Patrick Ramsey long-term answer

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:59 pm

Joe Gibbs said today at his Monday Press Conference in Redskin Park that:

"Patrick Ramsey has played well enough to be the long-term answer at quarterback."
http://www.redskins.com/

Congratulations to Patrick! He deserves a long-term chance to lead our team. He has been playing better and better every game.

He is still not perfect. He is still not making all of his reads. But he has made many very good plays. He gives us -stability- and the best chance to win. The receivers finally have adjusted to him.

Go Patrick!

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:25 pm

Hallelujah!

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:02 pm

I am glad he knows that now.

Redskins1974 · Post by **Redskins1974** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:03 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec20.html

Link to an article in the Post

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:11 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote: The receivers finally have adjusted to him.

Go Patrick!

You mean re-adjusted to him.

1fan4ramsey · Post by **1fan4ramsey** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:22 pm

There is a god!!

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:53 pm

I feel this is a good move BUT I really think we need a WR that can stretch the field maybe Mike Williams?? Oh Man that would be great!! Trade Gardner for a center then too maybe??

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:09 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:I feel this is a good move BUT I really think we need a WR that can stretch the field maybe Mike Williams?? Oh Man that would be great!! Trade Gardner for a center then too maybe??

I disagree. We have 3 receivers who can stretch the field, their names are Coles, Thrash and Jacobs. We have 2 receivers who are good for possesion plays, their names are Gardener and McCants. I'd like to have M. Williams here, but we simply do not need a WR.

What we needed earlier in the season was a QB who could get them the ball. We have that now.

Needs
1. DT
2. DE
3. O-linemen
4. TE
4. CB[/u][/i]

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:29 pm

Chris... the Redskins didn't NEED a saftey last season either, but he was a stud, and available at our pick. Our defense is very good, so I don't see why we need to go out and get some tackles or ends right away... it's the offense that has sucked hardcore. We need a tight end, and a center I think... but maybe we can get those in free agency. I'd really like to get Williams and then deal Gardner for another need. Look at how horrible the Redskins have been in the Red Zone... well Mike Williams is an absolute beast who will score a lot of touchdowns. Our other needs can be solved in free agency or later rounds... but if Williams is there at our pick, we must select him.

Redskins4Life · Post by **Redskins4Life** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:29 pm

I agree Chris Luva Luva in that we dont need a WR as much as some other positions on the team. However, the need for a DT is not as pressing as a pass rushing DE. Cornelius is an animal there, and Salave'a and Noble are solid players that can alternate. Having a pass rushing DE would leave us less vulnerable to the short passes to HB's coming out of the backfield (Westbrook and Barber are division foes that come to mind) and TE's (J-Shock, L.J. Smith, etc.) Our linebackers wouldnt be our number one source of pressure so our defense would be even better than now. Thats pretty scary

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:46 pm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/f ... index.html
Here is sports illustrated's article
Yeah we need another reciever. Coles is a excellent no. 2 but he is not good enough to be a no.1 Williams is a clear cut no.1. He should definetly be our pick if he is available. Mcants is not good enough to start, ethier is Jacobs, or Thrash.

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:51 pm

John Manfreda wrote:Coles is a excellent no. 2 but he is not good enough to be a no.1

That's just crazy talk.... the guy had 2 1200+ seasons before this year... and he's been hampered with injuries and half a season with Brunell.... he's defiently good enough to be a #1

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 pm

Even if Coles is a no.1 we still need another reciever. I know Gardner has had one good game but he will vanish next week. He is too inconsistent and we need another reciever capable of being a starter.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:54 pm

John Manfreda wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/12/20/bc.fbn.redskins.ramsey.ap/index.html
Here is sports illustrated's article
Yeah we need another reciever. Coles is a excellent no. 2 but he is not good enough to be a no.1 Williams is a clear cut no.1. He should definetly be our pick if he is available. Mcants is not good enough to start, ethier is Jacobs, or Thrash.

