Tarhog Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by bulldog Ben Roethlisberger is playing on a team with TWO 1,000 yard capable backs in Bettis and Staley, TWO 1,000 yard capable receives in Ward and Burress and a solid OL......................... now, compare that to what the Redskins have out there right now to surround Ramsey. we have a running back the staff took a long time to learn how to use properly. we have a rookie h-back/tight end that is now the primary receiver because he is the only player that holds onto the ball consistently. and we have an offensive line with two very well overpaid players in Samuels and Thomas and then a cast of so-so's in Raymer, Dockery and the revolving door at RT. Replace Ramsey and Roethlisberger and Ramsey has the Steelers in the playoffs while Big Ben suffers a 7-9 or 8-8 type campaign with the Skins. And by the way, if Ramsey had started from Week 1 he too would have won those 7 or 8 games with the Skins. Let's face the facts. The Steelers are just a better team and a much better place for a young player to go into a new situation and receive support. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by jtyler42 Come on man you really sound like a Homer now...If I had the choice right now of either QB at their respective stages in their development I would take Big Ben hands down...He already has things that Pat doesnt...He's mobile, he knows how to look off safeties(TD pass to Plax in the last game), he see's the whole field, he is a leader, and he doesnt look like a robot....:laugh: Seriously there is no comparison between the two... Well, some of that was tongue-in-cheek. However, you made a point about comparing them during their respective stages in their development. The comparison was Big Ben and Ramsey straight up this year. Ramsey never had the line or the running game that Big Ben had, nor the WRs. Put Ramsey behind Pitts line, with Pitts running game, and with their WRs and how do you think he'll do? Then put Big Ben in our offense this year and just speculate what woud've happened. Better yet, put Big Ben in our offense last year and think what would've happened. That's not really the point, though. The point is that it's hardly fair to say that Ramsey has had three years here. He hasn't, and the time he's spent under center as a starter haven't been the most ideal of circumstances. Like it or not, we'll have to wait it out. I'm optimistic that he'll pan out, but we can't do anything more than stick with him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by DallasInDC I love it when people profess to know exactly how a hypothetical situation would turn out. Do you have nay good stock tips as well? How about the powerball number? It's called analysis, son. You should try it out sometime. BTW, you shouldn't use powerball to make a living. Groveling around for numbers on a message board like this makes you look a little . . . shall we say . . . never mind. You get the point. And then again maybe you don't. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by bulldog Ben Roethlisberger is playing on a team with TWO 1,000 yard capable backs in Bettis and Staley, TWO 1,000 yard capable receives in Ward and Burress and a solid OL......................... now, compare that to what the Redskins have out there right now to surround Ramsey. we have a running back the staff took a long time to learn how to use properly. we have a rookie h-back/tight end that is now the primary receiver because he is the only player that holds onto the ball consistently. and we have an offensive line with two very well overpaid players in Samuels and Thomas and then a cast of so-so's in Raymer, Dockery and the revolving door at RT. Replace Ramsey and Roethlisberger and Ramsey has the Steelers in the playoffs while Big Ben suffers a 7-9 or 8-8 type campaign with the Skins. And by the way, if Ramsey had started from Week 1 he too would have won those 7 or 8 games with the Skins. Let's face the facts. The Steelers are just a better team and a much better place for a young player to go into a new situation and receive support. I dont think the Steelers would be as good w/Ramsey as they are w/Big Ben b/c he has made alot of plays this yr that Ramsey simply cant... I think the Steelers would be good but I dont think they would be 14-1 and I think Big Ben going 7-9 or 8-8 w/this team would be a pretty big accomplishment...People keep saying that if Ramsey would have started from the beggining we would have won more games...Well which games exactly would we have won? Dont get me wrong I like Pat and he is the best thing we have and we need to give him another yr, but why does everyone get so defensive when talking about Pat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by bulldog Ben Roethlisberger is playing on a team with TWO 1,000 yard capable