The Trade: Chad Pennington for Patrick Ramsey

[Henry]

All I know is that if it were Pennington we snached away from the Jets all the Jets fans that have suddenly popped up over here would be telling us he was just a one-hit wonder, noodle-armed and successful simply because he had a top-notch WR like Coles to throw to. We'd hear about how dumb Snyder was to waste so much money on a guy who has played well for essentially one half of one season, because let's face it, Chad is overrated.

Well, whatever makes you lugs feel better about losing a ton of players. I like CP. I wouldn't mind seeing him in Burgundy and Gold. But I like Ramsey ok too. He's our guy.

How about just be happy with your guy and let it go.

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by BigtimeJG

No offense to all of you Ramesy marks....but the bottom line to this whole discussion is this: Ramsey very well may be a great QB one day...but to say he is better than Pennington and bash Pennington is a bit ridiculous. Sure, we have only had a year to evaluate Pennington, but from what we saw in that one year, sans the Raider game, he is a pretty darn good QB. And dont give me this crap about all of these weapons he had around him. He had solid pass protection, but lets face it, Coles is overrated and C. Martin was running on two bad wheels

Read Jimbo's post - that is the bottom-line to this whole discussion. You Jet boys don't seem to get this.

Look, no one is credibly going to dispute that Pennington is a more proven QB than Ramsey at this point. But having a QB is more than about right now, or this year. A franchise QB can keep a team competitive for many, many years (see Green Bay).

We like what we've seen in Ramsey. Tough, smart, determined, and he is a natural passer. There aren't too many guys that I would trade him for, at this point. I wouldn't trade him for McNabb (not a good enough passer, IMO) or Vick (great highlights, but can he run an offense) or Bledsoe (older and possibly damaged goods). I'd trade him in a second for the Favre of five years ago. Or Manning (I know the knock against him about winning big games, but the guy is a QB's QB). You get the point - I only would trade Ramsey for a guy that I KNOW could run SOS' offense at a championship level for several years.

To me, Pennington is like Brad Johnson. If your QB situation is bleak, you would want him and be assured of competent QBing. But, if you have a promising young guy, why would you bother? Maybe after this season I'll feel differently.

But, the point comes back to this: why do you and Flow CARE so much that we accept Pennington's greatness? A year ago, Pennington looked dangerously close to a bust. I kind of considered him on the same plane as Chris Redman. So, after he has a nice run that ended very poorly, we should bow down and kiss his feet? Sorry, guys, we're just not buying it.

[@DCGoldPants]

I like Chad, I even protected him in my fantasy league.....eventually I'll trade him for a draft pick since I've got McNabb, however, I think the kid has a good head on his shoulders and will be solid for years to come.

I'm not going to say Pennington made Coles or the other way around. I'll go 50/50 and say that Conway will NOT be the same. 9-7 won't win the AFC East this year.

If you upgraded enough, you'll be fine. If not, people will want Bradway's head.

[Awesome]

Three reasons why Patrick Ramsey will always be my Qb of choice for this offense:

1. He's got the strongest arm since Dan Marino and John Elway. Ramsey puts more zip o the ball than anyone in the league right now, inlcuding future bust and #1 pick David Carr.

2. He's one smart SOB. Tulane is a VERY good school and to graduate early, with two degrees while playing four years of football is impressive, especially in this day and age where less and less players are graduating and those that do major in Sociology.

3. He's got great character. He's a leader, is not flashy and gives credit where credit is due. Also, he's tough as nails. I'll never forget that press conference after the Saints game where he just got pummelled and his only comment was "i've been more sore after games before." What a MAN!

It really doesn't bother me that people aren't giving this guy props b/c we'll be able to take teams by surprise for a few games before they strt to realize what a stud we've got in Patrick Ramsey.

[poidog22]

Originally posted by BigtimeJG

...but lets face it, Coles is overrated...

Hmmmmm...I don't think that I heard any Jets fans say this when he got passed over for the Pro Bowl last year...funny how opinions change so quickly.:laugh:

[Art]

Flow, let me reply within.

"I’m not sure I agree that Pennington was an “immense contributor” to the Jets poor start. Most would point to Curtis’ ankle, terrible OL play and 6 new starters on D instead."

This fascinates me Flow and I have to ask how come YOU get to make this argument in the same thread you made the following argument, "And before we hear about Ramsey’s disadvantages (holdout, fewer weapons, leaky OL), let’s recognize that these factors boil down to excuses, valid and significant though they may be."

Aren't you embarrassed for excusing Chad's 1-3 beginning due to Martin's injury, terrible OL play and 6 new starters on the D in the same thread you pointed out that Ramsey being a rookie holdout with fewer weapons, new system, new players boil down to excuses when discussing his play? Valid as your point may be on Chad, the fact is, HE was 1-3 in his first four games as the primary QB. If he doesn't get a feeble nod on your part for that, then, simply put, you don't get to boost him up for, as you said, "Why would you want a QB whose strong leadership willed the first 2-5 team EVER to a division crown and earned the MVP award from his teammates...."

