Jets fans still love to hate

[Skeletor The Invincible]

Actually I'd rather have Ramsey too.

Did you watch the Skins games last season? And not simply the GB and NO games?

But, Pennington is a good QB, he's had three years to sit on the bench and learn the offense. Good for him, I'm sure he'll turn out to be a great QB. But I like Ramsey's chances better.

[The Evil Genius]

what exactly did Ramsey show last year that Pennington did not?

He showed as a ROOKIE that he was an NFL caliber player. It took Pennington until year 3 to do that (yeah yeah, he was behind Testaterde). And even then - there was doubts that he (Pennington) would play to the level that he did last year. Props to him for putting up a fantastic year. Now lets see if he can follow it with great years now that the NFL is gunning for him (this includes Ramsey as well).

Originally posted by Henry

Ramsey vs. Pennington? Kind of a pointless discussion. One guy has, after three years, had one stretch of ten great games. The other guy, after one year, hasn't. I say it's way too early in either career to judge who is better, but you like the more experienced guy and I can buy that.

Thank you.

[AJWatson3]

well, i will stick with ramsey as we need to throw the ball downfield with accuracy. a big part of me liking ramsey is that he learned a lot in one season... O-N-E. he was thrown into the fire and survived-- actually prospered. i am not sure how many times pennington got sacked last year, but i would think it is a lot less than ramsey did-- that is a major reason his completion % was down... he felt a lot of heat. look for a significant improvement this season (>57%).

pennington may turn out to be a star QB, but it's WAY too early.

yes, of course martin is going to get his yards... he is a good back. he got the rock on average of 325 times per season in those eight years... so he only has to average 3.1 YPC to reach 1000... the only hard part about it is staying healthy. he only missed four games in eight seasons. and he was given the opportunity to start since he was a rookie-- not a lot of players are given that. or earn that.

side note-- i am not comparing art monk to the greatest WR in the history of football. while i respect his string of 1000 yard seasons, it is incomparable to any other WR in history. so we shouldn't even try.

as far as monks production with two other outstanding WR's.. it is one more, but that shouldn't make a huge difference... it's really a weird thing to look at, but the skins don't win the SB from 84-86, and Monk avg's 90-1222-4+td's per game... his best three year stretch... in looking at the years he helped the the Skins to the SB he avg'd 42-580-3.5td's. maybe the skins were better when they spread the ball around? they did have a lot of weapons-- hell, TIMMY SMITH!?!

i don't know a whole lot about the Vikes, but Carter was the #1 WR for the first couple years of Moss's career, and he was covered by #1's (like Art). Moss had to have been helped by the fact he was getting covered by #2's... and was lined up opposite a sure fire HOF'er. Moss abused lesser corners the way Sanders and Clark would have-- and if you are a QB do you throw to your number one or the guy that is open? When the Skins won titles the QB found the open WR.

and yes, martin's best season was his rookie season. i'd trade less than 100 yards of total offense for five more TD's every single season. his (or any RB's) TD production should be considered every bit as important as a WR's.

thinking about it makes me realize that maybe Coles will be our new Monk... ****loads of yards, and few TD's..? I do think he will have more in our offense, with our QB, but I'll trade all of the individual accolades he'd receive if we could win three super bowls with him and he averages 600 yards per season.

[skinsanity56]

First, let me say that I honestly don't know what I'm going to read next on this board. I've got Equality saying Curtis has been "mediocre" his entire career and then I've got Navy Dave saying he prefers Ramsey over Pennington because Ramsey can spread a field. We're all die hard fans of our respective teams, but sometimes it's nice to take a step back and try to be objective. Now back to the discussion...

========================================

LOL,that's funny.as ajwatson pointed out your the ones telling us bailey & arrington are gone.that we did u a favor taking top quality talent.there all average players..lol i';ve checked out your ganggreen too:puke:now i know why u routinely vacate it.i wouldn't hang there either.u got more fans from other teams than u do your own,in your own house yet..THAT'S GOTTA SUCK

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Henry

Flow, Monk's last season was about ten years ago. Holding him up to today's standards in meaningless, as is holding Simpson and Campell's numbers up to those of current players. The question is, how does Martin measure up with his peers? Was he one of the top two or three rushers of his day? I'd say no. Maybe top 5. Maybe that gets him on the bubble with regards to the HOF. But a lock? I don't think so.

