Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Gee. I'm convinced. You guys are right. What else can you make out of a 23-33 record since 2002?

This front office is perfect. What was I thinking.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

What does Gibbs have to do with anything before 2004?

That's what we're talking about here, the current front office and the moves that have been made since Gibbs came back.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Gee. I'm convinced. You guys are right. What else can you make out of a 23-33 record since 2002?

This front office is perfect. What was I thinking.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


Nobody's is asserting the front office is perfect. What I and the majority of posters are saying is that, since Gibbs 2.0 came around, we have been more conservative in our signings. And, since Gibbs 2.0 began, we are 11 - 13 and likely to have an overall winning record at the end of two seasons.

There has been a sea change at Redskins Park. The front office is marching to a different tune. Give credit where credit is due.

Rabach, Griffin, Washington, Springs. Good solid signings. Don't expect to see anymore Deion or Bruce signings. Expect them to occasionally sign a big name or two IF he has the right attitude and isn't asking for the bank (a' la Musin Muhammed). Expect them to occasionally take a flyer on an injured pro on the comeback and willing to play cheap (Barrow, Walt Harris). Expect them to make quality offers to their homegrown guys but not promise them the moon. Expect them to look for quality team guys who they think can make a difference.

Check back in 2007 - Then tell me what a crappy front office we have. I expect that it will continue to improve as Joe leaves his mark and teaches Danny a thing or two about how to run a sports team.

Are they gonna continue to make mistakes? yup. Do they seem to have learned from past mistakes? yup. Are they in the class of the Eagles and Patriots in terms of respect? Nope. Are they headed in that direction? Yup.

Sometimes I think people just gotta have something to bitch about.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Nobody's is asserting the front office is perfect. What I and the majority of posters are saying is that, since Gibbs 2.0 came around, we have been more conservative in our signings. And, since Gibbs 2.0 began, we are 11 - 13 and likely to have an overall winning record at the end of two seasons.

There has been a sea change at Redskins Park. The front office is marching to a different tune. Give credit where credit is due.

Rabach, Griffin, Washington, Springs. Good solid signings. Don't expect to see anymore Deion or Bruce signings. Expect them to occasionally sign a big name or two IF he has the right attitude and isn't asking for the bank (a' la Musin Muhammed). Expect them to occasionally take a flyer on an injured pro on the comeback and willing to play cheap (Barrow, Walt Harris). Expect them to make quality offers to their homegrown guys but not promise them the moon. Expect them to look for quality team guys who they think can make a difference.

Check back in 2007 - Then tell me what a crappy front office we have. I expect that it will continue to improve as Joe leaves his mark and teaches Danny a thing or two about how to run a sports team.

Are they gonna continue to make mistakes? yup. Do they seem to have learned from past mistakes? yup. Are they in the class of the Eagles and Patriots in terms of respect? Nope. Are they headed in that direction? Yup.

Sometimes I think people just gotta have something to bitch about.[/QUOTE]
I'm praying they dont embarrass us and sign T O but then again he would catch Td's but i wonder if anyone else has had this scary thought

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]Gee. I'm convinced. You guys are right. What else can you make out of a 23-33 record since 2002?

This front office is perfect. What was I thinking.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

If you're going to have that argument, you might as well go all the way back to 1994. You see how senseless it is?

Looking at the front office and the current Redskins staff in place, which makes perfect sense, the only real disappointment has been Mike Barrow. Well gee...ya know, one bad move out of all the other ones is a pretty good track record in my opinion.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]If you're going to have that argument, you might as well go all the way back to 1994. You see how senseless it is?

Looking at the front office and the current Redskins staff in place, which makes perfect sense, the only real disappointment has been Mike Barrow. Well gee...ya know, one bad move out of all the other ones is a pretty good track record in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

and barrow was cheap compared to his expected production...

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

The Ramsey/Abraham trade would NEVER happen. Abraham will be a free agent unless they franchise him. Even if he wasn't, why the Jets trade him for a back-up QB. Won't Pennington be back?

Second, Beemnseven is right. We have a 11-13 record. Just because Brunell has had 5-7 good games this year doesn't mean he was a good signing. Even if he leads us to the playoffs, doesn't mean it was a smart signing. He completely ruined last year's season! I will NEVER forget how bad he was, and how we wasted such a great Defense. Now, the defense is so suspect!

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=mason4415]
Second, Beemnseven is right. We have a 11-13 record. Just because Brunell has had 5-7 good games this year doesn't mean he was a good signing. Even if he leads us to the playoffs, doesn't mean it was a smart signing. He completely ruined last year's season! I will NEVER forget how bad he was, and how we wasted such a great Defense. Now, the defense is so suspect![/QUOTE]


:postcop: Go back and re-read your post again. We don't have a 11-13 record. We have a 5-3 record. What is done in last season stays in last season. By your logic, it is the same as me saying that just because Brunell had a crappy 7 or 8 games last year, doesn't mean it was a bad signing. So, even if Brunell happened to lead the Redskins to the Super Bowl and win it all, you'd still say it was a mistake to sign him just because of what happened a year ago? :yeahright

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

Brunell did not single handedly ruin last season, that's just a ridiculous statement.

