Awesome Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 As reported: 4-years, $20 million, $8 million signing bonus, plus the Jaguars get the Skins' 3rd Round pick, the 73rd overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsblitz Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Yes, if the deal reported is in fact true. 'Skins need a veteran QB on the roster and it's a 3rd rounder not a 2nd as we originally thought. A 3rd is way better than a 2nd, just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by MAPTASTIC As reported: 4-years, $20 million, $8 million signing bonus, plus the Jaguars get the Skins' 3rd Round pick, the 73rd overall. That is just ludacris........Keep Ramsey, and who cares, sign Garcia, and keep Hasslebeck, save the money, sign Champ, sign Taylor/Winslow.....get Garner from Oakland.....or DeShaun Foster....he is s0 n4sty and l33t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Yes, if the deal is done in a way that is cap-friendly and allows us to resign Champ. No if it means that we can't keep Champ. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I think it's a good idea, but I shudder when i hear the words '4 years 20 million'......it should be 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Yes if Brunell is OK w/being Ramsey's backup & the deal is well under the reported 20 Mil. No if Brunell's salary is around 20mil and he's guaranteed the #1 spot. I agree w/TroyFakeman & BD - cheap sounds good but maybe Garcia/Blake/Dilfer would be better and make sure they are aware that they are the #2 guy. The situation w/Rob Johnson was good last year - signed as a backup and played only when Ramsey was hurt. Maybe we should keep Hasselback because he is probably comfortable w/ his role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I voted yes because I don't think those are the actual numbers. If they were, I would vote no. Even if we didn't have Ramsey that would be too much for an aging, fragile quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 Those are the latest numbers I have seen reported. If they're not accurate, I apologize. Can anyone verify different numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Those are the only numbers I've seen reported too. Sorry, didn't mean to mislead you. I just don't believe those numbers are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pga Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Man, it hurt to vote yes but I stepped out of my fan shoes and thought.....what team would complain about having Brunell and Patrick as QB's.....whoever starts. ergo, I went "YES" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I voted yes because I have a feeling the contract, though I haven't seen the particulars, is probably backloaded so that the biggest thing to worry about is the signing bonus. I think he'd only be here two years at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinjones Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Anybody read about Gibbs screwing with Miami, does anybody think this is simple posturing by Gibbs and his staff, making a big splash to up the price for our closest competitors, like Dallas. Just a thought. I think I trust Gibbs, so I say Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontPushMe Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I think its a really bad, move, Ramsey is the ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I voted No because of the price of the deal and the point that Champ isnt signed, Samuels isnt renegotiated and we need to make quick strikes in March to snag the lunch pail linemen instead of the big namers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunBunny Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 No. Its too much money for a guy that is close to the end of his career. We have a starting QB that is our present, as well as the future. We don't need two starters and we have other personnel concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark327 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 i voted NO!!! :hammer: somebody correct me if i'm wrong. M.B. has bad knees and is one concussion away from retirement. P.R. is not a rookie anymore. he's not a seasoned veteran as of yet but showed that he can play at this level. there are other vet. qb's out there we could get much cheaper . the d-line and o-line needs to be addressed. we lost 5 of those 11 games this past season by 7 points or less for the simple fact that the d-line could stop the run and the o-line couldn't protect P.R. having said all this no matter what coach gibbs does i will support his discisions based soley on the fact that he is king and i am not worthy :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskinjoe Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Not at that price. We have too many other needs to spend those dollars on the QB position. If Brunnell gets signed with us for those dollars some big time player(s) is/are going to be cut or traded if they won't renegotiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 so it seems the majority of you don't want what is best for the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma so it seems the majority of you don't want what is best for the team Haha, just assuming that Brunell is the best possible thing for the team. Way to go. How about getting Rich Gannon or something? Don't the Raiders want to start completely over, and get rid of all the old fogies? How about trading Trung for Gannon and sign Garner? :laugh: That would be pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgensen4Prez Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by mark327 i voted NO!!! :hammer: somebody correct me if i'm wrong. M.B. has bad knees and is one concussion away from retirement. P.R. is not a rookie anymore. he's not a seasoned veteran as of yet but showed that he can play at this level. there are other vet. qb's out there we could get much cheaper . the d-line and o-line needs to be addressed. we lost 5 of those 11 games this past season by 7 points or less for the simple fact that the d-line could stop the run and the o-line couldn't protect P.R. having said all this no matter what coach gibbs does i will support his discisions based soley on the fact that he is king and i am not worthy :notworthy 100% correct, and now the post is even reporting that Ramsey might want to be traded is HE'S not the starting quarterback. Brunnel would be a nice addition to back-up Ramsey for a couple of years, but he isn't worth loosing the GOLDEN BOY!!! :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgensen4Prez Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by ramseyskins Haha, just assuming that Brunell is the best possible thing for the team. Way to go. How about getting Rich Gannon or something? Don't the Raiders want to start completely over, and get rid of all the old fogies? How about trading Trung for Gannon and sign Garner? :laugh: That would be pretty cool. Why on god's earth would we want to get players that even the 4-12 Raiders dont want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by ramseyskins Haha, just assuming that Brunell is the best possible thing for the team. Way to go. How about getting Rich Gannon or something? Don't the Raiders want to start completely over, and get rid of all the old fogies? How about trading Trung for Gannon and sign Garner? :laugh: That would be pretty cool. I mean having two good QB is what is best for the team and Pat can learn from a real QB how to the play the NFL game. He can even be better then we imagined now. I would like to see Garner Gannon looks like he is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Does anyone know of a current backup QB who received 1/2 of the alleged $8M bonus? And by backup, I'm not talking about (1) a rookie who hasn't gotten a shot to start yet or (2) a backup who was a starter and lost his job and hasn't been cut for cap reasons. I'm talking about a veteran QB who was signed fresh. I know Griese got a $1M signing bonus last year with deferred money in his second. I'm not looking for a current $8M bonus for a guy who rode the bench, just $4M. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Who ever heard of paying a back up 5 million buck a year. Gibbs you're starting to scare me. Where's Bobby Bethard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galentjm Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by OURYEAR#56 Who ever heard of paying a back up 5 million buck a year. Gibbs you're starting to scare me. Where's Bobby Bethard? Oh ye of little faifth. :stick: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.