See, if Chad is absolved of being 1-3 because of Martin's injury, poor O-Line play and six new defensive starters, then you do understand it was Martin getting somewhat more healthy, better O-Line play and the gelling of six new defensive starters that led the turnaround, not Chad. Or, do you always make contradictory points in support of your argument?

"Chad actually played very well over that stretch, completing over 73% and posting an average QB rating of 103. In Jax, he was called up unexpectedly in his first real game action ever, in KC, Chad put the team in front in the 4th before the D allowed a last minute game-winning drive, and in Cleveland, a game-tying FG was blocked. Although there were many contributors to the slow start (and the fans and NY press were sure to name them all), I never heard Chad’s name mentioned once in this regard."

Perhaps the point of all this is Chad really was meaningless to your team's ability to win or lose. You've summed it up nicely. Chad played well and you lost. Chad played well and you won. Obviously, other factors were at play. The people around Chad seemed to make the difference. And, here we touch on the difference between he and Ramsey last year.

By your own admission, though I doubt you see it as such, you admit Chad was largely unimportant in the equation of winning and losing because the surrounding cast altered their ability, changed your fortunes and all the while Chad was relatively steady and good. The Redskins were not a good offense. Yet, in 6.5 games with Ramsey, the Redskins were No. 8 in the league. Everything else stayed the same. Only Ramsey changed the equation. And through his expected rookie learning process he still improved the lot of the whole team. You've already admitted that Chad flourished last year only when the supporting cast improved.

Well, Ramsey improved the supporting cast here. And for that, we smile.

"Time to mention (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that 50% of Pennington’s rookie completions resulted in a TD versus 4% for Ramsey! Since Pennington was drafted with no intention of starting (and only completed 2 passes), we’re obviously forced to throw his season out. Thus I’m not sure what relevance, if any, the statement has."

Why are you obviously forced to throw his rookie season out? He wasn't good enough to play. I'd not throw that out. I'd comment upon the fact that in order for Pennington to see the field he needed two full years and three full training camps. Ramsey was also drafted with no intention of starting him. Matthews injury put him at No. 2 on the depth chart and we had to play him earlier than we should have. And he earned the starting nod until it was clear he was very far behind the learning curve and needed to take a step back.

But, given both teams drafted QBs with no intention of playing them, I think it's very relevant that ONE of them was good enough to break the lineup and the other wasn't until his third year. The relevance is you want to weigh Pennington's careful grooming and his play after three years to what Ramsey did as a rookie. That's utterly bad form. But, if you'd like, we can continue to point out just how much better Ramsey was as a rookie than Pennington as a rightful comparison.

"Perhaps arm strength isn’t entirely translated in YPA. So where will we find the liabilities of a “tremendously weak-armed QB” reflected in the stats? It’s got to be exposed in INT%, where speedy corners can break on wobbly passes and pick them off? Pennington’s 6 INTs on 399 attempts ranked him 2nd in the NFL (actually, a remarkable 3 INTs if you remove the Oakland Hail Mary, a deflection off Becht’s hands and a wrong route by Moss). Surely, a horribly limp-armed QB would have a low completion % as DBs routinely bat down passes or quick WRs can’t be hit in stride. Here, we know Pennington led the league. What the inability to throw downfield leading to a paltry yards per completion? Favre trailed Pennington in this category."

Let's also remember that arm strength can be less important when you have a blazing fast receiver who pushes defensive backs off him like Coles. Coles was a guy that backs had a hard time pressing. The quickness and speed of Coles helped influence defenses for you. I wonder if we'll see quite that advantage this year. Still, you may be right that despite having a tremendously weak arm, Pennington has enough of an arm to get by. If that is something to hang your hat on, congrats.

"No, there’s no real statistical measure for arm strength other than perhaps a radar gun. But IMO, a QB indicted as being “tremendously weak-armed QB” may convincingly dispel this notion by simply pointing to his ability to consistently shred secondaries while moving his team into the endzone and winning games. My point is not that Chad is blessed with a rifle that will break his WR’s thumbs; it’s that whatever he does have is more than sufficient to get the job done effectively."

Fair enough. Great arms aren't necessary for success. There are factors other than that. Rich Gannon is successful now without a great arm. But, having the advantage of a great arm allows plays that can't be made otherwise. And if the great arm also has some of the other intangibles he'll have an advantage over the QB with the lesser arm. And that's what Ramsey will tell us with his play over the next couple of years.

"Is pure cannon arm-strength akin to a NBA player’s ability to dunk? It doesn’t show up in the stats, it excites and awes the crowd and it doesn’t directly translate into the player’s ability to effectively score? Well, that’s probably an overstatement – I realize that it does have some degree of value, but as I indicate in my post below, I’m not entirely sold on the fact that it’s an absolutely critical element of the Fun ‘N Gun."

