Who starts at QB?

MTK · 03-15-2006, 04:29 PM

Well then it's over and done, if ES said it, it's gotta be true!

Schneed10 · 03-15-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddle

I mentioned this in another thread.

A poll on extremeskins, voted on by about 250 fans, showed that fans thought Ramsey had not had a fair shot as a Redskin by a margin of almost exactly 2 - 1.

I don't doubt that. I'd side with the 2 in that case. But it's not the important question. The question is who gives us a better shot at winning.

I'm sorry that poor Patrick's feelings got hurt and he didn't get the chance he deserved because he's such a nice guy and a hard worker; but Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care. We went 10-6 with Brunell and I'm looking forward to better with either him or Campbell.

MTK · 03-15-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't doubt that. I'd side with the 2 in that case. But it's not the important question. The question is who gives us a better shot at winning.

I'm sorry that poor Patrick's feelings got hurt and he didn't get the chance he deserved because he's such a nice guy and a hard worker; but Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care. We went 10-6 with Brunell and I'm looking forward to better with either him or Campbell.

Agreed.

Instead of daydreaming about coulda, shoulda, woulda with Ramsey, how about we focus on what did happen with Brunell, and that's a playoff appearance.

Schneed10 · 03-15-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What I don't understand is what Ramsey has done to have earned such a fanboy following.

WORD.

My theory is that everyone thinks he's a nice guy, and a hard worker, and a likeable kid. And after what Spurrier put him through, and how he kept fighting, he earned admiration from fans. So he's an emotional favorite for people, they root for him to do well because it would make them feel good.

That and I bet that anyone who has been spurned by management in their lives (laid off, passed over for promotion, etc) despite their hard work and dedication probably identifies with Ramsey.

Oh well he's gone. I'm over it. 10-6, and looking for more.

BrudLee · 03-15-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddle

I mentioned this in another thread.

A poll on extremeskins, voted on by about 250 fans, showed that fans thought Ramsey had not had a fair shot as a Redskin by a margin of almost exactly 2 - 1.

Excellent point. As we all know, only those who are qualified to make such a call would even think about answering an internet poll question.

Huddle (and everyone else), I like Ramsey a whole lot, and think he could've been a quality NFL starter. He wasn't well coached, and he wasn't protected in his first few years, and it cost him confidence - both his own, and that of his teammates. He may still do well in this league, but it's best for him and for us to part ways.

MTK · 03-15-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

WORD.

My theory is that everyone thinks he's a nice guy, and a hard worker, and a likeable kid. And after what Spurrier put him through, and how he kept fighting, he earned admiration from fans. So he's an emotional favorite for people, they root for him to do well because it would make them feel good.

That and I bet that anyone who has been spurned by management in their lives (laid off, passed over for promotion, etc) despite their hard work and dedication probably identifies with Ramsey.

Oh well he's gone. I'm over it. 10-6, and looking for more.

Just to elaborate, I'm a fan of Ramsey myself because of those reasons you mentioned, but, setting the emotional part of it aside, I want what's best for this football team. And if the powers that be think Ramsey isn't the answer at QB for us, so be it.

Schneed10 · 03-15-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just to elaborate, I'm a fan of Ramsey myself because of those reasons you mentioned, but, setting the emotional part of it aside, I want what's best for this football team. And if the powers that be think Ramsey isn't the answer at QB for us, so be it.

That's me in a nutshell too. The emotional side of me wants to see him go on and do well elsewhere. But the fan in me wants to see wins, and the fan in me agrees with Gibbs' decision: we're better off with Brunell now and Campbell as our future.

firstdown · 03-15-2006, 04:38 PM

It seems as the coaches around the NFL agree with Gibbs.

JET · 03-15-2006, 04:40 PM

Offiss, to attribute Gibbs treatment of Ramsey to malice is to stray beyond what seems reasonable. It doesn't fit Gibbs character and it has hurt the team in terms of what they can get trade-wise for Ramsey. I didn't much care for Gibbs preference for Brunell myself, but we'll never know if the season would have been better, the same, or worse with Ramsey at the helm. It's really an exercise in aggravation to waste time wondering about it.

And yet I did anyway. I did a bit of stat comparison, just out of morbid curiousity. Here are some numbers from Ramsey in 2004 (the second line is what his stats might have looked like for 16 games) and Brunell in 2005. I figure the addition of Moss and Rabach, and return of Jansen balance out Brunells injury. By that I mean Brunells numbers in 2004 were artificially bad, so with the increase in talent in 2005 things come close to evening out. There are flaws in this comparison, but anyway:

QB_____Games Yds TDs Ints Fumbles lost yds/game rating sacked yds
Ramsey_9____1665_10_11__6______1___185______74.8__ 23____137
_______16___2960_18_20__11_____2___ 185______74.8__41____244

Brunell_16____3050_23_10__10_____6___190.6_____85. 9__27____213

Yardage wise things are about on par. The fumbles are about even. Brunell lost more but the difference in a fumble being a turnover versus being recovered by the offense are usually due to chance, so I don't hold this stat against Mark.

The TD-interception ratio and sacks are what really jump out at me. Brunell is much better at avoiding interceptions. I always thought that Ramsey would make up for this difference with the yards he gained, but I was wrong. The sacks are funny, in a sad way. Brunell lost quite a few more yards per sack, probably because of the extra deep drops he takes.

I started this comparison thinking that it would show Ramsey the superior QB, but I was wrong. On paper Brunell outperformed him. It goes to show how far perception can be from reality.

Edit: My formatting skillz are subpar

warriorzpath · 03-15-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

WORD.

My theory is that everyone thinks he's a nice guy, and a hard worker, and a likeable kid. And after what Spurrier put him through, and how he kept fighting, he earned admiration from fans. So he's an emotional favorite for people, they root for him to do well because it would make them feel good.

