In Gus I Trust

So the agent gave him the cocaine? Uh huh...
No, but he did make him believe he was the second coming of Walter Payton. He gave him very shitty advice.

No, but he did make him believe he was the second coming of Walter Payton. He gave him very shitty advice.

That's an agent's job...to inflate his clients' values and get them paid more than they're worth.

Have to go with my nickname. Gus had a cannon arm and did pull the team to around .500 with a relatively weak WR corp and an old man in Terry Allen at RB. IF you gave Gus the OL and the WR corp we have now, the 90's would have been nice to us. Next would be Patrick. Sorry, he got screwed and should have been given more time to prove himself. We really could have probably made the playoffs with him at QB in '04. He would have thrown more pics than Brunell, but I guarantee he would have thrown for way more TD's at the same time. Our terrific D would have nullified a lot of his picks. This season with JC at the helm will really tell us if parting with Ramsey was such a great idea. As of right now, not too many folks outside of the Redskin Nation think too highly of him(JC).

You gotta be kidding me. Gus is a career back-up. You can get by with him for a few weeks. But not 16 games!!

Two reasons why Ramsey is not, and will never be a good NFL QB.

1. He is not an accurate enough passer to be a consistent NFL QB.

2. He can't come off to his 2nd and 3rd options.

It will always be a case of could have, should have, and would have with Ramsey. The fact that some people still think Gus could have been something special makes me think the same will be true for Ramsey. The reality is he's just not what he all hoped he was going to be.

It will always be a case of could have, should have, and would have with Ramsey. The fact that some people still think Gus could have been something special makes me think the same will be true for Ramsey. The reality is he's just not what he all hoped he was going to be.There are NFL teams who are starting QBs worse than Patrick Ramsey (i.e. Carolina, Oakland, Buffalo, Cleveland pre-Quinn), so its not like he was a total bust.

There were just better QBs out there for the Washington Redskins, and Gibbs made sure to get a pair.

There are NFL teams who are starting QBs worse than Patrick Ramsey (i.e. Carolina, Oakland, Buffalo, Cleveland pre-Quinn), so its not like he was a total bust.

There were just better QBs out there for the Washington Redskins, and Gibbs made sure to get a pair.

So why have teams in need of a starter not made any plays for him? First he went to NY where their QB situation was shaky but has now solidified, and now he moves on to Denver where he's very unlikely to see any time unless it's due to injury.

I guess it depends on what your definition of total bust is, but a first rounder who now appears to be a career backup smells of a bust to me.

So why have teams in need of a starter not made any plays for him? First he went to NY where their QB situation was shaky but has now solidified, and now he moves on to Denver where he's very unlikely to see any time unless it's due to injury.Because nobody in football knows anything about anything. Nobody wants to disrupt the cohesion and chemistry (and the subsequent losing) that their a bad QB brings.

And of course, if they did decide it was time for an upgrade, they'd probably shoot higher than Patrick Ramsey. Thus, a bunch of horrible QBs go in the first round, and bad teams stay bad.

Patrick Ramsey is worth about one more win over the course of an entire 16 game season than, say, Rex Grossman for example. But if you are the Bears, does it really make a lot of sense to cut Grossman and bring in Ramsey when you could have drafted a QB instead? It makes you look indecisive as a franchise and it seems that football execs would MUCH rather be seen as wrong than as indecisive.

I guess it depends on what your definition of total bust is, but a first rounder who now appears to be a career backup smells of a bust to me.32nd overall pick.

I mean, the Skins pretty much got the value of the pick in the player they selected. History shows that rarely will more than 2 QBs come out of a draft that are going to be very good. The Redskins took a QB at 32, and generally, if you can get a average or slightly below average starter out of the pick (Ramsey in a nutshell), you've gotten the value.

He's a tad better than Carr was, and infinately better than Harrington.

32nd overall pick.

I mean, the Skins pretty much got the value of the pick in the player they selected. History shows that rarely will more than 2 QBs come out of a draft that are going to be very good. The Redskins took a QB at 32, and generally, if you can get a average or slightly below average starter out of the pick (Ramsey in a nutshell), you've gotten the value.

He's a tad better than Carr was, and infinately better than Harrington.

32nd overall still = first round pick. Something tells me when he was drafted the Skins weren't banking on getting an average or below average player.

Is he really that much better than Harrington?

I don't think very highly of either, but I just don't see that much of a difference.

Because nobody in football knows anything about anything. Nobody wants to disrupt the cohesion and chemistry (and the subsequent losing) that their a bad QB brings.

And of course, if they did decide it was time for an upgrade, they'd probably shoot higher than Patrick Ramsey. Thus, a bunch of horrible QBs go in the first round, and bad teams stay bad.

Patrick Ramsey is worth about one more win over the course of an entire 16 game season than, say, Rex Grossman for example. But if you are the Bears, does it really make a lot of sense to cut Grossman and bring in Ramsey when you could have drafted a QB instead? It makes you look indecisive as a franchise and it seems that football execs would MUCH rather be seen as wrong than as indecisive.

I'm really lost as to what you're trying to say here but I'll respond anyway.

Teams should make moves to improve their team. If you have a starting caliber QB sitting on a bench somewhere, why would you not want to bring him in, especially a younger guy like Ramsey who already has some starting experience??

Hell, Matt Schaub is a lot less proven than Ramsey at the NFL level and he's been handed a starting gig and the Texans went and cut Carr to clear the position for him. Does that make them indecisive because they decided that Carr wasn't cutting it and they would rather take their chances on Schaub?

If I were the Bears and I decided Grossman wasn't the answer, I sure as hell would try to make a move rather than worrying about how that move would be perceived.