cbs sportsline power poll

[NoCalMike]

I don't want to throw fuel on the "media conspiracy against the Skins" fire, however, I could only imagine the bashing that would be coming our way if we had lost out on Coles and had to settle with signing Curtis Conway. Conway isn't a scrub, but for cbs to say that Coles to Conway is not negative impact, then there is some bias going on.

[earl]

I don't thinkg the "IF" is if ramsey can be solid.....i think the "IF" is if spurriers system can work on the NFL level. I believe it can, but i think that we now have the tools for us to find out.

I think the real issue is "if and only if" spurrier's offense can work in the nfl; ramsey will be a star.

[GURU]

Fellas, there is no conspiracy, here. Just gutless predictions and lazy analysis.

If you really look, the teams are pretty much ranked according to how they finished last season.

You really have to remember that most analysts didn't see Ramsey play after he got benched the first time 'round. By the end of the season, there were much more important games to be watching and breaking down instead of the Redskins and Houston, or the Redskins and Dallas. (If anyone really believes ANYONE can watch all 14 games and break them all down in detail every week, you're out of your mind. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.)

Stats don't tell the whole story. If you actually watched the 'Skins and Houston play each other, you would get a sense of how Carr and Ramsey were developing. Dom Capers runs one of the most sophisticated defenses in the entire NFL, and I think Ramsey's low completion percentage can be attributed to the fact that he threw the ball away a lot to avoid negative plays. It's indicative of a player who's not always sure of where to throw the ball in every situation, but it's also telling that Ramsey had the maturity and poise not to force things and put his team in the hole. When a QB completes only 14 out of 31 passes, but has 2 TDs, no INTs, and his team wins 26-10, it kind of tells you that he made every completion count. If you actually watched the game, you would have seen a calm, poised Ramsey and a jittery Carr. Of course, Carr had one of the worst offensive lines in history. While Ramsey had 2 outstanding tackles protecting the edges, he faced a lot of pressure up the middle. He had to make a lot of throws with defenders in his face, and he handled it well.

No worries, fans. I can't believe how many people get their panties in a wad over preseason polls. How many people saw the Rams or New England making Super Bowl runs in '99 and '01?

[Dirk Diggler]

What Guru said.

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

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.

I think you're reading a lot into Prisco's statements. I didn't glean this as the gist at all. He could have expressed this just as easily as what he wrote.

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.

If there are different ways, how come you only express 2? Why can't you have a season like Ramsey had - get a little experience, sit and watch for some games, then come back with a fresh mind, w/o constantly getting beat on? I'm not saying this was by design, but I don't see why it can't be just as effective as any other method. Face it, if there was a proven way to groom a QB, everyone would be doing it. Your commentary seems self-serving.

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.

It seems that your point is that, for ideal development, either a QB has to get all snaps, or none at all for a couple of years. But no in-between. I don't think either of us is the best judge of what it takes to groom a QB. What I do know is that, in a late-season game between Ramsey and Carr, Ramsey clearly looked like the more polished player. Regardless of the stat line, the eyes don't lie. If you want to talk supporting cast, then I would submit playing with a poor team around you could actually hinder development - possibly leading to poor confidence and bad habits.

I will agree with you to agree to disagree.