KPrince1975 wrote:You must have been in love with Jeff George too. Let me guess, it wasn't his fault he sucked, he just never had the right system to hold his hand.
What the hell are you even talking about?
What is the point of anyone taking the time to write a thought-out and reasoned post when all they get is petty snipes from unsavory people?
My point is exactly that you don't have a point. I am a big fan of Ramsey, but when do you finally quit going on potential and just move on. It isn't about the numbers with Ramsey. All you have to do is watch him take a snap and see how uncomfortable he is in the pocket. He does not have confidence and he does not lead the team with any air of confidence. You can only hold his hand for so long before you have to move on, even if he moves on to another team and is good. He isn't even close to being a leader of this team. Let him go. I have. Joe Gibbs isn't perfect, but he is the coach, and if I can see how awkward Ramsey looks against opposing defense, than Gibbs probably can't sleep at night thinking about it!
KPrince1975 wrote:You must have been in love with Jeff George too. Let me guess, it wasn't his fault he sucked, he just never had the right system to hold his hand.
What the hell are you even talking about?
What is the point of anyone taking the time to write a thought-out and reasoned post when all they get is petty snipes from unsavory people?
My point is exactly that you don't have a point. I am a big fan of Ramsey, but when do you finally quit going on potential and just move on. It isn't about the numbers with Ramsey. All you have to do is watch him take a snap and see how uncomfortable he is in the pocket. He does not have confidence and he does not lead the team with any air of confidence. You can only hold his hand for so long before you have to move on, even if he moves on to another team and is good. He isn't even close to being a leader of this team. Let him go. I have. Joe Gibbs isn't perfect, but he is the coach, and if I can see how awkward Ramsey looks against opposing defense, than Gibbs probably can't sleep at night thinking about it!
You either didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend my post. In the future when either of those conditions are met, please just don't respond.
You are arguing against points that I did not make.
The numbers in my post were in response to someone else thinking they had irrefutable statistical evidencet hat Ramsey is a "sack machine."
KPrince1975 wrote:You must have been in love with Jeff George too. Let me guess, it wasn't his fault he sucked, he just never had the right system to hold his hand.
What the hell are you even talking about?
What is the point of anyone taking the time to write a thought-out and reasoned post when all they get is petty snipes from unsavory people?
My point is exactly that you don't have a point. I am a big fan of Ramsey, but when do you finally quit going on potential and just move on. It isn't about the numbers with Ramsey. All you have to do is watch him take a snap and see how uncomfortable he is in the pocket. He does not have confidence and he does not lead the team with any air of confidence. You can only hold his hand for so long before you have to move on, even if he moves on to another team and is good. He isn't even close to being a leader of this team. Let him go. I have. Joe Gibbs isn't perfect, but he is the coach, and if I can see how awkward Ramsey looks against opposing defense, than Gibbs probably can't sleep at night thinking about it!
You either didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend my post. In the future when either of those conditions are met, please just don't respond.
You are arguing against points that I did not make.
The numbers in my post were in response to someone else thinking they had irrefutable statistical evidencet hat Ramsey is a "sack machine."
I read and comprehended your post about an hour ago, and I guess I just picked yours because they are all the same. Stats, more stats, opinions, more opinions, I love Gibbs, I hate Gibbs. When does it end? It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it only matters if the skins are moving forward and winning. If the Redskins didn't score a touchdowm the rest of the season and still went to the playoffs, I would be happy. Why do all of us fans have to react to each other? I do, you do, we all do. I don't care if stats say Ramsey is not sack prone or pick prone. He obviously is uncomfortable in the pocket prone. You know, it is hard not to root for him because of his heart and his big play potential. He just isn't consistent, and he continually makes the same mistakes. He holds the ball way too long, doesn't look off his receivers, doesn't throw the ball away, he gets happy feet in the pocket, all of these things show you that he isn't comfortable playing quarterback for whatever reason. He seems to be leaning to becoming one of those, if only this had happened, quarterbacks. I feel for him, but he cannot do what the coaches want him to do, lead this team with confidence and command his teamates like a field general would. How do you teach that? I don't think Gibbs wants to try anymore.
