Gibbs is making me sick!

[Mursilis]

I love this game. Crazyhorse always says this crap, and is always wrong. Interestingly enough, both Brunell and Ramsey played in 34 games for the Skins.

Brunell: 34 games, 542 completions, 951 attempts, 57% completion. 38 TDs, 20 INTs, 4 lost fumbles.

Ramsey: 34 games, 480 completions, 861 attempts, 55.7% completion. 34 TDs, 29 INTs, 3 lost fumbles.

Man those are much better stats!!!

I took a glance at the stats for W/L record, and totaled numbers for each game in which Ramsey or Brunell was the main quarterback (I did this by a quick check on attempts per game. . .any time it looked like Ramsey or Brunell was the main QB, I counted it. I did not count any games where Brunell and Ramsey split significant time, as the W or L wouldn't change the overall ratio of W's to L's). Here are the numbers I came up with:

Ramsey was the main QB in 23 games as a Redskin, and he had a record of 10-13. (43% win average)

Mark Brunell was the main QB in 34 games as a Redskin, with a record of 16-18. (47% win average).

Interesting, but where were you going with that? Are you saying they're truly not much different, or that stats are deceptive?

[Irn-Bru]

Interesting, but where were you going with that? Are you saying they're truly not much different, or that stats are deceptive?

Well, first, I edited while you were typing that (I usually speak first before thinking. . .a good rule of thumb), so the numbers are slightly different.

My basic point, which piggybacked on PulpExposure's argument, is that Ramsey as a Redskin didn't have an appreciably better career in B&G. crazyhorse has argued that Ramsey surpassed Brunell in performance; I simply don't see it.

In addition to that (I suppose this is 'where I'm going' ): If anything, Brunell's raw stats and W/L look better than Ramsey's, and Brunell was the man that helped take us to the playoffs (and win a game) in '05. If we had to judge which had the better career in Washington, I'm going to go with #8.

[Mursilis]

Interesting, but where were you going with that? Are you saying they're truly not much different, or that stats are deceptive?

Well, first, I edited while you were typing that (I usually speak first before thinking. . .a good rule of thumb), so the numbers are slightly different.

My basic point, which piggybacked on PulpExposure's argument, is that Ramsey as a Redskin didn't have an appreciably better career in B&G. crazyhorse has argued that Ramsey surpassed Brunell in performance; I simply don't see it.

In addition to that (I suppose this is 'where I'm going' ): If anything, Brunell's raw stats and W/L look better than Ramsey's, and Brunell was the man that helped take us to the playoffs (and win a game) in '05. If we had to judge which had the better career in Washington, I'm going to go with #8.

Of course, there's the counterpoint that Brunell never had the 'honor' of playing under Spurrier and his 'no-protect' schemes (although he might've faired slightly better, given that he's probably more mobile than Ramsey). Thus, it's only truly fair to compare their stats for the '04 season, when both were playing within a good coach's schemes (Gibbs) and throwing to essentially the same personnel. That year, Ramsey was clearly better. The counter to my counterpoint might be that a comparison solely of '04 stats would be unfair to Brunell, who was injured that year, but then, (counter-counter-counterpoint) he couldn't have been THAT injured if Gibbs thought he should still be starting. Either way, it's all history now. I just hope Campbell puts the QB issue to rest for a good 5-10 years.

[crazyhorse1]

I love this game. Crazyhorse always says this crap, and is always wrong. Interestingly enough, both Brunell and Ramsey played in 34 games for the Skins.

Brunell: 34 games, 542 completions, 951 attempts, 57% completion. 38 TDs, 20 INTs, 4 lost fumbles.

Ramsey: 34 games, 480 completions, 861 attempts, 55.7% completion. 34 TDs, 29 INTs, 3 lost fumbles.

Man those are much better stats!!!

I took a glance at the stats for W/L record, and totaled numbers for each game in which Ramsey or Brunell was the main quarterback (I did this by a quick check on attempts per game. . .any time it looked like Ramsey or Brunell was the main QB, I counted it. I did not count any games where Brunell and Ramsey split significant time, as the W or L wouldn't change the overall ratio of W's to L's). Here are the numbers I came up with:

Ramsey was the main QB in 23 games as a Redskin, and he had a record of 10-13. (43% win average)

Mark Brunell was the main QB in 33 games as a Redskin, with a record of 15-18. (45% win average).