We had problems across the board last season from the system, playcalling, penalties, clock management, personnel, and the list could go on and on.

So if he helps the team get to the playoffs this year people will still say he was a bad signing? C'mon, we're talking about a team that hasn't had a sniff of the postseason since 1999, and we're going to hold a silly grudge against Brunell... for what?

I don't know what it's going to take to make people forget about last season, I thought the playoffs would but for some people Brunell will never redeem himself. Even if they won it all I could still see some people saying "yeah but what about 2004?"

:bdh:

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

:Smoker:

last year is over, brunell is doing great this year. last year our recievers were crap, and matty is right. we had lots of things wrong with our team.

:spank:

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

Our new smileys are all very appropriate.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

I am curious about something. Are all you Gibbs/Williams haters, lunatic Lavar worshipers, Brunell doubters, Danny bashers, and in general, mal-contents the same person using multiple log-ins? Because if you are............................you must be my ex-wife!!!!!!!!!!!! If so, I really, really promise I did NOT squander the Child support check on season tickets!!!!!!!

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

I think while Brunell is doing well this season...the questionable thing was the contract they gave him.

Last year his play was worse than anybody could have imagined...and this year it is better than anybody could have imagined especially when considering last year. But i guess the main question one might have is why in the heck they would have given a 33/34 year old quarterback such an enormous contract.

I mean if it works out for us...and he continues to produce at this rate...then great you know... But i think that would just be us lucking out on this signing...and the signing itself/when compared to the price of that signing...will remain a very questionnable decision on the part of the front office (especially in light of the fact that they already had a 1st rounder in Patrick Ramsey on the roster).

However, this was meant as an attempt to explain the questions over brunells play/contract, rather than a complaint about his current performance.

I am generally very pleased with brunells play this year... I hope he can keep it up and take us into the post season as contenders...GO SKINS!

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

Brunell's deal is essentially a 3 year contract worth approx. $10M. Forget about the fact it's a 7 year deal, that's just to make it work with the cap.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

Below's a link to a list of 2004 QB salaries. Brunell's contract does not seem that out of line when you look at other over paid QB's.

Also Skins made a quick high offer to Brunell because at the time there was a lot of teams looking to sign a sold veteran QB. If you remember correctly Dallas and the Giants were two of the teams looking....If we low balled Brunell and say he signed with the G-Men guess what, last year could have been the Kurt Warner or Drew Bledsoe ERA for us. (think about that for a second)

Brunell's playing at a pro bowl level this year, so its hard to argue with the money we gave him. Bottom line is were 5-3 right now lets enjoy and stop dusting off the sour past looking for arguments.


[b][font=Arial][url="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=3"]http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=3[/url][/font][/b]

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

After this year, we wont have to pay for the 9M coles hit and the 4.5M trotter hit, as our cap gets better and better. I think we pay like 1M for trotter the next year, but our dead cap gets lower and lower....

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=FirstandTen]
Brunell's playing at a pro bowl level this year, so its hard to argue with the money we gave him. Bottom line is were 5-3 right now lets enjoy and stop dusting off the sour past looking for arguments.
[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%! I think it's just going to take nothing short of a perfect season and a perfect championship to get some fans to actually enjoy watching the Redskins again. :coach:

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

from what i've heard chad pennington is just about shot, his arm strength is very poor and they really do need a young starter, plus they like ramsey. it would be a great trade for us though, J.A. is a stud and would fit perfect with our system.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

[QUOTE=giacomo2]from what i've heard chad pennington is just about shot, his arm strength is very poor and they really do need a young starter, plus they like ramsey. it would be a great trade for us though, J.A. is a stud and would fit perfect with our system.[/QUOTE]
Pennington never had a strong arm and I can't imagine it is going to gte any better. This guy could be agreat NFL qb but injuries will most likely force him out fo the league in the 4 or 5 years I would guess. Ramsye might be an answer there but they can't trade a guy when he is already going to be a FA can they? Unless they franchise him he is not on their team after the season is over. We'd be silly to trade for him when we could sign him as a FA . They aren't going to franchise him since he'd go ballistic.

Re: Trading Patrick Ramsey
 

It's amazing how folks here look at the world differently depending on what team is doing the maneuvering.

Abhaham is the Jets' franchise player. If they hang that tag on him, won't it cost the Skins more than merely Patrick Ramsey in a deal? And remember that means a hefty signing bonus for Abraham which will come from cap room generated by??? Oh, and lots of teams will realiza that the Skins might want to "move Ramsey" since his contract starts to be less "cap friendly" in its later years. So why offer the Skins top dollar for a guy that they want to "move".

When the Skins' FO is theoretically in charge of the maneuvering, people here assume that a franchise player will bring the full two first round pick value and maybe more.

Oh, here are twi nire flies in the ointment:

1. It is by no means certain that Herm Edwards will be back in NY next year. And don't be surprised if he doesn't wind up in KC...

2. The Jets are still very much in the running to draft a kid named Leinart. I know that Patrick Ramsey is held in lofty esteem here, but I'd take a flyer on Leinart over Ramsey every day of the week and twice a day if the moon is full.