backs in Bettis and Staley, TWO 1,000 yard capable receives in Ward and Burress and a solid OL......................... now, compare that to what the Redskins have out there right now to surround Ramsey. we have a running back the staff took a long time to learn how to use properly. we have a rookie h-back/tight end that is now the primary receiver because he is the only player that holds onto the ball consistently. and we have an offensive line with two very well overpaid players in Samuels and Thomas and then a cast of so-so's in Raymer, Dockery and the revolving door at RT. Replace Ramsey and Roethlisberger and Ramsey has the Steelers in the playoffs while Big Ben suffers a 7-9 or 8-8 type campaign with the Skins. And by the way, if Ramsey had started from Week 1 he too would have won those 7 or 8 games with the Skins. Let's face the facts. The Steelers are just a better team and a much better place for a young player to go into a new situation and receive support. A second amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by goldenster95 Well, some of that was tongue-in-cheek. However, you made a point about comparing them during their respective stages in their development. The comparison was Big Ben and Ramsey straight up this year. Ramsey never had the line or the running game that Big Ben had, nor the WRs. Put Ramsey behind Pitts line, with Pitts running game, and with their WRs and how do you think he'll do? Then put Big Ben in our offense this year and just speculate what woud've happened. Better yet, put Big Ben in our offense last year and think what would've happened. That's not really the point, though. The point is that it's hardly fair to say that Ramsey has had three years here. He hasn't, and the time he's spent under center as a starter haven't been the most ideal of circumstances. Like it or not, we'll have to wait it out. I'm optimistic that he'll pan out, but we can't do anything more than stick with him now. I agree just for chemistry's sake we need to stick with him + he is the best QB we have, but we need to bring somebody in behind him to groom b/c he should have a short leash next yr...We just cant have this poor play from the QB next yr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by goldenster95 It's called analysis, son. You should try it out sometime. BTW, you shouldn't use powerball to make a living. Groveling around for numbers on a message board like this makes you look a little . . . shall we say . . . never mind. You get the point. And then again maybe you don't. :laugh: What a d... bag.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by RF4L What a d... bag.:doh: :laugh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by jtyler42 :laugh: :doh: Oh hell, gents, it's all in good fun. A little Wild Turkey swilled into it, but good fun nonetheless. Now, screw off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by jtyler42 I dont think the Steelers would be as good w/Ramsey as they are w/Big Ben b/c he has made alot of plays this yr that Ramsey simply cant... Please, please provide examples.... I reallly want to hear this. ...People keep saying that if Ramsey would have started from the beggining we would have won more games...Well which games exactly would we have won? Giants, Cleveland, and Cincy for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 seems we are inundated with trolls as of late...damn water boys and cheerleaders. beware!!! *lol* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Well, this gets my vote for "most heated thread of 2004". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Skins24 Please, please provide examples.... I reallly want to hear this. Giants, Cleveland, and Cincy for sure. I'd love to hear those examples too. Anyone take a look at some of Big Ben's stats in some of his games? Like I said, some folks here need to analyze this stuff a little better. Hey, Craig Krenzel was 3-0 for a while. I guess he was some world beater for a while there too, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by NEEDAQB If he can not make a quick read and throw with accuracy he is worthless because we all know he is not athletic enough to pick up a first down with his legs. Now see, ya lost me right there. There is NO DOUBT that Ramsey has his faults. One of them is that he holds onto the ball too long sometimes. But, for a good portion of the time, he fades back into a 5- or 7-step drop & there is a lineman in his face. That's not Ramsey's fault...it's Brunell's fault. oh, & the OLs fault. But mainly Brunell's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 How on earth would Rothlisburger lead the Skins to more wins than Ramsey when it's already been said in this thread that Peyton Manning wouldn't have this team better than 5-11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by goldenster95 I'd love to hear those examples too. Anyone take a look at some of Big Ben's stats in some of his games? Like I said, some folks here need to analyze this stuff a little better. Hey, Craig Krenzel was 3-0 for a while. I guess he was some world beater for a while there too, right? As much as it might upset you and not fit into your cookie cutter world where you are able to make ridiculous assertations and back them up without logical thoughts, Big Ben is 13-0 this year. You can rationalize that any way that you want to but the fact remains that he is 13-0 this year. 13-0. 