frankbones Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Sorry if this has already been posted, but dammmn NY Jets #4. Ganggreen has to be mighty happy about that.. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6367501 Power Rankings: Champion Bucs start where they finished By Pete Prisco SportsLine.com Senior Writer Tell Pete your opinion! The draft is two weeks past, most teams have completed at least one minicamp, and training camp is about two months away, which must mean it's time for another version of the SportsLine.com Power Rankings. Call these the post-draft, pre-training camp, preseason Power Rankings. Mike Alstott and Warren Sapp are just two of the standouts who make the Bucs a solid post-draft No. 1. (AP) They reflect what teams have done since the conclusion of last season, as well as a peak ahead toward 2003. As Tampa Bay players preached during their recent minicamp, 2003 is now in the rearview mirror. Being caught looking back can result in quite a nasty wreck. That doesn't mean the Bucs, who won the Super Bowl last January, don't deserve to stay in the top spot. With a defense that returns all but two starters -- and most feel the replacements for those players actually might be upgrades -- why shouldn't the Bucs start the season in the top spot? They will again be dominant on defense, although age is starting to become a concern in some spots and Warren Sapp's contract status looms as a possible distraction. The real improvement for Tampa Bay, and the reason the Bucs again should be considered a Super Bowl contender, is expected on the offensive side. Getting a year of tutelage in coach Jon Gruden's system, the offensive players all insist they will be better in 2003. Gruden was frustrated at times last year when he was forced to win games with defense. If he has his way, his offense will do more this time around, and the players say they already notice a big difference. "We're going to score more," said wide receiver Keenan McCardell. "You can just see how much better we look now playing in this system." The Bucs and the Eagles, who Tampa Bay beat in the NFC Championship Game, were the two best teams last season, and they go into 2003 as the two best again. The Eagles have suffered some losses in the offseason, but they did a nice job of replacing those players. They will factor again in the NFC. Oakland is coming off that blowout loss to the Bucs in the Super Bowl, and age will certainly be something to watch for this team. The Raiders also have to play faster, which is something the Bucs exposed in the Super Bowl. The one thing that really stands out in doing the first Power Rankings looking toward the 2003 season is that aside from a six to eight teams at the top and six or so at the bottom, the rest of the league is interchangeable. It will make predictions difficult (go ahead, start the jokes about last season's). Take the Ravens. They are 20th in these Rankings, but if they can somehow get good quarterback play from Chris Redman or rookie Kyle Boller, it wouldn't be a shock to see them in the top 10 by the end of the season. By contrast, the Rams are ranked eighth (OK, so we're putting a lot of faith in the return of a healthy Kurt Warner), but if things don't work out right, they could end up near the mid 20s by season's end. Would that really shock anybody after what they went through in 2002? That's why these Power Rankings will be so tough to do week in and week out next season, and also why they will be so much fun. Teams will make big moves, falling and rising every week because there is more parity than ever. Tampa Bay is on top, where they should be since they will be collecting their rings in a month. Repeating will be a tough task because of what's in front of them, a schedule of 16 games where every team will be gunning for them. Sitting atop these Power Rankings in May matters little come kickoff in September. But this gives an idea of where teams stand right now. There will be another edition of the Power Rankings before the opening of training camps, factoring in late moves such as June 1 cuts and signings. Until then, these are the Power Rankings for May 12: POWER RANKINGS Current Team Previous 1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 This team will be better on offense, and the defense should play to the same level -- or even better. But does anybody really think they'll repeat except the Bucs themselves? 2 Philadelphia Eagles 2 They've suffered their share of losses, but getting a healthy Donovan McNabb back should overcome those. They also have done a nice job replacing those lost players. 3 Oakland Raiders 3 They do have to worry some about age at key positions and harmony, too, with the return of Barrett Robbins following his going AWOL at the Super Bowl. The bitter Super Bowl loss will be hard to shake. 4 New York Jets 5 Losing Laveranues Coles hurt, but getting Curtis Conway will help fill that role. The big help will come from first pick Dewayne Robertson and the improvement of end Bryan Thomas on the defense. 5 Tennessee Titans 4 As long as Steve McNair is on the field, the Titans can win it all. They do need to get some people to step up outside on offense and Jevon Kearse has to return to health on defense. 6 New Orleans Saints 11 This team was slow last season, but that's changed after some good offseason moves. The key will be how well Aaron Brooks plays at quarterback after shoulder surgery. 7 Green Bay Packers 7 Brett Favre still has the rifle, so this team is still a Super Bowl threat. There are some worries on defense, especially at linebacker. 