Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   Do We Have the Best QBs? (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/1343-do-we-have-the-best-qbs.html)

SmootSmack 05-25-2004 02:40 PM

Do We Have the Best QBs?
 
So ESPN Insider has Patrick Ramsey as the 3rd best backup QB, behind Kitna and Feeley/Fiedler. Kitna and Fiedler I can understand but I'll take Ramsey over Feeley.

So anyway, I can see that there are better backups than Ramsey and better starters than Brunell (assuming Ramsey is the backup and Brunell the starter) but do you guys think that together Brunell and Ramsey make the best 1-2 punch at QB in the NFL? If not them, then who?

joethiesmanfan 05-25-2004 02:56 PM

I think they are a the best 1-2 punch on paper. Most people outside of us Redskins fans don't realize how good Patrick is (as coach Gibbs calls him). Patrick is better than Kitna and Fiedler. Remember the fins wanted him for a #1. Hes is the best backup until Brunnell gets hurt. I predict Patrick as the starter by game 10. Coach gibbs may switch them around like Schroeder and Doug Williams. Doug wasn't the official starter until near the playoffs then became the Super Bowl MVP.

Hogskin 05-25-2004 03:50 PM

I agree with you guys that Ramsey is one of the top backup QB's. But I would rate Brunell close to the same level. He has lost some of his once-amazing mobility and maybe a bit of his sharpness in passing. Otherwise, he would have to be rated well above Patrick at this point in his career. But to put them at the top of the NFL heap (on paper) seems quite a stretch to me. Manning (Peyton, of course LOL) and ANYONE is a better combo. Same for Culpepper or Vick and anyone. Cincinnati's combo could prove to be excellent, also, but I hope and expect the Redskins combo to outshine them this year.

SmootSmack 05-25-2004 03:57 PM

See I was thinking maybe Culpeper and Frerotte. But I wouldn't say Peyton and whoever their back up is or Vick and whoever their back up is, because the Colts and Falcons would have a significant drop-off if they went to their back up. The Redskins, I don't think, would.

A couple of other combos I was thinking of were McNair/Volek, Hasselbeck/Dilfer and maybe Garcia/Holcomb

Hogskin 05-25-2004 04:12 PM

I know what you are saying about the dropoff, Smack, but my point is that those guys are so good, I would rather take my chances with one of them and Norman Snead as backup than most pairs in the NFL (including our pair). I bet Gibbs would trade both of them straight up for any one of those guys in a heartbeat. But, I realize the point I am making is not really in the spirit of your thread about combos...

AnonEmouse 05-25-2004 05:05 PM

I think we have the best combo, but not the best individually, i.e. Brunell isn't top starter and Ramsey isn't top backup. I say it's the best combo because Brunell is a v. good veteran and Ramsey is a good young QB who has already had significant playing time with the offensive personel. Fact is either could start and the otehr would be an excelent backup.

On paper, you'd think Cleveland have the best combo, but I think Holcomb has never come near his potential and Garcia always struck we as 2nd tier - good, but not that good.

I think 90% of teams in the league would be very happy with our combo.

hi-jinx 05-25-2004 05:34 PM

I can name two teams that I think have a better 1-2. The Raiders, assuming that they keep Gannon like Norv Turner claims they will. I think Gannon is set up to make a pretty good comeback here, their O-line is is better and Gannon should be healed up better. The other team is Cincy everyone "in the know" says that Palmer is the better start right now, so if you look at what Kitna did last year I got to say this is the best 1-2, unless Palmer turns out to be a huge bust.

SmootSmack 05-25-2004 05:43 PM

Jinx, I wouldn't go with the Bengals yet until Palmer proves something to me

Duffman003 05-26-2004 06:51 AM

I personally don't think Gannon has it anymore, he's 40 something, that's really old in the NFL. His body is slowly starting to break down and he isn't as quick as he used to be.

SkinsRock 05-26-2004 08:40 AM

[QUOTE=Hogskin]I know what you are saying about the dropoff, Smack, but my point is that those guys are so good, I would rather take my chances with one of them and Norman Snead as backup than most pairs in the NFL (including our pair). I bet Gibbs would trade both of them straight up for any one of those guys in a heartbeat. But, I realize the point I am making is not really in the spirit of your thread about combos...[/QUOTE]

I agree that guys like Vick and P. Manning are that good, but I wouldn't want to take the chance with a huge drop off. And I don't think Gibbs would either. Remember he was a minority owner with the Falcons last year, and I think that seeing what happened after Vick went down played a big part in getting a high quality QB in Brunell when we already had a good starter in Ramsey.

Hogskin 05-26-2004 09:16 AM

Skinsrock, that is a good point, but it ignores a couple improtant facts. The Falcons offense last year had NOTHING but Vick, and had a bad line. There are very few NFL STARTERS who could have replaced Vick, a very rare and special talent, on last year's Falcons and kept it together. The Redskins are not anywhere near that shape. They will have an excellent line this year, and have very good talent across the board on offense. They do not depend on the QB for everything.

Secondly, there are much better backups readily available than what the Falcons had last year. In fact the Skins' current 3rd string is one of them.

And don't kid yourself about Gibbs. He would not hesitate for 10 seconds if he got the opportunity to bring a proven, young stud QB (Vick) in here for an aging QB who was very good, and a promising young QB who needs a lot of development in his footwork, decision-making speed, and release speed. I like Ramsey's potential a lot, but he is not quite there yet. That is why Gibbs went after a QB as soon as he got here. Vick is the real thing for sure. Anyway, the trade is a moot point. No way the Falcons would make that idiotic trade and doom themselves to at least a couple years of fighting to escape the cellar, while putting the Redskins in immediate Super Bowl contention.

Mattyk 05-26-2004 12:08 PM

Prediction: Gannon will be cut.

The Raiders have hinted that they want him to restructure while Gannon has stated he won't. Collins has been brought in as the "backup", but that appears to be window dressing for now. If Gannon doesn't restructure they have Collins as their trump card to fall back on. And actually, with Turner's vertical passing attack, Collins' stronger arm might make him a better fit anyway.

SkinsRock 05-26-2004 02:14 PM

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Prediction: Gannon will be cut.

The Raiders have hinted that they want him to restructure while Gannon has stated he won't. Collins has been brought in as the "backup", but that appears to be window dressing for now. If Gannon doesn't restructure they have Collins as their trump card to fall back on. And actually, with Turner's vertical passing attack, Collins' stronger arm might make him a better fit anyway.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but om the othe hand, Turner could be taking a page from Gibbs by having two starting-caliber QB's. For the Raiders standards, Collins is as young as Ramsey is for us. ;)

Darock 05-26-2004 02:29 PM

yeh..i like our combo...I hope brunell will help ramsey even after brunell's days are numbered...Ramsey has some crazy potential! I feel alot more safer with ramsey or brunell being the backup..look at last year...We have 2 great qbs now just like when we had kilmer and sonny..

OaklandSkinz 05-26-2004 04:21 PM

Don't know about the best, but we SURE got 2 GOOD ones!! Whoever has to be back up its still a big PLUS fellas.!!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.07905 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25