Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Pastabelly: "Ramsey irked by Skins interest in Brunell"


Skins11

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but anyways:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1732172

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

Perhaps hoping to ratchet up the Mark Brunell trade talks to a new and more urgent level, the Redskins dispatched chief negotiator and salary cap manager Eric Schaffer to Los Angeles to meet with agent Leigh Steinberg, ESPN.com has learned.

But while the Redskins attempt to heat up the trade discussions, they may also be stoking the flames of discord, with incumbent quarterback Patrick Ramsey apparently miffed by the possibility of being nudged from the top perch on the depth chart. The Redskins' first-round choice in the 2002 draft, Ramsey huddled with some Washington assistant coaches Monday and refused to be appeased by rationalizations on the potential Brunell addition.

The organization apparently is attempting spin control with Ramsey, especially since the Redskins were trying to fly under the radar on a proposed Brunell deal with Jacksonville. The young quarterback, though, is having none of it.

Coach Joe Gibbs met with Ramsey last Friday to apprise him of the team's interest in an unnamed veteran quarterback. But as framed by Gibbs to Ramsey, the unnamed veteran would probably be a backup-type player who might compete for the starting job.

Given that Ramsey is well regarded around the league, and was presumed to be the Redskins' quarterback of not only the present but the future, his disillusionment hardly is surprising. Neither will it come as a shock if Ramsey requests a trade should the Redskins acquire Brunell. After all, that move likely would make the third-year veteran a backup in Washington.

If the Redskins ever put Ramsey on the trade market, they would certainly find buyers, and could possibly recoup any draft choices expended on the Brunell acquisition.

The Redskins, or any other team that deals for Brunell, almost certainly will expect him to agree to a new, multiyear contract before consummating a trade. But even with the Redskins continuing to set the pace in pursuit of Brunell -- Gibbs huddled with the veteran quarterback on Monday evening in advance of Schaffer's visit with Steinberg -- a trade does not appear imminent.

That is largely because the Jaguars, in no hurry and confident now they will be able to deal Brunell and not have to release him with no compensation, are trying to raise the ante and cut the best deal possible. The basic rationale of the Jaguars is that with more suitors, Jacksonville can play one off against the other.

While there have been various reports that there are four teams interested in Brunell -- San Diego, Dallas and Miami, in addition to the Redskins -- that might be a bit inflated. Team sources said Miami, which doesn't own the second-round choice the Jags seem to want in return for Brunell, are not a major player in the bidding. And Dallas only is interested in Brunell if he is released.

Jacksonville officials, though, have done a superb job of embellishing the level of interest in the 11-year veteran quarterback and that has helped raise his price tag.

Washington officials could suffer further ramifications, beyond Ramsey's ire, if they add Brunell via trade. In an effort to create salary cap room, the Redskins have been trying for some time to rework the contract of left offensive tackle Chris Samuels, who carries cap charges of $8.749 million in 2004 and $9.642 million for 2005.

The connection between the Ramsey and Samuels situations: Both are represented by the same agent, Jimmy Sexton, whose clients have provided cap relief for the Redskins the last couple of seasons. The club's desire to restructure the Samuels deal may mean leverage for Sexton if Ramsey demands a trade.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Ridiculous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope Pastabelly is blowing smoke up everyone's a$$, I would hate to lose the best qb we've had in over a decade for a 33 year old on his last legs, That means we would have to get another qb in 2-3 years and good qb's aren't easy to come by. Most teams hold on to them for dear life if they find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by pr11fan

I sincerely hope Pastabelly is blowing smoke up everyone's a$$, I would hate to lose the best qb we've had in over a decade for a 33 year old on his last legs, That means we would have to get another qb in 2-3 years and good qb's aren't easy to come by. Most teams hold on to them for dear life if they find one.

Oh dude he definitely is, I'm just pissed because it portrays us negatively to the world. if you go to Redskins.com there is an article that shows Gibbs giving 100% support to Ramsey (posted here earlier)

Gibbs: Ramsey 'Has A Great Future'

http://www.redskins.com/story.asp?ContentID=12542

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ramseyskins....your missing the point of the article regardless if you think its sh*t or not. It's not Gibbs upset with Ramsey, its Ramsey being upset with the skins. I've said in other posts that regarless of how you spin it, it would be a demotion to Ramsey to sit him behind a vet......and its not to far fetch to think that Ramsey might be more then a little pissed at the prospect of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, this article is essentially pure speculation. No quotes from relevant parties or anything. Secondly, the following comment is laughably absurd:

Originally posted by ramseyskins

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

If the Redskins ever put Ramsey on the trade market, they would certainly find buyers, and could possibly recoup any draft choices expended on the Brunell acquisition.

Excuse me, did he just say we could "recoup" any draft choices expended on Brunell? OK, let's stop and think about this for a second. If we were to merely "recoup" the picks we trade for Brunell by trading Ramsey, we would essentially be trading Patrick for Brunell straight up. Does this fat fool honestly believe that we would trade a 24-year old prized future franchise QB straight up for a 33 year old veteran with a history of injuries and concussions? The only way a deal would make sense would be if we were to (a) acquire Brunell and then (B) make a killing by trading Ramsey to the highest bidder. Even still, Gibbs doesn't want to trade Ramsey at all.

