Who's getting kicked off the bandwagon?

[cvillehog]

Nobody I've seen has been "anti" Redskin here - except for the trolls. Last night didn't prove anything about Brunell to me. If it did for you - congratulations. To me, he's still the 3rd best QB on the team. I'll take a win any way I can get it. We got this one because the defense knocked snot bubbles outta the Boys all night long to keep us in the game. We made a couple of plays at the end...and THAT'S GREAT! Fan and butt-kisser are two entirely different things.

Butt kissers are those of you who have a man crush on Ramsey...otherwise you wouldn't have your feelings hurt about him being benched.

I don't care if we put Brian Mitchell at QB if we win that is all that matters. Ramsey benched himself. He is an interception machine. He has to be the most loved, bad quarterback in history.

That's BS. No one has ever posted anything that even remotely supported the contention that Ramsey is an "interception machine," and at the same time, many, many people have posted many, many times concretely refutting that fact.

I posted my facts that support my contention that Ramsey is an interception machine. Where's the support for your fledgling argument?

I really don't wanna hear it, but since you insist on using bandwidth, we might as well talk about something meaningful.

My opinion in a nutshell:
-Ramsey had a fair shot.
-He was turnover prone and that is why he is on the bench.
-I won't call Gibbs a "fool" or demand his "job" because I have faith that he made the right decision, and if he didn't, it remains to be seen.

Ok, I'll play along.

-Ramsey had a fair shot
This is probably true. I mean, people like to say he didn't, and the situation this year was certainly handled strangely, but great players elevate their game in such situations. Though, to be fair, Brunell looked worse in the same system with the same playser last year than Ramsey did. So, he was at least "BTB" (Better than Brunell).

-He was turnover prone and that is why he is on the bench.
He compared favorably to Brunell on this metric last year. In the preseason he was worse, but somehow Brunell throws an INT against a 1-1 team and it's "he needs time to develop chemistry" and Ramsey comes off the bench last year when we are down against a playoff team and he doesn't get the same "excuse." I say we just drop the excuses. I think he's on the bench because he can't read NFL defenses, particularly pre-snap. And I've said as much on here on more than one occasion.

-I won't call Gibbs a "fool" or demand his "job" because I have faith that he made the right decision, and if he didn't, it remains to be seen.
I never once called Gibbs any names. Here or anywhere else.

[cvillehog]

I appreciate it. C-Ville. Congratulations, you let yourself off the hook for actually supporting your 'mouth farts'.

[die cowboys die]

I posted my facts that support my contention that Ramsey is an interception machine. Where's the support for your fledgling argument?

there are about 10-20 threads full of concrete statistics and comprehensive arguments conveying the "ramsey is not an interception machine" argument beyond any rational dissent. the long and short of it is this:

* in 17 of his 24 career starts, ramsey has thrown only 1 INT or none at all (1 a game is hardly a lot)

* out of ramsey's 7 starts last year, he only threw 2 INTs once.

games coming in off the bench when down by 2 TDs is not an accurate measure of a QB's ability. look back through this thread alone, lots of people are excusing brunell's first 55 minutes of the game by saying "he doesn't have chemistry with the new WRs yet", etc.

[Irn-Bru]

I posted my facts that support my contention that Ramsey is an interception machine. Where's the support for your fledgling argument?

there are about 10-20 threads full of concrete statistics and comprehensive arguments conveying the "ramsey is not an interception machine" argument beyond any rational dissent. the long and short of it is this:

* in 17 of his 24 career starts, ramsey has thrown only 1 INT or none at all (1 a game is hardly a lot)

* out of ramsey's 7 starts last year, he only threw 2 INTs once.

games coming in off the bench when down by 2 TDs is not an accurate measure of a QB's ability. look back through this thread alone, lots of people are excusing brunell's first 55 minutes of the game by saying "he doesn't have chemistry with the new WRs yet", etc.

