Brees and Rivers and the Market for Ramsey

celts32

Is that true? He really came out and said that or are you extracting that meaning from a different statement?

__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/

FRPLG

I misremembered. Bledsoe led them to win the AFC championship game that year not the Superbowl. Either way it doesn't matter to me as Brady has proven he has the goods and he showed he ahd them that year. I'd concede he was a guy who won a SB early but he is the exception and not the rule.

FRPLG

I firmly believe that none of us has even a clue what this team would have done with Ramsey as QB this year. It really is hard to predict. He did a decent job last year when asked but he looked real bad in camp. So who knows? I am glad Gibbs made the move and we are in the playoffs now.

FRPLG

It has been reported that during the draft process before Cooley was drafted Parcells told Cooley, during a visit to the Cowboys, that he was no better than a depth/backup player in the NFL based on the film Parcells had watched on him. Parcells is clearly a master talent evaluator as well as a master talent motivator. Or maybe he is just a master asshole.

Schneed10

He followed up that crappy preseason with a crappy game against the Bears. There's no way Ramsey hits 2 TDs to Moss in the last five minutes of the game against Dallas. That alone would have given the Cowboys one more win and one more loss for us, meaning we'd be watching Dallas play the Bucs this weekend.

I think you're nuts, FRPLG. You need to let go of this love affair with Patrick Ramsey. At what point do you move on and realize he's not going to cut it as a championship QB? How many more inconsistent performances do you need to see?

FRPLG

Woah woah woah!
Love affair with Ramsey? Where the hell did you get that from? You'll need to go back and search through my posts. I am an ardent Gibbs supporter and always thought he was doing what was best. And I haven't said anything to contradict that here in thsi thread. My posts, I thought, clearly stated I was assuming that the SKINS THEMSELVES believe Ramsey could do the job. And that was simply a pragmatic assumption for the sake of the discussion. They may or may not believe that but it was part of my assumption about how THEY are handling this andhow THEY may in the future. Not necessarily how I would. I think the general principle of having depth at the position is good, yet contrary to general league think, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I want PR as part of depth or not. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

FRPLG

Where did I suggest that?
Dude, learn to read and read to learn. My point wasn't that Campbell can't, rather it was that maybe the Skins think Ramsey can and why not keep both for depth. If they do then Campbell as a less experienced younger guy would be the third stringer. I don't see why letting Campbell stay the third for another year hurts us or him if Ramsey can handle the job and is willing. It can only help him really. I am really discussing more of a theoretical approach to the qb position than this specific situation. Substitute other names if you wish. I am talking about depth here. Letting guys grow and mature without pressure.

skindogger47

We traded a lot to get Campbell, which we WOULD NOT HAVE DONE if Joe Gibbs had faith in PRam. Ramsey is an immobile JP Losman. Which is bad, though I'm sure some of you think Losman is the real deal, even though he has done NOTHING to prove it.

Schneed10

Well there are so many goofy things going on with your argument, I don't know where to start.

#1 You seem to want to assume that Ramsey wants to stay and be a backup here. Where the hell are you getting that idea? Or is this just another one of your assumptions for arguments' sake? Ramsey requested a trade earlier in the season, and his situation has not gotten better, there's no way he'll want to stay, and Gibbs doesn't like to keep guys who don't want to be here. Let's deal in reality, not a bunch of who-struck-John assumptions.

#2 You seem to suggest that it will help Campbell if he's the #3 instead of the #2. Newsflash man, but the #3 never sees the field. At least the #2 has a shot at seeing some real live action at some point. Guys need to play to get any better, or at least get a decent share of practice reps. Nobody gets better by sitting idle. Eli progressed by playing, Roethisberger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, all of them.

#3 Letting Campbell stay as the 3rd and keeping Ramsey as our second does hurt us, in the salary cap department. Ramsey would take up a couple million of room next year. Instead we could make Campbell the #2 which he will be perfectly capable of, and we can get another rookie or some vet in for minimum pay. Plus, if we keep Ramsey through this year, it hurts us from a GM perspective because he'll fly the coop in January 2007 as a free agent, I'd rather get a 3rd or 4th rounder for him this year.