Snout wrote:The more time Ramsey gets sacked, the more often he is going to fumble the football.
* in his last 16 full games, ramsey has fumbled 10 times. * in his last 16 full games, donovan mcnabb has fumbled 10 times. * in his last 16 full games, daunte culpepper has fumbled 11 times. * in his last 16 full games, michael vick has fumbled 18 times * in his last full game, chad pennington fumbled 6 times your argument is over.
You're talking to lunatics, my friend. You might also mention that people who pass (Ramsey) tend to get sacked more than people who dink or hand the ball off.
Remember John Unitas. Now he was a beauty wasn't he. Ooops. I forget. You guys have never heard of John Unitas. Made Ramsey look like a swan. Remember Sonny. Now that was a mobile guy. Kilmer. I still remember those graceful lurches. Pocket presence! I think I'm going to hurl.
Which argument are you referring to? The main point that I intended to make is that Ramsey has a tendency to take a lot of sacks regardless of the protection schemes, and that Spurrier has been wrongly slammed by the WP. And I made what I thought was an obvious observation tha the more a QB gets hit or sacked, the more likely he is going to fumble.
Never did I say that Ramsey fumbles the ball more than Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper or Chad Pennington. I'm not sure I understand why that is even relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that Ramsey turns the ball over more than the coaching staff is willing to tolerate, and that he still has a habit to hold the ball too long -- which increases the likelihood of turnovers.
Is it acceptable for a QB to to turn the ball over 2-3 times every game through fumbles and/or interceptions? I guess as a coach I would have to consider a lot of factors, such as how many big plays my quarterback makes, whether he is the undiputed leader who has the confidence of the team, and how many of those turnovers were preventable and resulted from bad decisions. As we all know, Coach Gibbs put a lot of emphasis on the last factor, and rightfully so in my opinion.
uh, i'm having a hard time understanding your questions here. my points are obvious. you say that because ramsey has such poor pocket presence, he takes too many sacks, and therefore fumbles too much. i provided you with a list of several QBs who supposedly have great "pocket presence", ability to sense the rush and move around and buy time in the pocket, scramble, etc. yet all 3 of them have at least as many fumbles (if not a lot more) than ramsey. i also tossed in pennington's 6 fumble game to show that everyone has a "bad day at the office" sometimes.
ramsey does take a lot of sacks, no argument there. but, he does not fumble an inordinate number of times.
Snout wrote:The more time Ramsey gets sacked, the more often he is going to fumble the football.
* in his last 16 full games, ramsey has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, donovan mcnabb has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, daunte culpepper has fumbled 11 times.
* in his last 16 full games, michael vick has fumbled 18 times
* in his last full game, chad pennington fumbled 6 times
your argument is over.
All those guys are running QBs. Of course they're going to fumble more! Show me how many times Manning and Tom Brady fumble as they are much more similar to the type of QB that Ramsey is.
Also, of all returning starting QBs from last year Ramsey had the 2nd worst int rate. He makes way too many turnovers.
It's ok for running QB's to fumble? God gives them the ball back or something?
crazyhorse1 wrote:Most sacks are caused by reasons other than holding the ball too long.
I have never heard of a QB getting sacked after he has thrown the ball.
There are coverage sacks, sacks that occur because a QB sees an opening and tries to run, missed assignments, breakdowns in blocking, especially from the blind side, etc. Depending on the situation, it is sometimes better to take a sack than throw the ball away. It is sometimes better to risk a sack than throw the ball away.
Your last response to me is the eqivalent of throwing the ball away after you're sacked.
