Joe Gibbs and Patrick Ramsey could have won a Super Bowl.

[Shilsu]

While browsing various threads and researching quarterbacks, I seriously wonder if Joe Gibbs blew an opportunity to win a fourth Super Bowl. The best way to predict what could've happened, especially in hindsight, is to use the facts of what actually happened.

Let's go back to 2004 when Gibbs first arrived. Ramsey was the incumbent starting quarterback entering his third NFL season. In his two previous years, he had thrown for 23 TD, 17 INT, and posted a QB rating of 74.2. Not very impressive, but nor were the teams that Ramsey was leading. In 2002, the only legitimate weapon he had was Stephen Davis in the backfield. In 2003, he had only Laveranues Coles and Rod Gardner to bail him out from horrible protection schemes and mediocre running backs (Trung Candidate and Ladell Betts).

Unfortunately for Ramsey, Joe Gibbs went out and traded a third round draft pick for Mark Brunell and gave him a starter-caliber contract. Supposedly, the starting position was up for open competition. Brunell looked decidedly better in preseason, quickly destroying any controversy, and was subsequently named the starter.

We then laid witness to one of the worst offenses we had ever seen, with the most glaring aspect being Brunell's play. The signature moment for me was the Cleveland game when Brunell overthrew a pass out of bounds over the head of a streaking Coles who was wide open behind both the corner and safety. We lost that game.

In his nine starts, Brunell threw for 7 TD, 6 INT, and posted a QB rating of 63.9. His completion percentage was a jaw-dropping 49.8%.

It was during the ninth game versus the Bengals that Redksins fans at FedEx Field had enough and began chanting, "RAMSEY! RAMSEY! RAMSEY!". I remember because I was at that game. The crowd cheered when they noticed that Patrick Ramsey was beginning to warm up on the sidelines. Ramsey had made just one appearance prior during the season when he was thrown into a lopsided game versus the Giants with the score being 20-7. He looked horrible. Unfortunately, this was also another lopsided game with the score being 17-0 and Ramsey once again looked horrible.

But Patrick Ramsey was now the starter. Joe Gibbs had made the switch.

In the last seven games of the 2004 season, Ramsey had a completion percentage of 65.4% and posted a QB rating of 89.4. Even more impressive, Ramsey had to play versus the Super Bowl bound Philadelphia Eagles twice, the 15-1 Pittsburgh Steelers once, and one final game versus eventually playoff-bound Minnesota Vikings who had everything to play for as they had not clinched at the time of the game.

Fast forward to the offseason. Joe Gibbs says Patrick Ramsey is the starter for 2005, but after suffering an injury in the opener versus the Chicago Bears, Mark Brunell was once again named the #1 quarterback. Ramsey only got limited opportunities after that but in each instance, he peformed as well as, if not better than, Mark Brunell in the same game.

Week 1 - vs Chicago Bears
In 16 minutes of play, Patrick Ramsey threw 6/11 for 105 yards and 1 INT. In 44 minutes of play, Mark Brunell threw 8/14 for 70 yards with 0 TD and 0 INT.

Week 7 - vs San Francisco 49ers
The game was a blowout and the Redskins decided to rest their starters. Patrick Ramsey came in relief for Brunell and threw 1/1 for 8 yards.

Week 8 - @ New York Giants
The second consecutive blowout in a row. Except this time, the Redskins were on the losing end. Down 36-0, Ramsey comes in and throws 3/6 for 62 yards in the last minute of the 3rd quarter plus the entire fourth quarter. No TD or INT. Mark Brunell threw 65 yards in the previous three quarters with 0 TD and 1 INT.

Week 16 - vs New York Giants
Mark Brunell was 7/11 for 112 yards and 2 TD in 37 minutes before he got knocked out of the game due to injury. With the Redskins holding a slim lead at 21-17, Ramsey finished the game with a win, throwing 5/7 for 104 yards and 1 TD in 23 minutes.

For the 2005 regular season, Patrick Ramsey had posted a QB rating of 95.6. In comparison, Mark Brunell's rating was a respectable 85.9.

To recap what then happened in the postseason, Mark Brunell played horribly after his injury in Week 16. The offense sputtered with Brunell setting records for futility in the wildcard win against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. We then proceeded to lose to the Seattle Seahawks 20-10, with our only touchdown coming in the fourth quarter when the Seahawks had gone to prevent defense.

The Seahawks went on to crush the Carolina Panthers by 34-14 and lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl, 21-10.

So what if we had competent QB play through the playoffs? Is there any reason to believe we couldn't have beaten the Seahawks? How about the Panthers? How about the Steelers, who were hardly a powerhouse as they had some lucky bounces and missed field goals go their way that allowed them to make the Super Bowl?

If we had competent QB play, what was stopping us?

Nothing.

So is there any reason to believe that Ramsey couldn't have provided that competent QB play?

Joe Gibbs could have won his fourth Super Bowl with his fourth quarterback.

Use the facts and decide.

[STBonecrusher21]

Patrick Ramsey?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Mooka]

So is there any reason to believe that Ramsey couldn't have provided that competent QB play? Yes.

[Shilsu]

Patrick Ramsey?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Yes.

How about giving reasoning?

[909997]

no because hes wasnt even 3rd string on the jets

kellen clemens and brooks bollinger beat him for the job.

in denver he cant even beat out jaycutler a 2nd year QB.

and brunell was more mobile then ramsey which was sad.

[Shilsu]

no because hes wasnt even 3rd string on the jets

kellen clemens and brooks bollinger beat him for the job.

in denver he cant even beat out jaycutler a 2nd year QB.

and brunell was more mobile then ramsey which was sad.

That didn't stop Todd Collins from marching the Redskins into the playoffs for 2007, did it?

[STBonecrusher21]

How about giving reasoning?

You did say Patrick Ramsey, correct?

[Shilsu]

You did say Patrick Ramsey, correct?

Yes I did. Did you see what he did under Gibbs? He did better than both Mark Brunell and Jason Campbell.

[Clinton Portis # 26]

You need some sleep buddy.

[E33Green]

Dude, i gotta get me some of that **** you're smokin. You think Ramsey would have completed those 2 bombs deep to Santana in Dallas?

[Shilsu]

Dude, i gotta get me some of that **** you're smokin. You think Ramsey would have completed those 2 bombs deep to Santana in Dallas?

First of all, my question was what if Ramsey was used in the playoffs, not if he had started the whole season. And the reason those 2 bombs were needed in the first place was the piss-poor play by Brunell in the first 58 minutes.

[STBonecrusher21]

Yes I did. Did you see what he did under Gibbs? He did better than both Mark Brunell and Jason Campbell.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Shilsu]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Obviously you have a difficult time grasping numbers and/or reading.

[Mattskins83]

You have valid points...all points that have been put on this board for the last three years. Ramsey got a raw deal and the team suffered for it, in my personal opinion, but what can you do now? Lets all follow Jim Zorn to the promise land or see his fall flat on his face and watch Bill Cowher become out 28th head coach. I really hope that doesn't happen though, I kind of like the guy not to mention, I'd love to keep my sanity for the upcoming season. (Not to get off topic or anything)

[SkinsMaster88]

Hey, I was one of the big Ramsey supporters. And Brunell did have one of the worst seasons I've ever seen from a QB in 2004. I also felt, at the time, that Gibbs pulled the plug on Ramsey too early half-way through the first game of 2005 after repeatedly saying that Ramsey would be the starter all offseason. However, Brunell played well for us in 2005, and really for the most part since that. It's just that Brunell's legs gave out on him. He got an injury late in 2005 that he couldn't recover from. Age is what slowed down and reduced the effectiveness of Brunell. Brunell's success in his career came from his legs, not just for mobility or elusiveness, but his delivery and rhythm as well.

We don't know what would've happened with Ramsey given a full season to start under Gibbs, but I don't think that it would've been Super Bowl-bound. If Ramsey really could prove to be a good starting QB in the NFL, he would be now. I still like Ramsey and thought that he might be the next Trent Green who had success when he left the Skins, but I guess Ramsey really got shell-shocked from the Spurrier years and never really developed after that. A classic 'what if' question that can be used with any of the multiple personnel and coaching changes we've had.

[Mooka]

How about giving reasoning? He's not very good, carer 74.9 QB rating. He was cut from the Jets and is a backup in Denver where he looked terrible when Cutler was hurt.

Same exact problems in the NFL he had in college and coming into the draft. He didn't improve on any of them. I was as big a Patrick fan as anyone, but I was waiting for him to improve in areas and he never did. Statue against the rush, problems throwing atop defenders on the deep pass, no touch on short passes... and so on.

It was simply a bad draft pick. Spurrier even tried to trade him after the draft. He came from a pass-happy Tulane team where he set passing records and the team was abysmal.

[voicekiller]

coulda shoulda woulda....who the f cares.

[STBonecrusher21]

Ramsey is not a good QB. There's your reasoning. Slow, with no touch. Inaccurate.

[SkinSabbath]

HEY

At one point, we ALL were impressed with Ramsey (my self included - see avatar).
He was the young QB project, just like Jason Campbell is now. Who knows how well he could have progressed if he had consistent coaching and support (from Gibbs for example).

I fully agree with you Shilsu, at least that the potential for success
could have been there.

[Shilsu]

He's not very good, carer 74.9 QB rating. He was cut from the Jets and is a backup in Denver where he looked terrible when Cutler was hurt.

Joe Theissman has a career rating of 77.4. Mark Rypien has a career rating of 78.9. Doug Williams has a career rating of 69.4. Obviously not a very good point.


Same exact problems in the NFL he had in college and coming into the draft. He didn't improve on any of them. I was as big a Patrick fan as anyone, but I was waiting for him to improve in areas and he never did. Statue against the rush, problems throwing atop defenders on the deep pass, no touch on short passes... and so on.

It was simply a bad draft pick. Spurrier even tried to trade him after the draft. He came from a pass-happy Tulane team where he set passing records and the team was abysmal.

And yet, in spite of those problems, he was still able to post the best numbers out of any quarterback under Joe Gibbs' second run not named Todd Collins.

[skinsn24]

The answer here may not be Ramsey but good qb play? Yes.

That team won 5 in a row and some in dominating fashion. They were playing top class ball.

I believe up 7-0 maybe even 10-0 but not sure. Carlos gets a pick six, but through his hands. If he takes it back, thats prob game there anyway.

Alexander out. Damn yes we could have won that game with good QB play.

I will give brunell his credit though. He earned being there based on his play during the regular season. We were clicking for a while.

But what if Gibbs pulls a Doug Williams and switches up his qb for the playoffs...haha never know.

Interesting thread though.

[Shilsu]

Ramsey is not a good QB. There's your reasoning. Slow, with no touch. Inaccurate.

What do you say about the numbers I highlighted in yellow just for people like you who would make statements without giving reasoning.

[Om]

Joe Gibbs and Patrick Ramsey could have won a Super Bowl.

http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.com/gf3/ram/backin.ram

[STBonecrusher21]

What do you say about the numbers I highlighted in yellow just for people like you who would make statements without giving reasoning.

Who gives a **** about numbers. You said theisman, Doug Williams and all those guys had similar number to Ramsey? How many super bowls did ramsey win? Ok he didn't get the chance to cause he was benched. But after being stated healthy and ready to go, he remained on the bench in favor of a 30+ yr old QB at the end of his career who outplayed him easily.

If that doesn't tell you something......

[Shilsu]

I believe up 7-0 maybe even 10-0 but not sure. Carlos gets a pick six, but through his hands. If he takes it back, thats prob game there anyway.

Alexander out. Damn yes we could have won that game with good QB play.


This is exactly why that game was frustrating. We were completely dominant in every facet except the scoreboard and the quarterback. We were so dominant that even you thought we were up 10-0. We were actually up 3-0 and were down 20-3 at the beginning of the fourth quarter.

[Shilsu]

Who gives a **** about numbers. You said theisman, Doug Williams and all those guys had similar number to Ramsey? How many super bowls did ramsey win? Ok he didn't get the chance to cause he was benched. But after being stated healthy and ready to go, he remained on the bench in favor of a 30+ yr old QB at the end of his career who outplayed him easily.

If that doesn't tell you something......

Yeah, Brunell outplayed Ramsey easily. :rolleyes:

Listen, this thread is for intelligent debate. Try it sometime.

[skinpride1]

How about Gibbs blew it with both Brunell and Ramsey!!!

His third quarter back Jason Campbell is still unproven!!!

IT WON"T TAKE ZORN LONG TO FIGURE OUT IF WE HAVE A FRANCHISE Q.B. OR ANOTHER MEDICORE Q.B.

[elkabong82]

The difference in Ramsey and Brunell in the highlited games isn't much. And using the 2nd Giants game, that TD pass to Moss from Ramsey was lucky, and the only good thing he did in that game.

The offense in '05 was set-up for a game-managing QB. Brunell had a Probowl year in '05, and should have gone except the stupid fans voted 72 passer-rating Vick that year. Moss broke the franchise record for single-season receiving yards with Brunell throwing to him. You forgive Ramsey in one game for coming in cold, but blast Brunell for the Bears game when he was coming in cold. Brunell also looked much better in preseason than Ramsey did in '05. Like it or not, Brunell was our best shot to win.

Also, touting Ramsey's 95.6 passer rating in large yellow font isn't the best thing to do when he only had 25 pass attempts that season. Every other season, Ramsey has posted a 70-something passer rating. You also mentioned Brunell's passer rating in '05, saying it was "respectable" but clearly you were trying to convey Ramsey's seasonal performance was better in '05. Ramsey fumbled the ball twice in only 25 pass attempts, threw a lucky TD, and an INT. Brunell had 454 pass attempts, a heck of a lot more than 25, and posted a 57.7% completion rate, just under Ramsey's 60%. So Brunell maintained almost as much completion percentage as Ramsey, but with 429 more attempts. Mark had 23 TDs and 10 INTs. Ramsey has never come close to season totals like that. Where is he starting now? Oh yeah.

[STBonecrusher21]

Yeah, Brunell outplayed Ramsey easily. :rolleyes:

Listen, this thread is for intelligent debate. Try it sometime.

How many teams has Ramsey led to the playoffs again?

How's he doing right now?

You're right. This is fun.

[Shilsu]

The difference in Ramsey and Brunell in the highlited games isn't much. And using the 2nd Giants game, that TD pass to Moss from Ramsey was lucky, and the only good thing he did in that game.

How about Brunell in that very same game? Both TDs he threw to Moss were badly underthrown.


The offense in '05 was set-up for a game-managing QB. Brunell had a Probowl year in '05, and should have gone except the stupid fans voted 72 passer-rating Vick that year. Moss broke the franchise record for single-season receiving yards with Brunell throwing to him. You forgive Ramsey in one game for coming in cold, but blast Brunell for the Bears game when he was coming in cold. Brunell also looked much better in preseason than Ramsey did in '05. Like it or not, Brunell was our best shot to win.

Yeah, but when did Brunell ever enter a game for Ramsey needing to make a comeback? Never.


