Potato Sack Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Gamebreaker, You're missing the point. How do you explain the other 20 or so passes that hit their targets? How can you dismiss Wuerffel's cerebral audiblizing? He obviously KNOWS this offense! I've seen some GREAT NFL QBs throw "near picks", only to regroup and hit some beautiful downfield TDs. Give me a break. That's just a lame explanation on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 What gets me about Ramsey's contract demands is that he wants a raise if he plays? Just so I have this straight, he expects to be paid as the 32nd pick, but only if he is sitting on the sidelines. It seems to me that the 31st and 33rd picks should be expected to play. Why not the 32nd? He is still early enough in the draft to be expected to play. That's what being drafted 32nd means. That's why you get paid like you were drafted 32nd, because you are expected to play slightly worse than the 31st and slightly better than the 33rd (of course we all hope for better). The key word is that you are expected to play. He should not get a bonus or an escalator for meeting the bare minimum. Heck, he should consider himself lucky that he gets to be paid like the 32nd picck for atleast a year while he does nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Agreed gbear. Ramsey deserves nothing more than his slotted dollar amount. He does not deserve or have any merit asking for starting money simply for stepping on the field as a starter. That's what his team was asking for. Not that he perform as a starter or that he keep the job as a starter, simply that if he became the starter, even for a single game, the escalator came into play and his salary jumped. Ludicrous in the extreme is that position. It appears now that he's coming down from that stupidity and they are putting escalator requests in that dictate if he becomes and remains the starter based upon certain performance levels that he'll be paid more. Perhaps that can be agreed upon. I just don't understand his thinking in sitting out. He's nearly assured himself a wasted year and with no guarantees he'll start next year if we perform at all capably. Very, very dumb move for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiansDad Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Let me just state for the record that Wuerffel looked good for the Bears in the preseason last year too (mostly against scrubs as well), but that didnt turn into anything when the regular season started. I think he can be better then Matthews, but I wouldnt call him the "guy" for Washington based on 1 preseason game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 I'm in favor of dealing Ramsey to the bears for a starting OG and 1st rounder next year or a 2nd and 3rd rounder next year. He was drafted 32nd and shouldn't be jacking the team for money his agent should be killed by a pissed off fan(not me) and that will get him to sign. Maybe if we scalp his agent a like an indian would that would persuade him to sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 GB A near interception is like being "almost pregnant." Either you are or your not. If you watch Kurt Warner, the guy by which all QB's are judged by, you'll notice that he throws an average of about 1.5 picks per game. That's a lot of picks but he throws a lot so you take the bad with the good. However, you'll also notice that he throws at least as many near-picks each game. That's what happens when you air it out. It doens't make him any less precise than any other QB. The field is smaller in the NFL and when you throw it that much, it makes for a lot of close calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Guys, even assuming this rumor is true, you all are making a bunch of other unrealistic assumptions in evaluating the trade, which is to say that you're going to get equal value in trade. Personally, I'd only take a starting caliber offensive guard and a high draft pick for Ramsey. That "high draft pick" would of course never be a #1 - Ramsey was of course drafted last in the first round. Maybe we could get multiple picks, perhaps Chicago's #2's the next two drafts or something. More realistically, however, this deal is either straight up for a starting player or perhaps with a lower draft pick thrown in, or is for draft pick(s) only. As I said before in another "trade Ramsey" thread, his trade value is now lower than his draft position by virtue of his holdout. If he was signed and under a contract that fit his draft position, at least his cap impact would be calculable. It's not, and now you just don't know what you've got with him. Is he (or his agent) simply a problem? That of course is next to impossible, because I don't see any particular desperation on the part of Chicago to get a QB. They have Jim Miller whose proven to be a competent starter when healthy, and they signed Chandler who, while having the same injury problems as Miller during his career, is probably a better QB. Both are healthy. I'm not one to avoid attributing utter stupidity to the Chicago Bears front office, but this one doesn't make any sense to me from their standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 NUMBER 1 FOR A NUMBER 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsLegacy44 Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 I don't think we should trade Ramsey. We don't even know how well he'll do in our system. I am hoping that he will sign sometime this week. In that case SOS will still have 4 weeks to work with him. If he doesn't sign by next week, we have PROBLEMS. :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 I wonder if someone commented to Ramsey and the idiot agent that for him to be paid "starter money" if he started, he should take 3rd string money while riding the pine? And that includes bonuses also....... It's real simple, he wants starter money if he starts then sign an incentive laden contract and dump all this signing bonus and high base salary crap. Make it minimum rookie salary with 100% incentive based ............ Wonder how fast an agent could back up on that one? Probably get lockjaw...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 So let's get this straight: Ramsey and his agent think that he deserves a $3m bonus and decent salaries for holding a clipboard, but if he actually PLAYS, he wants more? This kid is an idiot. If he wants escalators, he should take on more risk. He should sign a Ricky Williams-like contract with a smaller bonus than his slot would indicate, but with performance bonuses. We all know how that worked out. Ramsey has a strong arm and was supposed to be pretty smart, but he didn't put up the gaudiest numbers in college. He is FAR from a sure thing as an NFL QB. He just doesn't seem to be Redskins material. How can he possibly justify this holdout? It's purely selfish and greedy. I know his agent is guiding him (or misguiding him), but Ramsey is an adult and there is NO WAY he can simply blame his agent after this holdout. This is Ramsey's fault. He has alienated fans, coaches, and probably other players (although they tend to be understanding of this sort of thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 I'd trade Ramsey for Gurode right now. This guy could be Gus Ferotte and from where I sit his contract hold out is similar to the headbanging incident. And if we had the chance to use a number one on a Leftwich or E Manning we'd be foolish not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 the last thing the Redskins need is another young wide receiver to develop. the Bears have three or four players that interest me but Ramsey wouldn't fetch them :laugh: as far as the #1 pick went, that would be an interesting proposition given that I think it is unlikely the Bears will match their 13-3 record of a year ago. they could be 10-6 this year which would put them in the middle of the round. next year we all know there are some good quarterback candidates out there, deeper than this year's list. Ramsey might have been a #3 pick if some other guys had come out this year. I am not saying I would do the deal but for a #1 I would have to think about it. this is all without even the most casual glance at the cap implications of a sign and trade deal or the like :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVskinsfan Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Originally posted by GoSkins A #1 or no go! As much as I'm frustrated with this hold out, we'll still be in need of a young franchise QB. We've heard a lot of good things about this kid. Hopefully, they're for real. I agree 100% to early to throw in the towel! 2nd of all, we trade him we better get a #1 in 2003 and a starting OG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 If we could trade him for Chicago's 1st rounder next year, we'd have two first rounders. We could get a QB and a Guard, or a Guard and a WR, or whatever the hell we need baby!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Originally posted by rellim If we could trade him for Chicago's 1st rounder next year, we'd have two first rounders. We're not going to get a 1st round pick for Ramsey now or next offseason, unless Ramsey has played well in a real (regular-season) NFL game.Ramsey was worth at best the last pick in the first round this year, with the benefit of an entire offseason to learn his new team's offense. Now most of the offseason is gone, and Ramsey is a major holdout trying to break the draft slotting scheme for salaries. These two facts reduce his value sharply. At most we get a #2 pick for Ramsey, until he shows he's worth more in a real NFL game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedGator Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 If SOS doesn't want him, he won't be any good. Mark it down...he's never missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 what about D. Johnson? Not trying to be contrary, but wasn't he a bit of a bust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiansDad Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Redskins attempting to deal first-rounder Ramsey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Len Pasquarelli ESPN.com Even as the Washington Redskins on Tuesday continued negotiations with unsigned first-round draft choice Patrick Ramsey, ESPN.com has confirmed the franchise is attempting to trade him, and would deal the former Tulane star if someone met their asking price. Toward that end, the Redskins spoke with Chicago Bears officials Tuesday afternoon and the discussions were expected to last into the evening. It's believed that Washington has granted agent Jimmy Sexton permission to speak with the Bears about a deal for Ramsey. From a technical standpoint, because of rookie allocation pool guidelines, the Redskins would still have to sign Ramsey first and then trade him to the Bears. The trade possibility, however, is still only a longshot and the stronger likelihood is that Washington will reach a contract accord with Ramsey within 24 hours. The final player taken in the opening stanza of the draft, Ramsey is one of five first-round choices still without a contract, and progress in negotiations has been