I think knowledge is overall the most important aspect of the Fun and Gun. More than anything a QB has to know WHY plays are called because each route has a specified influence against a set defense and the QB MUST know the why or he'll fail in the Spurrier offense. However, IF a QB can learn that and he possesses a strong arm, well, the advantages are clear. Even last year Ramsey made throws that few in the league could make based simply on arm strength. If he can couple that with knowledge necessary for success he'll benefit from that strength.

"I know that you and I have been down this road before, but I still stand by my position that overall records don’t fully reflect the differential between the two teams. IMO, the gap is more than marginal between a team that finished the second half of the season 3-5 and missed the playoffs and one that finished 6-2 and won its division and a playoff game. This differential was narrowed in the offseason, but by how much remains to be seen."

I agree, the overall records don't reflect the differential between the two teams. The Redskins managed 7-9 with every possible negative factor and a much harder schedule. You managed 9-7 with a glorious year from your QB, among the best special teams in the league and a weaker schedule. In fact, if one were inclined, one could say the Redskins were five or six stupid turnovers away from being better than the Jets in terms of record. And that we managed 7-9 with lesser talent on the offensive line, special teams and at receiver while playing a harder schedule while working in 30+ new players, while working in a rookie QB, and you only managed 9-7 with a wonderful year from your QB, better talent at the offensive line, special teams and receiver and a weaker schedule, I completely agree the differential between the teams may not be witnessed in the records.

And now that we're better than you at spots you were better than us a year ago that may well be more clear soon.

"I might take Ryan Leaf’s rookie season over Chad’s non-season, Leaf’s last game over Chad’s last game v. Oakland and Leaf’s arm-strength over Chad’s as well. I’m not sure what that means though. BTW, don’t titillate yourself too much with the thought of acquiring #10 as a RFA; he’s signed through 2004 and would become a UFA in 2005 if he’s not yet extended. Hey, I respect the unbridled optimism that leads you to conclude that, despite his experience and breakout season last year, Pennington would be less likely find success on the Skins in 2003 than the unproven Ramsey. I’m just not convinced that deep down you actually believe it. But when the success of the Skins, Snyder’s 3-year plan and Spurrier’s novel offensive system are all so vitally dependant upon their young and inexperienced QB, blind faith may be the most comforting approach for a fan. That, I can buy.

I’m looking forward to seeing how your Boy Wonder performs under the bright lights in the national spotlight of an NFL opener. Will that arm strength and courage under fire be enough to get him through the night – or will Chad’s brilliant display have you rethinking your response in this thread? 9/4/3 can’t come soon enough."

To put it clearly, what a Redskin fan is hanging his hat on is that with no changes in personnel other than Ramsey, the offense improved. By your own statement, Chad played well while losing or while winning which means your important factors are those around him and there you are worse off than before.

Redskin fans don't pretend to know how Ramsey will ultimately turn out. We do know that if offered a trade of Ramsey after his rookie year and Pennington after his rookie year, we'd laugh you off the street. Maybe after a couple of years that will change.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Aren't you embarrassed for excusing Chad's 1-3 beginning due to Martin's injury, terrible OL play and 6 new starters on the D in the same thread you pointed out that Ramsey being a rookie holdout with fewer weapons, new system, new players boil down to excuses when discussing his play?

Well, no more embarrassed than you should be for consciously ignoring the following points. Point 1: I never claimed Ramsey was an "immense contributor" to the Skins losing, though you put that label squarely on Chad's shoulder's regarding the Jets 1-3 record when he first took over. Point 2: despite the fact that Chad faced adverse circumstances, he STILL lit it up by NFL standards with an average QB rating of 103 over his first 4 games. Ramsey, on the other hand, faltered when you place his numbers alongside other NFL QBs. There's a difference. Point 3: whether Chad can lead a team to a 7-2 finish a playoff berth with a solid supporting cast has already been proven. Whether Ramsey can succeed once his excuses are taken away is entirely unknown.

Perhaps the point of all this is Chad really was meaningless to your team's ability to win or lose. You've summed it up nicely. Chad played well and you lost. Chad played well and you won. Obviously, other factors were at play. The people around Chad seemed to make the difference.

Nothing says you’re meaningless to your team’s ability to win or lose than having your teammates vote you MVP, right? I’d say that adequately addresses your claim right there. QB is the most influential position on the field, but I’ve yet to see one that can win games without any help from a supporting cast. I have, however, seen many carry their teams to new heights when given the proper help or conversely, snuff out their team’s hopes irrespective of talent around them. Does that make them “meaningless” to their respective teams’ ability to win or lose? According to you, it does.

The Redskins were not a good offense. Yet, in 6.5 games with Ramsey, the Redskins were No. 8 in the league. Everything else stayed the same. Only Ramsey changed the equation.

Here’s where your logic strays. In Chad’s case, you claimed that we may only look at the team’s ability to notch wins under similar circumstances with or without him as a measure of his value. If we apply your standard to Ramsey, we see that the Skins had a lower winning percentage in his 7 games than in the 9 games without him. By your reasoning, it seems Ramsey is really the one who is “meaningless” to his team’s ultimate success. Once you’re allowed to start telling me how much more effective the Skins offense was with Ramsey later in the season, expect to hear that the Jets averaged 11 points (excluding STs) behind Testaverde and 24 points behind Chad.