Also, touting Ramsey's 95.6 passer rating in large yellow font isn't the best thing to do when he only had 25 pass attempts that season. Every other season, Ramsey has posted a 70-something passer rating. You also mentioned Brunell's passer rating in '05, saying it was "respectable" but clearly you were trying to convey Ramsey's seasonal performance was better in '05. Ramsey fumbled the ball twice in only 25 pass attempts, threw a lucky TD, and an INT. Brunell had 454 pass attempts, a heck of a lot more than 25, and posted a 57.7% completion rate, just under Ramsey's 60%. So Brunell maintained almost as much completion percentage as Ramsey, but with 429 more attempts. Mark had 23 TDs and 10 INTs. Ramsey has never come close to season totals like that. Where is he starting now? Oh yeah.

So how does that explain away 2004 when Mark Brunell vastly underperformed Ramsey versus inferior competition?

[RedskinsSuperBowl21]

Ramsey had all the physical capabilities and as an optimistic fan, I honestly thought he was about to turn a corner then Gibbs abruptly pulled him; Who know if it was justified or not but Ramsey is very accurate, he can make all the throws you need in a NFL quarterback and he through a beautiful ball. The problem was he would get rattled and force throws and make bad decisions. He is the kind of quarterback that can step in and make some great plays as a back up but as a starter he has proven to be inconsistent. A player with upside that can't seem to turn the corner can wear down a coaches patients easily.

Nice breakdown even though your going to catch a lot of **** for this, don't worry about STBONECRUSHER he probably didn't read what you had to say and just regurgitated what he thought most everyone else would say not to mention he was like 13 years old when we drafted Ramsey.

Good post. Thanx man

[Shilsu]

How many teams has Ramsey led to the playoffs again?

How's he doing right now?

You're right. This is fun.

I get the feeling that you watch your signature hours on end laughing to yourself.

:doh:

[STBonecrusher21]

I get the feeling that you watch your signature hours on end laughing to yourself.

:doh:

Nice reasoning?

[TK]

Jeebus.

AJ has a relative.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

I think this is going to be a major pile on before it gets closed.

[elkabong82]

Yeah, Brunell outplayed Ramsey easily. :rolleyes:

Listen, this thread is for intelligent debate. Try it sometime.

You should practice what you preach.

Brunell outplayed Ramesy in preseason, and had a season Ramsey has never come close to.

You said Ramsey had limited options, Brunell only had Moss to throw to, or give dump offs to Cooley in the H-back. That's why Tana has 1400+ receiving yards in '05.

[Shilsu]

Isn't it amazing how one side of the argument can be supported by facts and game logs while the other can't?

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

Jeebus.

AJ has a relative.
Buwahahahaha

[elkabong82]

I get the feeling that you watch your signature hours on end laughing to yourself.

:doh:

Didn't you just blast someone, telling them this thread was for intelligent debate only? Again, practice what you preach bro.

[STBonecrusher21]

Isn't it amazing how one side of the argument can be supported by facts and game logs while the other can't?

Isn't it amazing how one quarterback can produce Ws and the other can't?

[Shilsu]

You should practice what you preach.

Brunell outplayed Ramesy in preseason, and had a season Ramsey has never come close to.

You said Ramsey had limited options, Brunell only had Moss to throw to, or give dump offs to Cooley in the H-back. That's why Tana has 1400+ receiving yards in '05.

:doh:

First of all, the question I posed in my original post was about utilizing Ramsey in the postseason.

Second of all, if you're saying you rather have Coles, Gardner, and Trung Candidate over Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, and Clinton Portis, you would make a worse GM than what most people give Vinny Cerrato credit for.

Third, please don't run off like the last time I engaged in a minor debate with you when you claimed Dan Snyder was running a successful Six Flags company.

[SkinsMaster88]

You should practice what you preach.

Brunell outplayed Ramesy in preseason, and had a season Ramsey has never come close to.

You said Ramsey had limited options, Brunell only had Moss to throw to, or give dump offs to Cooley in the H-back. That's why Tana has 1400+ receiving yards in '05.
Yeah, interestingly enough, that season we probably were the closest to West Coast offense in terms of passing. A lot of quick slants and screens to Moss to gain YAC to spread out defense. Then, Portis would pound the holes up the middle to gain a consistent amount a lot. Plus, lots of rollouts and play action fakes that went to the tight end in Cooley to move the chains.

[elkabong82]

Isn't it amazing how one side of the argument can be supported by facts and game logs while the other can't?

Isn't it amazing how you'd only think that if you were dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a fool, instead of actually considering what they say?

Ramsey's terrible career passer rating isn't a fact?

Ramsey's only one good season he only had 25 pass attempts. That isn't a fact?

Brunell having a great year in '05, backed by stats such as 23 TDs to only 10 INTs, and Moss' 1400+ yards receiving with Brunell, aren't facts?

[Shilsu]

Isn't it amazing how you'd only think that if you were dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a fool, instead of actually considering what they say?

Wow, pot, are you calling the kettle black?


Ramsey's terrible career passer rating isn't a fact?

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4883988&postcount=20


Ramsey's only one good season he only had 25 pass attempts. That isn't a fact?

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884016&postcount=30


Brunell having a great year in '05, backed by stats such as 23 TDs to only 10 INTs, and Moss' 1400+ yards receiving with Brunell, aren't facts?

Did I say Brunell had a bad year in 2005?

Learn to read.

[RedskinsSuperBowl21]

:doh:

First of all, the question I posed in my original post was about utilizing Ramsey in the postseason.

If your case if for Ramsey in the post season, I will give that one on merit that Brunell's shoulder was finished after that 5 game win streak. I think they should have alternated Ramsey and Brunell during the post season games to keep Brunell fresh. Ramsey could have more than handled spot play, it is just when he plays longer than a quarter or two at a stretch he over thinks and makes mistakes forces throw and loses confidence.

[SkinsMaster88]

To the OP: I'm sorry, but you have to let it go.

This debate is two years late. You can go on and on about what if scenarios.

- What if we properly let Lavar heal up, and allowed him to be aggressive in our otherwise disciplined unit? Our turnaround on defense in 2005 did occur when Lavar was back in the lineup. Then, what if he could've been that pass-rushing turnover machine that we lacked in Williams' defense?

- What if we stuck with Marty after the 8-8 year after going 8-3 and having player support? All this, despite using a journeyman QB who wasn't the starter at the beginning of the season.

- What if we drafted Tom Brady in the 2000 draft in the 6th round rather than Todd Husak a few picks later?

- What if we gave Norv a chance to finish out the season and possibly have 4 of his last 5 years with a winning record? Remember in 2000 we lost at least 2-3 games solely because of our kicker situation (we had what, 5 kickers?)

- What if John Kent Cooke took over the team rather than Snyder?

You can go on forever on this...

[RedskinsSuperBowl21]

WOW none of you are interested in actually talking football instead it seems like you all rather stand around the piss hole arguing whos dick is bigger.

that is when you know its time to call it a night.

[elkabong82]

:doh:

First of all, the question I posed in my original post was about utilizing Ramsey in the postseason.

Second of all, if you're saying you rather have Coles, Gardner, and Trung Candidate over Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, and Clinton Portis, you would make a worse GM than what most people give Vinny Cerrato credit for.

Third, please don't run off like the last time I engaged in a minor debate with you when you claimed Dan Snyder was running a successful Six Flags company.

Yeah, I'd rather have Coles and Trung. That is exactly what I said.:doh: Way to completely sidestep my actual points.

I pointed out that Brunell didn't have a lot of targets, just like you pointed out Ramsey didn't when he was starter.

Don't run off? I said my piece in that thread about McKenna's lame article, and then you were owned by most everyone in that thread to the point you wouldn't even respond to people's actual points, much like you are doing here. Surprise. And I never said Dan was a succesful Six Flags owner, I said claiming that Six Flags operating poorly was an indication Snyder won't succeed in football is stupid. And it is, common sense should tell you that. Of course you know that is what I said, but instead, much like you did in part 2, you decided to twist words around, rather than address the actual issue.

Purposely twisting words around, and making absurdly false conclusions about my posts, rather than adress the actual point, isn't intelligent, it's juvenille. Again, practice what you preach about intelligent conversation, bro.

[dizzinator53]

How about giving reasoning?


*.65 fumbles per game played in the NFL

*Most yds in a season : 2166

(Williams, Theismann, and Rypien all had 3500+ seasons)

*35 TD and 20 int after 6 seasons in the NFL
(What did Brady do this year alone?)

*Held on to the ball longer than it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun and won't slide in the pocket

*Ramsey requested a trade and did not want to play for the Redskins

* slowest quarterback in his draft class (and probably many others) at 5.15 UGhhhhhhhH!!!!

*Was 10-14 as a starter for the Redskins.... He had his chance and blew it.

[elkabong82]

Yeah, interestingly enough, that season we probably were the closest to West Coast offense in terms of passing. A lot of quick slants and screens to Moss to gain YAC to spread out defense. Then, Portis would pound the holes up the middle to gain a consistent amount a lot. Plus, lots of rollouts and play action fakes that went to the tight end in Cooley to move the chains.

Sorry, got distracted. Other than the implementation of Cooley as an H-back, I would agree the '05 offense was similar to the WCO, at times. Toward the end of '05, we leaned heavily on the run in a way which isn't typical of the WCO. The passing game mirrored it better, but that's cuz we had to. Moss was the only legit WR we had that year since Patten was injured, so we had to get him the ball any way we could.

I also think JC won't have as tough of a time transistioning to a WCO as some claim. He did run it his senior year in college, which was his best year at the college level. Saunders O is similar to a WCO in a lot of ways, Saunders himself has said as much. The passing structure is similar, and under the tutelage of Zorn, I think JC will transistion in better than some suspect.

[USNationalist]

I am a personal fan of ole Ramsey. But is there anything to be gained from this kind of speculation, except to have a bunch of finks flame Patrick?

[Shilsu]

Yeah, I'd rather have Coles and Trung. That is exactly what I said.:doh: Way to completely sidestep my actual points.

I pointed out that Brunell didn't have a lot of targets, just like you pointed out Ramsey didn't when he was starter.

So... What is your point? That Brunell was at a disadvantage? I presented what happened when Ramsey had the EXACT SAME TARGETS as Brunell in 2004 and 2005. I also presented what happened wheN Ramsey had LESSER TARGETS in 2003.


Don't run off? I said my piece in that thread about McKenna's lame article, and then you were owned by most everyone in that thread to the point you wouldn't even respond to people's actual points, much like you are doing here. Surprise. And I never said Dan was a succesful Six Flags owner, I said claiming that Six Flags operating poorly was an indication Snyder won't succeed in football is stupid. And it is, common sense should tell you that. Of course you know that is what I said, but instead, much like you did in part 2, you decided to twist words around, rather than address the actual issue.

You mean this thread?

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4839833

Once again, you continue to spew BS and continue to make up fake facts. I got "owned by most everyone in that thread to the point you wouldn't even respond to people's actual points"? What? Read that thread again.

And here is another classic post from you in that thread:

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839787&postcount=6

Too bad that partnership ended. :doh:


Purposely twisting words around, and making absurdly false conclusions about my posts, rather than adress the actual point, isn't intelligent, it's juvenille. Again, practice what you preach about intelligent conversation, bro.

It's hard to respond to someone (you) who doesn't make a lick of sense ever and backs his senseless arguments with FALSE facts that he made up. :doh:

[dizzinator53]

The difference in Ramsey and Brunell in the highlited games isn't much. And using the 2nd Giants game, that TD pass to Moss from Ramsey was lucky, and the only good thing he did in that game.

The offense in '05 was set-up for a game-managing QB. Brunell had a Probowl year in '05, and should have gone except the stupid fans voted 72 passer-rating Vick that year. Moss broke the franchise record for single-season receiving yards with Brunell throwing to him. You forgive Ramsey in one game for coming in cold, but blast Brunell for the Bears game when he was coming in cold. Brunell also looked much better in preseason than Ramsey did in '05. Like it or not, Brunell was our best shot to win.

Also, touting Ramsey's 95.6 passer rating in large yellow font isn't the best thing to do when he only had 25 pass attempts that season. Every other season, Ramsey has posted a 70-something passer rating. You also mentioned Brunell's passer rating in '05, saying it was "respectable" but clearly you were trying to convey Ramsey's seasonal performance was better in '05. Ramsey fumbled the ball twice in only 25 pass attempts, threw a lucky TD, and an INT. Brunell had 454 pass attempts, a heck of a lot more than 25, and posted a 57.7% completion rate, just under Ramsey's 60%. So Brunell maintained almost as much completion percentage as Ramsey, but with 429 more attempts. Mark had 23 TDs and 10 INTs. Ramsey has never come close to season totals like that. Where is he starting now? Oh yeah.

He fumbled and got sacked the foirst two plays of that series... I remember I was there... they were both his fault too. Then he threw this pass up in the air for Moss and Moss made a great play to not only come down with the ball, but also take it in for the score.

[elkabong82]

Wow, pot, are you calling the kettle black?



http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4883988&postcount=20



http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884016&postcount=30



Did I say Brunell had a bad year in 2005?

Learn to read.

What? your OP still doesn't mean that Ramsey's career stats aren't facts. Yes, you pointed out other QBs who won Superbowl with us, but the years they won the Superbowl, they performed better than anything Ramsey has done.

And no you didn't say MB had a bad year, but I pointed out you were implying Ramsey had a better year in '05 by highliting it in large yellow font, and then using the word "respectable" for Mark, as if Ramsey was so much better. You based it off of a season where Ramsey only had 25 pass attempts. That is way too small of a sample size to have any valid opinion of what Ramsey could have done. Learn to read, learn to comprehend, learn to reply to people's points, instead of trying to create arguments that don't adress them.

[skinsn24]

This is exactly why that game was frustrating. We were completely dominant in every facet except the scoreboard and the quarterback. We were so dominant that even you thought we were up 10-0. We were actually up 3-0 and were down 20-3 at the beginning of the fourth quarter.


Holy Crap, your right. I totally forgot, but im not even gonna edit my post. Because thats how good we were playing and it makes my point even more powerful. We were on a serious tear. 21 points is not alot to win a playoff game on a road.

[Shilsu]

*.65 fumbles per game played in the NFL


And what are Brunell's numbers as a Redskin?


*Most yds in a season : 2166

(Williams, Theismann, and Rypien all had 3500+ seasons)


*35 TD and 20 int after 6 seasons in the NFL
(What did Brady do this year alone?)

How many games did Patrick Ramsey play again? You can't use aggregate stats to claim Ramsey wouldn't have done anything in 2005 or else I'd be able to say Emmit Smith is unquestionably better than Walter Payton because he has more TDs and yards.


*Held on to the ball longer than it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun and won't slide in the pocket

Yeah, but he still posted pretty impressive numbers, whether the sample size be large (2004) or small (2005).


*Ramsey requested a trade and did not want to play for the Redskins

Errr, not sure how that fits in.


* slowest quarterback in his draft class (and probably many others) at 5.15 UGhhhhhhhH!!!!

He still posted pretty impressive numbers, whether the sample size be large (2004) or small (2005).


*Was 10-14 as a starter for the Redskins.... He had his chance and blew it.

Jason Campbell's now 7-12. Are you ready to give up on him? I'm not.