13-0. Oh yeah, 13-0. Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 As much as it might upset you and not fit into your cookie cutter world where you are able to make ridiculous assertations and back them up without logical thoughts, Big Ben is 13-0 this year. You can rationalize that any way that you want to but the fact remains that he is 13-0 this year. 13-0. 13-0. Oh yeah, 13-0. Thanks for your time. You better not be one of those Eagle fans who hates on Vick. Because Vick is 11-3. 11-3. Thanks for your time. Right now I'd have to agree it seems Roth is better than Ramsey though, I just don't agree with the conclusion reached from that observation, that Ramsey cannot be a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aikmans Killer No.56 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by NEEDAQB I am not saying Ramsey is a terrible QB. But he does not win you games. That is the difference in the NFL these days Good Qbs do not need to be " groomed" for 4 years Good QBs do not make the same mistakes in their second year as they did in their third year. Example Ramsey over throws Coles in the end zone last year on a two point try to tie the game at Philly. You would think he would learn from that game and beat the Eagles the next year. Well this year he over throws Cooley in the end zone. You can not keep waiting for a QB to learn. The defense is good enough for a 14-2 team this year. He misses wide open guys in the over the field His problem is he just does not seem smart enough to play . That is why teams always bring the house against him . When a team brings the house, it is up to the QB to know where the wide open receiver is. No offensive line can block 8 men coming at the QB. If you notice Peyton Manning reads the defense before the snap and knows where all 4 wide outs are. He does just sit back in the pocket in survey the field. Defenses are too good and fast these days. But Spurrier, the offensive line and Gibbs get the blame . People look at how many times he was hurried and sacked and they say poor Ramsey. What offensive line can protect a QB from a all out blitz? If he can not make a quick read and throw with accuracy he is worthless because we all know he is not athletic enough to pick up a first down with his legs. And why are people saying replace everybody accept the director of the ship? In terms of skilled positions and offensive line we have some of the highest paid and best players in the league Chris Samuels has not been burned much all year. I have yet to hear of a defensive end killing Samuels. Randy Thomas is one of the best guards. Yes there are a couple of veteran replacements at tackle and center but you are not going to have a pro bowl offensive line with the salary cap. Then people talk about wide receivers. Coles was great until he came here. Gardner in his rookie season with Tony Banks had the most catches on the team. Cooley is a threat. You are telling me Ramsey does not have enough around him to score 20 points ppg? Take out QB and compare the Redskins with the top 6 teams. Falcons , Eagles, Colts, Pats, Steelers and Buffalo for arguments sake. Put the redskins offensive line and wide receivers and running back vs. those teams. Besides the Colts I find it hard to believe those offenses have more talent then the Redskins. But then you put the QB into the equation and it is a different story. It all starts with the QB . Coaches and players always like to avoid the subject because they do not want blame on one player. Just look at the Falcons without Vick vs. the saints. It was like watching a JV team. Look at the Rams without Bulger. The reason the Redskins have been for 11 years is they chose to ignore the positions of QB. The ( one year they got a good QB they made the playoffs) Then they decided that QB is not worth the money and let him go . It is going to be ashamed if the Redskins draft Mike Williams to replace Gardner. Get 3 high paid offensive linemen. And the offense is going to be the same. Teams will still stack the line force us to throw. And Ramsey will not beat them deep. Coles still has about 90 catches this year. pretty damn solid, wouldn't you agree? And the skins have won more with him at the helm then Brunell, donkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Westbrook36 As much as it might upset you and not fit into your cookie cutter world where you are able to make ridiculous assertations and back them up without logical thoughts, Big Ben is 13-0 this year. You can rationalize that any way that you want to but the fact remains that he is 13-0 this year. 13-0. 