[crazyhorse1]

Interesting, but where were you going with that? Are you saying they're truly not much different, or that stats are deceptive?

Well, first, I edited while you were typing that (I usually speak first before thinking. . .a good rule of thumb), so the numbers are slightly different.

My basic point, which piggybacked on PulpExposure's argument, is that Ramsey as a Redskin didn't have an appreciably better career in B&G. crazyhorse has argued that Ramsey surpassed Brunell in performance; I simply don't see it.

In addition to that (I suppose this is 'where I'm going' ): If anything, Brunell's raw stats and W/L look better than Ramsey's, and Brunell was the man that helped take us to the playoffs (and win a game) in '05. If we had to judge which had the better career in Washington, I'm going to go with #8.

Two quick observations and some new data. I have the Ramsey down for only 22 games as the main quarterback (your basic notion that you can determine the main qb by by pass attempts is seriously flawed in that Ramsey passed more often than Brunell and other Redskin qbs. If you go by time played, I think you'd find Ramsey one or two points ahead of Brunell in won-lost percentage.

That fact, taken with the fact that Ramsey percentage was achieved with inferior personnel and coaches around him, tells me that Ramsey outperformed Brunell generally. He got a better percentage of out of inferior players than Brunell got out of Brunell with superior players. It's not ever close.

Here's a few other facts to offset the skewed stats I've seen on the board:

Playing with the same players, Ramsey's won-lost percentage is better than Brunell's.

Ramsey averaged 255 yards per start and 1.5 td's per start. As a Redskin, he had only 22 starts, and spot duty in other games.

In contrast, Brunell, in 34 starts, has averaged only 172 yds per start and 1.2 tds per start, counting yardage from spot duty in other games.

Brunell has passed for 6033 yards in 34 starts and spots and Ramsey has passed for 5,649 in 22 spots-- an enormous difference.

There's no question at all that Ramsey has out performed Brunell for the Skins. Brunell leads in only three meaningful area. His percentage of completions is greater because he throws so many dinks and his rating is better for the same reason, plus the fact that he has thrown nine fewer interceptions than Ramsey over the years.

All of the above could be refined if I knew the actual number of snaps taken by each qb. Still, I think that what I have presented here is overwhelming evidence that Ramsey was more effective as a Redskin than Brunell has been.

I read an article some time ago that refined the stats by considering Ramsey's actual playing time. I wish I could remember where I found it, but I can't. What I remember is that the article had Ramsey pegged at the equivalent of about 220 yds per a game, if he had played full time. Then, the article went on to favorably compare that stat and his record in general to the first four year stats of several Hall of Famers, including John Elway.

[welch]

Another Ramsey / Brunell thread? And I was joking before...

However, FFA seems to have it:

I took a glance at the stats for W/L record, and totaled numbers for each game in which Ramsey or Brunell was the main quarterback (I did this by a quick check on attempts per game. . .any time it looked like Ramsey or Brunell was the main QB, I counted it. I did not count any games where Brunell and Ramsey split significant time, as the W or L wouldn't change the overall ratio of W's to L's). Here are the numbers I came up with:

Ramsey was the main QB in 23 games as a Redskin, and he had a record of 10-13. (43% win average)

Mark Brunell was the main QB in 33 games as a Redskin, with a record of 15-18. (45% win average).

How is Ramsey doing now?

[PulpExposure]

Two quick observations and some new data. I have the Ramsey down for only 22 games as the main quarterback (your basic notion that you can determine the main qb by by pass attempts is seriously flawed in that Ramsey passed more often than Brunell and other Redskin qbs.

Last time I checked, pass attempts were pass attempts. Why do you feel yyou should count them differently? Or account for them differently?

Brunell has a higher completion percentage, threw a TD every 25 attempts, threw an INT every 47.55 attempts.

Ramsey threw a TD every 25.3 attempts, and an INT every 30 attempts.

I don't see how Ramsey has far better numbers. In fact, I'd take the guy who throws just about as many TDs, but more than 50% less INTs per attempt. But maybe I'm just crazy.

Ramsey is pretty much someone who is equally adept at throwing TDs as INTs. His decision making never was fantastic. And the stats prove it.

In contrast, Brunell, in 34 starts,

Wait, you're discrediting partial games for Ramsey, but not for Brunell? And there are more than a few games that Brunell or another QB started, got injured, and Ramsey played the bulk of. That artificially raises your x per start stats. Use passing attempts, it's cleaner. But oh...right, it's less skewed towards Ramsey.