[skinsn24]

Lookin im not trying to speak for the OP, but i think we are missing the point.

It wasnt that Ramsy was "the guy" for the offense or deserved it more than Brunell. Its not that the skins should have used ramsy all year, nothing like that it.

I think (correct me if im wrong), he is arguing that based on the severly declining play of Mark Brunell (most likely due to injury) that a QB switch could have gotten us further.

The question is a fair one. The team strugggled in Tampa on offense and same in Seattle. The D was carrying the load and doing it really well.

I wouldnt even look at the question as from that time. Looking back, using 20/20. What would you do it? Then think at that time. You knew Brunell was struggling.

The answer could be yea pull the trigger. It worked with Dougy, little different situation though.

The point i am making is the offense could not have been doing worse. It just couldnt. So maybe ,yea, a Qb was switch needed, at least to get Mark healthy.

[elkabong82]

So... What is your point? That Brunell was at a disadvantage? I presented what happened when Ramsey had the EXACT SAME TARGETS as Brunell in 2004 and 2005. I also presented what happened wheN Ramsey had LESSER TARGETS in 2003.



You mean this thread?

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4839833

Once again, you continue to spew BS and continue to make up fake facts. I got "owned by most everyone in that thread to the point you wouldn't even respond to people's actual points"? What? Read that thread again.

And here is another classic post from you in that thread:

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4839787&postcount=6

Too bad that partnership ended. :doh:



It's hard to respond to someone (you) who doesn't make a lick of sense ever and backs his senseless arguments with FALSE facts that he made up. :doh:

Still sidestepping eh?

1) My point was that Brunell didn't have a myriad of receiving options, just like Ramsey didn't. They may have been better, but they were still few. I countered what you presented about Ramsey with those same receiving options. That Mark did much better in '05 than Ramsey ever has. You tried saying Ramsey did better in '05 when he only had 25 pass attempts, ridiculous. And you still keep ignoring that.

2) Please list the fake facts I have stated in here. All the ones about performance are stat-based.

3) Seeing as most in that thread pointed out how asininely stupid it is to think that a failure in an amusement park means Snyder will fail in his football business, and that Snyder turned the Skins into the most profitable NFL franchise, and that his other businesses aren't failing, and that the writer has been known to have an agenda against the Skins for years (an opinion supported by the mods), yet in spite of all that you blindly went forward in agreement with McKenna simply because it was bashing Snyder. So yeah, you did get owned. Sucks to be you.

4) What was wrong with my post there? It didn't agree with you. I pointed out his other businesses are faring well, and I pointed out a couple of factors which could be influencing the current stock value of Six Flags. What is so absurd about the idea that stock prices for an amusment park being down during the off season when the park is closed. Get over yourself, sriously. Or at least get back on topic, instead of trying to play this stupid game.

[Shilsu]

What? your OP still doesn't mean that Ramsey's career stats aren't facts. Yes, you pointed out other QBs who won Superbowl with us, but the years they won the Superbowl, they performed better than anything Ramsey has done.

In 1983, Joe Theismann played in 9 games and had a QB rating of 91.3.

In 1987, Doug Williams played in 5 games and had a QB rating of 94.0

In 2005, Patrick Ramsey played in 4 games and had a QB rating of 95.6.

Great use of "facts" there, once again. :rolleyes:


And no you didn't say MB had a bad year, but I pointed out you were implying Ramsey had a better year in '05 by highliting it in large yellow font, and then using the word "respectable" for Mark, as if Ramsey was so much better. You based it off of a season where Ramsey only had 25 pass attempts. That is way too small of a sample size to have any valid opinion of what Ramsey could have done. Learn to read, learn to comprehend, learn to reply to people's points, instead of trying to create arguments that don't adress them.

He had a better year in 2004 AND 2005. That is what I was trying to convey. You have a large sample size and a small sample size, and in BOTH samples he outperformed Mark Brunell with the status quo. In 2005, I went to the lengths of comparing Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey in each game where BOTH played in, and every single game, Ramsey outperformed Brunell except the Bears game (which is arguable since Brunell failed to put up as many yards in almost three quarters) and the 49ers game where Ramsey threw only one pass for one completion.

Meanwhile, you're the one trying to drill into my head that Mark Brunell had a good year and a better preseason, and then accusing me of trying to create arguments that don't address people's points. :doh:

[Mooka]

Joe Theissman has a career rating of 77.4. Mark Rypien has a career rating of 78.9. Doug Williams has a career rating of 69.4. Obviously not a very good point. Ok...

Thiesmann played in the 70's and 80's. Sorry, its not really the same comparing stats from 1975-2005.
Rypien? Do you really want me to argue this one?
And what about Doug? Is this your argument, that Patrick would've come in and thrown 340yds and 4TDs against the Steelers?



And yet, in spite of those problems, he was still able to post the best numbers out of any quarterback under Joe Gibbs' second run not named Todd Collins. No he didn't. Don't give me any nonsense like in your first post talking about Patrick posting a 95 QB rating in a season where he threw the ball 25 times.

Brunell was absolutely abysmal at times with the Skins in 2004 and 2006, he started 25 more games then Patrick and his overall numbers are far better.

[Shilsu]

Still sidestepping eh?

1) My point was that Brunell didn't have a myriad of receiving options, just like Ramsey didn't. They may have been better, but they were still few. I countered what you presented about Ramsey with those same receiving options. That Mark did much better in '05 than Ramsey ever has. You tried saying Ramsey did better in '05 when he only had 25 pass attempts, ridiculous. And you still keep ignoring that.

No, you're the one ignoring anything. Mark did much better in 2005 than Ramsey in only one field: CUMULATIVE STATS. And that's to be expected because he had MORE PLAYING TIME.

Then you keep talking about how Ramsey only did better in 2005 when he had only 25 pass attempts... And when I bring up 2004, you ignore it and YOU are the one sidestepping.


2) Please list the fake facts I have stated in here. All the ones about performance are stat-based.

How about your previous post about how all the quarterbacks vastly outperformed Ramsey in their Super Bowl year.


3) Seeing as most in that thread pointed out how asininely stupid it is to think that a failure in an amusement park means Snyder will fail in his football business, and that Snyder turned the Skins into the most profitable NFL franchise, and that his other businesses aren't failing, and that the writer has been known to have an agenda against the Skins for years (an opinion supported by the mods), yet in spite of all that you blindly went forward in agreement with McKenna simply because it was bashing Snyder. So yeah, you did get owned. Sucks to be you.

Oh, here's another fake fact from you. Six Flags shares falling 90% isn't failing? Falling out with Tom Cruise (which you claimed was a successful venture in the other thread) isn't failing? Snyder turned the Redskins into the most profitable NFL franchise? Sorry, but the Redskins were already one of the most profitable NFL franchises according to Forbes who has been keeping a list since 1998, BEFORE Snyder took over.

And now you spew more BS "you did get owned". Yeah, because you are the one who claimed all those things and never responded when I called you out for making up things.


4) What was wrong with my post there? It didn't agree with you. I pointed out his other businesses are faring well, and I pointed out a couple of factors which could be influencing the current stock value of Six Flags. What is so absurd about the idea that stock prices for an amusment park being down during the off season when the park is closed. Get over yourself, sriously. Or at least get back on topic, instead of trying to play this stupid game.

:doh:

This is why your posts are idiotic. His other business AREN'T faring well. And it's absurd to think the due to the offseason a stock would fall 90%. If that was the case, I'd be making millions, if not billions, by buying put options and shorting Six Flags every fall.

:doh:

[turbodiesel#44]

Listen, this thread is for intelligent debate.You should have thought about that before you posted


Joe Gibbs and Patrick Ramsey could have won a Super Bowl.
this.

[skinsn24]

You should have thought about that before you posted


this.

Haha. That was a pretty good post. :laugh:

[Shilsu]

Ok...

Thiesmann played in the 70's and 80's. Sorry, its not really the same comparing stats from 1975-2005.
Rypien? Do you really want me to argue this one?
And what about Doug? Is this your argument, that Patrick would've come in and thrown 340yds and 4TDs against the Steelers?

Rypien, yes, please do as these posts are a lot better than the first one where you just said "Yes."

As for Patrick, why not? Remember Ramsey's rookie debut versus the Titans (who were ranked 11th while the Steelers were ranked 10th in 1987)?


No he didn't. Don't give me any nonsense like in your first post talking about Patrick posting a 95 QB rating in a season where he threw the ball 25 times.

Uh, yes he did. There's a reason I also have the 2004 season in my first post.


Brunell was absolutely abysmal at times with the Skins in 2004 and 2006, he started 25 more games then Patrick and his overall numbers are far better.

Uhh, only his cumulative stats, and that's because he started 25 more games.

[dizzinator53]

And what are Brunell's numbers as a Redskin?



How many games did Patrick Ramsey play again? You can't use aggregate stats to claim Ramsey wouldn't have done anything in 2005 or else I'd be able to say Emmit Smith is unquestionably better than Walter Payton because he has more TDs and yards.

Errr, not sure how that fits in.

He still posted pretty impressive numbers, whether the sample size be large (2004) or small (2005).

Jason Campbell's now 7-12. Are you ready to give up on him? I'm not.


Mark Brunell's numbers (as a Redskin per your request) for this stat are as follows:

.57 fumbles per game
.28 fumbles lost per game

and for good measure

.17 fumbles lost in career in the NFL



although this is a rhetorical question that I am answering, Ramsey played in 37 games in his career and 34 of them were as a Redskin. If I can't use aggregate stats to judge how good a player was than what can I use? What the hell else is there?.....opinion? If I can't use aggregate numbers, than you can't use inflated numbers from seasons were Ramsey played 2-5 games!


I think you are going all over the place with your arguments here.
When did Jason Campbell even become part of the argument at all? Jason Campbell has shown accuracy, lack of "Happy Feet", mobility in and out of the pocket, as strong of an arm as Ramsey, and can look off coverages better than Ramsey. I am not willing to give up on him... However I am willing to be objective and admit that Ramsey was mediocre... He had potential to be better than he was, but he didn't execute the gameplan because of his idiosyncrasies...ie- holding the damn ball too long.

The fact that Ramsey wanted to be traded means he was lacking the maturity and heart it takes to be a Superbowl winner. Remember, numbers alone don't win championships. Desire and mental stability play an even larger part. Heart matters.

I challenge you to prove to this board where his IMPRESSIVE numbers that you speak of are hiding. I couldn't find them anywhere. But once again, this is a matter of opinion too, right. As we all know, the sun shines on a dog's ass every once in a while.

Ramsey could never and will never win a SuperBowl... I'll bet you a million dollars.

Put that in your pipe and smoketh it.

[Shilsu]

You should have thought about that before you posted


this.

That might be true if not for the fact that wasn't my entire post. The rest of my post has facts and figures and game logs to support my theory.

[elkabong82]

In 1983, Joe Theismann played in 9 games and had a QB rating of 91.3.

In 1987, Doug Williams played in 5 games and had a QB rating of 94.0

In 2005, Patrick Ramsey played in 4 games and had a QB rating of 95.6.

Great use of "facts" there, once again. :rolleyes:



He had a better year in 2004 AND 2005. That is what I was trying to convey. You have a large sample size and a small sample size, and in BOTH samples he outperformed Mark Brunell with the status quo. In 2005, I went to the lengths of comparing Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey in each game where BOTH played in, and every single game, Ramsey outperformed Brunell except the Bears game (which is arguable since Brunell failed to put up as many yards in almost three quarters) and the 49ers game where Ramsey threw only one pass for one completion.

Meanwhile, you're the one trying to drill into my head that Mark Brunell had a good year and a better preseason, and then accusing me of trying to create arguments that don't address people's points. :doh:

Theismann was a league MVP. He played 9 games in 1982 cuz of the strike, but had 252 pass attempts, much larger than the 25 Ramsey had.

Doug Williams had 143 pass attempts, and was injured that year.

Both years were strike-shortened seasons, so the numbers would be smaller anyway for games started, but let's ignore that too.

You just told someone they couldn't use aggregate stas, yet you are comparing a guy whose only good season was based off just 25 pass attempts, to an NFL MVP, and a QB who posted one of the greatest performances in Superbowl history, based only on games played in this post. Again, practice what you preach. How are those for facts?

If you seriously don't see the flawed logic in saying a 25 pass attempt, 1 TD 1 INT is better than a 23 TD 10 INT, 454 pass attempt performance then this conversation is over. It doesn't matter what games you point out, cuz the sample size is too damn small. That's basic statistics 101.

Mark Brunell did have a good year in '05, he had the 3rd best statistical performance of starting QBs in the NFC that year. Ramsey isn't on that list because they don't consider people with only 25 pass attempts.

How was bringing up an argument in a previous thread about Six Flags adressing any points?

[dizzinator53]

Also, why are you on Ramsey's nuts? We have had 3 starting QB's since him. Cut the cord my friend... he has been on two teams since he was here.

[SoCalSkins]

If PR stays in once Brunnel went down in 05, we would have won the SB. Gibbs II would have been entirely different.

[Shilsu]

Mark Brunell's numbers (as a Redskin per your request) for this stat are as follows:

.57 fumbles per game
.28 fumbles lost per game

and for good measure

.17 fumbles lost in career in the NFL



although this is a rhetorical question that I am answering, Ramsey played in 37 games in his career and 34 of them were as a Redskin. If I can't use aggregate stats to judge how good a player was than what can I use? What the hell else is there?.....opinion? If I can't use aggregate numbers, than you can't use inflated numbers from seasons were Ramsey played 2-5 games!

First, you're allowed to use numbers such as what you posted above. Second, why does everyone keep saying Ramsey's numbers are inflated by what he did in 2005? Does 2004 go out the window?


I think you are going all over the place with your arguments here.
When did Jason Campbell even become part of the argument at all? Jason Campbell has shown accuracy, lack of "Happy Feet", mobility in and out of the pocket, as strong of an arm as Ramsey, and can look off coverages better than Ramsey. I am not willing to give up on him... However I am willing to be objective and admit that Ramsey was mediocre... He had potential to be better than he was, but he didn't execute the gameplan because of his idiosyncrasies...ie- holding the damn ball too long.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Jason Campbell does not have a better record than Ramsey, does not even have better numbers, he has better nothing but opinion, which you made it clear in your first paragraph is absurd if opinion is not backed by numbers.


The fact that Ramsey wanted to be traded means he was lacking the maturity and heart it takes to be a Superbowl winner. Remember, numbers alone don't win championships. Desire and mental stability play an even larger part. Heart matters.

So does this mean we'll never win a Super Bowl with Clinton Portis since he forced a trade from Denver?


I challenge you to prove to this board where his IMPRESSIVE numbers that you speak of are hiding. I couldn't find them anywhere. But once again, this is a matter of opinion too, right. As we all know, the sun shines on a dog's ass every once in a while.

Sigh. Read the first post. I even highlighted the numbers of both Brunell and Ramsey in yellow so people who have trouble reading entire posts could just compare the numbers.


Ramsey could never and will never win a SuperBowl... I'll bet you a million dollars.

Put that in your pipe and smoketh it.

He probably won't, but I still believe he could have in 2005. Unfortunately that's not something we can bet on.

