How should we read the performance thus far?

SKINZ_DOMIN8 · Post by **SKINZ_DOMIN8** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:36 pm

Fo_Block wrote:
DEHog wrote:I don't think QB play is as important as D and a good running game. As I glance back over the past few SB I see names like Brady, Dilfer and Johnson who have won SB. Our QB just has to be steady not great.

brady is one of the best QB's in the game - you cannot seriously be comparing ramsey to brady. at this point ramsey is probably the second or third worst QB's in the NFL ahead of hutchinson and ferrote

Better watch out I'm sure some genius will try to throw up one of their "ramsey statistics" that will "prove" he is better than brady....I give it one day..... :roll:

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:15 pm

DEHog wrote:
Fo_Block wrote:
DEHog wrote:I don't think QB play is as important as D and a good running game. As I glance back over the past few SB I see names like Brady, Dilfer and Johnson who have won SB. Our QB just has to be steady not great.

brady is one of the best QB's in the game - you cannot seriously be comparing ramsey to brady. at this point ramsey is probably the second or third worst QB's in the NFL ahead of hutchinson and ferrote

No I’m not comparing him, I’m just saying we don’t need him to do everything or put up big numbers like McNabb, Manning or Culpepper. As for Brady being good I agree, we just had our fantasy league draft and 9 other QB’s went before Brady because he doesn't put up big numbers. What I’m saying is Ramsey doesn’t have to be great he just needs to be steady like a Brady, Dilfer or Johnson were during their SB runs.

brady shouldn't be mentioned in this discussion. as for dilfer and johnson - those are guys that maybe can't win the game for you but they don't lose it either. that is the problem with ramsey - poor decision making leads to turnovers. if the D is as good as advertised then brunnel has to be the QB for the redskins to succeed. ramsey just cannot win in the NFL. he will play to his career passer rating this year - 74.4 and will never win a playoff game as QB of the redskins.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:07 pm

brady shouldn't be mentioned in this discussion. as for dilfer and johnson - those are guys that maybe can't win the game for you but they don't lose it either. that is the problem with ramsey - poor decision making leads to turnovers. if the D is as good as advertised then brunnel has to be the QB for the redskins to succeed. ramsey just cannot win in the NFL. he will play to his career passer rating this year - 74.4 and will never win a playoff game as QB of the redskins.

With all due respect, but it's impossible to make such a blanket statement like that. Ramsey has never had the opportunity to lead the Redskins for a full season with the benefit of a solid Offensive line, and a full off-season worth of preparation, planning, and vison from the coaching staff. You can't compare Ramsey's past statistics to determine how he'll do this year. This is his first real opportunity to show that he can be coached properly, and if so, that he can be a leader. No one is suggesting that Ramsey is the only thing that will determine whether we win or lose, but it's time to find out if he can be a leader. To compare his past history is just wrong. He's being given a unique opportunity to show what he can do, and if he suceeds, then that's great. If the Redskins dont' win this year, it won't be entirely Ramseys fault, just as if we win it wont' simply be because of Ramsey. When you look at the Standings, the playoffs, the winners and losers, they don't mention the names of players as the winners. They mention it by team, and they do so for a reason. Because it takes a team to win a game. No one player is going to do it all on his own. Just as DEHog said, we don't need Ramsey to put up numbers like a Culpepper or Manning, we just need him to be consistant, steady, and reliable. I'd gladly give up the outrageous fantasy numbers for a trip to the playoffs. I'm a fantasy football player, but when it comes to the Redskins, I don't give a rats tail whether or not Ramsey is good in fantasy football as long as we win ball-games.

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:41 pm

JPFair wrote:With all due respect, but it's impossible to make such a blanket statement like that.

true - this is simply my opinion. ramsey will never win a playoff game as qb of the redskins.

JPFair wrote:You can't compare Ramsey's past statistics to determine how he'll do this year.

the best predicter of future performance is past performance.

what has ramsey done to make you think he is capable of playing above the level he has achieved in 3 years?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:50 pm

Fo_Block wrote:the best predicter of future performance is past performance.

