Ramsey - what if?

[318 SKIN]

After reviewing Ramsey's very limited opportunity here is what I determined:

In his only start of the season we can now look back and say it was against a defense that statistically on its way to be the best D in NFL history, taking the title from the Ravens Super Bowl team. Here's how he performed.

The good and bad....

3 drives:

1st drive began at WA 22 5 plays - 23yds - int

2nd drive began at WA 2 - 12 plays - 26 yds - converted 3 critical 3rd downs getting us important field position with throws to Patton for 11yds from the 2yd line, a 15yd completion to Patton called back for illegal shift, followed that up with an 18yd competion to Moss for a 1st down, couple of runs and incomplete - punt

3rd Drive began at WA 11 - 11 plays 70yds - including a great pass to Moss for 52yds and a TD to Cooley called back for a bogus interference call. Ending with a terrible missed roughing the QB call that ended PR's season.

The Good - he consistantly moved the ball down the field aganist a very good defense including a TD that should have stood. He converted critical 3rd downs something we have had trouble with this year. He also involved Patton with tough throws between the hash marks. In only 3 drives aganist the Bears he passed for 106yds and led us down the field for 70yds and a score. This has proven to be very difficult for teams given 4 full qtrs. Just ask Mark.

The Bad - 2 turn overs - 1 that I feel was not his fault.

I can't help but think that yes PR would throw his share of picks, but he would also give us the ability to pressure D's down the middle of the field with our #2 and 3 receivers which would create lanes for Clinton and the running game and Moss on the outside.

I have been squarely on the MB band wagon and still like the stability he has provided. However, I can't help but think - WHAT IF!

[Om]

So, how ARE things in Ruston these days?

[318 SKIN]

Things are good - hoping for good things in our nations capital!

[318 SKIN]

OM - I kinda know how you feel about the QB sitch, but do you ever wonder what may have happened if the TD to Cooley stood?

[F Landry]

The thing with Ramsey, though, is that he wouldn't have been playing as well as Mark has (for the games he played well in), but you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

Mark is an old dog.

Atleast Ramsey could learn from his mistakes by actually being able to play a damned full season for once!

Of course, I'm still one of the people who thought that Joe Gibbs would be like he was with Mark last year, and stick it out with Ramsey (through the good and the bad).

I was wrong, ofcourse.

And I was also wrong in the fact that I never thought we would draft a quarterback.

So, my opinion is basically moot, but you get my point.

:2cents:

[Om]

Things are good - hoping for good things in our nations capital!

Good news.

And ditto.

[Ynot]

I agree, ramsey needs to be given a chance and not Campbell he is not ready yet

[pjmjr123]

Then...

What if...

Ramsey got the start the second week against the Cowboys and moved the ball like that. Building his confidence and scoring on long time consuming drives. Thus, not needing to keep our D on the field as long as they were the whole game. Then winning the game and keeping the starting QB position.

Maybe our D stays a bit more healthy, maybe our Running game gets started earlier in the season, maybe....urgh. Enough maybes, the team we got is the team I cheer for. We have to stay behind them. "5 to go"

[318 SKIN]

My thot is Mark really doesn't put fear in a defense and after 6 or 7 games cordinators can game plan against Mark's limited physical skills (arm strength). Please here me - I think Mark has done a great job and I also think that Patrick has learned more over the past 11 games watching Mark than he did in his 1st 3yrs. I hope at some point he will get his fair shot.

[Om]

Um, at the risk of pointing out a couple obvious things ... no one else has even a little problem with the Bears D (in week one, mind you) being annointed the best of all time?

Or about the recap of Patrick's drives somehow (quite mysterioulsy) omitting the fact that the first one ended in an interception, the second with a sack and fumble we happened to recover, and the third in a sack and fumble we didn't?

Just sayin'.

I still have a huge soft spot for Patrick, and have not totally given up on the idea of his someday developing into the QB his arm would seem to suggest he could ... but we seem to have come to this particular discussion with one eye tied behind our backs.

[Om]

OM - I kinda know how you feel about the QB sitch, but do you ever wonder what may have happened if the TD to Cooley stood?

I plat the "what if" game for fun sometimes. Can't say that I did in this instance.

Frankly, I think it's a disservice to Gibbs and to serious followers of this team to somehow hint at this late date that the decision to bench Patrick had to do only with his performance in the first half of that game. You and I both know there was much more to it than that.

[318 SKIN]

Um, at the risk of pointing out a couple obvious things ... no one else has even a little problem with the Bears D (in week one, mind you) being annointed the best of all time?

Or about the recap of Patrick's drives somehow (quite mysterioulsy) omitting the fact that the first one ended in an interception, the second with a sack and fumble we happened to recover, and the third in a sack and fumble we didn't?

Just sayin'.

I still have a huge soft spot for Patrick, and have not totally given up on the idea of his someday developing into the QB his arm would seem to suggest he could ... but we seem to have come to this particular discussion with one eye tied behind our backs.

May are may not be the best of all time, but based on there stats they are on pace to exceed the Ravens and the 85 & 86 Bears (86 Bears stats were better than 85 team). I will say this, Mark could not move the ball over 3 qtrs as well as Patrick did in 1qtr. Ok, its your turn to come back with the obvious - turnovers.

[Om]

See the post above yours, 318.

I'll say it once more: Patrick's play in Bears game was NOT the sole reason for the decision to play Brunell. I assume you know that already, so let's not waste one another's time having the same debate we all had ad nauseam way back when it happened.

[318 SKIN]

I plat the "what if" game for fun sometimes. Can't say that I did in this instance.