[turbodiesel#44]

That might be true if not for the fact that wasn't my entire post. The rest of my post has facts and figures and game logs to support my theory.Explain what Gibbs did to ruin PR's career? Was it some type of mental damage? Did he physically hurt him or allow him to be injured? I didn't expect Pat to break through the Jets roster of HOF QB's like....um...well, Testaverde and those other guys, but surely he should have been able to oust Elway in Denver....um,wait....

[Shilsu]

Theismann was a league MVP. He played 9 games in 1982 cuz of the strike, but had 252 pass attempts, much larger than the 25 Ramsey had.

Doug Williams had 143 pass attempts, and was injured that year.

Both years were strike-shortened seasons, so the numbers would be smaller anyway for games started, but let's ignore that too.

You just told someone they couldn't use aggregate stas, yet you are comparing a guy whose only good season was based off just 25 pass attempts, to an NFL MVP, and a QB who posted one of the greatest performances in Superbowl history, based only on games played in this post. Again, practice what you preach. How are those for facts?

By aggregate stats, I mean you can't compare total numbers. You have to use statistics that measure quality NOT quantity. Such stats include COMPLETION PERCENTAGE and QB RATING.


If you seriously don't see the flawed logic in saying a 25 pass attempt, 1 TD 1 INT is better than a 23 TD 10 INT, 454 pass attempt performance then this conversation is over. It doesn't matter what games you point out, cuz the sample size is too damn small. That's basic statistics 101.

Mark Brunell did have a good year in '05, he had the 3rd best statistical performance of starting QBs in the NFC that year. Ramsey isn't on that list because they don't consider people with only 25 pass attempts.

Yet again you fail. :doh:

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

Is three times (plus however many times I reiterated in previous posts) enough? One more time, just in case.

2004 AND 2005.

Large sample size AND small sample size.


How was bringing up an argument in a previous thread about Six Flags adressing any points?

It shows you have a history of your tendency to make up things, skew things, and sometimes just flat out run away when being called out.

[Shilsu]

Explain what Gibbs did to ruin PR's career? Was it some type of mental damage? Did he physically hurt him or allow him to be injured? I didn't expect Pat to break through the Jets roster of HOF QB's like....um...well, Testaverde and those other guys, but surely he should have been able to oust Elway in Denver....um,wait....

:doh:

WHY are you asking me this? Did I say Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey's career? Did I say Joe Gibbs physically hurt him or allowed him to be injured?

Did I say ANY of that?

So WHY are you asking me this?

[dizzinator53]

[/QUOTE]He probably won't, but I still believe he could have in 2005. Unfortunately that's not something we can bet on.[/QUOTE]

Actually, My buddy is working on a time machine, but we are first going to go back in time and trade Ramsey straight up for Ogunleye or a Number one pick.

Read about this and tell me that you would rather have Ramsey than this! The issue is that the Redskins didn't make a mistake in trading Ramsey, they made a mistake in trading him after he ruined his own stock! HAHAHAHA


Had the Redskins been interested in making the deal, they could have finagled one of two things from Miami:
1) The Dolphins' 26-year-old stud defensive end, Adewale Ogunleye, who has 22 sacks in his last 23 games.

2) Miami's first-round pick in April's draft, the 20th overall selection.

[Shilsu]

Actually, My buddy is working on a time machine, but we are first going to go back in time and trade Ramsey straight up for Ogunleye or a Number one pick.

Read about this and tell me that you would rather have Ramsey than this! The issue is that the Redskins didn't make a mistake in trading Ramsey, they made a mistake in trading him after he ruined his own stock! HAHAHAHA


Had the Redskins been interested in making the deal, they could have finagled one of two things from Miami:
1) The Dolphins' 26-year-old stud defensive end, Adewale Ogunleye, who has 22 sacks in his last 23 games.

2) Miami's first-round pick in April's draft, the 20th overall selection.

I can't argue with that.

[skinsn24]

By aggregate stats, I mean you can't compare total numbers. You have to use statistics that measure quality NOT quantity. Such stats include COMPLETION PERCENTAGE and QB RATING.



Yet again you fail. :doh:

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.



Is the comparison you are trying to make this one:

In 2004 Ramsy had a qb rating that was about points hirer than Brunell in 2004?

and then Ramsy was never given a chance in the 2005 offense?

[dizzinator53]

I can't argue with that.

Good, let's call it a tie then... I want to go to bed....

If you aren't willing to do that, than you win... because I am going to bed anyway.

[elkabong82]

No, you're the one ignoring anything. Mark did much better in 2005 than Ramsey in only one field: CUMULATIVE STATS. And that's to be expected because he had MORE PLAYING TIME.

Then you keep talking about how Ramsey only did better in 2005 when he had only 25 pass attempts... And when I bring up 2004, you ignore it and YOU are the one sidestepping.



How about your previous post about how all the quarterbacks vastly outperformed Ramsey in their Super Bowl year.



Oh, here's another fake fact from you. Six Flags shares falling 90% isn't failing? Falling out with Tom Cruise (which you claimed was a successful venture in the other thread) isn't failing? Snyder turned the Redskins into the most profitable NFL franchise? Sorry, but the Redskins were already one of the most profitable NFL franchises according to Forbes who has been keeping a list since 1998, BEFORE Snyder took over.

And now you spew more BS "you did get owned". Yeah, because you are the one who claimed all those things and never responded when I called you out for making up things.



:doh:

This is why your posts are idiotic. His other business AREN'T faring well. And it's absurd to think the due to the offseason a stock would fall 90%. If that was the case, I'd be making millions, if not billions, by buying put options and shorting Six Flags every fall.

:doh:

I'm not ignoring 2004. The fact Brunell did better than Ramsey has ever come close to in '05 shows his turnaround from a season where he was in a new system, and was playing injured. Ramsey was the starter after '04, and he blew it, losing the job to a 30+ year old QB. And don't give me the Bunell-Gibbs allegiance line, Joe benched him in '04 AND in '06. Seeing as Gibbs won 3 Superbowls with 3 different QBs, and even made the switch back to Williams in the postseason of '87, shows he knows QBs well, and isn't afraid to put the guy in he thinks gives the team the best shot at winning. I'll take Gibbs judgemnts on football over your 100 times out of 100.

Again, 25 pass attempts is too small a sample to make the claims about '05 you are making. Simple statistics.

My previous post about the other QBs vastly out performing Ramsey their Superbowl wiining years is true, and I didn't need to pull up the stas because you had already looked at them. I addressed the m specifiaclly with stats in another post. You tried using games played in as proof of a valid sample size, rather than pass attempts, which Joey and Doug had at least 4 times the amount of in their respective seasons.

I never said Six Falgs wasn't failing. What is so hard to understand about that. Again though, sidestepping the actual issue, and going off topic. When did Snyder fall out with Cruise? Tom was at our playoff game in Seattle this season. Snyder turned them into THE most profitable franchise in the NFL, and second in the world, only to Manchester. I responded in the thread, and you kept up with the same nonsense you are doing now. And just like in that thread, you are getting owned all over this thread too.

Oh, and to catch up with you on the excessive smileys: :doh: :doh: :doh: :silly: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[dizzinator53]

By the way... this is the best post I have seen on here in weeks.

[turbodiesel#44]

:doh:

WHY are you asking me this? Did I say Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey's career? Did I say Joe Gibbs physically hurt him or allowed him to be injured?

Did I say ANY of that?

So WHY are you asking me this?He has pretty much sucked wherever he has gone, but you think he was a SB QB with us? I was a PR backer too, but I don't blame JG for pulling him when he did over that non-injury. Ramsey was looking like a deer in the headlights, and he sucked all that preseason too. If there was any real SB talent there, what happened to it?

[Shilsu]

Is the comparison you are trying to make this one:

In 2004 Ramsy had a qb rating that was about points hirer than Brunell in 2004?

and then Ramsy was never given a chance in the 2005 offense?

Maybe it's getting late, but I had trouble deciphering your first question. :laugh:

My comparisons show that in 2004, Ramsey had a higher QB rating than Brunell, which was skewed by two games that Ramsey was expected to come into and salvage (Week 2 and Week 9). If you account for Ramsey's QB rating as a starter, it is ridiculously greater than Brunell.

In 2005, a smaller sample size, Ramsey did better than Brunell. Due to the nature of the small sample size and how that could skew things, I went and broke it game by game and it showed that in each game, Ramsey still outperformed Brunell except the Bears game (which is arguable since Brunell failed to throw as many yards as Ramsey in almost three times the playing time) and the 49ers game (Ramsey threw only one pass for one completion).

My point is: Ramsey could've provided us competent play in the 2005 post-season and that could've been enough for Gibbs to win his fourth Super Bowl.

[Mooka]

Rypien, yes, please do as these posts are a lot better than the first one where you just said "Yes." No they're not. Yes, is a perfectly reasonable answer to your earlier question. There's a perfectly good reason to assume that Ramsey wouldn't have taken us anywhere, its that he isn't very good. He's a backup now and he couldn't even make the Jets roster.

As for Rypien, cmon now. At the top of his game he threw for 3,500+yds, 28Tds and 11ints and took us to a SB. When has Patrick ever remotely come close to those numbers?


As for Patrick, why not? Remember Ramsey's rookie debut versus the Titans (who were ranked 11th while the Steelers were ranked 10th in 1987)? Yes and I don't remember him throwing for 340yds and 4 TDs.


Uhh, only his cumulative stats, and that's because he started 25 more games.
Patrick Ramsey:
184-297 61.95% 1,944yds 11TDs 12ints 76.5 QB Rating

Mark Brunell:
542-951 56.99% 6,033yds 38TDs 20ints 80.6 QB Rating

[skinsn24]

Maybe it's getting late, but I had trouble deciphering your first question. :laugh:

My comparisons show that in 2004, Ramsey had a higher QB rating than Brunell, which was skewed by two games that Ramsey was expected to come into and salvage (Week 2 and Week 9). If you account for Ramsey's QB rating as a starter, it is ridiculously greater than Brunell.

In 2005, a smaller sample size, Ramsey did better than Brunell. Due to the nature of the small sample size and how that could skew things, I went and broke it game by game and it showed that in each game, Ramsey still outperformed Brunell except the Bears game (which is arguable since Brunell failed to throw as many yards as Ramsey in almost three times the playing time) and the 49ers game (Ramsey threw only one pass for one completion).

My point is: Ramsey could've provided us competent play in the 2005 post-season and that could've been enough for Gibbs to win his fourth Super Bowl.

Sorry my post should read in 9 games each in 2004, ramsy had a QB rating that was about 11 points higher.

I dont think discussing 2005 ramsy stats is worth while except to note that when in the game, he didnt suck, and had 1 big game agaisnt the Gmen.

I think it is worthy to note that the entire offense was much better in 2005 than 2004.

I also think it is worthy to take a look at the 2005 playoff passing numbers.

[SoCalSkins]

My point is: Ramsey could've provided us competent play in the 2005 post-season and that could've been enough for Gibbs to win his fourth Super Bowl.


Competent play may not have been necessary. Mediocre play in the 05 post season might have gotten the job done. Brunell got a playoff win with 40 yards of passing. He also was able to beat Philly with around a 100 yards and change the week before. If PR stays in from the Giants game forward, we would have had at least 1 more SB trophy right now.

[Jumbo]

If you were a farm animal we'd just put you down.

I mean make you a pet.

















:silly: :D

[Shilsu]

I'm not ignoring 2004. The fact Brunell did better than Ramsey has ever come close to in '05 shows his turnaround from a season where he was in a new system, and was playing injured. Ramsey was the starter after '04, and he blew it, losing the job to a 30+ year old QB.

Yet more fake facts from elkabong82. :doh:

The only thing Brunell did way better than Ramsey ever did was cumulative stats and that's to be expected since Brunell played in 50% more games than Ramsey ever did in one season. In other stats that measure quantity rather than quality, Ramsey as a starter in 2004 posted BETTER stats than Brunell did in 2005.

Meanwhile, we are to excuse Brunell's poor play in 2004 because he was playing in a new system under Gibbs.. WAIT A MINUTE. SO WAS RAMSEY.


And don't give me the Bunell-Gibbs allegiance line, Joe benched him in '04 AND in '06. Seeing as Gibbs won 3 Superbowls with 3 different QBs, and even made the switch back to Williams in the postseason of '87, shows he knows QBs well, and isn't afraid to put the guy in he thinks gives the team the best shot at winning. I'll take Gibbs judgemnts on football over your 100 times out of 100.

And that's why in the Seahawks playoff game of 2007, the announcers quoted Gibbs as saying he didn't believe Todd Collins could do it.


Again, 25 pass attempts is too small a sample to make the claims about '05 you are making. Simple statistics.

Wow, you are thick.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

And even if we were only taking 2005 into consideration, there's a reason that I broke 2005 down game by game.


My previous post about the other QBs vastly out performing Ramsey their Superbowl wiining years is true, and I didn't need to pull up the stas because you had already looked at them. I addressed the m specifiaclly with stats in another post. You tried using games played in as proof of a valid sample size, rather than pass attempts, which Joey and Doug had at least 4 times the amount of in their respective seasons.

Wow. :doh:

I posted their career stats and the stats of their Super Bowl years to argue your point that the QBs outperformed Ramsey, which is FALSE. Just because you throw in "is true" does not make it true. YOU are the one trying to use "sample size" as the argument which is why I threw in the number of games they played.


I never said Six Falgs wasn't failing. What is so hard to understand about that. Again though, sidestepping the actual issue, and going off topic. When did Snyder fall out with Cruise? Tom was at our playoff game in Seattle this season. Snyder turned them into THE most profitable franchise in the NFL, and second in the world, only to Manchester. I responded in the thread, and you kept up with the same nonsense you are doing now. And just like in that thread, you are getting owned all over this thread too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303530,00.html

Why is it that I'm always backing up my posts with stats, articles, and quotes while you just continue to make up BS? Didn't I just tell you that the Redskins were already one of the most profitable franchises before Snyder took over? And did you not realize the Cowboys are now #1 in terms of NFL teams?

Meanwhile, the only thing you can do is delude yourself by continuing to make asinine statements as "you are getting owned" and hoping that if you repeat it enough times, it'll come true. Good luck with that, and if it works for you, you'll be admitted to a psychiatric ward soon enough.


Oh, and to catch up with you on the excessive smileys: :doh: :doh: :doh: :silly: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thanks, I couldn't use enough smileys to express my disbelief at your ridiculously dense posts on my own. Together, we might be able to do it.

[Shilsu]

He has pretty much sucked wherever he has gone, but you think he was a SB QB with us? I was a PR backer too, but I don't blame JG for pulling him when he did over that non-injury. Ramsey was looking like a deer in the headlights, and he sucked all that preseason too. If there was any real SB talent there, what happened to it?

So WHY did you accuse me of claiming that Joe Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey?

[Thoth]

You ah smokin' the good stuff.


Having won SBs with three different QBs, I'm sure Gibbs knows more about what QBs need to go the distance. Brunell was a disaster, but Ramsey wasn't the answer. He has failed everywhere he's been.