I disagree. The best indicator -will- be the game against your team this season. Anything else can become an never ending argument held until the cows come back home. Facts and actions speak louder than words.

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:01 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
I disagree. The best indicator -will- be the game against your team this season.

i don't think the redskins will make it to the super bowl for that.

SkinsFanInHawai'i · Post by **SkinsFanInHawai'i** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:18 pm

Fo_Block wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
I disagree. The best indicator -will- be the game against your team this season.

i don't think the redskins will make it to the super bowl for that.

Week 11

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:12 pm

SkinsFanInHawai'i wrote:
Fo_Block wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
I disagree. The best indicator -will- be the game against your team this season.

i don't think the redskins will make it to the super bowl for that.

Week 11

i am a jets fan - the only way the jets play the skins is if the skins make it to detroit. at this point i would say that is pretty unlikely, even in a watered down nfc.

1fan4ramsey · Post by **1fan4ramsey** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:17 pm

For perspective sake, if the Bengals were in the NFC they would be one of the top teams, and Carolina is considered the only team in the NFC to give the Eagles a run for the Championship. Taking these two things in consideration, I think the Skins did pretty good, don't you think? This week comes the Steelers with the number one defense.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:23 am

1fan4ramsey wrote:For perspective sake, if the Bengals were in the NFC they would be one of the top teams, and Carolina is considered the only team in the NFC to give the Eagles a run for the Championship. Taking these two things in consideration, I think the Skins did pretty good, don't you think? This week comes the Steelers with the number one defense.

Actually I think the Falcons would be the #1 contender to the Eagles.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:44 am

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:

Better watch out I'm sure some genius will try to throw up one of their "ramsey statistics" that will "prove" he is better than brady....I give it one day.....

skinz_domin8, this asinine comment reminds me of when homer simpson said "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" kind of ironic that you're being the "homer", huh? :lol:

not saying ramsey is a better QB than brady by any means. but the reason people bring up statistics about ramsey is because they are factual. facts are not negotiable. they are true. you can't simply disregard a fact because it doesn't fit with your opinions.

your "arguments" would hold much more weight if you offered some sort of factual/statistical information to back them up. keep in mind: good statistical analysis takes into account the whole picture, not just random incidents taken out of context. when you look at the whole of ramsey's statistics, you get the picture that he is a promising QB that does make a few too many bad decisions.

his statistics are not terrible but they aren't great-- however, they are pretty darn good for a QB who has only been in the NFL for 3 seasons. other posters have pointed out how other extremely successful QBs of the past had worse statistics after 3 years than ramsey does. of course, a lot of QBs with the same stats also turned into nobodies.

so the bottom line is, the stats on ramsey say "inconclusive". i'm of the mindset the best thing to do is cheer him on and hope he decisively establishes himself in this, his 4th season- which is typically when QBs really start to settle in.

TAFKAS · Post by **TAFKAS** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:49 am

die cowboys die wrote:
SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:

Better watch out I'm sure some genius will try to throw up one of their "ramsey statistics" that will "prove" he is better than brady....I give it one day.....

skinz_domin8, this asinine comment reminds me of when homer simpson said Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

LOL. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that

Free Sean Taylor! · Post by **Free Sean Taylor!** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:07 am

Hey- at least we scored 17 points last week.
That's improvement.

SKINZ_DOMIN8 · Post by **SKINZ_DOMIN8** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:15 am

die cowboys die wrote:
SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:

Better watch out I'm sure some genius will try to throw up one of their "ramsey statistics" that will "prove" he is better than brady....I give it one day.....

skinz_domin8, this asinine comment reminds me of when homer simpson said "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" kind of ironic that you're being the "homer", huh?
not saying ramsey is a better QB than brady by any means. but the reason people bring up statistics about ramsey is because they are factual. facts are not negotiable. they are true. you can't simply disregard a fact because it doesn't fit with your opinions.

your "arguments" would hold much more weight if you offered some sort of factual/statistical information to back them up. keep in mind: good statistical analysis takes into account the whole picture, not just random incidents taken out of context. when you look at the whole of ramsey's statistics, you get the picture that he is a promising QB that does make a few too many bad decisions.

his statistics are not terrible but they aren't great-- however, they are pretty darn good for a QB who has only been in the NFL for 3 seasons. other posters have pointed out how other extremely successful QBs of the past had worse statistics after 3 years than ramsey does. of course, a lot of QBs with the same stats also turned into nobodies.

so the bottom line is, the stats on ramsey say "inconclusive". i'm of the mindset the best thing to do is cheer him on and hope he decisively establishes himself in this, his 4th season- which is typically when QBs really start to settle in.