Why are you obviously forced to throw his rookie season out? He wasn't good enough to play. I'd not throw that out. I'd comment upon the fact that in order for Pennington to see the field he needed two full years and three full training camps. But, given both teams drafted QBs with no intention of playing them, I think it's very relevant that ONE of them was good enough to break the lineup and the other wasn't until his third year. The relevance is you want to weigh Pennington's careful grooming and his play after three years to what Ramsey did as a rookie. That's utterly bad form. But, if you'd like, we can continue to point out just how much better Ramsey was as a rookie than Pennington as a rightful comparison. But, given both teams drafted QBs with no intention of playing them, I think it's very relevant that ONE of them was good enough to break the lineup and the other wasn't until his third year.

In 1998, Testaverde was a Pro Bowler who led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game with one of the highest TD/INT season ratios ever. After sitting out 1999 with an injury, he was the rightful starter in 2000 and would not be supplanted by a rookie under any circumstance. What would Ramsey’s stats have been if he were the one drafted as a luxury pick (one of 4 first rounders) to back up Testaverde? 0 for 0? To hold Pennington’s position on the depth chart against him is unfair at best, and I'm quite sure you know it. Maybe this approach is influenced by an initial comparison that you perceive as “bad form.” If so, my apologies – but maybe that sentiment would be more appropriately addressed to the Skins posters who served up the original comparison in the first place.

I agree, the overall records don't reflect the differential between the two teams. The Redskins managed 7-9 with every possible negative factor and a much harder schedule. You managed 9-7 with a glorious year from your QB, among the best special teams in the league and a weaker schedule. In fact, if one were inclined, one could say the Redskins were five or six stupid turnovers away from being better than the Jets in terms of record. And that we managed 7-9 with lesser talent on the offensive line, special teams and at receiver while playing a harder schedule while working in 30+ new players, while working in a rookie QB, and you only managed 9-7 with a wonderful year from your QB, better talent at the offensive line, special teams and receiver and a weaker schedule, I completely agree the differential between the teams may not be witnessed in the records.

If the all these Redskins excuses are already growing old for me, I’d hate to think how good fans such as yourselves must feel. If the Jets had gone 7-9, we could’ve pawned off 10 good reasons for the collapse without hesitation. Sure, some teams’ excuses are more credible than others, but when they get regurgitated each season, I guess they lose their luster.

Redskin fans don't pretend to know how Ramsey will ultimately turn out. We do know that if offered a trade of Ramsey after his rookie year and Pennington after his rookie year, we'd laugh you off the street. Maybe after a couple of years that will change.

Well, you’ll get no disagreement there. I too would take Ramsey over another first-rounder who had yet to see the field, though I’m not sure if that’s an endorsement. A part of me really wants to see Ramsey succeed and finally get the Skins to the playoffs. This way we won’t have to hear another year of what could’ve been if not for a gelling OL, improved chemistry among Ramsey and his weapons, a new D coordinator, and a difficult schedule.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by jbooma

The one thing I like about Ramsey more than Chad is his poise and ability to stay behind a failing offensive line. Ramsey is bigger than Chad and can take more licks, he had to last year.

Ramsey: 6'2" 217 lbs.

Penningtons: 6'3" 225 lbs.

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

We do like Pennington, but given the choice we'll take Ramsey. We have our reasons. But why do you care?

I doubt I owe you an explanation, but I'm feeling gracious. We've got about 6 local papers and a handful of thriving Jets message boards, but I like to check out opinions from fans with a different perspective -- especially when their view on an issue is seemingly so far removed from mine. It's the dead of the offseason bro. If you'd prefer to post in threads on this board like the one I saw about Siberian center Pavel Podkolzine and pass over this one, nobody's stopping you.

[luckydevil]

Did you honestly believe that you would convince Redskins fans to take your guy over our guy? Ramsey is becoming a fast favorite among many skin fans, with his potential and his maturity.

[skinsanity56]

Art, these comments show me you know nothing about the Jets other than what you watched on NFL2Nite. --quote gangreen76

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

& all this time you had us fooled art..LOLquoting nfl tonite:laugh:

these guys r good......

as for moss.........i'm glad we drafted gardner:laugh:

hailredskins

[Angus]

Ramsey may end up on top this year. On the other hand, he may be trailing two Chads, one of whom has arm strength equal or greater than his.

[shawn]

kind of fun reading through some of this stuff I guess as they say there is lies, then there is more lies and then there are statistics and everyone is got one to support their point.

Art, I am kind of disappointed in you buddy, since you love comparing players and have stats galore to make your arguments, saying that Pennington couldn't crack the line up in his rookie year but ramsey did!! man comparing Testevarde coming off a probowl year and a proven QB in the NFL vs. rejects such as Mathews and Wuerfull. I wonder what took ramsey so long to crack the line up . I expected more from you.

