[sportscurmudgeon]

Illdefined:

This year's DL is a HUGE improvement over last year's DL and the reason is that they did two things in the off-season:

1. They got a different Defensive Coordinator

2. They got rid of a bunch of lazy and overpaid guys who - by the way - have not caught on anywhere else and risen to stardom.

That amounts to "blowing up the DL" and using some smarts in order to put together a new unit that is not flashy and not fancy, but it gets the job done.

By the way, it ought to be a severe indictment of EVERYONE who was invovled in any way in selecting that crew for a DL last year. And by everyone I mean anyone from Danny Boy down to the guy who puts out the towels and the soap in the shower room.


Ramseyfan:

Coles was a great acquisition back when he was not hurt. He was really good in 02 and was fine in 03. He plays hard on every play and he plays hurt. I said that I admire all that. Now, when I watch him in the final days of 04, I see someone who cannot run nearly as fast as he could in 02 and someone who does not have nearly the accdeleration coming out of a break as he did in 02. That's not because he is a bad guy or a loafer or a mediocre player; it is because he is hurt. Now the long range planning question for the Skins is this: Is he going to get better or not? That's a combination football/medical question and I admit I have no idea what the probablilities are here. Maybe he needs surgery; maybe he needs rest and therapy; maybe he needs a trip to Lourdes; maybe it will never get better. I don't know; I suggest that the coaches better damned well have a very well informed opinion on this by February 2005.

If Coles is likely to get better, then he stays for sure and is your #1 guy and all you need do for the WRs is to go build around him. If he is not likely to get better - meaning he regains his previous straight-away speed and his acceleration out of a cut - then at best he is your #2 guy and maybe he his only your #3 guy. That presents a much harder problem for the coaching and scouting staff because lead WRs don't come cheap and there ai'nt a whole lot of cap room. But they have to do the unemotional evaluation and the planning because this WR corps full of beasts and warriors and guys who catch TDs and guys who make spectacular plays grades out to be - - mediocre.

I said that Ramsey was an improvement - statistically - over Brunell and I believe that in December 2004 Ramsey is a better QB than Brunell. That ain't saying much, but if it makes you happy to hear it again, I'll be glad to say it. I would absolutely not go back to Brunell. In fact, in my musings about what to do next year, I said that you had to give serious consderation to cutting Brunell and taking the cap hit. But Ramsey isn't even average yet. Remember, average means that there would be 15 or 16 starting QBs in the NFL next week who are worse than him NOW. Don't get caught up in the "potential" business; I'm talking NOW. I've gone through the starting QBs for next week and I can't find 15 who are worse; I can find 10, but that's about it. So, as of this weekend, he is "below average" for the job he is being asked to do. Maybe he'll be much better next year or some day in the future, but right now...

Thanks to all of you who tried to figure out Ramsey's win/loss record as a starter. Your consensus is that he indeed has won less than ten games and has lost about 60% of the games he started My guess was that he had won less than 10 games and had lost about 66% of the games he had started. That's imperfect but not off by a mile...