Ramsey might have fumbled the same amount as Mcnabb, vick, culpecker but how many yards did he throw for? wins? I love my skins but dont put HIS name next to these qb's, its insulting. People might actually read this and laugh . Everyone knows he sucks, but the homers. Thank God we drafted Campbell!
box8276 wrote:Ramsey might have fumbled the same amount as Mcnabb, vick, culpecker but how many yards did he throw for? wins? I love my skins but dont put HIS name next to these qb's, its insulting. People might actually read this and laugh . Everyone knows he sucks, but the homers. Thank God we drafted Campbell!
you aren't serious, right? you are expecting ramsey to throw for the same number of yards as daunte culpepper and mcnabb? let's review what is wrong with that:
* Culpepper has been throwing to Randy Moss in almost every game he has ever played. Ramsey has been throwing to Rod Gardner and Lav "I Hurt My Toe So Now I Can't Catch" Coles.
* McNabb plays in the inconceivably pass-wacky offense of Andy Reid, that frequently uses short passes instead of any kind of running game. Additionally, he has been surrounded with a championship-level team.
Yet, despite those considerations, here are the career average Yards Per Game coming into 2005 (a "game" shall be considered any game in which the QB played in at least 3 quarters of the game).
RAMSEY: 208.79 Yards Per Game McNABB: 218.87 Yards Per Game
die cowboys die wrote:* in his last 16 full games, ramsey has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, donovan mcnabb has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, daunte culpepper has fumbled 11 times.
* in his last 16 full games, michael vick has fumbled 18 times
* in his last full game, chad pennington fumbled 6 times
your argument is over.
No, the argument lives...because Ramsey hasn't done anything to be mentioned in the same breath as any of these guys.
These are all playoff QB's.
As is Brunell, at least at one point.
Your contribution is irrelevant.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
die cowboys die wrote:* in his last 16 full games, ramsey has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, donovan mcnabb has fumbled 10 times.
* in his last 16 full games, daunte culpepper has fumbled 11 times.
* in his last 16 full games, michael vick has fumbled 18 times
* in his last full game, chad pennington fumbled 6 times
your argument is over.
No, the argument lives...because Ramsey hasn't done anything to be mentioned in the same breath as any of these guys. These are all playoff QB's. As is Brunell, at least at one point. Your contribution is irrelevant.
haha, you're funny. i'm assuming you are joking, since it is obvious that no matter how good a QB is, he's not going to the playoffs unless he has a good coach and a good team around him. also please keep in mind, if ramsey had been the starter all of 2004, the redskins WOULD have made the playoffs.
here are some more facts you might enjoy:
CAREER YARDS PER COMPLETION: RAMSEY: 11.62
CULPEPPER: 12.06
VICK: 12.93
McNABB: 11.22
he looks pretty close to those other guys to me! the only stat way ahead of him is culpepper's completion percentage, but then again that is way ahead of everyone else's too.
Last edited by die cowboys die on Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll bite, Cville.
I haven't seen anything remotely resembling a playoff-caliber QB in this town since Johnson got shafted for George. Pat looked to me like he was picking up where he left off last year, which is essentially this-Garbage Time QB. That's right. He ran a real crisp two minute drill, but there were about 25-30 minutes minutes a game where he had nothing going on. Blame it on whatever you want, but I'm ready for a change. He needs more time, but I'll be damned if it is once again training time for Patrick at the expense of our season.
We need to win now. Do I think Brunell is the answer ? No way. But neither is Patrick. I hate to say it, but he reminded me of George a lot...million dollar arm, (you know the rest).
At least with Brunell, we'll have a shot at managing the game on offense and allow the defense to win it for us.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
tcwest10 wrote:I'll bite, Cville. I haven't seen anything remotely resembling a playoff-caliber QB in this town since Johnson got shafted for George. Pat looked to me like he was picking up where he left off last year, which is essentially this-Garbage Time QB. That's right. He ran a real crisp two minute drill, but there were about 25-30 minutes minutes a game where he had nothing going on. Blame it on whatever you want, but I'm ready for a change. He needs more time, but I'll be damned if it is once again training time for Patrick at the expense of our season. We need to win now. Do I think Brunell is the answer ? No way. But neither is Patrick. I hate to say it, but he reminded me of George a lot...million dollar arm, (you know the rest). At least with Brunell, we'll have a shot at managing the game on offense and allow the defense to win it for us.
