Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

To all those who believe we should have "sit tight" and picked a QB in 2003...

Dirk Diggler

Recommended Posts

It is EXTREMELY foolish to think that we could just "sit tight" as you all put it and grab one of the franchise QB's next year. If that crop rivals the crop of '99 (which it doesnt) then the price to trade into the top 3 will be severe.

Remember when Ditka was trying to trade into the top 3 to get a chance at Ricky Williams? He was offering all his picks in 99 + a #1 in 2000 and a #1 in 2001. The teams picking there still wouldnt budge because A) they did not want to move down to #12 and B) they did not want to miss a chance at a franchise QB.

So unless you proponents of "sitting tight" actually believes we would have been a 5-11 team next year had we addressed both lines and added a Shane Matthews or Jeff Blake then you are all being silly and naive.

So be glad we took the bird in hand and have faith that SS knows a thing or 2 about offense. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, BoogieNight,

I know that the Ramsey fire is hot on the board...and that I was one of the people calling for waiting for next year. I still don't think that I was wrong.

(I do like the Ramsey trades for additional picks)

At the 18th pick, Ramsey would have been a big reach. There were holes to be filled and players that may have been available at that pick with moe value. I would not have been upset with a Fonoti, Gurode or Gaffney (All availble at 18) or one of the big DT's (not available at 18).

Regardless of how we finish this year, there was a good chance that one of the following would have been on the board by our first round next year: Grossman, Dorsey or Eli Manning. We would have filled a whole that probably will still be a hole next year. We could have signed Blake or Matthews for cheap (Look at today's action)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Color me naive then.

Id rather have Matthews for 2 years and on eof the top 4 QBs next year (Leftwich, Ragone, Simms, ELIELIELI!).

Not that Im unhappy with the way it turned out, but Id feel alot worse if we'd drafted Ramsey at 18. It's a solid pick at 32 with the extras we got.

But 5 years from now, Ramsey may be good in SOS system, may be gone. But I PROMISE you, Eli Manning will win MVP awards (unless he ends up in Cincy/Arizona)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulldog and others

Lets suspend disbelief for a second and assume that the 2003 draft is 5 deep at QB like 1999 was. Let's also assume that we are picking in the 12-18 range which to me sounds modest considering that we could have easily won 9-10 games with Matthews + Oline help.

To answer Bulldogs question, Culpepper fell b/c teams needing a QB had to predict which players fit best in their systems. Culpepper could easily have gone #3 to the Bengals instead of Akili Smith. If that had happend then the best 3 QB's would have gone 1-2-3 (Couch, McNabb, Culpepper). But they didn't and Culpepper fell. Not because he wasnt highly rated, but for a # of reasons:

1) Cincy fell in love with another QB.

2) The teams between Cincy (#3) and Minnesota (#11) had to chose between Dante Culpepper and Edgerin James, Ricky Williams, Champ Bailey, Torry Holt, David Boston, Chris McCallister etc. Not an easy choice, huh?

3)Culpepper came from a small school and was rated anywhere from the best player in the draft (Minnesotas board) to somewhere in the 20's on other teams boards. Hell, Minnesota didnt even NEED a QB but took one anyway b/c he was considered a FRANCHISE QB in their eyes.

So to sum up: In order for us to have missed out on one of next years "studs" we would need the falling to fall into place:

1) We would need to have sucked this coming year despite all the strides we've made this off season.

2) We would need 4 maybe 5 franchise QB's to all make strides and develop this year AND have Eli Manning to declare early.

3) We would need 6 maybe 7 super blue chip players such as the ones in 1999 to make it more difficult for teams to have to chose between players, breaking up the selections of consecutive franchise QB's.

So how likely does all of this sound? That's what I tought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Some of us still think that Ramsey is a reach and that it took a nice post combine effort to overlook his prior poor performance.

Duante was a need for the Vikes when you consider they suckered us into wasting a first rounder on B Johnson and was left with J George at QB.

And got a steal in the deal which is why people look at the QB and not the school all of the time

Next year's crop at this time will include 2 CBs, 1 LB, 2 DTs,2 OTs atleast 1DE, 4 WRs and 2 RBs to go with the 5 to 6 QBs.

