I didn’t like the hacney cut either, but Styg made an excellent observation:

Risk management

Perhaps the best way to think about Ramsey is as the most neutral option we have at backup QB. There is literally no upside with him in, and if he cut down on the INTs (which he could I think. They aren’t like the INTs that Plummer used to throw, though he has ben tempting double coverage for a number of them, and not reading the safeties) then there wouldn’t be an downside to speak of.

He is a boring, unathletic, noodlearmed veteran backup who can probably recite Shanny’s playbook back to him, and I think that is what Shanny really wants. The only thing I know of that translated from preseason to practice was the weakarmed, lack of athleticism. Otherwise he looks ok, just not to guys who watch football to see the BEST players in the world. Hackney looked good last night, but running a very limited form of the offense. His previous preseason reps were practically cookie-cutter. Is Hackney a playmaker? Absolutely. But for all of Shanny’s high risk decisions, I think he is a low-risk person by nature, but willing to make the tough choice when his back is against a wall. You don’t focus the WCO so heavily on running game production by accident, whichc is a very conservative philosophy. 8 in the box is also very conservative.

When it comes to winning games with Cutler out, Shanny is saying that he won’t gameplan around his QB. He wants a guy who won’t get penalties lining people up wrong, won’t forget the play in the huddle, and will be able to run anything Shanny calls. The question mark right now is Ramsey’s INTs, which probably will force Shanny to limit his playbook somewhat. I’m sure Shanny is looking for an upgrade in this area.

Bottom line is that Hackney may have a "winning edge" over Ramsey, but it isn’t enough of a winning edge to be a go to guy in the NFL yet. It might work once, but Shanny has to plan on how to win multiple games not just a couple. I know we all think we are screwed if Cutler goes down, but Shanny doesn’t have the luxury of accepting that as fact. He has to put an opton out that gives him something to work with for multiple games. He doesn’t want his backup QB to be a "winner" as much as he wants him to stay out of the way of the other 44 guys he has in his gameplan. THAT is risk management.

As far as I am concerned, we should not go after Rudi Johnson. Our system (beyond just football Xs and Os) seems dependent on saving money at RB (thanks to our running schemes), so we can spend elsewhere. There’s no need to pay for talent when we can exceed 1000 yards pre year (per HB). In fact, we can then turn around and trade runners for draft picks or other players (Champ Bailey being the prime example). I’m not knocking Rudi. It’s just that we can have success with many RBs, but we have other positions that deserve more attention if we are going after FAs or trades. Just my opinion.

I share your concern with TEs. Gates and Gonzales are slowing down, but they are still threats, as are the TEs we will meet from other teams. There are two common ways to stop a TE who can go out and catch:

1) Use a SAM LB, or
2) Use a SS.

In the MNF game against Oakland, it would be worth your time to watch how Denver covers the opposition TE. We have new guys at both SS and SAM, so we’ll find out pretty quick how we look.

(BTW, I don’t expect oak to let their TE loose very much. I expect he will stay in to run block for their RB corps, and stay back to protect JM to buy him time for the verticle passes. Still, it will be worth watching to see how many times, if any, we get burned by a TE, especially in the redzone).

Great questions! I hope Styg and I had some good thoughts! (Styg’s answer was actually a coment to me, and I bought into his reasoning).

Have had excellent pass protection recently if I remember correctly, and the halfback plays a big part in that in most pass-oriented offenses like the Bengals run.