8 St. Louis Rams 25 With Warner back healthy, this is a different team. You wait and see how good he'll be playing behind an improved offensive line, including right tackle Kyle Turley, who came over in a trade from the Saints. 9 Miami Dolphins 8 This might be a make-or-break year for coach Dave Wannstedt. The offense has to get more vertical if the Dolphins really want to get to the Super Bowl. 10 Atlanta Falcons 13 Adding Peerless Price will help the offense, but Michael Vick still must become better in the pocket for the Falcons to get to the Super Bowl. 11 Pittsburgh Steelers 10 They should again be in the playoff mix, but Tommy Maddox has to prove that he was for real. The pass defense has to be better in the secondary. 12 New York Giants 6 The offensive line needs to be rebuilt some, but the return of Ike Hilliard should help the passing game. The special teams have been overhauled, which is a good thing. 13 San Francisco 49ers 9 All that young talent on defense will come together this season, but now there are worries about the offense. What happened to Jeff Garcia last season? 14 Indianapolis Colts 12 The key in 2003 will be the return to form of running back Edgerrin James. If that happens, they will be a playoff team. The defense should be better based on the growth of young players. 15 Denver Broncos 15 The signing of Jake Plummer was a controversial move but one that will pay off. If the defense plays better, the Broncos will move up this chart come September. 16 New England Patriots 16 The offensive and defensive lines have to play better than they did in 2002. So does running back Antowain Smith. 17 Buffalo Bills 17 It's not often that a team that is so prolific on offense decides to change the style of the team and become more defensive-oriented. That's a major risk. 18 Kansas City Chiefs 18 The cloud hanging over this team is the uncertainty surrounding Priest Holmes' hip injury. But the new faces on defense should improve it a bunch. 19 Seattle Seahawks 20 Now that Matt Hasselbeck has a grasp of the offense, this team will score points. It just has to play better on defense. 20 Baltimore Ravens 19 The main concern now is the quarterback position, which is obviously a big issue. If Chris Redman can develop, this can be a playoff team. More likely they will contend for a Super Bowl in 2004. 21 Washington Redskins 22 They've made some nice moves this offseason and should be lauded for them. But they will matter little if quarterback Patrick Ramsey doesn't prove to be a solid starter. 22 Cleveland Browns 14 Of all the playoff teams from a year ago, this one has the most questions, the biggest being: Who will be the quarterback? The defense has some major holes to fill. 23 San Diego Chargers 21 When are the Chargers ever going to have the offense and defense both playing well? It used to be a defensive team, and then when the offense became productive the defense fell off in 2002. 24 Jacksonville Jaguars 27 They will be much better on defense with the addition of Hugh Douglas and Mike Peterson, and they still have playmakers on offense in Jimmy Smith, Mark Brunell and Fred Taylor. The offensive line has to play better. 25 Minnesota Vikings 24 They will score loads of points on offense with the improved offensive line. The key will be if the defense can take a major step from a year ago. 26 Cincinnati Bengals 32 Coach Marvin Lewis has instilled a new feeling around this team. The Bengals have talent, too, which could make them dangerous in 2003 if Jon Kitna can continue to advance. 27 Chicago Bears 28 If they think Kordell Stewart is the answer to their quarterback woes, they are wrong. Rex Grossman could be starting by Halloween. 28 Dallas Cowboys 26 Bill Parcells is a great coach, but even great coaches can't do much without a quarterback. If Chad Hutchinson isn't the answer, Parcells could have a 5-11 start to his Dallas career. 29 Carolina Panthers 23 Coach John Fox did a great job last season, but can we expect the same from Rodney Peete in 2003? And can the defense play like it did last season with those same starting corners? 30 Houston Texans 29 They will make strides on offense this season, but the defense overachieved in 2002. They'll be in games, but it might not translate to the win column. 31 Detroit Lions 31 They will be better than a year ago because Joey Harrington will be better. But where's the running threat to ease the pressure on him? 32 Arizona Cardinals 30 They let go Plummer and signed an average quarterback in Jeff Blake, and they have little outside at the receiver position. Poor Dave McGinnis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIESEL TROLL Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 I BELIEVE THE KEY WORD HERE IS "IF"............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Okay, well, this is actually about where I think the Skins fit. They should be about the same as the Ravens in terms of ranking. But I still think that we all agree when I say that Pete Prisco is a manwhore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 The ranking is a load of you know what the key will be remaining healthy at key positions and then S double may have to rent a large space to serve crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 frankbones, good one, I was looking out for this and you beat me to it. As we can all agree number 21 is wrong. Clearly the vision of an untreated bi-polar with narcissistic personality disorder. But you were the first, kudos!