[jbooma]

Flow,

I do have one question to all you Jets,

WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE SKINS?

We are not

a. in the afc

b. in your division

c. the dolphins

d. the patriots

e. the bills

Shouldn't you be more worried about them? Yes we do have some jetskins on our team and I know you miss them, but they are not going back to a team where the FO doesn't want to keep good quality players, reminds me of Pittsburg before the new stadium.

Thanks for pointing out Pennington's size, I didn't know he was that big, he just looked smaller thats all. Kind of like one of those surfer dudes.

I hope both QB's doe well, I have nothing against Pennington at all. However, I am curious to see how he does this year without coles and a legit threat at WR.

Ramsey just impressed me last year from getting up and competing after all the brutal hits he took. His first year he reminds me a lot of Farve and I can only hope he becomes half the QB that Farve is.

[Art]

Shawn,

I hate to break it to you, but Vinny wasn't coming off a Pro Bowl year. He was coming off a season-ending injury after one game the previous year and he put up a 69 QB rating in 2000 while Pennington watched from the bench. Hell, his QB rating was surpassed by Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews last year.

However, I'll say that if Testaverde happened to be coming off a Pro Bowl year, it would be awfully damaging to my position. But, since you don't know he wasn't, it's actually damaging to your own appearance of knowledge. Perhaps your disappointment is somewhat lessened when realizing that it's helpful if you know what you're talking about before speaking so as to avoid as many of these embarrassing moments as possible .

[Henry]

And then of course, Vinnie amassed an all too impressive 75 QB rating in 2001 while ... Pennington sat on the bench.

[Dirk Diggler]

Nothing says you’re meaningless to your team’s ability to win or lose than having your teammates vote you MVP, right?

--Flow

I do believe Herm Edwards called Laverneous Coles the Team MVP, did he not? Don't you think he would know better than anyone?

[AJWatson3]

I would rather have Ramsey and what he has shown after one season, than Pennington and what he has shown after three. A major difference is how they run their teams and what they are expected to do. For the Redskins, Ramsey is the man.

[GSF]

I have always liked qb's that can accurately throw the football a long distance with high velocity. Got to go with Ramsey. Chad will be successful though for sure. His playing style reminds me more of Gannon than Montana, but I've only seen 3 or 4 of his games so what do I know. Montana had a better arm than most seem to remember.

[Art]

Dirk has a point I was going to bring up. It's a very nice honor to be named the MVP of one's team by one's teammates. It's also pretty cool to be named so by the head coach, who also knows a thing or two about the importance of players on his team.

Edwards openly expressed that Coles was the most valuable Jet a year ago. An astounding statement to you perhaps, but, if you quibble with it, you need to write Herman Edwards a letter and find out why he'd supply we ignorant wretches with such easy fodder. But, I'll recount that in a minute. Reply within.

"Well, no more embarrassed than you should be for consciously ignoring the following points. Point 1: I never claimed Ramsey was an "immense contributor" to the Skins losing, though you put that label squarely on Chad's shoulder's regarding the Jets 1-3 record when he first took over. Point 2: despite the fact that Chad faced adverse circumstances, he STILL lit it up by NFL standards with an average QB rating of 103 over his first 4 games. Ramsey, on the other hand, faltered when you place his numbers alongside other NFL QBs. There's a difference. Point 3: whether Chad can lead a team to a 7-2 finish a playoff berth with a solid supporting cast has already been proven. Whether Ramsey can succeed once his excuses are taken away is entirely unknown. "

I see the difference between us Flow. I didn't feel you had to squarely recognize Ramsey as an immense contributor to the Redskins losing last year. It went without saying. I presumed you knew that to be so. I also presumed you knew it to be so that Pennington was an immense contributor to the 1-3 your team was during those games. The difference is you pointed out that such wasn't the case. You pointed out that Chad wasn't at all to blame for the 1-3 but the other factors were.

Therefore, what you've essentally done is pointed out that it wasn't Chad who contributed to the wins either, but, rather, the other guys. This is YOUR position. I didn't make you take it. You took it on your own. Let me also let you in on another secret. Backing into the playoffs the way you did isn't all that inspired a performance. Further, Tony Banks largely led the Redskins to an 8-3 finish in 2001. You interested in him?

Trent Dilfer has been a winning QB. Sometimes guys are carried by the supporting cast and they do enough not to hose the deal up. I thought Chad was more than that, but you apparently think he wasn't, given how you view the Jets struggles with him making it impossible for you to blame everyone but Chad for losing, but give no one but Chad credit for winning. This is a loser's position. You probably want to stop offering it.

"Nothing says you’re meaningless to your team’s ability to win or lose than having your teammates vote you MVP, right? I’d say that adequately addresses your claim right there. QB is the most influential position on the field, but I’ve yet to see one that can win games without any help from a supporting cast. I have, however, seen many carry their teams to new heights when given the proper help or conversely, snuff out their team’s hopes irrespective of talent around them. Does that make them “meaningless” to their respective teams’ ability to win or lose? According to you, it does."