What will you guys say if Sage beats out Ramsey? And it not that impossible to see that happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if Sage does beat out Ramsey this year. After all Sage has one year of experience more than Ramsey. But personally I think Sage may be the one who gets cut over Craig. Why? Because both years Sage was quarterback in college, he threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Thats not a good sign. Based on their respective college records, Craig is a more accurate passer than Sage.

Plus Marty picked Sage about two or three rounds before everyone else, in that most boards had him rated as a 6th or 7th round pick. Just because SS says a few nice words about Sage in April, doesnt mean anything in the long run. Marty said some nice things too last year about players in April, and then at the end of August it was -- adios, it was nice knowing ya. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirk, your own argument undermines your position. If Culpepper fell to #11 because teams picking after #3 had other needs, then wouldn't it be prudent to believe that NEXT year some of the teams at the top of the draft order such as the Texans (with Carr on board) and the Lions (with Harrington) would probably also NOT be in the market for a quarterback? :)

the one thing you don't EVER want to do is take a mediocre player in the draft over a blue-chipper because you have a need you want to fill.

I don't think at #32 that Ramsey was a reach at all. So I don't have a problem with it per se.

But I WOULD have had a problem with taking Rohan Davey with the #18 or #21 picks or even the #32 pick. :D

My original point was that it was better to wait rather than FORCE a pick.

But from what I have read Spurrier believes that Rosenfels and Ramsey CAN be prepared over the summer to compete for the starting job come September.

And on that basis we will have to reserve judgment. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What prior poor performance could you possibly be referring to? Ramsey played on one of the 10 least talented teams in 1-A this year. Are you referring to his record? Let me assure you that he was single handedly keeping a wretched team in most of their football games. They only won 3 or 4 I believe but it's a little tough when your team is giving up 70 points to BYU. No that is not a misprint, 70 points.

So with probably the worst defense in college football, a cast of nobodies at WR, and a line that almost put Ramsey in the hospital --he was still able to compete (well) in an up and coming division. And anybody who knows anything about college football knows that Conference USA is the most underrated division in the NCAA. Better than the division that Carr played in and equal to the PAC 10 that Joey Harrington lit up.

And Culpepper was most certainly not a need for the Vikes in 1999. Yes, they needed a young QB to groom but he wasn't expected to see the field in 3 or 4 years. Remember the 1998 Vikes? Who was the MVP that year? QB Randall Cunningham won the NFL MVP that year. And the Vikes gave him a huge contract. The backup was Jeff George, so by no means was he a need.

And If Sage beats out Ramsey, then we are far better off at QB then anyone is giving us credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dirk, your own argument undermines your position. If Culpepper fell to #11 because teams picking after #3 had other needs, then wouldn't it be prudent to believe that NEXT year some of the teams at the top of the draft order such as the Texans (with Carr on board) and the Lions (with Harrington) would probably also NOT be in the market for a quarterback? "

My point was that it will take 6-7 super blue chip players in a row to break up the supposed 4 Blue Chip QB's everyone is salivating over. You look at the top 10 of that draft (1999) and it was elite player after elite player. Teams refused to trade out of there because they didnt want to miss out on a chance to get Champ

Bailey, Torry Holt, David Boston, Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, shall I go on? No one has seen a top 10 like that in 20 years. The 1989 draft was close but no cigar.

If there are the QB's you say there are, then teams who are picking in the 6-12 range will be trading up for the chance to take one. Above the Detroits, Houstons, and other teams who are set at QB but have poor records to show for it.

Now, if you believe that we would have sucked next year then it is possible that we missed out on a chance to get a top QB. But keep in mind that those QB's are going to come at a verrry steep price when so and so is on the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't predicate what you will do in one season based on who will be available in next year's draft. Look at Lee Evans the WR from Wisconsin--he decides to stay in school and injurys his knee in spring practice. I can't remember the name of the safety from Georgia Tech a few years ago--he was all world as a junior. He was going to be a top ten pick if he came out--he stayed--had a horrible senior season and lost his desire to play foootball. He only lasted a year or two as a pro. You can't predict how next years draft will turn out--we can't even predict how the guys we just drafted are going to perform. I like Manning-but would he be available next year and when we draft-no one knows. I could put holes in the rest of those quarterbacks. Also, Ramsey isn't going to break the bank to sign-he can make all the throws and is a noted quick study. The last Super Bowls have shown us that the Qb just needs to be solid- not spectacular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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