13-0. Oh yeah, 13-0. Thanks for your time. Ahh, another troll missing the point. What a surprise. My point wasn't Big Ben's record, but a comparison of how one would fare in the other's situation. That comparison was made by others in this thread, a comparison that involved a discussion of the different circumstances -- i.e., o-line, WR, running game -- both QBs operated under. What's the best counter to this? Certainly not your blither which flays radically from the mark here. Rather, as someone else noted, if you want to compare Ben and Pat straight up, do things by pointing out the fact that Ben's more mobile. Here's some advice to you: most folks here realize that there's a flip side to points we make here. I'm one of them and acknowledge counter-points brought up like the one I just mentioned. Instead of trying to beat your own drum, maybe, just maybe, listening and lurking might be the best option for you. It certainly would've been for the last genius message you posted. BTW, you're welcome for my time. Recommend reading for this lesson: http://www.rif.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Oh . . . and here's more BS from the BS (i.e., Baltimore Sun) itself . . . it's a segment they published in today's paper about who will bust out in 2005 . . . they categorize it by sport and pick just one person out of each sport . . . and who did this rag, which hates the 'Skins, have to nominate as their bust out player of next year? . . . http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sportsyearend1231,1,3831062.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines#soccer THE NFL The third quarterback taken in the 2002 draft, Patrick Ramsey was an afterthought almost from the beginning. A contract stalemate kept him out of the Washington Redskins' camp until August, and he was signed only after the team tried to trade him. By then, coach Steve Spurrier was reluctant to play Ramsey. Spurrier wanted to win with former Florida quarterbacks, alternating Shane Matthews with Danny Wuerffel until both proved incapable of leading the team. In his second season, Ramsey was hampered by a lingering foot injury that eventually landed him on injured reserve in December. This year, in the coaching switch from Spurrier to Joe Gibbs, Ramsey took another step back. Gibbs prefers proven veterans at the position; he demonstrated that in 1987 when starter Jay Schroeder got hurt, yielded the job to veteran Doug Williams and couldn't get it back in the stretch run of a Super Bowl season. So, the Redskins opened the 2004 season with veteran Mark Brunell, 34, a proven winner, at quarterback and Ramsey on the bench. Brunell completed less than 50 percent of his passes, and the offense never scored more than 18 points. In Week 11 at Philadelphia, Gibbs finally conceded the obvious and installed Ramsey as starter. At 25, Ramsey is the team's future. Although he has thrown a career-high 10 interceptions in six starts, he has completed a career-best 61.8 percent. Coming off a strong arm, that is a good place for Gibbs' latest quarterback project to start. Given the benefit of Gibbs' tutoring and a full offseason to grasp the evolving offense, Ramsey should be able to elevate the Redskins to legitimate contender in the weak NFC next season. Remember, Gibbs won a Super Bowl with Mark Rypien, too. -- Ken Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by goldenster95 So, the Redskins opened the 2004 season with veteran Mark Brunell, 34, a proven winner, at quarterback and Ramsey on the bench. Brunell completed less than 50 percent of his passes, and the offense never scored more than 18 points. In Week 11 at Philadelphia, Gibbs finally conceded the obvious and installed Ramsey as starter. At 25, Ramsey is the team's future. Although he has thrown a career-high 10 interceptions in six starts, he has completed a career-best 61.8 percent. Coming off a strong arm, that is a good place for Gibbs' latest quarterback project to start. Given the benefit of Gibbs' tutoring and a full offseason to grasp the evolving offense, Ramsey should be able to elevate the Redskins to legitimate contender in the weak NFC next season. Remember, Gibbs won a Super Bowl with Mark Rypien, too. -- Ken Murray Goldenster, this is still not a ringing endorsement. Its kind of like saying "well, he's the future because we don't have anyone else who's better". That's not to say he won't realize his potential with more time, but based on what I've seen, I'm not as enthusiastic as I was about him