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Even I can tell you that the Jets don't deserve to be ranked #4..........yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenaciousd Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Amazing. So according to Pete Prisco there are 16 teams worse than the NY Jets that are better than the Washington Redskins. Right now the Skins are 3 point favorites over the Jets (Yep, there are lines out already). I'll take the bookie poll over Prisco's any day. Over under for our wins is 9 1/2, by the way. I've come to accept the disrespect for the Skins in the media, and yeah - we need to do some more to earn top tier respect, but come on....21st? Adding a lot of talent to a team that won 7 games with Shane Matthews and Danny Wuerffel to it? Ah...who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Brasi Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 I like that the only question listed is Ramsey. If he develops into half the qb that we think he will, there's going to be a lot of people surprised this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by tenaciousd Right now the Skins are 3 point favorites over the Jets (Yep, there are lines out already). I'll take the bookie poll over Prisco's any day. I see the Jets 1 1/2 point faves (4 1/2 on a neutral field), and 10-1 to win the Super Bowl v. 36-1 for the Skins. http://www.betonsports.com/1024/displaylines.shtml?sportbook=&sport=Football&id=3960 http://www.betonsports.com/1024/displaylines.shtml?sportbook=&sport=Football&id=3888 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Its all just one man's opinion....Ramsey will have to start and finish a season before any media types give him the respect of a starter in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 4 New York Jets 5 Losing Laveranues Coles hurt, but getting Curtis Conway will help fill that role. The big help will come from first pick Dewayne Robertson and the improvement of end Bryan Thomas on the defense. Boy, good thing the Jets didn't need Randy Thomas, John Hall, and Chad Morton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 I find it interesting that Harrington and, apparently, Carr are givens as improving, but Ramsey, who showed just as much as these others (if not more) and is surrounded be better talent, is questionable. It's this completely contradictory analysis that calls into question this guy's credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by SonnyJ I find it interesting that Harrington and, apparently, Carr are givens as improving, but Ramsey, who showed just as much as these others (if not more) and is surrounded be better talent, is questionable. It's this completely contradictory analysis that calls into question this guy's credibility. He showed good form carrying a clipboard for 11 games. How can you say he showed more than JH and DC? Are you basing this on his last 3 games in which he had a good 4th quarter in a blowout loss against the Eagles, completed 45% v. the Texans or had 2 INTs and 0 TDs v. the Cowboys. I didn't see those games, so it's very possible those stats are misleading to the outside observer. I understand that. But either way, it's tough to compare his limited appearances to QBs that played virtually the whole year, especially when trying to argue that his past experience will contribute just as much to his improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Oh boy, I am predicting a long, drawn out debate between Flow and Art. Anyone want to bet me to the contrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by Flowtrain He showed good form carrying a clipboard for 11 games. How can you say he showed more than JH and DC? Are you basing this on his last 3 games in which he had a good 4th quarter in a blowout loss against the Eagles, completed 45% v. the Texans or had 2 INTs and 0 TDs v. the Cowboys. I didn't see those games, so it's very possible those stats are misleading to the outside observer. I understand that. But either way, it's tough to compare his limited appearances to QBs that played virtually the whole year, especially when trying to argue that his past experience will contribute just as much to his improvement. You're right. I didn't see Carr and Harrington play that much, so I can't say that Ramsey showed more, other than on a statistical basis. I know Ramsey looked better than Carr did when the Redskins played the Texans. Carr and Harrington did play significantly more, but it's not like the sample we have for Ramsey is insignificant (unlike Pennington's first two years). How can you say Ramsey showed less? I doubt you watched ANY of them very much. How do you know that that additional time of getting kicked around didn't mess with Carr's and Harrington's heads? You didn't refute my point that Prisco's analysis was contradictory. There is no way that you can say with a straight face that Carr and Harrington will improve but Ramsey's development is questionable. If you buy that, then you'll buy anything (oh, wait, you're a Jets fan - you WILL buy anything, based on your lapping up of Bradway's spin job). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiplomat Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 http://nflplayers.com/fantasy_football/fantasy_comparePlayers.asp Quarterback comparison 2002 Patrick Ramsey 10g-5gs-117completions-227attempts-1539 yards-51.5completion percentage-9td's-8int's-18sacks-0fumbles-71.8qb rating 2002 Joey Harrington 14g-12gs-215completions-429attempts-2294yards-50.1-completion percentage-12td's-16int's-8sacks-0fumbles-59.9qb rating 2002 David Carr 16g-16g-233completions-444attempts-2592yards-52.5compltion percentage-9td's-15int's-76sacks-0fumbles-62.8qb rating Now tell me who has the best chance of improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 More nonsensical Sportsline analysis… 5 Tennessee Titans 4 As long as Steve McNair is on the field, the Titans can win it all... - well, they haven't 'won it all' yet, unless there is another Steve McNair 6 New Orleans Saints 11 This team was slow last season, but that's changed after some good offseason moves. The key will be how well Aaron Brooks plays at quarterback after shoulder surgery. ~ AND ~ 21 Washington Redskins 22 They've made some nice moves this offseason and should be lauded for them. But they will matter little if quarterback Patrick Ramsey doesn't prove to be a solid starter. - sound very similar, except for the rating. I know Ramsey is not Aaron Brooks, but 6 and 21 are a long way apart...all things considered 20 Baltimore Ravens 19 The main concern now is the quarterback position, which is obviously a big issue. If Chris Redman can develop, this can be a playoff team. More likely they will contend for a Super Bowl in 2004. - You've gotta be kidding me ! ! 12 New York Giants 6 The offensive line needs to be rebuilt some, but the return of Ike Hilliard should help the passing game. The special teams have been overhauled, which is a good thing. - yea... the O line sucks, but that's OK.... Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiplomat Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 The Saints lost Sammy Knight and Kyle Turley. How did the improve 5 spots, but we got Coles, Thomas and many other key players at key positons and we improve 1 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by SonnyJ How can you say Ramsey showed less? I doubt you watched ANY of them very much. How do you know that that additional time of getting kicked around didn't mess with Carr's and Harrington's heads? You didn't refute my point that Prisco's analysis was contradictory. There is no way that you can say with a straight face that Carr and Harrington will improve but Ramsey's development is questionable. Let's slow down here. Where did I say Ramsey showed less? What I said was that it's tough to say he showed more when he spent over 1/2 the season on the bench and played like every bit the rookie he was. BTW, do you honestly believe that Joey Harrington would've performed worse than Ramsey if placed exactly in Ramsey's shoes and surrounded with the Skins weapons? That's a tough case to make, IMO. As for the learning curve issue, did Spurrier really bench Ramsey because he thought that the less playing time he got in 2002, the more improved he'd be in 2003? Unless you're grooming a QB for years on the sidelines, QBs need to see as many defenses and situations as possible and make mistakes on the field in order to learn from them - it's part of the natural growth process. The assumption that Carr and Harrington may have a head start in that regard is not far fetched. That said, did Prisco (or I) really say that Ramsey's ability to improve is so questionable? Or did Prisco simply say that the Skins' success will depend on that of Ramsey? What I read was the latter. Given the fact that Spurrier has implemented a QB-oriented offense, I don't see what's so objectionable about that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I suppose a case could be made that Carr is further along the developmental "curve" than Ramsey, simply because he stank up more games. But, that reasoning only works if you assume that every QB has a certain number of games on their "stinkometer", and whenever that counter gets to 0, then he gets better. I suspect that most folks would say, though, that, when your rookie's getting chewed up out there, that sending him out next week to "see as many defenses and situations as possible and make mistakes on the field in order to learn from them." doesn't make sense: he needs time to think about what he's seen, and come up with a way to fix it. Simply sending him out again before he makes adjustments simply gets him time practicing how to do things the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Why don't we do our own power poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by Flowtrain Where did I say Ramsey showed less? What I said was that it's tough to say he showed more when he spent over 1/2 the season on the bench and played like every bit the rookie he was. BTW, do you honestly believe that Joey Harrington would've performed worse than Ramsey if placed exactly in Ramsey's shoes and surrounded with the Skins weapons? That's a tough case to make, IMO. As for the learning curve issue, did Spurrier really bench Ramsey because he thought that the less playing time he got in 2002, the more improved he'd be in 2003? Unless you're grooming a QB for years on the sidelines, QBs need to see as many defenses and situations as possible and make mistakes on the field in order to learn from them - it's part of the natural growth process. The assumption that Carr and Harrington may have a head start in that regard is not far fetched. That said, did Prisco (or I) really say that Ramsey's ability to improve is so questionable? Or did Prisco simply say that the Skins' success will depend on that of Ramsey? What I read was the latter. Given the fact that Spurrier has implemented a QB-oriented offense, I don't see what's so objectionable about that comment. Where did I unequivocally say Ramsey showed more? Prisco rates the Redskins marginally ahead of the Texans and Lions. All are in the bottom third of the league. He expresses doubt that Ramsey is ready to be a solid starter. I presume this is the rationale he is using for the relatively low ranking (which, we all agree, is meaningless) that he gives the Redskins. It's not unreasonable to question how effective a second year QB will be. But, why wouldn't that apply to the other two guys, as well? And, if Ramsey's weapons are so