Henry: I don't completely agree that cross-generational comparisons are always "meaningless." But even if we buy your argument for the time being, it really doesn't significantly improve Monk's case. He still wasn't in the top 20 in TDs when he retired. More importantly, if you're intent on a peer comparison, what better measuring stick than the WRs on your own team? Incredibly, Monk only led his own team in receiving 4 out of 15 seasons. That's hardly HOFesque. As for his peers on other teams, Monk was in the top 10 in the NFL in major receiving categories only 4 of 15 seasons. Like I said, I'd probably vote him in based on his receptions total when he hung them up, but it's tough to explain away some of his shortcomings.

Curtis does have some stiff competition in his era, including Faulk and Emmitt, but that won't likely keep him out. Jim Kelly was never even a top 3 QB during his reign and he found his way into The Hall. Also, in contrast to Monk hitting top 10 in receiving categories 4 seasons out of 15, Curtis hit top 10 in corresponding rushing categories in 7 out of 8 seasons. At the end of the day though (gw), even the most modest estimates have Curtis' name etched alongside the best of the best ever in just 2 seasons, placing him #3 all-time in rushes behind Emmitt and Payton, around #6 in yards and around #10 in TDs. That trifecta would be untouchable.

Originally posted by skinsanity56

LOL,that's funny.as ajwatson pointed out your the ones telling us bailey & arrington are gone.that we did u a favor taking top quality talent.there all average players.

I'd love to see where I said that. I've said a number of times that I think Snyder will make sure Bailey and Arrington are both Skins for at least the next 3 years. As for the Jets you picked up, the only one I called "average" is Hall – whether they were all worth the price tag is an entirely different debate.

And for those of you who still contend you'd take Ramsey over the NFL's highest rated QB, I'm starting to think you may be shills on Snyder's payroll. At first I thought you were pulling my leg, but it seems some of you are serious about this one. Am I to believe that if you were offered Chad for Patrick straight up, to start the 2003 season, you'd turn it down? :deal:

[Larry]

Am I to believe that if you were offered Chad for Patrick straight up, to start the 2003 season, you'd turn it down?

Yes.

In fact, I'll make it simpler for you. If I were offered Brett Favre for Ramsey, straight up, I'd be against it. (If we were offered a ten-years-younger Brett Favre, it'd be a different answer.)

Maybe if I'd paid more attention to Chad, the answer would be different. I think one possible reason the Skins fans opinion of Ramsey differs so much from "mainstream" sources, is the Skins fans watched every play Ramsey made, while many gurus saw summaries and highlights.

We saw a kid who showed a lot of guts, standing behind a sieve of an offensive line. (And paying for it.) A kid who usually (nobody's saying he's perfect in his rookie year) picked a receiver who had a shot. (And, who sometimes didn't catch it, anyway). They saw a kid who has the potential to be a SB MVP.

Granted, the NFL has a lot of guys who had potential. He may not step up. His head may swell so he thinks he's made it already, and he stops listening to his coach. He may read too many press reports, think he's Superman, and can get the ball into any coverage.

If we had the chance to straight aquire Chad, I'd do it. But, he'd be Ramsey's backup. (Untill he loses it.)

Right now, we want to see what the kid's got.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

And for those of you who still contend you'd take Ramsey over the NFL's highest rated QB, I'm starting to think you may be shills on Snyder's payroll. At first I thought you were pulling my leg, but it seems some of you are serious about this one. Am I to believe that if you were offered Chad for Patrick straight up, to start the 2003 season, you'd turn it down? :deal:

Flo, son, you'll want to put the pipe down now. I presume you are referring to the statistical QB rating system, because I don't think you'll find a single serious unbiased source who would rate Pennington highest among QBs. He had a fine year for the most part, but there are a number of guys most people would rate higher.