#4 There is no such thing as growing and maturing without pressure at the QB position. The QB position is all about pressure and how you handle it. If QBs need to be shielded from pressure, then they're in the wrong line of work. If anything, you want to expose young QBs to pressure to see how they'll respond. We all could see Tom Brady was going to be a good one in his first year of action, because how poised and calm he remained in big pressure situations. 2006 would be a good time to expose Campbell to that as a #2 and find out how he'll respond. We already know Ramsey doesn't respond well to those situations.

SouperMeister

Abraham is a better rushing the passer off the edge than anyone we have by miles - you take that deal for Ramsey, and restructure Abraham's contract if necessary. Sadly, the Skins almost certainly will have to part ways with LaVar. His $12M cap figure next year makes that a virtual forgone conclusion. Thank goodness we have Marcus Washington locked up at a lesser figure.

FRPLG

Now YOUR ASSUMING he doesn't want to stay. It has been denied numerous times by all involved that he ever asked for a trade. Whether it's true or not it HAS been denied. Even if he did ask for a trade is it hard to fathom that he could change his mind? Maybe he thinks all of a sudden this is a great opp for him. I don't know but it is possible. Point is we don't know.
I was postulating a theoretical idea that, admittedly I wasn't clear about, I applied to this situation. If you don't want to discuss a theoretical idea then that's fine but don't denigrate someone for it.
Young QBs don't "need to play to get better" For every guy you mentioned there can be 3 or 4 that were given similar opps and never panned out. I don't think it is unreasonable to say a second year guy can still get value out of being the third stringer. Maybe he can get more value out of that than being the second stringer and getting forced into action before he is mentally ready. I don't know but it seems to me that it cant hurt. Seeing as this is how Gibbs did it in the past I would guess he thinks much the same way. I agree letting Campbell play more could well get him to super star status within a couple seasons. Or it could have him flipping burgers back in Alabama by the time he is 26. I don't really want to argue this because neither of us is really right. Some guys it will help to play and some it won't. Plus I am not arguing that the best thing to do for Campbell is to sit him as the 3rd guy. I am saying for the Skins having him as the 3rd guy increases the likelihood that he will be great and provides future depth. This is down the line but it most likely increase those things By how much? Who knows.
Now your debating whether the idea of keeping 3 good QBs is good or not and that's cool to me. I personally think that I am not sure. How's that for confusing? The thought I presented came from looking at what they did this year and wondering if they might try it again next year. If they do and it is successful maybe the way the rest of the league handles the position isn't always the right way to go and keeping the three is a good long term solution to the position. I know it ties up money in the cap but maybe it is worth it. As far as getting value for Ramsey I guess that gets weighed against what value you have for him as your second stringer. I'd love to end up getting something for him too if they aren't going to keep him. I'm not suggesting we keep him for no good reason.
Well that's a fundamental argument. Could it be that having a QB trained well in his mechanics and understanding the offense completely enough to have supreme confidence when he finally gets put into pressure situation will be even more successful than trial by fire? Maybe, maybe not. I tend to go with my more conservative approach while many others go with yours. Again it depends on the player in question I can't honestly comment on Campbell since I have no idea what the guy can handle. I would say that maybe Ramsey would respond better now knowing the offense more completely and seeing how it was run by a vet. I look at PRs deficiencies as not being in the "pressure-handling" area but more in the decision making area. But that's just me.

railcon56

Maybe He wouldn't have needed 2 desperate passes either?

__________________
Run or Pass and Score ..We Want Alot More!!!!

amorentz

Actually, from a cap standpoint it costs about $500k more to cut Lavar than to keep him. So unless Snyder wants to save actual dollars, theres really no reason to get rid of him unless we get blown away with a trade offer...