Joe's mistake was not drafting a young, franchise QB right from the get go.

[elkabong82]

By aggregate stats, I mean you can't compare total numbers. You have to use statistics that measure quality NOT quantity. Such stats include COMPLETION PERCENTAGE and QB RATING.



Yet again you fail. :doh:

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

Is three times (plus however many times I reiterated in previous posts) enough? One more time, just in case.

2004 AND 2005.

Large sample size AND small sample size.



It shows you have a history of your tendency to make up things, skew things, and sometimes just flat out run away when being called out.

Does any of that excuse that you are using a sample size of 25 pass attempts to validate your opinion? No. But again you've ignored valid points.

2004 Ramsey had a mediocre year, and the stats others have shown you on his '04 season prove that. But you are trying to tout that around like it means Ramsey would have won in the playoffs the following year, after barely playing, only having 25 pass attempts all season.

Sorry, but I do not have a history of making up things. I actaully use stas and facts to back up my arguments, like I have been doing here. I asked you to point out what fake facts I have stated here, and you have come up with none, other than me saying you got owned in another thread, which is opinion. You need to chill out with these lame accusations about my posts. You claim I ran away when you called me out in the Six Flags thread? I said my piece, retorted, and had nothing else to say that wasn't already said. Sorry I'm not like you where I assume lurking around a thread longer than any one is willing to stay means I "won". If I exit this terrible thread soon because it's almost 3 AM and I have class tomorrow, does that mean I ran away? No. It means I've said mypiece, you keep side-stepping, and I'm done with you. Feel free to get over yourself at any point.

But go ahead and use one instance, of perceived opinion, to justify that my posts are somehow made up, and that I run away from arguments. That's just as valid a sample size as 25 pass attempts. If you actually were aware of my postings, you'd know I argue things into the ground. Ask BLC.

Oh, and get back on topic, enough of these petty attempts at character assassination. You are failing miserably, and you certainly aren't conducting "intelligent conversation".

[skinsn24]

I think some people are not willing to even consider the fact that Brunell was not playing the way he did during most of the season.

He was hurt. His legs were hurt.

Check his numbers in the last 3 games he played in that season.

Just saying look at it, nothing more.

[SoCalSkins]

PR had a stellar year in 04 compared to Brunell. Plus he went against much better competition.

[skinsn24]

No one uses the chat feature ever. Late night when only like 4-5 are in a thread, could get work done there.

But its not in thread..

[Shilsu]

No they're not. Yes, is a perfectly reasonable answer to your earlier question. There's a perfectly good reason to assume that Ramsey wouldn't have taken us anywhere, its that he isn't very good. He's a backup now and he couldn't even make the Jets roster.

And that reason is backed up by what again? The fact that he couldn't make the Jets roster? I guess that means Rich Gannon couldn't do anything because he couldn't crack the starting lineup here. Same with Wes Welker who couldn't even stay on the practice squad. Same with Tom Brady who couldn't even get playing time until Drew Bledsoe got injured.


As for Rypien, cmon now. At the top of his game he threw for 3,500+yds, 28Tds and 11ints and took us to a SB. When has Patrick ever remotely come close to those numbers?

Once again, you can't use stats that measure quantity instead of quality when comparing players. :doh:

Are you going to say Emmit Smith is better than Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, and even Ladainian Tomlinson?


Yes and I don't remember him throwing for 340yds and 4 TDs.

I'm sorry, he only threw for 3TD. As a rookie. In his very first start.


Patrick Ramsey:
184-297 61.95% 1,944yds 11TDs 12ints 76.5 QB Rating

Mark Brunell:
542-951 56.99% 6,033yds 38TDs 20ints 80.6 QB Rating

The fact that their stats are even close should tell you something, but why don't you try calculating Ramsey's stats where he wasn't coming in to salvage a game that Brunell was blowing? I'll even help you, the games are Week 2 versus the Giants in 2004 and Week 9 versus the Bengals in 2004.

You can even use the first Giants game in 2005, if you want, which had no negative impact on Ramsey's stats except that he only had a 50% completion percentage.

[Shilsu]

Does any of that excuse that you are using a sample size of 25 pass attempts to validate your opinion? No. But again you've ignored valid points.

:doh: I am not using a sample size of 25 pass attempts.


2004 Ramsey had a mediocre year, and the stats others have shown you on his '04 season prove that. But you are trying to tout that around like it means Ramsey would have won in the playoffs the following year, after barely playing, only having 25 pass attempts all season.

If you consider an 89.4 rating in his 2004 starts as mediocre, I want to know what your thoughts are on Brunell's 63.9 rating. :doh:

Or how about Brunell's 85.7 rating in 2005. Oh wait, you already said that Brunell had a statistically great year in 2005 that Ramsey never came close to! What the hell? Is this more ass backwards logic from elkabong82? Yup. It is.


Sorry, but I do not have a history of making up things. I actaully use stas and facts to back up my arguments, like I have been doing here. I asked you to point out what fake facts I have stated here, and you have come up with none, other than me saying you got owned in another thread, which is opinion. You need to chill out with these lame accusations about my posts. You claim I ran away when you called me out in the Six Flags thread? I said my piece, retorted, and had nothing else to say that wasn't already said. Sorry I'm not like you where I assume lurking around a thread longer than any one is willing to stay means I "won". If I exit this terrible thread soon because it's almost 3 AM and I have class tomorrow, does that mean I ran away? No. It means I've said mypiece, you keep side-stepping, and I'm done with you. Feel free to get over yourself at any point.

Sorry, but you do have a history of making up things. Let's take a look at this thread. You just spewed random BS, some of it possibly true, most of them absolutely false, and always leaving the burden of proof upon me, which I don't mind except that even when I get you the proof, you continue to drill the randomest asinine things.

In the other thread, you ran away because you never backed up what you said, not because you left the thread. The fact that this is how you think shows what kind of backwards logic goes on in your head.


But go ahead and use one instance, of perceived opinion, to justify that my posts are somehow made up, and that I run away from arguments. That's just as valid a sample size as 25 pass attempts. If you actually were aware of my postings, you'd know I argue things into the ground. Ask BLC.

I already pointed out the Six Flags thread where you claimed Snyder's production company was successful. I said it wasn't, and you never backed up what you said. In fact, even in this thread you continue to ask me "When did that happen?" :doh:


Oh, and get back on topic, enough of these petty attempts at character assassination. You are failing miserably, and you certainly aren't conducting "intelligent conversation".

Once again, just saying something doesn't make it so.

[elkabong82]

Yet more fake facts from elkabong82. :doh:

The only thing Brunell did way better than Ramsey ever did was cumulative stats and that's to be expected since Brunell played in 50% more games than Ramsey ever did in one season. In other stats that measure quantity rather than quality, Ramsey as a starter in 2004 posted BETTER stats than Brunell did in 2005.

Meanwhile, we are to excuse Brunell's poor play in 2004 because he was playing in a new system under Gibbs.. WAIT A MINUTE. SO WAS RAMSEY.



And that's why in the Seahawks playoff game of 2007, the announcers quoted Gibbs as saying he didn't believe Todd Collins could do it.



Wow, you are thick.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

2004 AND 2005.

And even if we were only taking 2005 into consideration, there's a reason that I broke 2005 down game by game.



Wow. :doh:

I posted their career stats and the stats of their Super Bowl years to argue your point that the QBs outperformed Ramsey, which is FALSE. Just because you throw in "is true" does not make it true. YOU are the one trying to use "sample size" as the argument which is why I threw in the number of games they played.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303530,00.html

Why is it that I'm always backing up my posts with stats, articles, and quotes while you just continue to make up BS? Didn't I just tell you that the Redskins were already one of the most profitable franchises before Snyder took over? And did you not realize the Cowboys are now #1 in terms of NFL teams?

Meanwhile, the only thing you can do is delude yourself by continuing to make asinine statements as "you are getting owned" and hoping that if you repeat it enough times, it'll come true. Good luck with that, and if it works for you, you'll be admitted to a psychiatric ward soon enough.



Thanks, I couldn't use enough smileys to express my disbelief at your ridiculously dense posts on my own. Together, we might be able to do it.

Yeah, Ramsey did better in '04, and I already told you Brunell was playing injured that year, and was hampered by learning a new system. But those are fake facts, right? Ramsey wasn't impresive in '04, nor was Brunell. In '05, Brunell did great, and put up a season Ramsey has never come close to, before and since. I also pointed out Gibbs knows a lot more about QBs, and football, than you do, and that I trust his decision over any claim you are going to make. Are those "fake facts".

LMAO at you believeing an announcer who claimed Gibbs publicly said he didn't believe Todd Collins could get it done. Gibbs doesn't throw his players under the bus in front of the media. And if Gibbs didn't think TC could get it done, he'd have gone with Brunell.

And yes, Ramsey was in a new system as well, however, he was young and still fairly new to the league in '04. Brunell had spent an entire career in Jax, under more or less the same system. So his transistion could have been harder than Ramsey's. Ramsey and Brunell had a clean slate going into '05, cuz neither did well in '04, regardless of who didbetter. Ramsey lost the starting job, Brunell had a great year. Your argument Ramsey was better directly contradicts the FACT that Ramsey lost the starting job, and Brunell had a great year. So keep repeating 2004 AND 2005, I've already addressed them. Judging by most others reactions in this thread, I don't think it is me who is "thick".

And I pointed out the vast difference in pass attempts between Ramsey and Theismann and Williams. You simply pointed out the misleading stat of games played in, to validate your sample size in '05. So they did outperform Rmsey, it isn't FALSE. I didn't simply throw in "it's true". You really need to give this crap a rest. Games played doesn't work when the QB only has a few pass attempts in them You seriously think equating a performance based on 25 total pass attempts, to performances of 100+ and 200+ pass attempts is valid? It's not. Again, that is basic statistics. Good God you are being dense on this point. I also pointed out your games played stat is misleading, cuz Ramsey hardly played, and Joey and Doug's seasons were shortened by strikes. Your stat of games played in doesn't work. Accept it and move on.

I haven't been making up BS. I've been using stats as well. However, I haven't been skewing them, and only pointing out portions of the stats convenient to my argument, that's all you have been doing. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm making stuff up. Get over yourself.

And now to the side argument that has nothing to do with the thread topic. The Cowboys are just now number one, and that is with a new stadium on the way and a stellar season. If the Cowboys fail at all next season, you and I both know the bandwagon fans will disappear just as quickly as they did after the playoff losses the past 2 years, and the profit will suffer. You may not want to admit you are getting owned, but when you are part of the minority in your own thread, and people are tearing your "arguments" to shreds, that kind of looks like you are getting owned. Well whatever. Fine you aren't getting owned, people simply aren't agreeing with you, and are pointing out how flawed your use of stats is. happy?

Besides, I'm dluding myself and making asinine assumptions about you getting owned? So what about all your assumptions about my post history, about how my facts are somehow "fake" when I've provided stats, and shown how your use of stats is flawed in areas. What about you trying to drag up another thread to attack me, rather than just stick to the thread topic?

Alright, I'm done with you now. It's late, and you're just going to keep with the lame insults about "fake facts" and continue using the same arguments I've already addressed. Thanks for wasting my time. At least you got my post count up. That is about the only good thing to come out of this thread.

[NYskins]

I guess Eli Manning has us all losing our minds!!!

[Shilsu]

Yeah, Ramsey did better in '04, and I already told you Brunell was playing injured that year, and was hampered by learning a new system. But those are fake facts, right? Ramsey wasn't impresive in '04, nor was Brunell. In '05, Brunell did great, and put up a season Ramsey has never come close to, before and since. I also pointed out Gibbs knows a lot more about QBs, and football, than you do, and that I trust his decision over any claim you are going to make. Are those "fake facts".

How is learning a new system a disadvantage for Brunell compared to Ramsey? Can you explain that and tell me why you keep bringing it up as if it has something to do with anything?

Ramsey WAS impressive in 2004. That was the whole point of my post. He posted a respectable QB rating despite having to play against some of the tougher teams (Eagles and Steelers).

If Ramsey posted a QB rating as a starter in 2004 higher than what Brunell did in 2005, how is that "never come close to". :doh:

THAT is a fake fact.


And yes, Ramsey was in a new system as well, however, he was young and still fairly new to the league in '04. Brunell had spent an entire career in Jax, under more or less the same system. So his transistion could have been harder than Ramsey's. Ramsey and Brunell had a clean slate going into '05, cuz neither did well in '04, regardless of who didbetter. Ramsey lost the starting job, Brunell had a great year. Your argument Ramsey was better directly contradicts the FACT that Ramsey lost the starting job, and Brunell had a great year. So keep repeating 2004 AND 2005, I've already addressed them. Judging by most others reactions in this thread, I don't think it is me who is "thick".

Yup, another random statement that makes no sense from elkabong82. Yes, Brunell and Ramsey were both new to Gibbs, but Ramsey was still young and thus had an advantage of learning a new system. :doh:

Ramsey did do well in 2004. And my argument makes sense, it's just that your arguments are shrouded with such stupidity that they are blinding you. Are you going to say that when Todd Collins is not the starter next year, it's because Jason Campbell did better in 2007? :doh:

You address nothing, and you just continue to delude yourself by telling yourself false statements.


And I pointed out the vast difference in pass attempts between Ramsey and Theismann and Williams. You simply pointed out the misleading stat of games played in, to validate your sample size in '05. So they did outperform Rmsey, it isn't FALSE. I didn't simply throw in "it's true". You really need to give this crap a rest. Games played doesn't work when the QB only has a few pass attempts in them You seriously think equating a performance based on 25 total pass attempts, to performances of 100+ and 200+ pass attempts is valid? It's not. Again, that is basic statistics. Good God you are being dense on this point. I also pointed out your games played stat is misleading, cuz Ramsey hardly played, and Joey and Doug's seasons were shortened by strikes. Your stat of games played in doesn't work. Accept it and move on.

Okay, so how does sample size affect the actual end result of who outperformed who? Todd Collins only played 4 games in the regular season. I guess Jason Campbell outperformed him because he played in 13!

If I play two hands of Blackjack and win $100, and you play twenty hands of Blackjack and win $90, it doesn't matter how many hands we played. I outperformed you.

You keep bringing up 25 total pass attempts, and then mentioning you address 2004. Yeah, that sure is addressing 2004, by completely IGNORING it. And nice try at "Accept it and move on." Yeah, good one, like someone would take orders from a guy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half the time.

"Six Flags is down 90% because of the offseason." :doh:


I haven't been making up BS. I've been using stats as well. However, I haven't been skewing them, and only pointing out portions of the stats convenient to my argument, that's all you have been doing. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm making stuff up. Get over yourself.

You are making stuff up. "Ramsey never came close."


And now to the side argument that has nothing to do with the thread topic. The Cowboys are just now number one, and that is with a new stadium on the way and a stellar season. If the Cowboys fail at all next season, you and I both know the bandwagon fans will disappear just as quickly as they did after the playoff losses the past 2 years, and the profit will suffer. You may not want to admit you are getting owned, but when you are part of the minority in your own thread, and people are tearing your "arguments" to shreds, that kind of looks like you are getting owned. Well whatever. Fine you aren't getting owned, people simply aren't agreeing with you, and are pointing out how flawed your use of stats is. happy?