There's no question at all that Ramsey has out performed Brunell for the Skins. Brunell leads in only three meaningful area. His percentage of completions is greater because he throws so many dinks and his rating is better for the same reason, plus the fact that he has thrown nine fewer interceptions than Ramsey over the years.

Ramsey was always a turnover machine. Maybe that didn't bother you, but it's not like his production was so great (like Favre) that he could overcome it.

Again, his career passer rating is lower than Gus Frerotte's. And while yes, he's sitting behind an accomplished QB in NY, do you wonder why it is the Skins could only get a 6th rounder from the Jets for him? I mean...there are a lot of QB needy teams out there. Maybe everyone else is missing something...you need to apply for a scouting job, stat!

[John Manfreda]

When i saw his press conference, he sound like he had just gotten back from a funeral. how he said he felt sick to make the decision to bench makr and that he felt sorry for brunell.... then says it was the hardest choice he had to make....kept going on and on........... didnt sound so thrill about playing CAMPBELL! i mean u gotta a QB starting his first game in the NFL and u gonna sound like somebody had just died?
ok maybe that aint the big problem here. my main problem is how he kept saying it was a hard decision to bench brunell and yadda yadda yadda but had no problem benching RAMSEY. now im not saying RAMSEY wouldve done better or worst but if GIbbs definition of giving a player a chance is a quater and half, u gotta be the biggest hypocrite on earth. Ramsey after getting close line came out for a play, was given the OK to go back in but Gibbs kept brunell in there. then after the game, in which we scored like 13 pts i think, he names brunell the starter. i mean are u freaking serious? now u have brunell this yr not producing on many occassions and he kept brunell in there as long as possible when infact, he clearly had the Balls to remove RAMSEY with no remorse. when ramsey was demoted, he didnt have a press conference where he sound like he just got back from a funeral. he was elated that brunell was starting and thats the fact.

illl stop talking for now.

Lest we forget Brunell was the QB on a playoff team last year. Ramsey is where? Ramsey has done what? You are comparing apples to roadkill.

Ramsey had much better stats and win loss redskins than has Brunell, even though he had far worse receivers. In our slavish need to think Gibbs fair and wise, too many of us denigrated Ramsey and shut our eyes to the Brunell disaster.

Ramsey's now playing behind a guy already established with the Jets and having a fine year. Tough, for Ramsey, but not reflective of any fault of his. If Campbell turns out to be a bum who can't play, Gibbs will get toasted for getting rid of Ramsey, as well as for other things.

Since you are so wise and stat educated, please post the comparable numbers to back up your claim. I for one think you are full of it!!

I love this game. Crazyhorse always says this crap, and is always wrong. Interestingly enough, both Brunell and Ramsey played in 34 games for the Skins.

Brunell: 34 games, 542 completions, 951 attempts, 57% completion. 38 TDs, 20 INTs, 4 lost fumbles.

Ramsey: 34 games, 480 completions, 861 attempts, 55.7% completion. 34 TDs, 29 INTs, 3 lost fumbles.

Man those are much better stats!!!

He wasn't wrong about this year, we do blow.

[John Manfreda]

Another Ramsey / Brunell thread? And I was joking before...

However, FFA seems to have it:

I took a glance at the stats for W/L record, and totaled numbers for each game in which Ramsey or Brunell was the main quarterback (I did this by a quick check on attempts per game. . .any time it looked like Ramsey or Brunell was the main QB, I counted it. I did not count any games where Brunell and Ramsey split significant time, as the W or L wouldn't change the overall ratio of W's to L's). Here are the numbers I came up with:

Ramsey was the main QB in 23 games as a Redskin, and he had a record of 10-13. (43% win average)

Mark Brunell was the main QB in 33 games as a Redskin, with a record of 15-18. (45% win average).

How is Ramsey doing now?

No Qb on the Skins could start over Chad,, including Campell when he gets devoloped, if he ever does? Yes Jason won't be as good as Chad because he isn't smart, look at his wonderlic score. If not look at all the INT'S he threw in the preseason and in college, by the way he didn't even have one good year, yes he was being booed in the 4th game of his senior year. He put together a couple of good games in his 4 year college carrer.

