Second look at Ramsey

As for the comment about every QB has to learn a new system every year you will find the sucessful teams are the ones whe the OC and offensive philosophy stay the same. Sure the Vikes offence for example will have new wrinkles in it every year, but with the same coach and philosophy these wrinkles will be minor changes building on what was working last year. Players have confidence in a winning system and execute it far better. When you undergo such dramatic change in personel as the Skins did this year then it is like starting afresh. Many people point at the changes the Giants underwent this year also yet they really didn't win this game as opposed the the Skins loosing it.

Sure players have training camp to get the fundementals of any new system down but until you get into the season and against live fire it is hard for any players to translate it into game play .
I was getting ready to post the same things, but I'm glad to see you beat me to it!

Ramsey has had perhaps the bumpiest introduction to the NFL that any quarterback could undergo. Spurrier's impact on this kid is going to take some time to undo, but if any coaching staff can do it, this one can.

As for project QBs being a thing of the past, let's not be so quick to jump to conclusions based on Tom Brady's stellar ascent to NFL God status. Tom Brady is an exceptional player on an exceptional team with an exceptional coaching staff. To look at him and expect all QBs to be measured by his standard is a little unrealistic. It's like saying, "Okay, now any quarterback we draft must take us to 2 Super Bowls in 3 years, or we'll just have to drop him and move in another direction."

I just don't understand how people can expect Ramsey to come in to camp, learn a whole new system that has an entirely different philosophy from Spurrier's, and also relearn his mechanics on top of that, and expect him to be functioning at a high level right off the bat. It's not like Brunell has the offense down pat either. And he's an 11 year vet who's been around the block.

Like JC said, people want to keep pointing at exceptions to the rule like Brady and question why Ramsey can't make the same instant transition. Sorry folks, guys like Brady are rare, and like I said, exceptions to the rule.

Patrick Ramsey did NOT lose the game on Sunday. Let's not get carried away here. That loss was a total team effort.

Patrick Ramsey did NOT look good in the game on Sunday. If you want to say that he had great footwork in the pocket and a timed release of the ball and is ready for his nomination to Canton Ohio, you are free to do so. You are also getting carried away in the other direction.

Gardner's drops were horrendous and did not help the Skins and made Ramsey's efforts less than wonderful. By the same token, Gardner's catch on Ramsey's "50 yard heave" was a circus catch. The ball was overthrown and Cardner put the Skins in a position to score with his extraordinary effort. It was not nearly enough.

What Ramsey lacks is consistency - same for Gardner. Is that lack of experience or lack of concentration or what? I don't read minds; I don't know. Here is what I do know. In September 2004, Patrick Ramsey is not capable of being the starting QB for an NFL football team that expects to go deep into the playoffs. Maybe a lightbulb will go off in his head and he'll "get it" all of a sudden and lead this team somewhere positive this year. But until I see on field evidence of that "got it" position, I'm not going to feel very confident if he as to start the next few games.

Kyle Boller is a second year QB with limited experience. He has played about as well as Ramsey has. Is anyone here ready to anoint Boller as a great QB yet? I didn't think so.

Marc Bulger has about the same experience base as Ramsey. Which one is better right now? Neither is star quality, but if you think Ramsey is better, you are deluding yourself.

Rex Grossman has significantly LESS experience than Ramsey. Who is the better starting QB FOR NEXT SUNDAY ?

How about AJ Feeley? I think I prefer Ramsey, but not by much?

Do not even put Ramsey in the same paragraph with Harrington or Carr as of September 2004. It makes no sense to do that.

And if you want to revel in the fact that Couch and McNown are out of the NFL (as is Akili Smith from that same draft), please do not forget to recall that Donovan McNabb and Duante Culpepper are still around and seem to have "gotten it" a whole lot sooner than Ramsey and those other guys. Or is someone here about to say that he'd rather have Ramsey over McNabb and/or Culpepper?
I was merely pointing out Ramsey's footwork and release because others have said he hasn't improved in that area, don't confuse that for a nomination for Canton.

Right now Bulger is better than Ramsey, Feeley isn't, Grossman isn't, as for Carr and Harrington of course it's not fair to compare that trio, Carr and Harrington are the unquestioned franchise QB's, their teams have built the offenses around them, we haven't shown the same commitment to Ramsey just yet.