It's fairly amusing. So, Chad was an immense contributor to the 1-3 beginning is what you're now agreeing with? QB is the most influential position on the field and Chad was that player for the 1-3 stretch. Now you're grasping the point I was making, yes? And, who did your head coach think was the MVP again? Just wondering.

"Here’s where your logic strays. In Chad’s case, you claimed that we may only look at the team’s ability to notch wins under similar circumstances with or without him as a measure of his value. If we apply your standard to Ramsey, we see that the Skins had a lower winning percentage in his 7 games than in the 9 games without him. By your reasoning, it seems Ramsey is really the one who is “meaningless” to his team’s ultimate success. Once you’re allowed to start telling me how much more effective the Skins offense was with Ramsey later in the season, expect to hear that the Jets averaged 11 points (excluding STs) behind Testaverde and 24 points behind Chad. "

Let's just point out again that Chad was 8-5 as the starter or primary QB last year for you. That was the same record as Tony Banks the year before for us. Again, this just puts into perspective just how overwhelming Chad's play was. But, looking beyond, what you seem to fail to grasp is playing Ramsey was a losing situation for us. He lacked the knowledge to lead the team as a rookie. His mistakes were clearly evident and costly at times. His weaknesses were on display and we got to watch him work through it. His limited understanding of the league essentially cost the Redskins games against the Saints and Packers. And yet we're still happy because our rookie played better than most any rookie QB in recent memory. Our rookie took very poor offense and just by his insertion turned it into a Top 10 unit. This with all the negatives any rookie has going for him. While I admit to a certain fascination by your continued offer of a straight up comparison between your third year player and our rookie, I simply think you don't get the fact that yours was a third year player and ours was a rookie and the scale for determining success is clearly a bit different. In the next couple of seasons Ramsey will start being judged differently and even equally with veteran players of course. But, such is your need to compare the effectively uncomparable you've let yourself start a thread in which almost every other poster actually gets it and you don't.

Let's just say that last year the Jets, while playing a far weaker schedule, had positional advantages at WR, OL, K and kick returner. The Redskins now have those advantages. You ALSO had a HUGE advantage at QB. You may actually still have that advantage. I would say it's likely your fourth year QB will have the advantage over our second year guy. But, the difference is lesser now than it was, and we both know we don't know what type of player Ramsey will ultimately become. He could actually wildly surpass your guy. He could fall terribly below.

"In 1998, Testaverde was a Pro Bowler who led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game with one of the highest TD/INT season ratios ever. After sitting out 1999 with an injury, he was the rightful starter in 2000 and would not be supplanted by a rookie under any circumstance. What would Ramsey’s stats have been if he were the one drafted as a luxury pick (one of 4 first rounders) to back up Testaverde? 0 for 0? To hold Pennington’s position on the depth chart against him is unfair at best, and I'm quite sure you know it. Maybe this approach is influenced by an initial comparison that you perceive as “bad form.” If so, my apologies – but maybe that sentiment would be more appropriately addressed to the Skins posters who served up the original comparison in the first place."

Testaverde was unquestionably the starter heading in to the 2000 season. But at what point in his 69 QB rating season might a team think it's time to make a move? If you had a player they felt could play behind Testaverde, that player would have played. The player you had behind Testaverde didn't play. Ramsey's position on the depth chart was just as certainly improbable that he'd play for the Redskins last year. He wouldn't have played save for two early injuries and one hell of a game to open his NFL career. So, while it's true the stars appeared to have aligned for our rookie and got him into the game, the fact remains, Pennington was so not ready he couldn't beat out a terribly average QB for playing time for two years. You may want to forget that. And five or six more years of being a top QB will make that ok. But, it's still the truth.

"If the all these Redskins excuses are already growing old for me, I’d hate to think how good fans such as yourselves must feel. If the Jets had gone 7-9, we could’ve pawned off 10 good reasons for the collapse without hesitation. Sure, some teams’ excuses are more credible than others, but when they get regurgitated each season, I guess they lose their luster."

Interestingly, no one but you has offered excuses in this thread. I have not excused our play a year ago. I understand it. I know what we had to improve. I know where you were better than us. I know where you're not better now. I don't know what the future holds. So much relies upon Ramsey's development. A positive development and I promise you, we're going to throttle the Jets over the next few years. A poor one and we're not going to do that to anyone. The DIFFERENCE between our teams though is the play at QB. You had a wonderful performance. If not the best, close to the best play at QB in football. You had a candy a$$ schedule in comparison to us. We had terrible and rookie QB play. And you were two games ahead of us. If you want to pretend that with all the losses directly to us that you've had that you remain leaps and bounds ahead, you can. It fits. It could be possible. If Ramsey can't improve and be a player to lead us, you're likely going to be right. If he can improve, let's just say, I'd like to see what our team could do with exceptional QB play. And if it's just 9-7 you won't see me bragging about it.