No offense, but Hogster's statistics of Ramsey's play under coach Gibbs are a lot more convincing than yours.

Having 1 pick a game really isn't that great, even though it technically isn't all that bad.

But, you're also including his time under Spurrier, you're not counting any games where he didn't start, and it doesn't take into account his other problems (lack of mobility and fumbles). It's really an incomplete picture of Ramsey, both as an "interception machine" (or not) and as a QB overall.

[cvillehog]

I posted my facts that support my contention that Ramsey is an interception machine. Where's the support for your fledgling argument?

there are about 10-20 threads full of concrete statistics and comprehensive arguments conveying the "ramsey is not an interception machine" argument beyond any rational dissent. the long and short of it is this:

* in 17 of his 24 career starts, ramsey has thrown only 1 INT or none at all (1 a game is hardly a lot)

* out of ramsey's 7 starts last year, he only threw 2 INTs once.

games coming in off the bench when down by 2 TDs is not an accurate measure of a QB's ability. look back through this thread alone, lots of people are excusing brunell's first 55 minutes of the game by saying "he doesn't have chemistry with the new WRs yet", etc.

No offense, but Hogster's statistics of Ramsey's play under coach Gibbs are a lot more convincing than yours.

Having 1 pick a game really isn't that great, even though it technically isn't all that bad.

But, you're also including his time under Spurrier, you're not counting any games where he didn't start, and it doesn't take into account his other problems (lack of mobility and fumbles). It's really an incomplete picture of Ramsey, both as an "interception machine" (or not) and as a QB overall.

With all due respect, Hogster's posts are only "more convincing" to you because they agree with your pre-established viewpoint, and also do not provide a "complete picture" of Ramsey.

[The Hogster]

Okay now we are down to the basic point of difference. In my personal opinion, I think that a QB that averages 1 interception per-game is high for the type of offense that we run.

In actuality Ramsey has 30 interceptions in 24 starts, which is higher than one per game, but whatever.

The most convincing stat that anyone has posted were Ramsey's turnover ratio compared to other great QB's like Favre etc after their first 24 starts, however, waiting for him to develop....or even hoping for him to develop into that caliber of quarterback is wishful thinking and it is not a part of the "win now" philosophy that Gibbs has.

That would require hitching our wagon to Ramsey, and matching whatever price he is offered in free agency.

Now that type of commitment and investment in him is a gamble that Gibbs doesn't feel confident making.

I don't make excuses for Brunnel or Ramsey. I just think that Ramsey is not a very good quarterback. He makes poor decisions that are inexcusable.

In my opinion throwing over 1 interception per game, with no signs of improvement does not bode well for this offense.

[Irn-Bru]

I do happen to agree with Gibbs' call in this situation, but I've been reading and following these threads up and down the boards (mostly without comments).

I've seen both sides lay out some statistics. Here is what DCD says puts the Ramsey "interception machine" argument beyond rational dissent:

* in 17 of his 24 career starts, ramsey has thrown only 1 INT or none at all (1 a game is hardly a lot)

* out of ramsey's 7 starts last year, he only threw 2 INTs once.

games coming in off the bench when down by 2 TDs is not an accurate measure of a QB's ability. look back through this thread alone, lots of people are excusing brunell's first 55 minutes of the game by saying "he doesn't have chemistry with the new WRs yet", etc.

He calls that the long and short of it, and as far as I can tell (aside from long, descriptive paragraphs with which one can easily agree or disagree) it's the best statistical argument in DCD's favor.


The Hogster wrote this:

1. Gibbs watched Ramsey's film when he came back, there was inconsistency that he didn't like and besides, Gibbs wanted to bring in a veteran qb, so he brings in Brunnell.

2. Ramsey and Brunnell got equal playing time in the 2004 preseason. Ramsey played like crap. Brunnell named the starter.