Wow, first you say Redskins are #1, then you admit you are wrong and yet you somehow try to tell me that I was wrong with your inane blabber while continuing to try to self-assure yourself with delusional comments. Horrible.


Besides, I'm dluding myself and making asinine assumptions about you getting owned? So what about all your assumptions about my post history, about how my facts are somehow "fake" when I've provided stats, and shown how your use of stats is flawed in areas. What about you trying to drag up another thread to attack me, rather than just stick to the thread topic?

It's not an assumption when I post proof of something you posted. Unless you're telling me I hacked into your account and edited your post, which still wouldn't stick considering ExtremeSkins logs edits for public view.

This is why in a thread I posted about Patrick Ramsey possibly being the answer during the 2005 postseason, you bring up the preseason. This is why in a different thread where someone says it's a dark day for the Redskins, you go ballistic claiming that's an insult to Sean Taylor.

You have issues understanding and comprehending other people's threads and posts, and this is why it disturbs me greatly that you continue to make things up.


Alright, I'm done with you now. It's late, and you're just going to keep with the lame insults about "fake facts" and continue using the same arguments I've already addressed. Thanks for wasting my time. At least you got my post count up. That is about the only good thing to come out of this thread.

Yet more self-assurance. Pathetic.

[Mooka]

And that reason is backed up by what again? The fact that he couldn't make the Jets roster? I guess that means Rich Gannon couldn't do anything because he couldn't crack the starting lineup here. Same with Wes Welker who couldn't even stay on the practice squad. Same with Tom Brady who couldn't even get playing time until Drew Bledsoe got injured. But Rich Gannon did do something, Wes Welker is a WR and I don't remember Tom Brady being traded to a team, cut by that team and picked up to be a backup elsewhere after he was a starter.



Once again, you can't use stats that measure quantity instead of quality when comparing players. :doh: You obviously missed my point. Tell me when Patrick has ever put up any "quality" that can even extrapolate to a 3,500yd 28TD 11int season. You're not going to get past 1 or maybe 2 games.


Are you going to say Emmit Smith is better than Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, and even Ladainian Tomlinson? :laugh: What?



I'm sorry, he only threw for 3TD. As a rookie. In his very first start. 2




The fact that their stats are even close should tell you something, but why don't you try calculating Ramsey's stats where he wasn't coming in to salvage a game that Brunell was blowing? I'll even help you, the games are Week 2 versus the Giants in 2004 and Week 9 versus the Bengals in 2004.

You can even use the first Giants game in 2005, if you want, which had no negative impact on Ramsey's stats except that he only had a 50% completion percentage. What should it tell me? That Ramsey's numbers were worse then Brunell's who was so flat out terrible at times that I would've rather watched us take a knee 3 times and punt then watch that joke of a passing game?

Why would I omit stats? Did those games not count or something?

[elkabong82]

:doh: I am not using a sample size of 25 pass attempts.



If you consider an 89.4 rating in his 2004 starts as mediocre, I want to know what your thoughts are on Brunell's 63.9 rating. :doh:

Or how about Brunell's 85.7 rating in 2005. Oh wait, you already said that Brunell had a statistically great year in 2005 that Ramsey never came close to! What the hell? Is this more ass backwards logic from elkabong82? Yup. It is.



Sorry, but you do have a history of making up things. Let's take a look at this thread. You just spewed random BS, some of it possibly true, most of them absolutely false, and always leaving the burden of proof upon me, which I don't mind except that even when I get you the proof, you continue to drill the randomest asinine things.

In the other thread, you ran away because you never backed up what you said, not because you left the thread. The fact that this is how you think shows what kind of backwards logic goes on in your head.



I already pointed out the Six Flags thread where you claimed Snyder's production company was successful. I said it wasn't, and you never backed up what you said. In fact, even in this thread you continue to ask me "When did that happen?" :doh:



Once again, just saying something doesn't make it so.

:snore: Ramsey only had 25 pass attempts in 2005, yet you are using it to say he did beter than Brunell in '05. Doesn't matter that you broke it down game-to-game, 25 is too small. You are using 25 pass attempts to compare Ramsey to Theismann and Doug Williams in their Superbowl winning years. Years in which they both threw at least 4X as many passes.

Ramsey had an overall passer rating of 74.8 in '04, 10 TD, 11 INTs. I already said PR did betterin '04, but both Brunell and his performance then were not good.

Ass bacward logic? Brunell had 23 TDs 10 INTs 85+ passer rating in '05. Ramsey has only had a passer rating over 76 once in his career, and that was when he only threw the ball 25 times. Every other time he has thrown the ball more than 25 times in a season, he has done poorly. The only thing ass backward is the opinion Ramsey would have won us a Superbowl.

Ebough of this crap already. Now you can't even argue the topic, instead babbling on and on about how everything I say is wrong, and a lie. You are completely full of it, and your feeble attempts at character assassination only show desperation.

In the other thread I did back up what I said. Your only reasioning for why Snyder's production company failed is cuz he and Cruise had a falling out. I pointed out already that Cruise was at our playoff game in Seattle this year. They didn't have a falling out in the short time between then and now, it would have been all over ES. Who is the one making stuff up, and using fake facts? I'm drilling random things? And how is pointing out a six flags thread in a Ramsey thread not random? And now you are making brash assumptions about my intelligence based off of stupid assumptions you've made, simply because I don't agree with. This is where I cut you off. You obviously can't stick to the topic, you've attacked a lot of posters on here simply because they've disagreed. I'm done with you now. And you can't stop attacking me, rather than stick to the topic at hand. You are acting like a childish fool, a hypocrite, and a jerk, and you aren't worth my time at all. Good job at failing. Goodbye.

[SoCalSkins]

Brunell threw for 100 yards and change in the season finale in Philly. He threw for 40 yards in the wild card against Tampa. He set the NFL record for fewest passing yards in a playoff win. No one can honestly say that he gave the team a better chance in the 05 post season with the leg injury. Ramsey looked great against the Giants when he came in.

[Shilsu]

But Rich Gannon did do something, Wes Welker is a WR and I don't remember Tom Brady being traded to a team, cut by that team and picked up to be a backup elsewhere after he was a starter.

And how long did it take Rich Gannon? The point is, you can't use the position on a depth chart at one point in time as a reason that they couldn't do something at a different point.


You obviously missed my point. Tell me when Patrick has ever put up any "quality" that can even extrapolate to a 3,500yd 28TD 11int season. You're not going to get past 1 or maybe 2 games.

When has Patrick Ramsey ever been given the Three Amigos and a dominant offensive line? In 2003? No. In 2004? No. In 2005? Well, that's the closest he'll ever get, but he did not get much playing time, did he.

Now let's see what Mark Rypien did without them. Yup, he didn't do much.


:laugh: What?

I was showing you why it's dumb to compare cumulative stats.



2

My mistake.




What should it tell me? That Ramsey's numbers were worse then Brunell's who was so flat out terrible at times that I would've rather watched us take a knee 3 times and punt then watch that joke of a passing game?

Why would I omit stats? Did those games not count or something?

It should tell you that if Brunell played as terrible as you admit at times, and that Ramsey was able to play better than Brunell, then perhaps we would have gotten further in the 2005 season.

Why would you omit stats? Because you're supposed to identify outliers and things that could skew the data. Are you telling me that looking at the stats of games of a QB thrown into a lopsided game tells you anything?

It might be able to separate the great quarterbacks from the rest, but I guarantee you'll have a hard time separating Brunell and Ramsey using stats like that.

[Cpt.Chaos47]

I think Ramsey could have had a bright career if he would have never played for Steve Spurrier. He really wasn't the same after the 2003 season. He seemed shell shocked and never really looked comfortable in the pocket.

[Shilsu]

:snore: Ramsey only had 25 pass attempts in 2005, yet you are using it to say he did beter than Brunell in '05. Doesn't matter that you broke it down game-to-game, 25 is too small. You are using 25 pass attempts to compare Ramsey to Theismann and Doug Williams in their Superbowl winning years. Years in which they both threw at least 4X as many passes.

That's why you use it in context with 2004.


Ramsey had an overall passer rating of 74.8 in '04, 10 TD, 11 INTs. I already said PR did betterin '04, but both Brunell and his performance then were not good.

Compare rating as a starter. Normally, it's okay to use games that the quarterback did not start, but it's ridiculous when you use game stats where a backup quarterback is put in and the starter is pulled because the game is getting out of hand.


Ass bacward logic? Brunell had 23 TDs 10 INTs 85+ passer rating in '05. Ramsey has only had a passer rating over 76 once in his career, and that was when he only threw the ball 25 times. Every other time he has thrown the ball more than 25 times in a season, he has done poorly. The only thing ass backward is the opinion Ramsey would have won us a Superbowl.

Yeah, because Ramsey's performance in direct comparison to Brunell game-by-game "doesn't matter" according to you. You might have a case if I was using Ramsey's 25 times in a few games versus Brunell in other games. But the game-by-game shows you exactly how Ramsey's 25 times compared to Brunell in the exact same game in the exact same conditions.


Ebough of this crap already. Now you can't even argue the topic, instead babbling on and on about how everything I say is wrong, and a lie. You are completely full of it, and your feeble attempts at character assassination only show desperation.

That's impressive. When I use a word, you somehow pick up on it and start to use it in your own posts! Koko, you've met your match!

Unfortunately, you still have to figure out coherence.


In the other thread I did back up what I said. Your only reasioning for why Snyder's production company failed is cuz he and Cruise had a falling out. I pointed out already that Cruise was at our playoff game in Seattle this year. They didn't have a falling out in the short time between then and now, it would have been all over ES. Who is the one making stuff up, and using fake facts? I'm drilling random things? And how is pointing out a six flags thread in a Ramsey thread not random? And now you are making brash assumptions about my intelligence based off of stupid assumptions you've made, simply because I don't agree with. This is where I cut you off. You obviously can't stick to the topic, you've attacked a lot of posters on here simply because they've disagreed. I'm done with you now. And you can't stop attacking me, rather than stick to the topic at hand. You are acting like a childish fool, a hypocrite, and a jerk, and you aren't worth my time at all. Good job at failing. Goodbye.

Yup, that's why I cite sources and your only argument is that you saw Tom Cruise on TV. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Toyota Tundras are the best because you saw it survive a meteor on TV. :doh:

Let me know if you're still confident that amusement park stocks fall 90% when parks close. I'll explain to you how to short stocks along with buying/selling options (specifically puts). You'll make millions.

[elkabong82]

Pathetic.

Yes. You are. All you did in this post was twist my arguments around to fit your own needs, much like you did with the stats in this thread. Then you continued on with insulting my character because my posts don't agree with yours. You are obviously incapable of actually listening and comprehending what anyone in disagreement with you says. And for that, I feel sorry for you.

I pointed out both PR and MB did poorly in '04. I pointed out Brunell's '05 season was better than any season Ramsey has ever had. Those stats don't lie. 25 pass attempts isn't enough for season stats to vaidate Ramsey had a good season, no matter how you cut it.

But that doesn't matter, all you can do is say I'm making things up, and attack my chracter, intelligence, and integrity. There are many posters who would disagree with your statements about me. Even Jumbo voiced his opinion about your thread. It wasn't favorable. So keep ranting and raving, and making baseless accuastions. They will fall on deaf ears, because you are the first person to go on my ignore list. Congrats. Even MasSkinsFan and SnyderMustGo haven't sunk that low. Keep up the classy act of personal attacks at any sign of dissent. It doesn't say anything about your integrity and character, or lack thereof.:rolleyes:

[Shilsu]

Yes. You are.

LOL, prime example of your delusions. I call your antics pathetic, and your response is, "Yes. You are." What's next, are you going to edit my posts in your quotes?


All you did in this post was twist my arguments around to fit your own needs, much like you did with the stats in this thread. Then you continued on with insulting my character because my posts don't agree with yours. You are obviously incapable of actually listening and comprehending what anyone in disagreement with you says. And for that, I feel sorry for you.

Pot, kettle, black. Rinse, repeat.


I pointed out both PR and MB did poorly in '04. I pointed out Brunell's '05 season was better than any season Ramsey has ever had. Those stats don't lie. 25 pass attempts isn't enough for season stats to vaidate Ramsey had a good season, no matter how you cut it.

The point is, Patrick Ramsey did not do poorly in 2004 as you claim.


But that doesn't matter, all you can do is say I'm making things up, and attack my chracter, intelligence, and integrity. There are many posters who would disagree with your statements about me. Even Jumbo voiced his opinion about your thread. It wasn't favorable. So keep ranting and raving, and making baseless accuastions. They will fall on deaf ears, because you are the first person to go on my ignore list. Congrats. Even MasSkinsFan and SnyderMustGo haven't sunk that low. Keep up the classy act of personal attacks at any sign of dissent. It doesn't say anything about your integrity and character, or lack thereof.:rolleyes:

That's the sign of a person grasping for straws. Trying to use other people's opinions as an argument and then trying to make comparisons with other posters. Name dropping, that's what they call it.

[turbodiesel#44]

So WHY did you accuse me of claiming that Joe Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey?BECAUSE you claim PR had SB level skills, yet he could not even crack the Jets roster, a team so desperate for a QB they had to hire one of the golden girls. Where did all that SB talent go?

[Shilsu]

BECAUSE you claim PR had SB level skills, yet he could not even crack the Jets roster, a team so desperate for a QB they had to hire one of the golden girls. Where did all that SB talent go?

And from that you decided to accuse me of saying Joe Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey?

:doh:

[turbodiesel#44]

And from that you decided to accuse me of saying Joe Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey?

:doh:OK genius, I guess Super Bowl Patty must have farted out the talent you claim he had. But it was there, I swear it was. I SEEN IT.

[Shilsu]

OK genius, I guess Super Bowl Patty must have farted out the talent you claim he had. But it was there, I swear it was. I SEEN IT.

And that has what to do with you accusing me of saying Joe Gibbs ruined Patrick Ramsey?

Don't ever make false accusations again.

[Mooka]

Why would you omit stats? Because you're supposed to identify outliers and things that could skew the data. Are you telling me that looking at the stats of games of a QB thrown into a lopsided game tells you anything? I'm telling you those stats count because they do.

[Shilsu]

I'm telling you those stats count because they do.

They count toward stats, but are they reflective of the truth?

There's a reason why on NFL broadcasts, they always provide criteria for stats. Something along the lines of "Runningbacks with a 5.0 average with at least 100 carries".

[KSUSkinsfan21]

Ramsey??? haha um...... no! Bringing back Rich Gannon would have been a better choice.

[Mooka]

They count toward stats, but are they reflective of the truth? This is what you said buddy:


And yet, in spite of those problems, he was still able to post the best numbers out of any quarterback under Joe Gibbs' second run not named Todd Collins.

[Shilsu]

This is what you said buddy:

And? Are we going to argue over semantics now?

[Mooka]

*edited because Shilsu seems lost, hey its pretty late.


And yet, in spite of those problems, he was still able to post the best numbers out of any quarterback under Joe Gibbs' second run not named Todd Collins.
No he didn't. Don't give me any nonsense like in your first post talking about Patrick posting a 95 QB rating in a season where he threw the ball 25 times.