As far as being offerred a Pennington for Ramsey swap, most here would be appalled to see the Skins agree to such a deal. Maybe by the end of this year we'll be singing a different tune - and maybe it'll be YOU with a new lullaby.My guess is we'll both be pretty happy with our own guys.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Henry: I don't completely agree that cross-generational comparisons are always "meaningless."

Ah. So breaking 100 receptions in 1984 is equivalent doing so in 2003. I guess you are entitled to that opinion. Maybe employing such logic makes being a Jet fan easier.

But even if we buy your argument for the time being, it really doesn't significantly improve Monk's case. He still wasn't in the top 20 in TDs when he retired. More importantly, if you're intent on a peer comparison, what better measuring stick than the WRs on your own team? Incredibly, Monk only led his own team in receiving 4 out of 15 seasons. That's hardly HOFesque. As for his peers on other teams, Monk was in the top 10 in the NFL in major receiving categories only 4 of 15 seasons. Like I said, I'd probably vote him in based on his receptions total when he hung them up, but it's tough to explain away some of his shortcomings.

Curtis does have some stiff competition in his era, including Faulk and Emmitt, but that won't likely keep him out. Jim Kelly was never even a top 3 QB during his reign and he found his way into The Hall. Also, in contrast to Monk hitting top 10 in receiving categories 4 seasons out of 15, Curtis hit top 10 in corresponding rushing categories in 7 out of 8 seasons. At the end of the day though (gw), even the most modest estimates have Curtis' name etched alongside the best of the best ever in just 2 seasons, placing him #3 all-time in rushes behind Emmitt and Payton, around #6 in yards and around #10 in TDs. That trifecta would be untouchable.

Flow, you do realize that on most teams 2 or 3 WRs contribute substantially to the passing game, whereas only one RB gets the rushing yards? It's much more difficult for a WR to dominate in multiple categories. Steve Largent led the league in receptions twice in his career. Is that a shortcoming? HOFers Stallworth only led his team in receptions 4 out of 14 seasons and Lynn Swann had 336 career receptions and career 51 TDs. Is that less of a shortcoming than Art Monk's 68 TDs?

Of course one could argue that since Swann and Stallworth were on the same team, they shouldn't be punished for low numbers. After all, they were both great players ... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

Due to the nature of the position, runningbacks generally have to do a bit more than reach the top ten in a category or two. All that means is they were in the top third at their position during any given season. Ending up #6 in rushing yards and #10 in TDs is nice, but unspectacular, and with no ring that makes Martin a maybe, IMHO. Had he excelled at something, dominated in some aspect of the game like no other maybe you'd have a case.

[ganggreen76]

.

[JimboDaMan]

Hey buffoon, other than 1 comment did anybody knock Martin?

[AJWatson3]

yeah, i stated that C-Mart should go to the HOF. it looks like only one person called Martin "mediocre", and that is some chump who has posted here a total of TEN times.

go back to crying over hall, morton, thomas and coles... :doh:

[ganggreen76]

My mistake, I guess I lost it after I read that Curtis--mediocre comment.

I went back and read the entire thread and see you are indeed right.

I've deleted my other post.

[AJWatson3]

thank you for taking the time to read the entire thread. i am sure you saw a number of us skins fans taking up the torch for curtis. he is a great player and a class act. i saw an interview with him once and he is very intelligent and polite. nice to see that they aren't all a bunch of Turley's!

[JimboDaMan]

Gosh dang it, a reasonable response! Now I gotta take back calling you names.

[Drex]

By the end of his career Curtis Martin will probably have done enough to earn a place in Canton. However, there is a possibility of him being on the downside of his career as evidenced by his age as well as the increased role of Lamont Jordan in the backfield. In the next couple of seasons I am sure Jordan will continue to see more carries, which inevitably takes away from Martin's level of production. This fact must be taken into consideration before making future projections of Martin's yearly production. The same can be said in regards to the plight of Jerome Bettis and the emergence of Amos Zeroeue.