3. We go out and win game one. We are playing the Giants in a close (fumble packed game), then Brunnell damages his hamstring. Ramsey comes into the game and throws 3 interceptions in just one half.

4. Brunnell's hamstring is "black and blue" according to Gibbs but he says he can play. Ramsey has ruined any confidence Gibbs had built up in him with the 3 ints, so Brunnell gets the start against the boys.

5. In a loss, Brunnell has his best game. 325yds 2 TD's. In a game that many of us thought we should have won.

6. Whether hurt or not, Brunnell stank it up for the next 6 weeks. I won't make the excuse that he was hurting, he played poorly and the offense sputtered. He was benched like he should have been.

7. Ramsey comes in as the starter, and plays better than Brunnell, but still plays poorly. ** This is what I think you haven't seen. Ramsey was the 28th rated passer in the league last season. There were only 4 players rated lower and Brunnell was one of them. But Ramsey did not play well at all.

8. Ramsey went out in the last 7 games and threw another 8 interceptions including the bad one we saw against the Eagles. So over the season he threw 11 ints in just about 7 1/2 games. Not a very good ratio if you want to WIN GAMES.

9. Gibbs declared Ramsey the starter, but you had to have known he wasn't content with him. Why else would we trade two 1st round picks for another quarterback. This was not because no one likes the kid, he is just not all that good right now.

10. Gibbs gives Ramsey all of the offseason work, and brings in better receivers. Listening to the press conferences, Im sure the whole team was stressing protecting the football, minimizing mistakes.

11. Preseason, Ramsey plays with starters and offense sputters. He throws 5 interceptions, some leading to scores in a little over 4 quarters of preseason play. No excuse, playing with starters.

12. Ramsey starts the Bears game, and his first three drives end in turnovers by him. One interception, and two fumbles. The first fumble was recovered by Jansen, and the second was on the clothesline...which wasn't 'his fault' but see a pattern there.

This post has yet to be answered, in my opinion, in terms of the stats that it brings up.


When I look at the two arguments, right now I see The Hogster's as more convincing, and I think that Hogster's post serves as a rebuttal for what DCD wrote, but that it doesn't work very well the other way around. You can tell me that Ramsey has had 1 (or, occasionally, less) pick in 17 of 24 games all day--which, I agree with Hogster, isn't all that great, and he is still averaging over 1 pick per game in his starts--but Hogster's chronological analysis shows the meaning behind the stats better. (Again, in my opinion).

If you show me that Hogster's post is somehow flawed or slanted, that's fine. But please don't say that I haven't thought it through. . .believe me, I've been following these threads with great interest (and hoping that it doesn't have to go to Smack!)

[The Hogster]

I don't want it to go to smack either. We are all fans of this team, just with differences of opinion.

And let us not forget, WE ARE 2-0..!!

[cvillehog]

I do happen to agree with Gibbs' call in this situation, but I've been reading and following these threads up and down the boards (mostly without comments).

I've seen both sides lay out some statistics. Here is what DCD says puts the Ramsey "interception machine" argument beyond rational dissent:

* in 17 of his 24 career starts, ramsey has thrown only 1 INT or none at all (1 a game is hardly a lot)

* out of ramsey's 7 starts last year, he only threw 2 INTs once.

games coming in off the bench when down by 2 TDs is not an accurate measure of a QB's ability. look back through this thread alone, lots of people are excusing brunell's first 55 minutes of the game by saying "he doesn't have chemistry with the new WRs yet", etc.

He calls that the long and short of it, and as far as I can tell (aside from long, descriptive paragraphs with which one can easily agree or disagree) it's the best statistical argument in DCD's favor.


The Hogster wrote this:

1. Gibbs watched Ramsey's film when he came back, there was inconsistency that he didn't like and besides, Gibbs wanted to bring in a veteran qb, so he brings in Brunnell.

2. Ramsey and Brunnell got equal playing time in the 2004 preseason. Ramsey played like crap. Brunnell named the starter.