< That there is for you sir, for making a crazy comment like that.

Williams is not a clear cut #1, no rookie is a given, do you remeber M. Westbrook.

I keep hearing all this crazy talk about us NEEDING a WR. We DO NOT NEED A WR, we have other deficient areas on our team that need to be addressed FIRST.

This is NO LONGER the team that gets people because of their name our title, we are NOW a team that picks up players that we actually need and will help the team.

No more Trotters, Sanders, George's, Smith's...

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:00 pm

John Manfreda wrote:Even if Coles is a no.1 we still need another reciever. I know Gardner has had one good game but he will vanish next week. He is too inconsistent and we need another reciever capable of being a starter.

Why isn't McCants, Thrash or Jacobs capable of being a starter?

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:21 pm

Do you really need to be told why Thrash isn't capable of being a starter?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:22 pm

JSPB22 wrote:You mean re-adjusted to him.

I mean dropping passes. :evil:

I sincerely believe that we do not -need- a WR. I have to give credit to our receivers and even R. Royal for =not- dropping passes and to Patrick for not placing the ball up for grabs.

I agree with Chris that our main needs are at DE and the OL. But everybody knows, as some have posted above, that when a great player is still available, you take him, even if you have to re-adjust your roster to him.

Having said the above, and to please everybody, Bugel has -always- been able to find great linemen in lower rounds. I do feel we need one or two great DEs though.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:23 pm

General Failure wrote:Do you really need to be told why Thrash isn't capable of being a starter?

I don't think of Thrash as being a #1. Clearly Coles has proved he's a capable #1.

We have to stop thinking that we NEED superstars at every position. We need players who simply get the job done and Coles fits that bill even when injured.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:25 pm

General Failure wrote:Do you really need to be told why Thrash isn't capable of being a starter?

Thrash is much better than the whole bunch of -trash- that P. has been left with at WRs.

I forgot Mr. Pinkston. Sure...

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:28 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:Thrash is much better than the whole bunch of -trash- that P. has been left with at WRs.

I forgot Mr. Pinkston. Sure...

I know you're completely uninformed, so I won't bother with the drawn out explanation of how wrong you are. Instead I'll help you out by saying Thrash and Pinkston equally suck. There are two differences, but they more or less cancel each other out. Pinkston can catch, but Thrash has a spine.

Jeremy81 · Post by **Jeremy81** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:29 pm

to do list:
1)re-sign smoot

2)pick up john abraham in free agency

3)trade gardner and a 4th round pick for a second round pick

4)draft mike williams in round 1

5)draft another DE or DT in second round that we got from the gardner trade

6)get O-line help in the 3rd or later rounds

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:31 pm

General Failure wrote:Pinkston can catch, but Thrash has a spine.

I would rather have a guy with guts than a gutless guy. And Thrash is a great Special Teams player.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:33 pm

So are lots of guys, but it doesn't make them good receivers.

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:33 pm

Thrash is capable of being a second.... he's got the heart, and he catches the ball most of the time when thrown to him.... No insult intended, but with your situation right now... I would guess you wouldn't mind still having him on the team... he was there all 3 years you guys got to the championship game....

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:38 pm

General Failure wrote:So are lots of guys, but it doesn't make them good receivers.

So, I guess the next step for Mr. Pinkston, P. current #1 reciver, is to shy away from a few catches if a strong safety lurks around. The perfect P. player in my book...

Somehow, Thrash will have the pleasure of knowing that P. made a BIG mistake by letting him go. Now, more than ever before after P. played all its marbles behind a single injured TO.

Thrash may not be a great receiver or even a #1 receiver in the league but I am proud of his courage and work ethic. He is a perfect complement to our receiver corps. He would not suffer from "alligator eyes-arms".

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

Patrick Ramsey long-term answer

Patrick Ramsey long-term answer

Re: Patrick Ramsey long-term answer

Re: Patrick Ramsey long-term answer