[HEROHAMO]

When i saw his press conference, he sound like he had just gotten back from a funeral. how he said he felt sick to make the decision to bench makr and that he felt sorry for brunell.... then says it was the hardest choice he had to make....kept going on and on........... didnt sound so thrill about playing CAMPBELL! i mean u gotta a QB starting his first game in the NFL and u gonna sound like somebody had just died?
ok maybe that aint the big problem here. my main problem is how he kept saying it was a hard decision to bench brunell and yadda yadda yadda but had no problem benching RAMSEY. now im not saying RAMSEY wouldve done better or worst but if GIbbs definition of giving a player a chance is a quater and half, u gotta be the biggest hypocrite on earth. Ramsey after getting close line came out for a play, was given the OK to go back in but Gibbs kept brunell in there. then after the game, in which we scored like 13 pts i think, he names brunell the starter. i mean are u freaking serious? now u have brunell this yr not producing on many occassions and he kept brunell in there as long as possible when infact, he clearly had the Balls to remove RAMSEY with no remorse. when ramsey was demoted, he didnt have a press conference where he sound like he just got back from a funeral. he was elated that brunell was starting and thats the fact.

illl stop talking for now.

Dude Brunell finally got benched and your not happy! Geez what do want gibbs to do Shoot him. Some people will never be satisfied! At least Gibbs was man enough to take upon the responsibility for how this season is going and he is doing his best.

[Irn-Bru]

Again, his career passer rating is lower than Gus Frerotte's. And while yes, he's sitting behind an accomplished QB in NY, do you wonder why it is the Skins could only get a 6th rounder from the Jets for him? I mean...there are a lot of QB needy teams out there. Maybe everyone else is missing something...you need to apply for a scouting job, stat!

Add to that the fact that Ramsey is a 3rd stringer in NY. Not only behind Chad, but behind his backup (a rookie, I think) too. . .


A word of defense of my methodology: I didn't have 2 hours to figure out who was the 'true QB' in each game, so when I say that I used attempts per game as a guide I was talking about ballparking a total relatively quickly. The whole mess about "Ramsey throws more attempts per game" is a red herring--attempts had no direct impact on my conclusions, unless it can be shown that I unnecessarily threw out a game or two based on faulty methods.

It's also curious, as PulpExposure pointed out, that crazyhorse criticizes my methods, changes how it works for Ramsey, but keeps my same results for Brunell. . .

I personally think the best counterargument to this is the one offered by Mursilis, who points out who was headcoach for each QB.

Therefore, I don't think that my mention of 'attempts per game' should warrant too much skepticism. It was a quick way of doing something that would take an hour or so to really do justice, and I'm fairly confident that the results wouldn't change (if at all) more than 1 or 2 games total for both QBs combined.

(In fact, Brunell was probably hurt more by my method than Ramsey, as the wins against Chicago and the Giants in '05 didn't count toward Brunell, even though he is more likely to be considered the 'main QB' in those contests. The other 'tossed out' games are usually losses (Giants '04, Cincy '04), which would hurt both Brunell and Ramsey in about equal measure if counted, and certainly didn't hurt Ramsey by being thrown out).

[1niksder]

A word of defense of my methodology: I didn't have 2 hours to figure out who was the 'true QB' in each game, so when I say that I used attempts per game as a guide I was talking about ballparking a total relatively quickly. The whole mess about "Ramsey throws more attempts per game" is a red herring--attempts had no direct impact on my conclusions, unless it can be shown that I unnecessarily threw out a game or two based on faulty methods.

It's also curious, as PulpExposure pointed out, that crazyhorse criticizes my methods, changes how it works for Ramsey, but keeps my same results for Brunell. . .

I personally think the best counterargument to this is the one offered by Mursilis, who points out who was headcoach for each QB.

Therefore, I don't think that my mention of 'attempts per game' should warrant too much skepticism. It was a quick way of doing something that would take an hour or so to really do justice, and I'm fairly confident that the results wouldn't change (if at all) more than 1 or 2 games total for both QBs combined.

(In fact, Brunell was probably hurt more by my method than Ramsey, as the wins against Chicago and the Giants in '05 didn't count toward Brunell, even though he is more likely to be considered the 'main QB' in those contests. The other 'tossed out' games are usually losses (Giants '04, Cincy '04), which would hurt both Brunell and Ramsey in about equal measure if counted, and certainly didn't hurt Ramsey by being thrown out).

You looked at stats to find results, CH1 took his results and went looking for stats.