3. We go out and win game one. We are playing the Giants in a close (fumble packed game), then Brunnell damages his hamstring. Ramsey comes into the game and throws 3 interceptions in just one half.

4. Brunnell's hamstring is "black and blue" according to Gibbs but he says he can play. Ramsey has ruined any confidence Gibbs had built up in him with the 3 ints, so Brunnell gets the start against the boys.

5. In a loss, Brunnell has his best game. 325yds 2 TD's. In a game that many of us thought we should have won.

6. Whether hurt or not, Brunnell stank it up for the next 6 weeks. I won't make the excuse that he was hurting, he played poorly and the offense sputtered. He was benched like he should have been.

7. Ramsey comes in as the starter, and plays better than Brunnell, but still plays poorly. ** This is what I think you haven't seen. Ramsey was the 28th rated passer in the league last season. There were only 4 players rated lower and Brunnell was one of them. But Ramsey did not play well at all.

8. Ramsey went out in the last 7 games and threw another 8 interceptions including the bad one we saw against the Eagles. So over the season he threw 11 ints in just about 7 1/2 games. Not a very good ratio if you want to WIN GAMES.

9. Gibbs declared Ramsey the starter, but you had to have known he wasn't content with him. Why else would we trade two 1st round picks for another quarterback. This was not because no one likes the kid, he is just not all that good right now.

10. Gibbs gives Ramsey all of the offseason work, and brings in better receivers. Listening to the press conferences, Im sure the whole team was stressing protecting the football, minimizing mistakes.

11. Preseason, Ramsey plays with starters and offense sputters. He throws 5 interceptions, some leading to scores in a little over 4 quarters of preseason play. No excuse, playing with starters.

12. Ramsey starts the Bears game, and his first three drives end in turnovers by him. One interception, and two fumbles. The first fumble was recovered by Jansen, and the second was on the clothesline...which wasn't 'his fault' but see a pattern there.

This post has yet to be answered, in my opinion, in terms of the stats that it brings up.


When I look at the two arguments, right now I see The Hogster's as more convincing, and I think that Hogster's post serves as a rebuttal for what DCD wrote, but that it doesn't work very well the other way around. You can tell me that Ramsey has had 1 (or, occasionally, less) pick in 17 of 24 games all day--which, I agree with Hogster, isn't all that great, and he is still averaging over 1 pick per game in his starts--but Hogster's chronological analysis shows the meaning behind the stats better. (Again, in my opinion).

If you show me that Hogster's post is somehow flawed or slanted, that's fine. But please don't say that I haven't thought it through. . .believe me, I've been following these threads with great interest (and hoping that it doesn't have to go to Smack!)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to point out to me where I said you didn't think anything through.

Also, you will really have to forgive me for not wanting to rehash the arguments posted in countless other threads inside this one just for the benifit of one or two posters.

I posted a lot of arguments for Ramsey as the starter up until Gibbs named Brunell the starter. Then, my posts dealing with Ramsey were just to counter the fact that, for some fans, he has magically turned from our only hope at QB to complete dung in the course of three series of football. I am also very worried that Brunell will turn back into "Booonell" at any moment without warning. That thought was reinforced for 55 minutes on Monday, and only partly diminished by those very wonderful last few minutes.

[Irn-Bru]

Here's what had me thinking along those lines, cville:

With all due respect, Hogster's posts are only "more convincing" to you because they agree with your pre-established viewpoint

(emphasis mine)

It seemed to me like that was saying that I went into reading the 'evidence' with a decided viewpoint, and wasn't thinking it through with each new bit of evidence. I apologize if I misread.

[Mursilis]

In actuality Ramsey has 30 interceptions in 24 starts, which is higher than one per game, but whatever.