I'm sorry TC, and I mean no disrespect, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
cvillehog wrote:I'm sorry TC, and I mean no disrespect, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Why, bud ? Because there's no math involved ? Dummy it down for me, will you ? Aren't you saying that Patrick should have been allowed to continue, because his current numbers stack up favorably with those QB's listed earlier ? That we should have allowed him more time to develop ?
Unless I've got you dead wrong, you're saying that Patrick is our QB by default...and I disagree. He doesn't have the intangibles of a McNabb, a Culpepper or a Vick. He doesn't have the ability to take off and make it happen if the play doesn't develop. He doesn't have the complete confidence of the team. He doesn't have the patience. He doesn't trust the playcalling (that's an assumption, based on the frequent audibles and the misplaced bombs).
I'm sorry, and you can be as disrespectful as you need to be. All I'm saying is, Brunell is the QB now. I don't feel any better or worse for it.
"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother
cvillehog wrote:I'm sorry TC, and I mean no disrespect, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Why, bud ? Because there's no math involved ? Dummy it down for me, will you ? Aren't you saying that Patrick should have been allowed to continue, because his current numbers stack up favorably with those QB's listed earlier ? That we should have allowed him more time to develop ? Unless I've got you dead wrong, you're saying that Patrick is our QB by default...and I disagree. He doesn't have the intangibles of a McNabb, a Culpepper or a Vick. He doesn't have the ability to take off and make it happen if the play doesn't develop. He doesn't have the complete confidence of the team. He doesn't have the patience. He doesn't trust the playcalling (that's an assumption, based on the frequent audibles and the misplaced bombs). I'm sorry, and you can be as disrespectful as you need to be. All I'm saying is, Brunell is the QB now. I don't feel any better or worse for it.
You got me absolutely and completely wrong.
I was disputing the methodology, assumptions and conclusions of the post that started this thread. I was disputing that Ramsey is either a "sack machine" or an "interception machine." And I was attempting to correct the stats in the original post to be more accurate and reveal that there is really little difference between the raw numbers of sacks per attempt to draw a difinitive conclusion about that small difference.
I said I think Ramsey's benching has more to do with his ability (or lack thereof) to identify coverages and blitzes pre-snap.
cvillehog wrote:I'm sorry TC, and I mean no disrespect, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Why, bud ? Because there's no math involved ? Dummy it down for me, will you ? Aren't you saying that Patrick should have been allowed to continue, because his current numbers stack up favorably with those QB's listed earlier ? That we should have allowed him more time to develop ? Unless I've got you dead wrong, you're saying that Patrick is our QB by default...and I disagree. He doesn't have the intangibles of a McNabb, a Culpepper or a Vick. He doesn't have the ability to take off and make it happen if the play doesn't develop. He doesn't have the complete confidence of the team. He doesn't have the patience. He doesn't trust the playcalling (that's an assumption, based on the frequent audibles and the misplaced bombs). I'm sorry, and you can be as disrespectful as you need to be. All I'm saying is, Brunell is the QB now. I don't feel any better or worse for it.
You got me absolutely and completely wrong.
I was disputing the methodology, assumptions and conclusions of the post that started this thread. I was disputing that Ramsey is either a "sack machine" or an "interception machine." And I was attempting to correct the stats in the original post to be more accurate and reveal that there is really little difference between the raw numbers of sacks per attempt to draw a difinitive conclusion about that small difference.
I said I think Ramsey's benching has more to do with his ability (or lack thereof) to identify coverages and blitzes pre-snap.