Honestly I think 95% of the posts on this board are more informed and enlightening than this idiot's best work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Wicked Wop

ramseyskins....your missing the point of the article regardless if you think its sh*t or not. It's not Gibbs upset with Ramsey, its Ramsey being upset with the skins. I've said in other posts that regarless of how you spin it, it would be a demotion to Ramsey to sit him behind a vet......and its not to far fetch to think that Ramsey might be more then a little pissed at the prospect of such.

He doesn't have any direct evidence of this! Did he talk to Ramsey? We don't know, but he sure as hell didn't quote him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Larry Brown #43

First of all, this article is essentially pure speculation. No quotes from relevant parties or anything. Secondly, the following comment is laughably absurd

You're right. I don't believe one word he writes any more. The thing is I don't like how this portrays the Redskins and Gibbs in the media. He makes it seem like Gibbs is conniving, working behind Ramsey's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else on here think Cerrato is sending this info. to Lenny P.? I mean, its got to either be Vinny or Jimmy Sexton. You know Bugel isn't on the horn with Lenny.

BTW, Lenny doesn't make stuff up, he is fed the info. by insiders. The question is, who in the Skins org. is sending it to him.

Was hoping Gibbs could rid the org. of this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only scenario I've seen that makes even a remote bit of sense is Ramsey + #5 to the Chargers for the #1 and possibly take Manning, but we've got to many other holes to be spending a first rounder on a qb. So under no circumstances does this scencario make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Wicked Wop

ramseyskins....your missing the point of the article regardless if you think its sh*t or not. It's not Gibbs upset with Ramsey, its Ramsey being upset with the skins. I've said in other posts that regarless of how you spin it, it would be a demotion to Ramsey to sit him behind a vet......and its not to far fetch to think that Ramsey might be more then a little pissed at the prospect of such.

I refer you back to Bayougator's Comic Relief thread from yesterday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Pastabelly really this ignorant? lets put aside Ramsey being "irked" . Does he really think Chris Samuels does not want to restructure his deal? Restructuring does not mean a pay cut it means reaaranging when the money is paid. In the majority of the cases unguaranteed base salaries are paid out to a player in advance in the form of a guaranteed bonus. Does he really think a player and agent will balk at having their salary guaranteed? In addition Does he realize on top on the $8mill that we are under we wil gain another $6mill when Bruce is let go? Does he realize that we can get another $3mill by cutting players like Dalton, Moore, and Trung? Does he realize that at most, Brunnell's first year cap hit will probably be $1mill to $2mill at the very most. hardly an issue for a team that will be $14mill under (or even $8mill under when Champ is franchised). Or perhaps he is still bitter that he was beaten to the story by a local newspaper. He'd make a great Washington times columnist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andre The Giant

BTW, Lenny doesn't make stuff up, he is fed the info. by insiders. The question is, who in the Skins org. is sending it to him.

:laugh: you'd be surprised how much pure specualtion these guys make up out little or no real facts.

When they use terms like "might", or "could", or a lack any quotes or sources....;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I'll lay odds that P. Belly's # is on Cerrato's cell phone... ;)

Well I just spoke with Jimmy Fingers & he gave me better odds that Pastabellt suffers from a terminal case of cranium-rectal inversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenny the Hut is an idiot. When Gibbs was hired, he was the one that wrote this:

Maybe we'll be wrong about this but, for the heck of it, here's a bet: Three years from now, the guy who accepted the Redskins job as a Hall of Fame member will be viewed as just another ordinary Joe.

Then, in an article written YESTERDAY , he lists the Skins as one of six teams that could go, and I quote, "From the Outhouse to the Penthouse."!!! Which one is it Lenny? Here's the first quote from the Redskins part of that article:

Those naysayers who suggest the game has passed by Joe Gibbs may have to eat their words.

Make up your mind Jabba, and spend some of that ESPN cash to fix that bowl cut.

Unbelievable.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This situation is very odd. Lots of speculation and little fact. The pundits are clearly stretching for news, given that the season just ended and nothing's going to happen for the next month.

If anything happened - and I stress the words "if" and "anything" - this is the logical explanation, in my opinion. Ramsey met with the coaching staff, and like the skilled, bright, competitive football player he is, he simply expressed his desire to start and wanted to know the rationale for pursuing a starter-caliber veteran. End of story. 99.99% of us would have done the exact same thing. No pouting, no complaining, no discussions of trades. Just a player and his coach(es) talking.

But ESPN is looking to make news out of nothing - hell, that's their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I've seen him do that with players to. Cracks me up.

Ok. Now let's just try to be at least a little fair here. By naming Vinnie as a source, one is engaging in the same type of speculation that we're accusing Len P. of . If, if, Len had heard this from a team source, he more than likely would have said so. He uses one word really that let's you know that he's doing just that. "Apparently". He's going by what he's heard or read, not from anyone in the Park of consequence or none at all, and now, though quietly, is making a conclusion. The 1+1 must equal...... routine. :rolleyes: Nice try Len.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Redskins' first-round choice in the 2002 draft, Ramsey huddled with some Washington assistant coaches Monday and refused to be appeased by rationalizations on the potential Brunell addition.

The organization apparently is attempting spin control with Ramsey, especially since the Redskins were trying to fly under the radar on a proposed Brunell deal with Jacksonville. The young quarterback, though, is having none of it.

This is the part I find interesting. He doesn't even bother to say he has an 'unnamed source' for this info. Who told him this? Where is his quote?

"Ramsey refused to be appeased... Ramsey is having none of it"

Based on what?

This is gossip column tripe.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...