I think interceptions as a stat are taken out of context too much. Sure, Ramsey has too many, but Trent Green and Brett Farve also averaged better than 1/game last year too, and they don't have the excuse of still being 'developing' QB's. Of course, they also had 27 and 30 TD tosses, too, which makes the INTs a lot less relevant. The problem with both Brunell and Ramsey last year is that neither scored enough to be effective QB's. But going by overall ratings, Ramsey was clearly better last year. Based on the preseaon this year, that's no longer true.

[cvillehog]

Here's what had me thinking along those lines, cville:

With all due respect, Hogster's posts are only "more convincing" to you because they agree with your pre-established viewpoint

(emphasis mine)

It seemed to me like that was saying that I went into reading the 'evidence' with a decided viewpoint, and wasn't thinking it through with each new bit of evidence. I apologize if I misread.

That certainly was not my intention. I was merely stating my opinion and not trying insult anyone.

[welch]

This is not Fantasy League. It's the NFL. Stats don't tell the story, no matter how hard anyone works them.

Ramsey has never looked comfortable, confident, ready to make a decision quickly under pressure. He has never looked like am NFL QB.

He reminds me of a nervous George Izo. That's bad. Yes, Ramsey throws with power, but that doesn't make an NFL QB.

[die cowboys die]

This is not Fantasy League. It's the NFL. Stats don't tell the story, no matter how hard anyone works them.

Ramsey has never looked comfortable, confident, ready to make a decision quickly under pressure. He has never looked like am NFL QB.

yes, he has. last year. what are you people drinking that causes your short-term memory to completely cannabilize your long-term memory? it's seriously incredible.

in all of last year, the only really bad play he made was the INT against philly. not saying that's not a big deal, just saying it was only one play. i also remember him ducking under a vikings defender, getting back up and somehow hitting cooley for a TD, and some other similar plays that demonstrated great tenacity in the pocket.

i should break down his starts like this, actually:

10 with NO INTERCEPTIONS, and 7 with only 1 interception.


anyways, i don't care anymore. i'm tired of wasting my time arguing for a guy who is never going to get a chance here anyway. we'll just have to see what happens wherever he ends up i guess. i'm more interested in campbell at this point i guess. is he going to be any good?

[Chris Luva Luva]

This is not Fantasy League. It's the NFL. Stats don't tell the story, no matter how hard anyone works them.

Ramsey has never looked comfortable, confident, ready to make a decision quickly under pressure. He has never looked like am NFL QB.

yes, he has. last year. what are you people drinking that causes your short-term memory to completely cannabilize your long-term memory? it's seriously incredible.

in all of last year, the only really bad play he made was the INT against philly. not saying that's not a big deal, just saying it was only one play. i also remember him ducking under a vikings defender, getting back up and somehow hitting cooley for a TD, and some other similar plays that demonstrated great tenacity in the pocket.

i should break down his starts like this, actually:

10 with NO INTERCEPTIONS, and 7 with only 1 interception.


anyways, i don't care anymore. i'm tired of wasting my time arguing for a guy who is never going to get a chance here anyway. we'll just have to see what happens wherever he ends up i guess. i'm more interested in campbell at this point i guess. is he going to be any good?

Lets not forget that 1st Giants game. However I dont fault him too badly because he was put in a 100% passing situation and didn't have timing down with the WR's.

I'm giving Brunell the same slack this season with the timing issues because he and Ramsey are in reverse roles in that aspect.

I dont think Ive forgotten anything and I dont think Ramsey is comfortable in the pocket. He wasn't last year and wasn't this year. He looked a lot better last year than the previous but he still isn't where he needs to be. His offseason showing definately made things worse for him because if he was TRULY comfortable an offseason of learning should have solidified his poise. However Patrick looked like he was starting from 0 again. I attended the games, I saw the Jimmy legs, its not a comfortable feeling seeing your QB look like he's afraid. I dont think he's scared of the rush, he's scared to make the wrong decision. He 2nd guesses himself too much and when he does make the throw he's over analyzed it and the window of oppurntunity has closed.