This sums up the entire argument and puts everything into perspective no matter what we think.
cvillehog wrote:I'm sorry TC, and I mean no disrespect, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Why, bud ? Because there's no math involved ? Dummy it down for me, will you ? Aren't you saying that Patrick should have been allowed to continue, because his current numbers stack up favorably with those QB's listed earlier ? That we should have allowed him more time to develop ? Unless I've got you dead wrong, you're saying that Patrick is our QB by default...and I disagree. He doesn't have the intangibles of a McNabb, a Culpepper or a Vick. He doesn't have the ability to take off and make it happen if the play doesn't develop. He doesn't have the complete confidence of the team. He doesn't have the patience. He doesn't trust the playcalling (that's an assumption, based on the frequent audibles and the misplaced bombs). I'm sorry, and you can be as disrespectful as you need to be. All I'm saying is, Brunell is the QB now. I don't feel any better or worse for it.
You got me absolutely and completely wrong.
I was disputing the methodology, assumptions and conclusions of the post that started this thread. I was disputing that Ramsey is either a "sack machine" or an "interception machine." And I was attempting to correct the stats in the original post to be more accurate and reveal that there is really little difference between the raw numbers of sacks per attempt to draw a difinitive conclusion about that small difference.
I said I think Ramsey's benching has more to do with his ability (or lack thereof) to identify coverages and blitzes pre-snap.
This sums up the entire argument and puts everything into perspective no matter what we think.
spurrier ruined him plain and simple .... no protection will make you unsure of everything around you ...he does not have that gift that good qbs have the clock in the head and pocket awareness.
redskinz4ever wrote:spurrier ruined him plain and simple .... no protection will make you unsure of everything around you ...he does not have that gift that good qbs have the clock in the head and pocket awareness.
can't we tape a ticking timex to the inside of his helmet? "After 3 ticks, THROW!! if no one is open, make sure the throw goes way out of bounds!"
or maybe in practice, we can rig the balls so that after 3 seconds following the snap, they adminster a moderate electrical shock. that way if he holds it too long, ZAP! we'll adjust his behaviour through classical conditioning.
As the stats plainly show, in most areas, Ramsey compares favorably with so called "big name" quarterbacks in the NFL, even while playing for an inferior team with inferious receivers and under inferior coaching.
Also, we know now that his pick last week was caused by the receiver running the wrong route, and that are all agreed that his fumble after that hideously illegal hit was a natural consequent of the event, not a mistake. That leaves him one turnover, a strip from the blindside, after a block was slipped. Replays have shown that he did not wait too long. If the block had not been slipped the pass would have been delivered toward an open receiver.
So, where's the beef against Ramsey? Members of this site, on this thread, have provided proof there is no valid cause to label him either mistake prone, ruined, ineffective, or unsuccessful. In fact, his record is fine, excellent, considering the circumstances.
I think a lot of you guys should ask yourselves what nonsensical myths have blown up to cloud your perceptions?
crazyhorse1 wrote:As the stats plainly show, in most areas, Ramsey compares favorably with so called "big name" quarterbacks in the NFL, even while playing for an inferior team with inferious receivers and under inferior coaching. Also, we know now that his pick last week was caused by the receiver running the wrong route, and that are all agreed that his fumble after that hideously illegal hit was a natural consequent of the event, not a mistake. That leaves him one turnover, a strip from the blindside, after a block was slipped. Replays have shown that he did not wait too long. If the block had not been slipped the pass would have been delivered toward an open receiver. So, where's the beef against Ramsey? Members of this site, on this thread, have provided proof there is no valid cause to label him either mistake prone, ruined, ineffective, or unsuccessful. In fact, his record is fine, excellent, considering the circumstances. I think a lot of you guys should ask yourselves what nonsensical myths have blown up to cloud your perceptions?
What part of Brunell is the starter and Ramsey is the back up don't you understand.
Do you understand that those that are happy that Ramsey was benched had as much to do with the benching as you'll have in getting him reinstated
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