Okay....here's a "good Ramsey Statistic": What is his win/loss record?

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:18 am

Okay....here's a "good Ramsey Statistic": What is his win/loss record?

Here's a good answer. A QB doesn't win a game. A team wins the game!! There's no such thing as a QB statistic of 2-0 or 1-3 or something like that. When they talk about how a QB does, they say things like "While Ramsey was QB of the Redskins, the team was X-Y. There may be an I in YOUR team, but there's no I in THIS team!!

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:15 am

Okay....here's a "good Ramsey Statistic": What is his win/loss record?

Here's a few more questions for you to ponder:

What was the Denver Broncos record during John Elways first year as a starter?

What was the Dallas Cowboys record during Troy Aikmans first full year as a starter?

What was the record of the San Francisco 49ers during Joe Montanas first full year as a starter?

Brett Favre?

Peyton Manning?

And the list goes on!!! The moral of the story is this: It takes growth, it takes time, it takes coaching, it takes a whole lot of things for a QB to help his team win. Specifically, as Joe Gibbs himself said, the past doesn't mean anything. It's all about how Ramsey progresses from this point, as opposed to how he's done in the past.

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:12 am

JPFair wrote:
Okay....here's a "good Ramsey Statistic": What is his win/loss record?

Here's a good answer. A QB doesn't win a game. A team wins the game!! There's no such thing as a QB statistic of 2-0 or 1-3 or something like that. When they talk about how a QB does, they say things like "While Ramsey was QB of the Redskins, the team was X-Y. There may be an I in YOUR team, but there's no I in THIS team!!

ramsey's qb rating for 2004 = 74.8.

this is actually higher than his career avg. his qb rating was higher than 4 non-redskin qb's - boller, mccown, dorsey, and feeler. every other qb finished with a higher rating than ramsey.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:22 pm

ramsey's qb rating for 2004 = 74.8.

this is actually higher than his career avg. his qb rating was higher than 4 non-redskin qb's - boller, mccown, dorsey, and feeler. every other qb finished with a higher rating than ramsey.

That doesn't mean diddly squat in terms of how the Redskins will do this year. Out of curiosity, what were Joe Namath's statistics after his first full year as a QB of the New York Jets? If you look back, his first full year he threw 15 interceptions and 18 touchdowns. He only completed 48.2 percent of his passes, and had a total of only 2220 yards for a woefull average of only 6.5 yards a completion. In fact, if you look at his career statistics, he NEVER had a full season where he averaged more than 9 yards a catch, and never completed more than 52% of his passes. Pretty meager statistics, yet didn't he lead them to a Championship? Didn't he get enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

A classic example that it's not the QB that wins the championship, it's the team. While Namath is deservedly in the Hall of Fame, he is a prime example of why the success of the Redskins is not solely dependant on Patrick Ramsey having phenomenal statistics. Perhaps in a fantasy league it's important to have such numbers, but in the NFL, it's nowhere near as important. It's all about teamwork!!!

1fan4ramsey · Post by **1fan4ramsey** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:25 pm

I cannot believe all the Ramsey bashing, the offense stank last year, and non of it was due to the qb play. Revamped offense this year, and a great qb, let's see what he can do. The season is not far off, why don't we just wait and see how he does, rather than debate how you think he will do. It will play out in front of our eyes in a couple weeks. :shock:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:41 pm

C'mon! Thats no fun. We want to use all the useless stats we can find to absolutely prove that some players will mean our team has no chance for success.

JP and I have been trying to point out for a while now to a few doubters that this year a team will be in Redskins uniforms. We may not be the envy of the fantasy football crowd but they are playing with themselves anyway!

We are getting a good group together here and together we can be very successful.