But the thing that the CS and most of the fans have seen from Ratliff was progress. We've seen it from Clemens but not continued progress. Clemens looked good for a quarter against Baltimore and then again in the 4th against Washington. But for the most part, I don't see any difference from Clemens when he has a much better offense around him. I'm not giving up him either, but I want to see him get better with each game I see, not stand still.
fully aware that it was part of one preseason game; all the more reason to see him against some first team defenses. agree with all comments - i think the jets have reserved themselves already that clemens is 50/50 at best to be the next LT starter..... the trick now is to decide if ratliff is a real possibility - enough to stop them from drafting a QB early in 09. jil
Clemens, IMO, did not show any signs last year of being good. Look -- hes a pro qb -- so he is going to have a good game or so -- and did against Balt. But nothing he did last year led me to say -- if he had a good OL hed be good -- or with a little more experience he wont make that pass. I was underwhelmed.
see there is a sister thread with this same topic.... ok who has the official start time for each?? i plead ignorant. jil
This about sums it up for me, too. I like Clemens, but I sometimes wonder if he thinks quick enough "on his feet." I hate to say it, but sometimes he seems a little dense... just an impression I have and don't even know why. Yeah, the Ravens game was a good quarter but there have been some pretty piss-poor decisions as well. He stays in the pocket well and displays a lot of courage until the last second, but look at both of those Ratliff passes to Clowney and he's doing the same thing... staying in the pocket but making a great decision to heave it to Clowney, then releasing the ball well (executing well) while knowing he's probably going to wind up on his ass in the next second or two. A lot has to do with intelligence and being able to "run" the entire offense smoothly. Penny had that down pat and it looks like Ratliff is getting there, but Clemens seems to struggle in that category somewhat. We have to see more of Ratliff and Clemens to know and perhaps this is why we didn't see Clemens for very long in the Browns preseason game. Many of us were wondering why, and now maybe we know why... it's because Mangini and Schotty wanted to see more of Ratliff and Ainge and get closer to a #2 QB decision.
I had something very important to say -- and be damned if i am going to look if someone else posted first.
You might want to mind what you say to someone like Tony who's been here much longer than you and has a ton of respect around here. He's earned it
Based on the alignment in tc yesterday, Clemens is still #2. But it does seem that Ratliff is breathing down his neck, and if current trends continue, I hope he overtakes him and becomes the backup. Going back to last year, it was evident to me that Ratliff has better mechanics. Now that he has been given more reps and PT, he is doing very well. If he keeps moving along the learning curve, and Clemens keeps stalling, the result will become obvious to everyone who is paying attention.
You might want to step back and calm down. Tony has been around forever and was an Admin for quite a while. As for Ratliff, I know people don't agree with me. But I truly believe we are carrying 4 QBs this year. Favre, Ratliff, Clemens and Ainge. Ratliff and Ainge would be snagged off the PS pretty fast. Since Brett is a 1-2 year QB bridge, it wouldn't make sense to cut loose any of the young guns until we see more of what they can do.
I would like to see Ratliff play vs. some starters before we all anoint him Favre's backup. Kellen is still a young QB with a ton of upside, not to mention he has cannon. I love the fact that Ratliff had a great game and it would be great if e ended up being a Kurt Warner type, but I don't get why everyone is throwing Kellen to the curb.
So the site now has Favre rules? Different rules for different posters? Unless it's a chronic problem with the individual, people should just lay off anyone who posts a topic that's already been addressed. As this case shows, it happens to the best. :wink:
I think you need to look up tenure in the dictionary because it doesn't mean you're entitled to break the rules.
