|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
[ 6]
7
8
SmootSmack 12-13-2004, 10:07 PM SC, ok so Ramsey is below average right now. But let me ask you this, is he-in your mind-improving? Is he a better QB now than he was a month ago?
I would say that while he's not preparing his speech for Canton right now, he is a better QB
VTSkins897 12-13-2004, 10:59 PM true das. i definitely didn't want brunell in DC...
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 12-13-2004, 11:08 PM SC,
Coles, even as his toe is now, as a number 3 wideout? :stop: There are GMs who would give their left nut to have Coles as a number 2 and a lot who would love to have him as their #1. Let me break it down:
Panthers - Muhammed is damn good, but not better than Coles
Dolphins - Booker/Chambers - Coles beats em both
Pats - they've got excellent depth but no one as talented as Coles
Ravens - nuff said
Bears - nuff said
Jets - I'd take Coles over Moss
Browns - Morgan and Bryant are good #2's
Jags - I take Coles over Smith (who's aging)
Broncos - Lelie has had one decent year
Chiefs- Morton/Kennison don't match up
Raiders - Porter is a solid #2
Chargers - Don't overestimate McCardell
Cowboys - Would you take Kewshawn over Coles; I wouldn't
Falcons - Peerless Price has lived up to his name, just not the Falcons expectations
49ers - Lloyd ain't TO
Seahawks - I'll take Robinson with a side of weed and a few drops
Giants - Toomer and Coles are a push
Titans - Mason and Coles are a draw
Packers - Playing with Favre makes Walker look better than he is
Saints - An aging Horn and Coles are a push
Bucs - Clayton will be a star, but he isn't yet
Vikes - I don't like Moss, but he's a stud
Lions - Roy Williams is the next TO
Bengals - Johnson is better
Steelers - Ward is better
Texans - Johnson will be better but he's a #3 pick and cost more
Colts - Harrison; they don't come any better
Eagles - Sorry to say TO beats LC
Rams - Okay, Bruce and Holt are better and their contracts show that
Cardinals - Boldin's better & so is Fitzgerald, but Fitz was a top 5 pick
Of 32 teams, only 9 have a better #1 IMO and of those, only the Cards, Bengals, and Lions are paying less for their #1. Finally, as to turf toe, it a serious issue, but it's not as though the guy is suffering from a broken neck; he'll recover in time.
As to Ramsey, I didn't just say he was a statistical improvement over Brunell. I said he improved our offense and our team as a whole. I honestly think he gives us a chance to win. It just so happens we've had playcallers who either gave him NO protection or kept him on a 5 yard leash.
Daseal 12-14-2004, 12:04 AM Ramsey: I don't agree with you on a lot of teams:
Panthers: Steve Smith, been on IR all year one of my favorite receivers.
Dolphins: Ill take Chambers or Booker any day!
Tennessee: Mason better
Giants: Coles better than Toomer
Saints: Horn is better
Agree with the rest.
heybigstar 12-14-2004, 12:52 AM Way earlier someone said ST is overhyped... for christ sakes he is 21 years old...
he has made big hits as well as been responsible for 5 int's this year in his first year,
he also makes wide receivers drop passes out of fear....
The Great Sonny Jurgensen said on Redskins report last week: "If you look at every
team around the league, each team has 2 or 3 great players... now.... Sean Taylor....
(softly) Sean Tayor is a rare player.....
He will be an All-pro next year.. guaranteed...
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 12-14-2004, 01:40 AM Ramsey: I don't agree with you on a lot of teams:
Panthers: Steve Smith, been on IR all year one of my favorite receivers.
Dolphins: Ill take Chambers or Booker any day!
Tennessee: Mason better
Giants: Coles better than Toomer
Saints: Horn is better
Agree with the rest.
Steve Smith is a very good receiver, but I don't think he's as good as Coles (in terms of toughness and class and he's speedy but not as speedy as Coles).
Horn's better, but he'll be 33 next season, cost the Saints over $5 million this season, and last season produced less than 1,000 yards. So, I'd take Coles.
Mason is good, but he's got durability issues, is 30 years old, in 8 seasons has produced only one 80+ reception season and three 1,000 yard seasons, and he carries a cap figure of almost $6 million.
Chambers and Booker are very solid starters, but I don't think I'd rather have either one of them over Coles.
Booker will be 29 next season, has produced only 2 seasons in his career of over 1,000 yards and only 2 seasons of 65+ receptions, averages just 11 ypc, and last season produced just 52 receptions for 715 yards.
Chambers has yet to produce a 1,000 yard season and has never caught more than 64 balls in a season. He's got potential, but that potential has not yet been realized.
Since becoming a full-time starter, Coles has produced 59 catches for 868 yards, 89 catches for 1,264 yards, 82 catches for 1,204 yards (while injured in an offense guided by Rob Johnson, Patrick Ramsey, and Tim Hasselbeck), and is on pace for 94 yards and 1,010 yards in an offense that has stunk this season and with a dislocated finger (against the Cowturds) and severe turf toe.
As for fumbles, his chances of fumbling on each catch is lower than any of the other WRs you said are better. His chances of losing a fumble are only 1 in 328.
*(1/328)=1 for every 328 receptions
Coles - 1 lost (1/328), 3 total (1/109)
Booker - 2 lost (1/178), 5 total (1/71)
Mason - 6 lost (1/72), 12 total (1/36)
Chambers - 1 lost (1/223), 4 total (1/55)
Horn - 3 lost (1/159), 7 total (1/68)
The guy plays with heart and fights for each and every yard; he NEVER gives up. I have so much respect for the guy.
skinsguy 12-14-2004, 02:11 AM I didn't get to see the game Sunday night, but I figured the "boo birds" would come out once again if the Redskins lost. I suppose maybe it's far more easier to be critical of the team, than to just cheer for them win or lose. I thought the Redskins could have beaten the Eagles, but wasn't surprised when they didn't. The Eagles are the best team in the NFC and only beating the Redskins by 3 points and themselves not being able to score over 17 points against us shows me that the Skins fought hard. Most of us said even if the Redskins DID when this game, they wouldn't have had as good of a game statistically as they did against the Giants.
Still, the Redskins have a good chance of finishing out the season at 7-9. Maybe it's just me, but I think when skins fans find more pleasure in criticing the team rather than being Redskins fans, maybe it's time for them to move on.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 12-14-2004, 02:42 AM I'd be fine with 7-9. It's an inaugural season. We've got an ENTIRELY new coaching staff and 7 new starters on defense and 5 new starters on offense (that's over half the team).
Give us time, we shall see Gibbs bring us victory.
bedlamVR 12-14-2004, 02:49 AM Glass half full.. more like glass smashed on the floor and in splinters swept up and put in the trash three weeks ago. I would like to know who other than Smoot who by definition is unable to walk on water next year might get beaten will be an overpriced bum next year does SC want on the team . Who would he like coachng?
So far Ramsey needs replacing, as do our entire WR corp except possibly thrash and Coles, 3/5ths of our offensive line, our place kicker, ST, all but one of the TE's, I have not seen comments about Portis or Betts but i am sure one of them could go and lets say we could afford these wholesale changes .... how would we be better by bringing in 9-10 min salary starters?
No we are not good but we are not that bad there is a difference between being realistic and optomistic but equally there is a diffference between being objective and being pessermistic... if only there were some happy medium..
jbcjr14 12-14-2004, 09:22 AM All I can say is....WOW.
|