Brunell was absolutely abysmal at times with the Skins in 2004 and 2006, he started 25 more games then Patrick and his overall numbers are far better.
Uhh, only his cumulative stats, and that's because he started 25 more games.
Patrick Ramsey:
184-297 61.95% 1,944yds 11TDs 12ints 76.5 QB Rating

Mark Brunell:
542-951 56.99% 6,033yds 38TDs 20ints 80.6 QB Rating

Night, going to sleep.

[Shilsu]

Those look pretty clear to me.

Instead of quoting random excerpts from various postings throughout the thread, the easiest way to clarify things is just to look at my first post. Everything is right there.

[Potato Sack]

Yes I did. Did you see what he did under Gibbs? He did better than both Mark Brunell and Jason Campbell.

272 att 169 comp 1665 yds 10 TD 11 Int 74.8

One year. One year under Gibbs and these are the stats you throw at us to compare Ramsey to Brunell or Campbell?

While some of your points may be valid, Ramsey hasn't produced for any other team since he left us. There might be a VALID reason for this as well. Like Campbell, Ramsey had the knack of throwing INTs at the wrong times. That seems like a valid comparison as well.

[JazzboneCuit]

I'll probably get flamed hard for this, but I always liked Patrick Ramsey as well and was sorry to see him go to the Jets. There's alot to be said for the heart he showed while he was here. Keep in mind that during his stay with the Skins, how many times was he sacked, rushed, knocked down, or hurried. I think with a little better play from the O line he might still be here today as a backup.
Now for the title of Gibbs and Ramsey winning a superbowl? I do doubt that highly but he could have gotten us a better record with a little more protection than what he got.


JazzboneCuit
:dallasuck

[Oldfan]

Winning a Super Bowl is a stretch, but Joe's record would probably be above .500 if he had stayed with Patrick. Brunell cost us a #3 pick which could have been used for Cooley. We ended up using two picks on Cooley, so Brunell was a net loss of two picks.

Then there's the matter of his salary. Saving the seven million per would have meant we could have the cap room for another player like Antonio Pierce.

Finally, Ramsey-led Redskins teams won at the same percentage as Brunell's even though Brunell had better offensive and defensive support.

Ramsey, a smart pocket passer with a quick release, would have been a better fit for Al Saunder's offense than Brunell or Campbell.

Super Bowl might be a stretch, but Brunell was a major blunder on Joe's part.

[InsaneBoost]

I wouldn't push it that far, if you said Todd Collins I would probably agree.

[chipwhich]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Gibbs II downfall was Brunell. Brunell stained him.

Not saying Ramsey would have won the superbowl, but the god awful ineptness of an offense could have been no worse with any other QB, it could only have been better.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Is Ramsey even still in the NFL?

Some of the diehard Ramsey supporters will NEVER give up.

[CGSKINS]

Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skinsfan_1215]

How about giving reasoning?

Reason #1: Ramsey sucked


Need I say more?

[Isifhan]

Jesus 2004 called and it wants it's thread back.

I knew AJ Skins was posting somewhere.

[TankRizzo]

I was a big fan of Ramsey and absolutely believe he would have taken us a hell of a lot farther than Brunell ever did. I feel sorry for him, he really got shafted by the Redskins and especially Gibbs. He was NEVER given the fair chance he was promised over and over again.

[STBonecrusher21]

I had no confidence in him after that pass at the end of the game in philly. Where we were driving late in the 4th, and we were down. We get in the red zone. Its like a 2nd or 3rd down, Ramsey drops back, has very good protection, and throws into triple, I repeat TRIPLE coverage intended for Cooley. Picked by Dawkins, game over. Terrible.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Spurrier and his Chuck 'N Duck offense ruined Ramsey, before Gibbs even took the reins.

Gibbs gave up a 3rd for Brunell, when he probably didn't need to. He stuck with Brunell, and unfortunately when he was injured, he was awful (especially at the end of '05 after he was hurt in the Giants game). Portis and Taylor carried us in Philly and in Tampa.

So, I think that Gibbs probably should have just drafted a QB in '04 instead of trading a 3rd for Brunell, when he was on the chopping block anyways. We could've still traded up to get Cooley, but our 3rd could've been used on Matt Schaub.

Course, I have the benefit of hindsight, which I guess is okay since we're talking about a QB that's been a backup for 2 other teams since we traded him. Now, had we traded him for the 1st that was offered once upon a time, we coulda had Logan Mankins or Lofa Tatupu, and then we wouldn't have needed to trade for Dock's open slot, or we would have had a solid MLB and could've used the money spent on Fletcher to.... ah this is getting too confusing. I like our players so let's just look towards the future, and be happy that we have almost a complete array of draft picks this April.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ramsey had 2 major problems, even during his "run" in 2004

He held on to the ball way too long, and had awful pocket presence

A good example of him holding the ball too long was in the 2nd Giants game in 2004, the 31-7 win. Arguably that was his best game of the year

But that whole game, he consistantly held on to the ball too long. Gardner had to make a few spectaculor catches to keep drives moving. Cooley had to make a nice move to get a TD catch

His delivery was awkward and he was awkward in the pocket during that whole stretch

Believe me, this whole board wanted Ramsey to succeed, and we thought he was THE GUY. Clearly his post Redskins career shows he won't ever be the guy

[Potato Sack]

Is Ramsey even still in the NFL?

Some of the diehard Ramsey supporters will NEVER give up.

Yes, he plays for Denver. Here are his 2007 stats.

48 att 29 comp 262 yds 1 td 1 int 73.4

He backs up Cutler.

[PorkSkins]

JG and Ramsey could of won a SB if:

1. CP gets over 2000 yards rushing in a season.
2. LB gets another 1000 yards as his back up.
3. The defense sets all time marks wih sacks and INT's for TD's.
4. Ramsey didn't have to throw more than three passes per game.
5. Spurrier would of never been hired.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Yes, he plays for Denver. Here are his 2007 stats.

48 att 29 comp 262 yds 1 td 1 int 73.4

He backs up Cutler.



Thanks a lot for the information you big fat sack of potatoes. :laugh:

Seriously though, thanks for posting. I had NO idea.

So I guess he went to Washington's farm club aka Denver, and essentially earned a promotion by going from 3rd string in New York to 2nd string in Denver.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I was a big fan of Ramsey and absolutely believe he would have taken us a hell of a lot farther than Brunell ever did. I feel sorry for him, he really got shafted by the Redskins and especially Gibbs. He was NEVER given the fair chance he was promised over and over again.


At some point, both Ramsey and you are going to have to look in the mirror and stop blaming other people for his failures. If he was that good he would have risen to the top and shown it, in Washington, New York, and now Denver......

[Om]

Shilsu,

If I read it right, you thought Gibbs made a mistake by not replacing an injured Brunell with Ramsey in the '05 playoffs, correct?

You may be right.

Bottom line, however, is this ... based on everything Gibbs had seen from both men from the day he took the job through the end of his second season, and everything he knew about his team at that point, Gibbs disagreed.

So at this point you're kind of stuck having to convince people that your judgment as a fan watching from home on TV on the matter trumps his.

Tough row to hoe.

[zyvo23]

While browsing various threads and researching quarterbacks, I seriously wonder if Joe Gibbs blew an opportunity to win a fourth Super Bowl. The best way to predict what could've happened, especially in hindsight, is to use the facts of what actually happened.

.............

Joe Gibbs could have won his fourth Super Bowl with his fourth quarterback.

Use the facts and decide.

I still believe that this team would've beaten Seattle with Ramsey @ QB. They would've beaten Carolina. Who knows about the steelers. But I think the single biggest mistake of Gibbs II was the acquisition of Brunell.

[panel]

I think we definitly would have had a better 2004 season with Ramsey instead of Mark Brunell.

[panel]

I had no confidence in him after that pass at the end of the game in philly. Where we were driving late in the 4th, and we were down. We get in the red zone. Its like a 2nd or 3rd down, Ramsey drops back, has very good protection, and throws into triple, I repeat TRIPLE coverage intended for Cooley. Picked by Dawkins, game over. Terrible.
To be fair, that was his second year, and Campbell had several "game over" picks last season, his 3rd season.

[STBonecrusher21]

To be fair, that was his second year, and Campbell had several "game over" picks last season, his 3rd season.

Granted. But his atleast had some chance. I can't remember any that went into triple coverage.

[HogNose]

http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.com/gf3/ram/backin.ram


Best response so far. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Oldfan]

Shilsu,

If I read it right, you thought Gibbs made a mistake by not replacing an injured Brunell with Ramsey in the '05 playoffs, correct?

You may be right.

Bottom line, however, is this ... based on everything Gibbs had seen from both men from the day he took the job through the end of his second season, and everything he knew about his team at that point, Gibbs disagreed.

So at this point you're kind of stuck having to convince people that your judgment as a fan watching from home on TV on the matter trumps his.

Tough row to hoe.

I agree. Gibbs had adapted the offense to suit Brunell's game, so there wasn't much to support a switch to Ramsey at that point.

It's much easier to support the argument that the Redskins would be a better team now if Joe hadn't traded for Brunell.

[Hooper]

Ramsey lacked and lacks the poise and football instincts to ever be a solid qb on a consistent basis.

[Roborob132]

Thanks for all the hard work on the post. I dont think ramsey would have done any better than Boonell. However, Under Saunders, Ramsey is a young TODD COLLINS and I believe we would be in a better situation at QB play if ramsey would have been able to work under Saunders. Although I dont believe ramsey is a HOFer, given the right system he can be effective, the problem with when he was here, there was no system. Nothing worked except Clinton Portis. Under Saunders though, Ramsey I think could have been quit good.

[missionwild_10]

really? lol I wish this was a joke.

[909997]

That didn't stop Todd Collins from marching the Redskins into the playoffs for 2007, did it?

colins was well protected in the 4 games

plus hes release was really fast and hes been in that system for 10 yearts

ramsey like david carr takes to long to pass.

[paintrain]

Pat Ramsey was and is nothing but a career backup.. Get over it.

[funguy1286]

Who gives a **** about numbers. You said theisman, Doug Williams and all those guys had similar number to Ramsey? How many super bowls did ramsey win? Ok he didn't get the chance to cause he was benched. But after being stated healthy and ready to go, he remained on the bench in favor of a 30+ yr old QB at the end of his career who outplayed him easily.

If that doesn't tell you something......

Kind of like what happened this year?

[SoCalSkins]

Pat Ramsey was and is nothing but a career backup.. Get over it.


He was better here with far worse talent than JC. PR might be a career backup in the NFL, but was the best QB the skins have had under Gibbs II.

[JimmyConway]

A QB can't win if he has 'happy feet.'

[Moorecards]

Ramsey lacked and lacks the poise and football instincts to ever be a solid qb on a consistent basis.

My opinion is Ramsey might of had the ability to become a good NFL QB, but 2 years in the Spurrier system where he got NO protection at all and was beat up to a point I think it took any confidence he might of had and he totally lost it after that. But that is just my opinion.

[Forever21]

So is there any reason to believe that Ramsey couldn't have provided that competent QB play?

Joe Gibbs could have won his fourth Super Bowl with his fourth quarterback.

Use the facts and decide.

You're not using facts. You're taking some stats and skewing them to your opinion.

You're not way off on the Brunell vs. Ramsey thing. Ramsey may in fact have been the better option.

However under no circumstances could we have won a SB with him.

[funguy1286]

colins was well protected in the 4 games

plus hes release was really fast and hes been in that system for 10 yearts

ramsey like david carr takes to long to pass.

You really are the most grammatically inept writer I think I have ever seen. Your avator suits you perfectly. Anywho back to your misinformed post...

www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/2002draft/qbs/patrickramsey.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/2002draft/qbs/patrickramsey.htm)

By the way, I know you are a huge Campbell fan so to me it makes no sense to talk about quick decison making and a quick release seeing as I do not think there is any QB in the league other than Leftwich who is slower at getting the ball out then Campbell. In fact, I'd go as far to say that from what I have witnessed, I have never personally seen a qb(other then leftwich) take longer to get the ball out then Campbell in my life.

[G-Prime]

what year is this?

[TMK9973]

I actually agree with the OP.
The fact that Ramsey hasn't done anything since he left doesn't mean much to me. He's still in the league, isn't he?

Rich Gannon did nothing other then a couple good years in Oakland.
Mark Rypin was ONLY good under Gibbs for a few years and couldn't start anywhere else.

Ramsey had some talent. I think if Gibbs had liked him, and worked with him as the starter, I think he would have been a great QB for the Redskins.

But it's too late now...

[pjfootballer]

I'm on record as saying neither Patrick Ramsey nor Mark Brunell were EVER going to lead us to a SB.

[Shilsu]

Shilsu,

If I read it right, you thought Gibbs made a mistake by not replacing an injured Brunell with Ramsey in the '05 playoffs, correct?

Yes, but only in hindsight.



You may be right.

Bottom line, however, is this ... based on everything Gibbs had seen from both men from the day he took the job through the end of his second season, and everything he knew about his team at that point, Gibbs disagreed.

So at this point you're kind of stuck having to convince people that your judgment as a fan watching from home on TV on the matter trumps his.

Tough row to hoe.

Except, I have one advantage over Gibbs - hindsight.

This is just a what if situation that I feel is very realistic. There were two main things preventing us from going further into the playoffs.

1. Clinton Portis.
2. Mark Brunell.

Now, no one knows what would have happened if we benched Portis and put Betts in (only comparison is what Betts did in 2006 under different circumstances), but we know what Ramsey has done when he was put in, especially directly compared to Brunell in the same games. Add to that Portis only slowed down once the playoffs began while Brunell started to suck it up at the end of the regular season. And how much of Portis slowing down was because opponents started to key in on Portis much like 2004 when Brunell was a non-factor?

Combine that with how ridiculously weak the NFC was with the Seahawks (scoreboard aside, Seahawks were dominated by us defensively and looked sluggish offensively in the first part of the game until the defense started to tire from the Redskins offense continuously going 3 and out) and the Panthers who got obliterated by the Seahawks...

Then throw in the Steelers who would've been our Super Bowl opponent. They won, but they did not dominate the Seahawks or the regular season. They were gritty throughout the playoffs and they needed some luck to go along with their good play.

Why couldn't we have won?

[Shilsu]

I agree. Gibbs had adapted the offense to suit Brunell's game, so there wasn't much to support a switch to Ramsey at that point.

It's much easier to support the argument that the Redskins would be a better team now if Joe hadn't traded for Brunell.

I think you'll find the support was what Ramsey did in direct comparison to Brunell. We have a large sample size in 2004.

In 2005, we have a small sample size, but I've broken down each game and directly compared Ramsey's performance Brunell. In side-by-side comparisons, Brunell didn't exactly blow Ramsey out of the water.

[Shilsu]

You're not using facts. You're taking some stats and skewing them to your opinion.

You're not way off on the Brunell vs. Ramsey thing. Ramsey may in fact have been the better option.

However under no circumstances could we have won a SB with him.