But just for the sake of comparing the numbers, Ramsey's does hold up pretty well when you look at each QB's first 16 starts.

Dude, if Gardiner doesn't play like a moron, and blow the TD, I think Ramsey doesn't press and throw that last INT.

Yup!! :dallas:

Ramsey has an opportunity on Monday night at home against our most hated rival to wipe the slate clean. If Gibbs runs a conservative offense and Ramsey follows his instructions we will lead at the half and Ramsey's confidence is increased. But if we come out with those busted trick plays that seem to attract turnovers, Ramsey will have a hard time. At this point, Ramsey should not be given any passing plays within 15 yards of the endzone. Our running game must establish the pace even if it ends up as a field goal. This is going to be a low scoring game just because of the urgency on both sides to win this game by any means neccessary. If Ramsey wants to lead this team into the future, there is no other opponent we could put in front of him to beat.

Yeah, this "should" be a real defensive struggle. With the defense we have shown, if Ramsey just avoids mistakes and doesn't get sacked too often, we have a great shot of winning. Sounds like the old George Allen/Billy Kilmer philosophy that I always disliked. But I just want to beat those b*stards.

Anyway, we played a 100% awful game on offense. Period. If we had lucked out, scored and won, would you all feel a lot better? I don't know about you, but I was screaming at my tv during that game. I'm not down on this team, but sometimes a good ass beating isn't the worst thing for a team to get, better than a cheap win that over inflates the collective ego.

It is actually a good thing that we didn't pull it out and win. Good defense winning an ugly game is one thing, but this performance by the offense was inexcusable. Seven turnovers are going to make you lose 99% of the time, and if we would have been that 1% and won, that lesson would be harder to teach. I truly believe that this horrible game will make the team better and will motivate them to crush Dallass and get on a roll for the rest of the year.

SkinsRock I completely agree. You never like to lose that's for sure. But considering the type of game the Skins played on Sunday pulling out a victory might have been the worst thing that could happen to them. They'd think they were untouchable and destined for greatness.

Monday is going to be a tough, tough battle-almost at the level of Canes and my battle in the $$ league this weekend-and I'm reluctant to make any prediction but regardless of the outcome I want the Redskins to play smart and tough. If they do that then we can say that they benefitted from Sunday's loss...if not...:banghead:

I don't think a near win is as great a teaching tool as a near loss. A victory over the Giants not only affects the Redskins but it also drops the Giants home loseing streak to 10 in a row. They drop to 0-2 in the division and overall. This game and Dallas at home are to me the biggest games of the year. The Giants francise is where we were when Schottenheimer was the coach. We can not afford to lose any close divisional games especially against the Giants and Cowboys. If anything, I don't think a victory over the Giants would have made the team over confident as much as it would illustrate to a young team how to finish a close one.

Gibbs' primary objective in re-shaping Ramsey should be to break him of this "Favre syndrome" he seems to suffering from. Like Favre, Ramsey has a heck of an arm, and he knows it. Like Favre, he's so confident in his arm that he thinks he can make any throw from anywhere on the field. Like Favre, that stubborn insistence upon making the throw at all costs winds up costing his team the game in too many instances.

Where Ramsey differs from Favre is in the winning department. Favre has bought himself the license to make stupid throws, because those gambles have occasionally paid off-- and in some cases, paid off big. Favre's recklessness, while still a liability for the most part, totters precariously on the fine line between stupidity and heroism, whereas Ramsey's foolhardy gunslinger mentality almost always backfires, and is certainly a liability for a quarterback hoping to take the full-time reigns of a Gibbs offense.

If Gibbs does nothing else this week, he should strap Ramsey to a chair like the antihero in A Clockwork Orange, and force him to watch looped footage of quarterbacks making stupid throws that cost their teams the game. It's going to take some hardcore de-programming like that to purge all those evil little Spurrierisms from Ramsey's sack-riddled brain.

Seriously though, this week's gameplan should be centered upon establishing the run early (duh! This is Gibbs after all, and Dallas is ranked a paltry 27th against the run), and when the play does call for a pass, it needs to be in maximum protection rollouts, with Gibbs firmly reminding Ramsey over the headset, "If it's not there, just throw it away!"

Run the ball, protect the quarterback, protect the ball, control the clock... help the defense win the game.