"Well, you’ll get no disagreement there. I too would take Ramsey over another first-rounder who had yet to see the field, though I’m not sure if that’s an endorsement. A part of me really wants to see Ramsey succeed and finally get the Skins to the playoffs. This way we won’t have to hear another year of what could’ve been if not for a gelling OL, improved chemistry among Ramsey and his weapons, a new D coordinator, and a difficult schedule."

In all honestly, no team in the league has a difficult schedule until the year ends and we know how the teams did. Any number of difficult games on the schedule this year could turn like the 13-3 Bears from one year to the next. The league is different than it's been. And, while it may be true we have a difficult schedule, it may be true we have an easy one. We'll see.

Just like most things I suppose.

[NoCalMike]

to me the biggest issue between the two is the type of offense the team is running. Pennington would obviously do much better than Ramsey this year in a WCO because he has more experience which usually equals better accuracy, however in the "fun N gun" where your QB needs to be able to possiblly throw deep a lot and throw accurately DEEP, I would take Ramsey over Chad in a second.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Art

Edwards openly expressed that Coles was the most valuable Jet a year ago. An astounding statement to you perhaps, but, if you quibble with it, you need to write Herman Edwards a letter and find out why he'd supply we ignorant wretches with such easy fodder.

First, let’s clarify the Coles MVP issue. I wonder if you are aware that Herman’s statement regarding Coles as the MVP came prematurely. Specifically, the remark was made 3 weeks prior to the end of the season, after Coles had just strung together his best 2 games of the season and caught a go-ahead TD against Denver. The comment raised eyebrows at the time, but Coles' quiet, strong play had been generally overshadowed by Chad all season. While it’s certainly possible that Herm felt this way at the time, it’s also quite clear that he felt it was time for the gritty WR to receive some of the acclaim he hadn't been receiving.

But Pennington’s greatest impact on the team wasn’t felt until the very end of the season, long after Herm’s remark: his clutch win v. the Pats in primetime on the road in Week 16 (AFC Player of the Week), his dismantling of the Packers to clinch the division in Week 17 (again, AFC Player of the Week), and of course his domination of the Colts in the playoffs. In light of the facts above, once Herman had a chance to reflect upon his 2002 campaign, did Herm really think Coles was the MVP? Maybe. Without question, Coles was a key component to the Jets' offensive success last year and you’re right to point to Herman’s remarks as evidence of such. But dangling Herman’s remark as some slight against Chad is only convincing to those unaware of the surrounding circumstances.

You pointed out that Chad wasn't at all to blame for the 1-3 but the other factors were. Therefore, what you've essentally done is pointed out that it wasn't Chad who contributed to the wins either, but, rather, the other guys. This is YOUR position. I didn't make you take it. You took it on your own.

We all know that a QB who performs consistently well can be the primary cause for the success of a team with strong support, while not necessarily being the primary cause for failure on a team with weak support. Ignoring this, it was you who chose to make the ill-advised jump to conclude that Chad somehow can’t be both. I don’t see it that way.

Trent Dilfer has been a winning QB. Sometimes guys are carried by the supporting cast and they do enough not to hose the deal up. I thought Chad was more than that, but you apparently think he wasn't, given how you view the Jets struggles with him making it impossible for you to blame everyone but Chad for losing, but give no one but Chad credit for winning. This is a loser's position. You probably want to stop offering it.

I’m the first to cast blame upon Chad when he deserves it, but it just so happens that those occasions were rare in 2002. But IMO, Chad was the single greatest reason for Jets defeat in Round 2 of the playoffs. In that game there were plenty of excuses as well, including poor OL play and second half D, but Chad’s off day overshadowed all of those factors. In this rare instance, he was the biggest internal contributor to the Jets defeat.

Let me also let you in on another secret. Backing into the playoffs the way you did isn't all that inspired a performance.

While we’re sharing secrets, here’s one for you. When NFL fans refer to “backing into the playoffs,” this term refers to the situation in which a team loses its games, yet wins a playoff berth by virtue of another team’s even greater misfortune. Need an example? See the Falcons making the playoffs despite losing 3 of their last 4, only because the Saints lost their last 3 games to last place teams. “Backing in the playoffs” does NOT refer to a team that wins 7 of their last 9, AND when presented with a win-and-in situation in the final week, seizes the opportunity by mauling a division champion who is fighting for the strongest home field advantage in the history of the NFL.

While I admit to a certain fascination by your continued offer of a straight up comparison between your third year player and our rookie, I simply think you don't get the fact that yours was a third year player and ours was a rookie and the scale for determining success is clearly a bit different. In the next couple of seasons Ramsey will start being judged differently and even equally with veteran players of course.