Why? :(

Why???? Why is it not even in the realm of possibility? Seahawks were not very good. Panthers were not very good. And Steelers who made it to the Super Bowl through some luck and gritty play were not very good, either (4 point favorites to the Seahawks).

So why was it impossible? :(

[skinsn24]

Im gonna say this again:

Brunell got hurt. His legs were shot. He was not the same player at the end of 05 that he was for most the season.

His last 3 games passing:

Philly: 9/25 141 yards

Tampa: 7/15 41 yards. FOURTY ONE YARDS!!

Now this is extremely important. At this point Brunell is done. His legs have given out. DO you make the change to your backup. Regardless of who it is??

Then the skins only had 3 points going into the 4th quater of the seattle game.

[Shilsu]

Here is more evidence of the perceptions of everyone on ExtremeSkins being warped over time and having a player actually leave the team.

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135845

This thread is about the announcement that Brunell would start in the 2005 season finale versus the Eagles.

Here are the quotes:


I hope he still has his mobility


Lets hope he's at 100 % and knows that he is ready to roll, and lead us into the playoffs. We dont want him slumin out there. LOL


I hope he doesn't play like the 2004 injured Brunell.


Hopefully he'll have enough strength to keep a pop on the ball.


id still sit him and give him another week of rest. Right now he is more likley to get reinjured comming right off his injury- especialy agaisnt philly who will be trying to rip heads off. Id sit him this week and bring him back for the play offs.

Wait a minute, if Philly will be trying to rip heads off, how can you be so confident that we'll win without Brunell, our starting quarterback?

This is why (taken from the same thread).


I am sure that Patrick will be ready if he is needed.


We are set at QB no matter who starts.


The dropoff from Brunell to Ramsey is not that much, so if there are doubts about Brunell, I would rather we rest him the last game of the season & have him ready for the playoffs. The playing time would help Ramsey tune up, should there be an injury in the playoffs too.

I wonder why some of you suggest it was so obvious that Brunell was clearly the better option in 2005 and that Ramsey could not be trusted to do anything.

:rolleyes:

[illone]

Nevermind the fact Brunell played like a Pro-Bowler that year.

Ramsey was a lot of things for the Redskins. A winner was never one of them.

[SoCalSkins]

Nevermind the fact Brunell played like a Pro-Bowler that year.

Ramsey was a lot of things for the Redskins. A winner was never one of them.

Pro Bowlers throw for 40 yards in an entire game in the most important time of the year. They also turn the ball over with INT's in the 4th quarter holding the lead.

Brunell was a lot of things with the Redskins. Pro Bowler was not one of them.

[hailtotheskins69]

Yes I did. Did you see what he did under Gibbs? He did better than both Mark Brunell and Jason Campbell.That's not saying much. Brunell was well below average and Jason hasn't shown much yet. He has shown some promise in a couple games, but not that much. I highly doubt Ramsey would have won a Super Bowl here. But that's just my opinion.

[Om]

Except, I have one advantage over Gibbs - hindsight.

This is just a what if situation that I feel is very realistic. There were two main things preventing us from going further into the playoffs.

1. Clinton Portis.
2. Mark Brunell.

Now, no one knows what would have happened if we benched Portis and put Betts in (only comparison is what Betts did in 2006 under different circumstances), but we know what Ramsey has done when he was put in, especially directly compared to Brunell in the same games. Add to that Portis only slowed down once the playoffs began while Brunell started to suck it up at the end of the regular season. And how much of Portis slowing down was because opponents started to key in on Portis much like 2004 when Brunell was a non-factor?

Combine that with how ridiculously weak the NFC was with the Seahawks (scoreboard aside, Seahawks were dominated by us defensively and looked sluggish offensively in the first part of the game until the defense started to tire from the Redskins offense continuously going 3 and out) and the Panthers who got obliterated by the Seahawks...

Then throw in the Steelers who would've been our Super Bowl opponent. They won, but they did not dominate the Seahawks or the regular season. They were gritty throughout the playoffs and they needed some luck to go along with their good play.

Why couldn't we have won?
As long as we're talking about hindsight, I have no real argument. It would certainly be interesting to see if GIBBS would agree with your view today, no? :)

Couple quick thoughts:

- What I do recall about that couple of weeks was some uncertainty about how badly hurt Brunell actually was at the time. Not positive about this, but I think I recall finding out long after the fact that he'd never really let Gibbs know how bad it was. If so, that would certainly have to be factored in, even in hindsight mode.

- I also recall that Gibbs was very, very down on Patrick by then. Specifically, about his penchant for turning the ball over ... not just in games either, but repeatedly in practice. On a team built around a swarming, stifling D and a pounding running game, the LAST thing he was going to do was put in a guy he didn't trust not to give it to the other team.

[illone]

Pro Bowlers throw for 40 yards in an entire game in the most important time of the year. They also turn the ball over with INT's in the 4th quarter holding the lead.


Brunell played great that year, so don't even try to spin it, man. Anyone with half a brain would remember how well he played leading up to the playoffs.

It's widely known he was banged up in the playoffs:rolleyes:

[Shilsu]

- I also recall that Gibbs was very, very down on Patrick by then. Specifically, about his penchant for turning the ball over ... not just in games either, but repeatedly in practice. On a team built around a swarming, stifling D and a pounding running game, the LAST thing he was going to do was put in a guy he didn't trust not to give it to the other team.

I don't have any knowledge of what Ramsey did in practice, just preseason, where he did play poorly. However, in regular season games, Ramsey did do as well, if not better than Brunell in most every instance, and that should (in hindsight) count for something.

[TheLongshot]

- What I do recall about that couple of weeks was some uncertainty about how badly hurt Brunell actually was at the time. Not positive about this, but I think I recall finding out long after the fact that he'd never really let Gibbs know how bad it was. If so, that would certainly have to be factored in, even in hindsight mode.

Gibbs has often said that if the trainers say a player can go, and the player says that they are fine, he will put them in. He never overrules a player unless the trainers say so.

I've heard people argue for Ramsey in that respect, but personally, I wonder if Ramsey would have been able to stay upright for long, considering the struggles on the offensive line and his relative immobility. Not to mention that Ramsey had a bad habit of turning the ball over when pressure was put on. Fact is, I think Brunell's mobility bought a lot.

As for Betts, he got a lot of carries in that Tampa game. In the Tampa game, he had 10 carries for 25 yards. Not exactly an overwhelming vote to put him in. I don't think anyone was getting a lot of yards behind that beat up O-Line.

Jason

[TMat184]

I was as big Ramsey fan as anyone and I will agree he never really got a fair shake here and I believe to this day he could have been an all pro QB BUT, this is old old news, move on...

[Warhead36]

Ramsey wasn't terrible. He was something way worse.

Mediocre and inconsistent.

With some guys you know they are bad from the start. But for Ramsey he'd have some 300 yard 3 TD games and you think, "Man he is turning the corner!" Then the next week he throws a 4 INT stinker.

Gibbs did the right thing in detaching himself from Ramsey when he did. We blasted him for it but it turned out to be the right move. Guy just can't cut it as an NFL starting QB.

[turbodiesel#44]

I'll probably get flamed hard for this, but I always liked Patrick Ramsey as well and was sorry to see him go to the Jets. There's alot to be said for the heart he showed while he was here. Keep in mind that during his stay with the Skins, how many times was he sacked, rushed, knocked down, or hurried. I think with a little better play from the O line he might still be here today as a backup.
Now for the title of Gibbs and Ramsey winning a superbowl? I do doubt that highly but he could have gotten us a better record with a little more protection than what he got.


JazzboneCuit
:dallasuck
No one is, or should ever question Patricks toughness or heart. His problem was holding the ball too long (way too long), turnovers at critical times, and I got the impression he was not widely viewed on the team as a capable leader. He often seemed confused and lost. But the guy is tough as nails. Even though many of his sacks were his own fault, I blame quite a few on Spurrier too.

[xsquid]

:laugh: :cheers: :laugh:

No disrespect to P.Ramsey but I'm not shedding a tear that he is gone

[Jethrodsp]

I agree. I think the Redskins would have gone further in the playoffs if they had allowed Patrick Ramsey to play and I was saying as much halfway through the Tampa Game.

[nneece]

Gibbs was married to Brunell. Whether it had been Ramsey or another QB, I think Brunell was largely Gibbs II downfall. That and ultraconservative play calling.

[turbodiesel#44]

I agree. I think the Redskins would have gone further in the playoffs if they had allowed Patrick Ramsey to play and I was saying as much halfway through the Tampa Game.


Gibbs was married to Brunell. Whether it had been Ramsey or another QB, I think Brunell was largely Gibbs II downfall. That and ultraconservative play calling.I won't argue with either of those posts. But Ramsey taking the SB is a whole....notha....level....

[skinsn24]

Brunell played great that year, so don't even try to spin it, man. Anyone with half a brain would remember how well he played leading up to the playoffs.

It's widely known he was banged up in the playoffs:rolleyes:

Yes Brunell did play great, then got hurt in the gaints game. Then tanked it in the PHilly game and reallly bad in the tampa game.

That is the point you are missing here. IN hindsight, knowing about brunells injury, would u make a QB change at that point?


No one is saying ramsy should haved played 16 games. We are talking seattle game and further.

[abdcskins]

I always thought Ramsey got a raw deal. He should've started over Brunell. Matter of fact we never should've even signed Brunell in the first place, a tremedous waste of money(He did redeem himself in 05, true).


Ramsey was, however, rattled in the pocket. He crumbled like some apple pie crust. Could've he had better protection? Yes. I think we gave up a record number of sacks in 2004. But....I dunno. I think he is aight at best.

[turbodiesel#44]

Yes Brunell did play great, then got hurt in the gaints game. Then tanked it in the PHilly game and reallly bad in the tampa game.

That is the point you are missing here. IN hindsight, knowing about brunells injury, would u make a QB change at that point?


No one is saying ramsy should haved played 16 games. We are talking seattle game and further.I have no doubt PR would have put up better numbers in the Tampa game. I have serious doubts he would have won that game with his propencity for indecision and bad decisions. Frankly, I may have been able to pass for 40 yds. I know I could have thrown tighter spirals into the water cooler.

[skinsn24]

I have no doubt PR would have put up better numbers in the Tampa game. I have serious doubts he would have won that game with his propencity for indecision and bad decisions. Frankly, I may have been able to pass for 40 yds. I know I could have thrown tighter spirals into the water cooler.

:laugh: :laugh: good stuff

[cvagnier]

I was as big Ramsey fan as anyone and I will agree he never really got a fair shake here and I believe to this day he could have been an all pro QB BUT, this is old old news, move on...

exactly what i was thinking just to retarted to type it. great post

[JerseyGator]

Please people. Patrick couldn't cut it with the Jets, who were hurting at QB this year. How in the world could he win the SB with the Skins? Please.

[Ant15fromNJ]

I really likes Ramsey and he never got a FAIR chance under Gibbs and that was horrible of Gibbs to do to him. I remember when gibbs first came back, ramsey was interviewed and seemed really ready to play at a high level under gibbs coaching but was never given a fair chance.

[jbooma]

Didn't Gibbs bench Ramsey :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He looked at the film and there was something not there, and it is clear if you look at his career since.

[turbodiesel#44]

I really likes Ramsey and he never got a FAIR chance under Gibbs and that was horrible of Gibbs to do to him. I remember when gibbs first came back, ramsey was interviewed and seemed really ready to play at a high level under gibbs coaching but was never given a fair chance.You got to impress the coach first. Didn't happen. Lets talk about LaVaar for a while, k?

[illone]

That is the point you are missing here.


My post was in regards to something someone else pointed out about Brunell, not to the OP.

I already addressed the OP in an earlier post, maybe you can find it;).

[Shilsu]

What if Patrick Ramsey had a better offensive line (his line was Corey Raymer - a crappy C, Derrick Dockery - a G who people say didn't warrant resigning until after 2007, and Ray Brown - a 40 year old at RT), a real #2 WR (Rod Gardner was his #2), a running game (Clinton Portis averaged 3.8 YPC), and 16 starts in the same system?

[SkinsFTW]

I remember all this. I was 100% for Ramsey starting after Brunell got injured in the Giants game. (Actually those stats from late in 2004 were why I was mad he never game Ramsey a real chance.)

Then Brunell went out 2 weeks later and set an NFL record for bad QB play and somehow we still beat Tampa but that was the end of it.

Brunell was pretty decent for some of 2005 but it was obvious from 2004 and all those sub 100 yard passing games that he couldn't last a season. Gibbs was just sticking with his starter but he had to know that Brunell was garbage when he was injured and he wouldn't admit it.

As embarrassing as 2004 had to be to Brunell he still went out week after week and embarrassed himself further until Gibbs had no choice but to put him out of his misery for a year. His stats were really bad, but what makes them even worse is when you add in all the fumbles he had, and the fact that he only passed the ball 3-7 yards 90% of the time yet still only completed 49% of his passes. He was the definition of a good backup because he could play well for a few weeks. When he has nagging injuries he just sucks.

[Evilskinzfan47]

Ya know.I liked ramsey.His biggest problem was that he was getting murdered.Our o-line couldnt pass block back then either.
When ramsey did get protection he was scared.The boy got beat to death and got scared of getting hit again.The skins ruined him.

[Evilskinzfan47]

I was always a supporter of Ramsey. He never got a fair chance, IMO

I'm with ya man!:cheers:

[skinsbosoxheels]

You have valid points...all points that have been put on this board for the last three years. Ramsey got a raw deal and the team suffered for it, in my personal opinion, but what can you do now? Lets all follow Jim Zorn to the promise land or see his fall flat on his face and watch Bill Cowher become out 28th head coach. I really hope that doesn't happen though, I kind of like the guy not to mention, I'd love to keep my sanity for the upcoming season. (Not to get off topic or anything)

Lots of FACTS...i like that...I will say that Gibbs biggest failure in his 2nd tenure was the fact he brought in Brunell and was to STUBBORN to admit it.

[BuddyLeeGhostHunter]

Patrick Ramsey?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:yeahthat:

Ramsey was benched for a reason. Where is Ramsey now?

Last I heard he was the 3rd stringer in Denver on his way out.

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

Wow. Whatta bump.

[SittingBull]

Coach after coach don't see what you do. Joe Gibbs would rather start old fart Brunell, Mangini would rather start noodle arm Pennington, and Shannahan would rather start noob Cutler. Hell even Spurrier was desperate to start joke college has been Wuerfell over him.

All these professional coaches one after the other who's been involved in football for most of their lives can see that Ramsey doesn't have what it takes to be a starting NFL QB and yet you Ramsey supporters are so stubborn you can't accept it.

We are 7-5 right now and although we haven't been playing great football as of late do you really yearn for the days of Spurrier? Stop living in the past, and get your head out your butt. If Ramsey was starting material he would have succeeded elsewhere.

[SirClintonPortis]

:yeahthat:

Ramsey was benched for a reason. Where is Ramsey now?

Last I heard he was the 3rd stringer in Denver on his way out.He's on IR...

[SittingBull]

I just noticed how old this thread is. Why was it bumped.

[BuddyLeeGhostHunter]

He's on IR...
Ah, that's right. Poor SOB.