incremental. After the Saturday performances of Sage Rosenfels and Danny Wuerffel in a preseason rout of the San Francisco 49ers at Osaka, Japan, some club officials decided the Redskins could swap Ramsey and go into the season with their current quarterback contingent. The idea, discussed internally among Washington staffers, picked up momentum Monday. It continued on Tuesday after Sexton and Redskins vice president of football operations Joe Mendes negotiated until about 3 a.m. The prime trade target of the Redskins is Chicago, where it is no secret some Bears coaches and club officials regarded Ramsey very highly before the draft, and where he could be groomed behind Jim Miller and Chris Chandler as the quarterback of the future. Washington is seeking a first-round choice in the 2003 draft and backup offensive guard Mike Gandy, a second-year veteran who was a third-round choice in 2001. That isn't too surprising, since the Redskins' guard play has been abysmal all spring. The Redskins also felt they might be able to create interest in Ramsey from several other teams, including the Cincinnati Bengals, but that did not occur. Another hurdle in any proposed Ramsey trade is a league-imposed deadline. According to the collective bargaining agreement, the rights to unsigned draft choices cannot be traded within 30 days of the start of the regular season. Because the season kicks off on a Thursday this year, Sept. 5, any deal must be completed before 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. Ramsey, 23, started 32 of his 35 games at Tulane and completed 798 of 1,355 passes for 9,205 yards, with 72 touchdown passes and 51 interceptions. He threw for over 2,800 yards and 22 touchdown passes in each of his final college campaigns. Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 So True Art on the interception ratio. If we took all the TD leading QB's of both conferences each year, since it's inception, we find that the leading TD QB, also had a higher count of interceptions, by virtue of "volume". That is they had an average of higher amount of throws than most and a higher completion rate vs. interceptions, even though the INT's were quite high. What makes Unitas, Jurgenson, Layne so good is the ratio was kind. Favre actually has a high INT rate, but he also has a high TD rate. Pick your poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVskinsfan Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 Originally posted by gbear What gets me about Ramsey's contract demands is that he wants a raise if he plays? Just so I have this straight, he expects to be paid as the 32nd pick, but only if he is sitting on the sidelines. It seems to me that the 31st and 33rd picks should be expected to play. Why not the 32nd? He is still early enough in the draft to be expected to play. That's what being drafted 32nd means. That's why you get paid like you were drafted 32nd, because you are expected to play slightly worse than the 31st and slightly better than the 33rd (of course we all hope for better). The key word is that you are expected to play. He should not get a bonus or an escalator for meeting the bare minimum. Heck, he should consider himself lucky that he gets to be paid like the 32nd picck for atleast a year while he does nothing. Should be a different signing deal for QB's regardless if they are #1 or #32. playing is one thing, clipboard holding for a year is another. NFL needs to address this issue...and hold those damn agents accountable for holding franchises over a barell!!!:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 Trade him. He's no factor for us now or anytime in the near future. I'm still not convinced about our own QB's, but if we can get a choice in next year's draft for him, I say go for it. His holdout is becoming a distraction and you know the fans won't cut him any slack. Nor should they. This parallels Heath Shuler too much for me, so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedGator Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 Yomar, Spurrier did not jettison D Johnson, he kept him and played him. Johnson was a pretty good college QB but not as adept or coachable as Spurriers other QB's. My point was that Spurrier HAS released numerous highly touted QB's during his tenure, NONE of which has EVER amounted to much after leaving...In that respect he's NEVER missed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisFul Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 What do you mean, Numerous? The only QB that I can remember getting benched and "jettisoned" was Terry Dean, and he was having a damn good season when it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 Originally posted by GoSkins Gamebreaker, You're missing the point. How do you explain the other 20 or so passes that hit their targets? How can you dismiss Wuerffel's cerebral audiblizing? He obviously KNOWS this offense! I've seen some GREAT NFL QBs throw "near picks", only to regroup and hit some beautiful downfield TDs. Give me a break. That's just a lame explanation on your part. No, YOU'RE missing the point. Exactly where in my post did I say Wuerrfel's performance was bad? I acknowledged Wuerrfel's performance, but I also wanted to temper the overwhelming enthusiasm that may have been taking things a little too far. My whole point was we shouldn't cast Ramsey away simply because Danny Wuerrfel had a good half a game aganist 2nd and 3rd string players. And since we're on the subject, calling me out like that for simply stating the obvious is pretty f***in' lame....on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.