Oh, I understand the distinction completely. But as I keep trying in vain to remind you, that the distinction loses its relevance the moment one assumes the posture that they’d prefer Ramsey in Game 1 of 2003. Then, not only must we decline to give Ramsey leeway for his inexperience, but it actually becomes a very relevant part of the overall analysis. By lifting him to such a standard that you’d play him over a player with Chad’s experience and track record (limited though it may be), this is the hand you’ve dealt yourself. But I agree; the comparisons will certainly be much more meaningful once he’s earned his stripes in the NFL.

Testaverde was unquestionably the starter heading in to the 2000 season. But at what point in his 69 QB rating season might a team think it's time to make a move? If you had a player they felt could play behind Testaverde, that player would have played. The player you had behind Testaverde didn't play. Ramsey's position on the depth chart was just as certainly improbable that he'd play for the Redskins last year. He wouldn't have played save for two early injuries and one hell of a game to open his NFL career. So, while it's true the stars appeared to have aligned for our rookie and got him into the game, the fact remains, Pennington was so not ready he couldn't beat out a terribly average QB for playing time for two years. You may want to forget that. And five or six more years of being a top QB will make that ok. But, it's still the truth.

You’ve already conceded that VT was the undisputed starter in 2000 but you wonder when Pennington should’ve beaten him out that year. Do you propose that following VT’s 6-1 start, a rookie should’ve taken over? How about when the team was 9-4 and on the brink of the playoffs - would that have been a good time? 2001 marked the start of a new coaching era, and following a season in which the Jets should’ve been a playoff lock if not for a late collapse, VT was understandably given the nod. While you contend he was “mediocre,” the guy still lead his team to the playoffs and once there, threw for 3 TDs and nearly 300 yards, earning a vote of confidence as 2002 starter with a short leash. As soon as he faltered, Chad got his chance.

But this is all a footnote, since as I mentioned, we’re really concerned about Chad’s potential to step into Ramsey’s shoes in 2003. Besides, I’ve seen no convincing argument that Ramsey would’ve earned the reigns to the 6-1 Jets in 2000 as they positioned for the playoffs midseason.

Interestingly, no one but you has offered excuses in this thread. I have not excused our play a year ago. I understand it.

Well, when you suggest that the disparity between the Jets and Skins would be much smaller if not for a rookie QB, a harder schedule, 30+ new players, etc., you’ll have to excuse me if I misinterpreted it as an excuse. I now see that these were instead reasons that you “understand.” Either way, my point was that all teams face adversity. Some deal with it and some don’t – it can’t be any simpler.

In all honestly, no team in the league has a difficult schedule until the year ends and we know how the teams did. Any number of difficult games on the schedule this year could turn like the 13-3 Bears from one year to the next. The league is different than it's been. And, while it may be true we have a difficult schedule, it may be true we have an easy one. We'll see.

Here, we agree. The Bills had the #1 toughest schedule to open 2002, but results proved it to be the third weakest schedule. That’s why fans of the Jets (#1 schedule in 2003) and the Skins (#3 schedule) shouldn’t fret too much. A lot will change in a year – that’s all we know for sure.

[shawn]

Art:

Not embarassing to me, since I really don't care much about theJets or the skins. Like I said its kind of fun to read through these. Still eventhough Testevarde wasn't coming off a pro-bowl year and off of an injury, you are comparing a proven NFL QB who was a former probowler to Shane Mathews and Wuerfull two prenial (sp?) NFL rejects at QB. no matter how you cut and slice it, an injured Testevarde was still better than Mathews and Weurfull. There was a chance for Testevarde to pick up where he left off or be close to it, but there was a snow chance in hell for either mathews or weurfull to turn into anything.

like I said, I am just having fun reading these posts. You like doing head to head player comparisons and there is always opinions and some kind of statistic somewhere for everyone to prove their point.

[AJWatson3]

here is something that the Jets FO should have picked up in the off-season, since they weren't interested in keeping some of their best players...

they should have sent some out with the season tickets too.

[skinsfanno9]

Heck,

At this point I just love to hear the Jet fans Whine. I say we should pick up Chad when he becomes available too. Then we can all hear how, in retrospect, he now sucks after becoming a Redskin.:joker:

[codeorama]

Interesting thread...

I understand where the Jets fans are coming from by saying "Pennington had a better year than Ramsey last year"...

But the understanding ends there.

Pennington is a THIRD year NFL QB, I would hope he would do better than a ROOKIE QB.

Pennington OBVIOUSLY had more experience and talent around him last year than Ramsey did.

Both QB's share strong leadership skills that others rally around, so there is no advantage to either there.

Ramsey clearly has the stronger arm. You can say that arm strenght does not show up in the stats, but guess what... Ramsey's arm strength takes away something that is key to the defense, REACTION TIME. When a weaker armed qb is in the game, they have less window of opportunity, less margin for error. If Pennington floats a pass up, defenders have a much better chance to react to the ball, therefore, they can play "OFF" the receivers more. Ramsey throwing that same pass gives the defense much less time to react to the ball and they have to play closer to the man. What does that mean? More defenders getting beat deep.

I would take Ramsey over Pennington. But I understand that in 3 years, it's hard to say where these players could end up.