[B&G]

Here's Flowtrain's "real" opinion about Patrick Ramsey (and our "unproven" running backs). When we beat the tar out of the Jets on September 4, this kind of comment will make the win even sweeter.

Flowtrain Posted on Mar 10 2003, 10:40 AM

TheGangGreen.com Fanatic

Group: Members

Posts: 502

Member No.: 747

Joined: 9-February 03

Dude you have NO QB and no proven RB and will be tearing your team down in 3 years when Snyder's credit card comes due. Enjoy.

[AJWatson3]

that's what it seemed like he was saying all along, just a bit nicer about it on OUR board.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Henry

It's much more difficult for a WR to dominate in multiple categories. Steve Largent led the league in receptions twice in his career. Is that a shortcoming?

I’m not sure your example supports your case. Largent is top 10 all-time in receptions, yards and receiving TDs, AND was top 10 among his peers in one of those categories 11 times to Monk’s 4.

HOFers Stallworth only led his team in receptions 4 out of 14 seasons and Lynn Swann had 336 career receptions and career 51 TDs. Is that less of a shortcoming than Art Monk's 68 TDs.

No, it’s more of a shortcoming and one of the reasons that Swann’s induction is one of the worst HOF entries IMHO. I understand that he stepped up in the clutch and got his rings - yeah, yeah, quality over quantity – but the guy averaged about 3 catches a game and never even had a 1000 yd season! Once Swann made it, there was no conceivable logic to excluding Stallworth. Monk really is the opposite end of the spectrum with quantity over quality. Swann and Stallworth’s entry could be a blessing for Monk, because those who favor quantity will look to swing the pendulum back the other way.

Due to the nature of the position, runningbacks generally have to do a bit more than reach the top ten in a category or two. All that means is they were in the top third at their position during any given season. Ending up #6 in rushing yards and #10 in TDs is nice, but unspectacular, and with no ring that makes Martin a maybe, IMHO. Had he excelled at something, dominated in some aspect of the game like no other maybe you'd have a case.

Here I disagree. If you had one example of a RB who was within the top 10 (Curtis was often top 3) among his peers every year AND finished top 10 historically in 3 categories, yet failed to make it, then you’d be talking. But that guy doesn’t exist. I also don’t agree that his undefined style is such a liability either. What exactly is Emmitt Smith’s defining style, other than being the beneficiary of his OL of Williams, Allen, Newton, Tuinei? He doesn’t have blazing speed, he doesn’t cut on a dime and he’s not a power rusher. Emmitt’s obviously had more success long-term and in the post-season, but when we look at his actual style as an RB it’s nondescript.

His greatest strength and most recognizable trait as a RB is the same one shared by Curtis -- consistency and durability. In a league where RBs rise to the top and are never to be heard from again in 2-3 years, both have played at a high level throughout their careers. That’s not by accident – it’s the result of heart, passion and dedication mixed with skill and durability. No, durability and consistency don’t make headlines, especially when you’re a soft-spoken RB who avoids the spotlight. But when it comes time to hand out the grades at the end of the day, it’s impossible to ignore.

And for the rest of you and your outrageous claim that you’d take Ramsey over Chad, I haven’t forgotten about you. I’ll be back a little later.

[Henry]

Flow, Emmitt Smith is a bad BAD example for you to use here. He didn't need a defining style. He's got 3 rings. He's the career leader in rushing yards. He was an absolute monster in the playoffs. Martin doesn't come close in any of those achievements, so he needs something else. He need to lead something else, define another aspect of the position, raise his game higher than his peers somehow. I don't see that he's done that. You are correct that he may get in anyway for consistancy, durability and being an all around nice guy, traits which I personally think get overlooked far too often in these matters. I just don't think he's a shoo-in for it.

Monk, for all his 'faults' held all-time league records in several categories at one time or another, such as career receptions, single season receptions, consecutive games with a reception ... he had 7 catches for 131 yards in SB 26 on his way to ring number three. Those are accomplishments that stand out.

Anyway, your point, lest we forget is that Martin is somehow a more accomplished player than Monk. I personally think that's bunk, but feel free to disagree with me on that as well.