Frankly, I think it's a disservice to Gibbs and to serious followers of this team to somehow hint at this late date that the decision to bench Patrick had to do only with his performance in the first half of that game. You and I both know there was much more to it than that.

I don't disagree with you on this - my problem is just don't jerk his chain, if you want to start Brunnell, start Brunnell. Please don't play games!

[Leonard Washington]

obviously its hard to say but i think we would be about where we are now. ramsey probably would have thrown for more yards and ints especially with the more wide open offense we have. i don't know about the # of TDs b/c brunell has made some brilliant reads on some of our scoring plays.

now that i think about it. if ramsey throws an INT gibbs will shut the offense down and we probably end up losing anyway. gibbs doesn't seem to be a brilliant comeback coach. (yea i saw the dallas game)

[Om]

For months, given how quickly things changed once the season started, we've heard people suggest that Gibbs somehow did Patrick wrong by making it clear he was the designated starter all off season.

I've always wondered if, had Gibbs NOT done that, those same people would have criticized him for not "backing Patirck up" or not "showing confidence in him" or "allowing him to not look over his shoulder" and get comfortable with this role?

Rhetorical questions, yes. But good ones.

[318 SKIN]

OM - not trying to question Gibbs or anyone else. I think the opportunity for Patrick to watch Mark play has been to best thing that has happened to him since he arrived. But at 5-6 i'm just saying what if. In the end if we don't make the playoffs I feel this year has been a complete waste for the Redskins. Assuming Patrick is gone next year, even his opportunity to learn from Mark would have been a waste.

[318 SKIN]

For months, given how quickly things changed once the season started, we've heard people suggest that Gibbs somehow did Patrick wrong by making it clear he was the designated starter all off season.

I've always wondered if, had Gibbs NOT done that, those same people would have criticized him for not "backing Patirck up" or not "showing confidence in him" or "allowing him to not look over his shoulder" and get comfortable with this role?

Rhetorical questions, yes. But good ones.

He was/got hammered anyway. There was know why around that, but if you know you want to make the change have the courage to do it from the start. Don't cave in to fan pressure. I promise either way Patrick was going to be disappointed, but using the bogus injury was weak. I think the way it went down made it even tougher on both Gibbs and Patrick!

[Om]

OM - not trying to question Gibbs or anyone else. I think the opportunity for Patrick to watch Mark play has been to best thing that has happened to him since he arrived. But at 5-6 i'm just saying what if. In the end if we don't make the playoffs I feel this year has been a complete waste for the Redskins. Assuming Patrick is gone next year, even his opportunity to learn from Mark would have been a waste.

Well, as to the first part of that, that's quite a different conversation from where we started.

I cannot disagree strongly enough with the last part, however.

The year will likely prove quite valuable for Patrick, regardless of where he ends up playing, and I find that a good thing because I love the guy. That's never changed.

I also believe the year will prove incredibly valuable to the team in their ongoing quest to redefine the culture of the club from the top down, in terms of identifying and isolating the few key areas that remain to be shored up personnel-, scheme- and attitude-wise, and in hitting the ground running in 2006. Regardless of who ends up winning the starting QB position next opening day.

[Om]

He was/got hammered anyway. There was know why around that, but if you know you want to make the change have the courage to do it from the start. Don't cave in the fan pressure. I promise either way Patrick was going to be disappointed, but using the bogus injury was weak. I think the way it went down made it even tougher on both Gibbs and Patrick!

"Fan pressure?"

You honestly believe Joe Gibbs' decision to switch quarterbacks had anything to do with "fan pressure?"

Argh.

[318 SKIN]

Well, as to the first part of that, that's quite a different conversation from where we started.

I cannot disagree strongly enough with the last part, however.

The year will likely prove quite valuable for Patrick, regardless of where he ends up playing, and I find that a good thing because I love the guy. That's never changed.

I also believe the year will prove incredibly valuable to the team in their ongoing quest to redefine the culture of the club from the top down, in terms of identifying and isolating the few key areas that remain to be shored up personnel-, scheme- and attitude-wise, and in hitting the ground running in 2006. Regardless of who ends up winning the starting QB position next opening day.

I'm talking about a waste for the Redskins! For Patrick it's great!

[318 SKIN]

I think Gibbs felt that he made a public commitment (fans) to starting Patrick and he didn't want to appear to go back on his word. The way it went down it's obvious he cratered to something....

[Doctor ToughLove]

Yes, to be fair Ramsey turned the ball over his first three series of the season. That is as bad as anything Robert Royal or Antonio Brown did.

Apparently Gibbs not playing Ramsey was the best thing he could do for Ramsey's career. Because if we had lost that game it would have been balmed on Ramsey. Doubtful Ramsey would have pulled out the Dallas game. At 0-2 the scrutiny would be in full force on Ramsey. Or consider us now at 3-9 with Ramsey playing? The guy would be finished. But not playing Ramsey rescued him from that and allows people to imagine him as our last hope. "what if" indeed.

Not that Brunell couldn't get injured & Ramsey do well in relief. But it is funny how over-reactionary people are.

[Om]

Due respect, 318, but now we're headed down a road that was practically a gridlocked superhighway around here just a couple short months ago.

Nothing new, from my perspective, to be added at this point. I've said my piece on this enough.

[318 SKIN]

Let me repeat what I said in the beginning - I have been on Mark's band wagon, but at 5-6 I can't help but think what if. Why does that make this a negitive thread. It only becomes negitive when others get defensive (not you). I appreciate a good debate. However, by starting this thread I just wanted to discuss what attributes Patrick had that may have made a difference.