That and I bet that anyone who has been spurned by management in their lives (laid off, passed over for promotion, etc) despite their hard work and dedication probably identifies with Ramsey.

Oh well he's gone. I'm over it. 10-6, and looking for more.

I agree. But don't feel bad for him, he's making millions while we're only making half of what he does (well, only I am I guess). He will sign on with someone else and at least sign a new contract to make a few more million and even if he is a bust, he has some good starting out money to find something else to do in his early to middle 30's. Wait, now this is starting to depress me - can I get a fanclub, I am being treated unfairly at work too and I work damn hard. ... maybe Peyton Manning can start it ?

Huddle · 03-15-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't doubt that. I'd side with the 2 in that case. But it's not the important question. The question is who gives us a better shot at winning.

I'm sorry that poor Patrick's feelings got hurt and he didn't get the chance he deserved because he's such a nice guy and a hard worker; but Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care. We went 10-6 with Brunell and I'm looking forward to better with either him or Campbell.

You miss the point.

We invested a number one draft choice in him and we still aren't sure, after four years, that he isn't our best QB (especially since he proved himself our best for three years running).

Sure, let's move on and give Campbell a fair shot. I've seen Brunell's game.

SmootSmack · 03-15-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just to elaborate, I'm a fan of Ramsey myself because of those reasons you mentioned, but, setting the emotional part of it aside, I want what's best for this football team. And if the powers that be think Ramsey isn't the answer at QB for us, so be it.

I really wanted Ramsey to do well here. I'm not going to say he let me down per se, but when he was annointed the team's starter last spring I thought he'd come out guns blazing come training camp/preseason time and put so much distance between him and brunell/campbell there would be no debate. And yet, I didn't feel like I saw a QB who was any better than that last game against Minnesota. Meanwhile Brunell got healthy and fought hard to claim his job back.

I still think it was a mistake of Gibbs to name Ramsey the starter but it was also a mistake on Ramsey's part not to claim that title on the field last summer and leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he should be the guy.

warriorzpath · 03-15-2006, 04:53 PM

Why do we keep beating a Maurice Clarrett ... um I mean dead horse ?... get it bronco... horse... you know a bronco's a h... forget it, I guess the joke aint funny if you have to explain it.

Schneed10 · 03-15-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddle

You miss the point.

We invested a number one draft choice in him and we still aren't sure, after four years, that he isn't our best QB (especially since he proved himself our best for three years running).

Sure, let's move on and give Campbell a fair shot. I've seen Brunell's game.

Now you're getting into an argument over how good Brunell is. And if you're arguing that he's worthless, you don't have any ground to stand on. 23 TDs and 10 INTs. It speaks for itself.

Huddle · 03-15-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Now you're getting into an argument over how good Brunell is. And if you're arguing that he's worthless, you don't have any ground to stand on. 23 TDs and 10 INTs. It speaks for itself.

Individual stats don't say anything to me. I watch the game.

I saw a QB who played at an all-pro level in the early part of the season but one whose game is too limited, and thus easily defended, at this stage of his career.

03-15-2006, 04:29 PM	#91
MTK Hail Raiser Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 53 Posts: 100,038	Re: Who starts at QB? Well then it's over and done, if ES said it, it's gotta be true! __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

03-15-2006, 04:38 PM	#98
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 62 Posts: 15,817	Re: Who starts at QB? It seems as the coaches around the NFL agree with Gibbs.

03-15-2006, 04:40 PM	#99
JET Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Md Age: 52 Posts: 81	Re: Who starts at QB? Offiss, to attribute Gibbs treatment of Ramsey to malice is to stray beyond what seems reasonable. It doesn't fit Gibbs character and it has hurt the team in terms of what they can get trade-wise for Ramsey. I didn't much care for Gibbs preference for Brunell myself, but we'll never know if the season would have been better, the same, or worse with Ramsey at the helm. It's really an exercise in aggravation to waste time wondering about it. And yet I did anyway. I did a bit of stat comparison, just out of morbid curiousity. Here are some numbers from Ramsey in 2004 (the second line is what his stats might have looked like for 16 games) and Brunell in 2005. I figure the addition of Moss and Rabach, and return of Jansen balance out Brunells injury. By that I mean Brunells numbers in 2004 were artificially bad, so with the increase in talent in 2005 things come close to evening out. There are flaws in this comparison, but anyway: QB_____Games Yds TDs Ints Fumbles lost yds/game rating sacked yds Ramsey_9____1665_10_11__6______1___185______74.8__ 23____137 _______16___2960_18_20__11_____2___ 185______74.8__41____244 Brunell_16____3050_23_10__10_____6___190.6_____85. 9__27____213 Yardage wise things are about on par. The fumbles are about even. Brunell lost more but the difference in a fumble being a turnover versus being recovered by the offense are usually due to chance, so I don't hold this stat against Mark. The TD-interception ratio and sacks are what really jump out at me. Brunell is much better at avoiding interceptions. I always thought that Ramsey would make up for this difference with the yards he gained, but I was wrong. The sacks are funny, in a sad way. Brunell lost quite a few more yards per sack, probably because of the extra deep drops he takes. I started this comparison thinking that it would show Ramsey the superior QB, but I was wrong. On paper Brunell outperformed him. It goes to show how far perception can be from reality. Edit: My formatting skillz are subpar

03-15-2006, 04:53 PM	#103
warriorzpath Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,880	Re: Who starts at QB? Why do we keep beating a Maurice Clarrett ... um I mean dead horse ?... get it bronco... horse... you know a bronco's a h... forget it, I guess the joke aint funny if you have to explain it.

Who starts at QB?

Locker Room Main Forum