem like a mistake to not have traded ramsey and get something for him.

* if brunell plays fine and gets injured, and ramsey comes in and plays fine, it will make me wonder what the point ever was in benching ramsey in the first place.

* if brunell takes us to the superbowl, gibbs will seem like he has recaptured (or never lost) his genius.

so come on, brunell! light it up. prove gibbs right!

1niksder wrote:The knock on Brunell as always been he can't throw the deep ball- and that Ramsey is more suited for the wide-open play that's needed in this NFL that has passed by JG. Doesn't fit your rant so you flip it. The only questions I've seen about Mark and that 10-20 route is that alot seem to think he has trouble pushing it that last 5-6 yards. Could you enlighten me on what your promblem with the short to intermediate pass are.

my knock on brunell last year was that he couldn't throw anything. my knock on him so far this year was never about the deep ball, i have actually never said anything about that. nor have i ever said that ramsey is great at throwing the deep ball.

what i have consistently argued is that ramsey's best range is that 10-20 yard intermediate range where he can just zip it in there. he has always shown a knack for these throw, while struggling more with ones that require more "touch". brunell, however, was off-target with these intermediate throws throughout the entire dallas game. most of the throws in this range were not even catchable balls. however, i am hoping that is just an issue of rust and chemistry with the new WRs. he has had 2 weeks to practice before the seahawks game, so he needs to show significant improvement there. i know 2 weeks isn't a real long time but the season isn't long enough to wait 6 or 7 weeks for the QB to get chemistry with the WRs.

1niksider,

I think you have the posts mixed up. In your moderating post, you mentioned:

JP you wrote this in part of one of your reply:
Quote:
Speaking of circumventing points, let me ask you this: Where in your post did you even mention the most important point of this thread, and indeed your own post: Is there any way Ramsey will go to the Jets. You just rambled on ad nauseum about how we missed, or intentionally tried to circumvent your original point(s), when in response, you yourself never even ONCE mentioned the idea of Ramsey being traded to the Jets, and your subsequent assertion that you believe Ramsey should be traded immediately. Remember your "Trade him or play him" comment?

You assert that DCD's response did, in fact, include:

However in this case DCD Threw his Rant out there and ended it with:
die cowboys die wrote:
if the coaches think ramsey is good enough to win if he needs to come in for brunell later on, then he should never have been benched in the first place.

LET'S AT LEAST GET SOMETHING OUT OF RAMSEY!! PLAY HIM OR TRADE HIM.

You rightfully state that that IS on topic, but that is from an earlier post.

That comment, like you say being on topic, was made in an earlier post, and not subsequent to the post that I made above. If you look at the post that I'm referring to where DCD never once mentioned the "on topic" thread, or the Ramsey to the Jets scenario, you'll see that it was not mentioned once. It was mentioned in a previous post, and not the one it appears you're referring to.

Here is the entire post that DCD wrote that prompted me to make the comment that he never once mentioned the "Ramsey to Jets" scenario or the Trade Ramsey option.

i'm almost impressed at how skillfully everyone has managed to either miss, or intentionally circumvent my point.

Quote:
Your entire post centers around the premise that Brunell is just barely capable of getting us to the playoffs, and that Ramsey has no chance of doing so. I have to disagree. I think either, by minimizing turnovers, can lead us to the promised land. You HAVE to have a capable backup in the NFL. Why are you ready to throw away a season that we have started 2-0?


my friend, you (along with everyone else) have not responded to (or apparently considered) most of the 3 main points i took the trouble to underline. there is really a simple logical progression-- perhaps some of you have heard of "If/Then" statements? they are one of the most basic forms of rational thought. for example:

* IF Brunell is the starter, THEN the coaches think he is better than Ramsey (or "gives us a better chance to win" than ramsey, if you want to play semantical games, JPFair. let's just express it mathematically-- the coaches believe Brunell > Ramsey). as i stated before, if they thought they were simply equal, there would have been no reason to bench ramsey in favor of brunell, especially after ramsey took all the 1st team work in the offseason/preseason.

* IF Brunell has a small chance of getting us to the playoffs, THEN anyone who is not as good as brunell has very little chance of doing so

we have established that in the coaches' minds, ramsey is not as good as brunell (no that is debatable, there is no other possible rational explanation, i have already gone over all that). the only debatable facet of my argument is how much chance brunell really has to get us to the playoffs. maybe in gibbs' mind, he thinks we will win the superbowl with brunell, but maybe drop off to just the 1st round of the playoffs with ramsey. i am obviously not convinced that is possible yet.

however, i did write a substantial post in a thread about brunell in which i said after watching the cowboys game again, he only threw 5 or 6 good passes the entire game, but the others were usually pretty close-- so i held out hope that he just needs to get some timing/chemistry down with the new WRs. i will still be holding out that hope until we see how he looks in the seahawks game.

JPFair wrote:
We've only played two games, and in those two games our passing game (irrespective of which QB it is/was) has had completions of 39, 42, and 70 yards, a clear and important upgrade from our performance ALL of last year.


i appreciate the statistics, JPFair, and i agree this is a very important improvement, and i hope it can be something to build from. however, i am not sold that this means the passing game is suddenly a consistent, viable entity. i simply don't believe you can count on a couple huge plays a game to bail you out. we need to find some consistency, and that has continued to elude us. we need to connect on 3rd down, keep the ball moving. we need to hit on some of those 10-20 yard routes a decent number of times throughout the game.

JPFair wrote:
I've noticed you tend to have a doom and gloom approach to the Redskins, but I would encourage you to try and be a little more optimistic with things. Just a suggestion!!


this is not true. observe: die cowboys die wrote:
this is my conservative, cautious breakdown. i have some losses down that probably shouldn't be there, but you know how it is during the season, you always end up losing a few you shouldn't lose.

6 games vs NFC East: 3-3
4 games vs NFC West: 3-1
4 games vs AFC West: 2-2
1 game vs the Bears: win
1 game vs the Bucs: win

TOTAL: 10-6
i posted that on august 30th. after the switch to brunell, i posted this: die cowboys die wrote:
i'll be optimistic and say we will be within the 7-9 and 9-7 range. with ramsey i thought we'd be between 9-7 and 11-5.


i still believe that. i think 10-6 is even possible if brunell can pick up his game a little like he did at the end against dallas.

It is in my next response that I ask him why he accused others of "circumventing points" when he, himself, deviated from the original topic and did not mention the original topic even once in his response to my response.

Damn, did that make any sense?