last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 It may not be as glowing as some might think, but the fact that he's been tabbed as the breakout player in '05 and the fact that the article mentions him as being the guy who'll make the 'Skins a legit contender in '05 is ringing enough for me. All I'm saying right now is that there's not nearly enough of a slate to judge Ramsey by. I'm more optimistic of his chances than you are, but I still believe the jury's out on him. Also, quite frankly, I don't think he'll be a breakout player next year because I predict he could still be on the learning curve up to the middle of the season next year. The most important thing that'll help Ramsey out in '05 is if Gibbs changes the offense -- in particular, the o-line's blocking scheme -- to suit Portis. By doing that, you open up the running game and Pat has a much better go of it, especially when he's still learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by goldenster95 Ahh, another troll missing the point. What a surprise. My point wasn't Big Ben's record, but a comparison of how one would fare in the other's situation. That comparison was made by others in this thread, a comparison that involved a discussion of the different circumstances -- i.e., o-line, WR, running game -- both QBs operated under. What's the best counter to this? Certainly not your blither which flays radically from the mark here. Rather, as someone else noted, if you want to compare Ben and Pat straight up, do things by pointing out the fact that Ben's more mobile. Here's some advice to you: most folks here realize that there's a flip side to points we make here. I'm one of them and acknowledge counter-points brought up like the one I just mentioned. Instead of trying to beat your own drum, maybe, just maybe, listening and lurking might be the best option for you. It certainly would've been for the last genius message you posted. BTW, you're welcome for my time. Recommend reading for this lesson: http://www.rif.org/ No, you are missing the point. You act as if Pat would be 13-0 right now if he was in his shoes and that is just foolish. I don't know if McNabb would be 13-0 in his shoes right now. You totally overlook the fact that the guy is a very special player, obviously, and a winner first and foremost. Some players are just natural winners and have the ability to do little things that don't show up on the stat-sheet to win. Roth is one. McNabb is another. I hate to say it, but Vick is another. Up to this point, Pat hasn't shown himself to be that player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nneece Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 The NFL is littered with QB's that the Redskins have disgarded which have gone on later to be Pro Bowl level talent. Trent Green and Brad Johnson come immediately to mind. I guarantee you that if the Redskins unload Ramsey, he will end up taking another franchise to the Super Bowl. The Redskins have to show for once in the past 10- 15 years that they can take a player at a key position such as QB and fully develop him and reap the rewards. The idea of a QB coming into the league and being immediately productive is mostly bunk. Look at Eli Manning. There are a couple of exceptions: most notably Rothensburgh and Brees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 No, you are missing the point. You act as if Pat would be 13-0 right now if he was in his shoes and that is just foolish. I don't know if McNabb would be 13-0 in his shoes right now. You totally overlook the fact that the guy is a very special player, obviously, and a winner first and foremost. Some players are just natural winners and have the ability to do little things that don't show up on the stat-sheet to win. Roth is one. McNabb is another. I hate to say it, but Vick is another. Up to this point, Pat hasn't shown himself to be that player. Pat hasn't been thrust into a situation like Ben's though. In his first year, he was a rookie. In his second year, he, as the QB in Spurrier's system, was required to win games as a first year starter. He didn't have any of the amenities that Ben had. This year, it's completely the opposite. The game has been taken out of his hands completely. If McNabb were put into the Pitts system, he had them winning blowouts week in and week out. The key with Pitt is that they've got a great gameplan, they've got the personnel to execute that gameplan, and they're actually executing it. We hardly have the gameplan ready right now, for either Pat or Portis. I do think we have most of the personnel to pull it off. Execution, that's something that needs to be worked on, as evidenced by the penalties we've been flagged for, time management, and the like. At some points in time, it looked like a friggin' circus out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.