much better than the Lions or Texans, wouldn't that naturally give him a boost, making him a surer bet than those two to gain confidence and develop more quickly? BTW, how much time did Pennington see on the field before he started playing? Not much, if any, did he? He seemed to do OK once he got the chance, even w/o seeing "as many defenses and situations as possible and making mistakes on the field". Does this only apply to him? Ramsey saw many adverse situations. Whether he pans out or not is an open question, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that, at this point, Harrington or Carr are ahead of Ramsey in development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by SonnyJ You're right. I didn't see Carr and Harrington play that much, so I can't say that Ramsey showed more, other than on a statistical basis. I know Ramsey looked better than Carr did when the Redskins played the Texans. Carr and Harrington did play significantly more, but it's not like the sample we have for Ramsey is insignificant (unlike Pennington's first two years). How can you say Ramsey showed less? I doubt you watched ANY of them very much. How do you know that that additional time of getting kicked around didn't mess with Carr's and Harrington's heads? You didn't refute my point that Prisco's analysis was contradictory. There is no way that you can say with a straight face that Carr and Harrington will improve but Ramsey's development is questionable. If you buy that, then you'll buy anything (oh, wait, you're a Jets fan - you WILL buy anything, based on your lapping up of Bradway's spin job). Well, I see what you're saying but Chad Hutchinson outperformed Harrington and Carr statistically as well. And while Hutchinson had better receivers, he was playing behind one of the worst (if not the worst) lines in the league and was playing after a 4 year hiatus from the sport. But I still think he has a lot, lot more to prove than either Carr or Harrington. When you're a top pick like those guys, I think you're given a little more leighway than a QB who's taken at 32 or what not is. Perhaps it's fair or perhaps it isn't, but it seems to be the standard practice when judging young QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by Dale When you're a top pick like those guys, I think you're given a little more leighway than a QB who's taken at 32 or what not is. Perhaps it's fair or perhaps it isn't, but it seems to be the standard practice when judging young QBs. Now, I'll buy THAT argument. And it just underlines my point that no real analysis went into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by SonnyJ Prisco rates the Redskins marginally ahead of the Texans and Lions. All are in the bottom third of the league. He expresses doubt that Ramsey is ready to be a solid starter. I presume this is the rationale he is using for the relatively low ranking (which, we all agree, is meaningless) that he gives the Redskins. Prisco ranked the Texans and Lions 2 of the worst 3 teams in the entire NFL. The Skins were placed a good 10 spots higher and you're arguing that he gives cellar dwellars Carr and Harrington too much credit compared to Ramsey? I think it's safe to assume that all 3 young QBs will show some degree of improvement. But the Texans and Lions will likely suck regardless of their QB's improvement while the Redskins with their QB-centered O will sink or swim depending on Ramsey's success. That seems to be his point and I'm not sure why it's so controversial. BTW, how much time did Pennington see on the field before he started playing? Not much, if any, did he? He seemed to do OK once he got the chance, even w/o seeing "as many defenses and situations as possible and making mistakes on the field". Does this only apply to him? Ramsey saw many adverse situations. Whether he pans out or not is an open question, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that, at this point, Harrington or Carr are ahead of Ramsey in development. [/b] First, you conveniently deleted the 1st part of my quote that said "unless you've groomed a QB for years on the sideline..." There are different ways to develop a QB - veteran tutelage or a season of trial by fire. Ramsey didn't really have either thanks to Spurrier. I'm posting on a board where I just read a poll stating that 65% of voters would take Ramsey over Harrington/Carr. So I'm not surprised when you state that you can't be convinced that Ramsey may have somehow been disadvantaged by his 2002 experience. There are MANY recipes for a QB's success, but the idea is to put him in a situation that increases his chances. Carr took all practice snaps and had 16 starts - a full NFL season. Harrington had a similar path, though cut a few games short due to health. What was Spurrier's magic recipe for Ramsey? He split practice reps with not one but two other terrible QBs -- and during games, he watched Matthews stink it up, later got a chance to start, failed and got benched by an impatient coach, watched Matthews and Weurffel stink it up again and finally got another chance to start the last few games. I may be going out on a limb, but IMHO, that presented a less than ideal forum for a young QB to learn the game. Again - there's no guaranteed correlation between the recipe and the success and Ramsey could show up much more polished in Game 1 of 2003. But we're forced to look at probabilities. You say that this experience gave him the same level of preparation received by the other 2 QBs and that Ramsey will be on an equal footing with the Harrington and Carr with respect to their development. I guess we'll agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.