Seriously, What was the point of those last 5-6 games of the season last year?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

No, if "we" were using my standard, then "we" would realize the difference between a consective pro bowl, league MVP candidate suffering a bad stretch vs an ill accomplished QB teetering between servicable and mediocre.

The fact that he had big games against bad defenses isn't a negative, but its not a shining example of Patricks greatness either. His success had more to do with the mediocrity of his opponents than his superiority as quarterback.

I think you completely missed the poster's point...

Believe it or not, McNabb didn't do any better against those tougher defenses than Ramsey did....so using the argument of Ramsey only doing well against weaker defenses is moot, because the same can be said of McNabb, and many other top QBs. When your logic is applied to other QBs not named Ramsey, it falls apart.

[goldenster95]

I think you completely missed the poster's point...

Believe it or not, McNabb didn't do any better against those tougher defenses than Ramsey did....so using the argument of Ramsey only doing well against weaker defenses is moot, because the same can be said of McNabb, and many other top QBs. When your logic is applied to other QBs not named Ramsey, it falls apart.

Great point. The converse is also true. For instance, this is how the five teams preceding Ramsey's game, where he posted a 139.2 rating, against the Giants fared.

Week 8: Culpepper, 24/41 231 1/2 (62.1 rating) / Giants blow out Minny34-13

Week 9: Krenzel, 8/21 144 1/0 (78.3 rating) / Giants lose by a whole seven points, 28-21

Week 10: McCown, 12/24 90 0/0 (59.4 rating) Gianst lose by a whole FG, 17-14

Week 11: Vick, 12/20 115 2/0 (109 rating) / Giants lose by four points to the then 8-2 Falcons

Week 12: McNabb, 18/27, 244 1/0 (107.6 rating) / Philly wins in the only blowout in the five games preceding ours

Not only did Ramsey outperform Vick and McNabb, he lead the team to a blowout of the Giants (though McNabb did too).

[bubba9497]

PR will make the Pro Bowl this season

[Hogskin1]

PR will make the Pro Bowl this season

Many of the posts in this thread are just amazing. But this one takes the cake. C'mon, guys, it's great to be a fan (even if you have to be a fan with "blinders"). But this and a few others are so far over the edge of reality, they are not even funny any more. Just sad. If will be an EXTREMELY successful season for PR if he just holds the starting QB job until the end of the season. I am pulling for him to turn it around and do that. But don't be buying your tickets to Hawaii to see him... :laugh:

[fansince62]

he didn't win against true quality compettion (I don't place the Vikes of last season in that category). he beats the Iggles and cowpukes this season and he's the man hands down. otherwise...it's just more boring "coulda, woulda, shoulda"......

[Clinton Portis]

I agree that Ramsey improved his performance last season over what he had done in the past. But to say he performed "extremely well" is much more than a strectch. He threw more interceptions than TD's. He had a woeful 74.8 QB rating (tied for #35 in the NFL).

Um..you can't be tied for 35th..there isn't 35 teams that I know of. :laugh:

[fansince62]

there are more than 30 QBs which I believe is what is being referred to....

[Clinton Portis]

So thats refrencing backups too? Because I'm pretty sure theres only 32 STARTING Quarterbacks...so is he also counting backups?

I believe his 74.8 Rating was 30th in the NFL.

And he was 20 something in YPA.

But if you know Brunell was Deadlast in most likely both of those categorys, and he sucked it up agains teams that averaged 6 wins.

Even when your injured what kind of excuse is that.

[goldenster95]

he didn't win against true quality compettion (I don't place the Vikes of last season in that category). he beats the Iggles and cowpukes this season and he's the man hands down. otherwise...it's just more boring "coulda, woulda, shoulda"......

Ummmm, three out of the seven games he started came against the Steelers and Iggles. In fact, his first game came against the Iggles on the road. Way to give him a chance by ushering him in as a starter then. As for the Vikes, they were a playoff team and were fighting for a playoff spot at the time we were playing them. How they can't be labeled is quality competition is beyond me. At any rate, Ramsey put up an 86.1 rating against nine win competition. And he did so by throwing for more TDs than INTs.

[Walking Deadman]

Ramsey seems to be a "slow-starter".

He struggled when he played Cincy last year and improved as the games went on.

Again, Ramsey is struggling: I'm not sure if it's a timing thing with Patten and Moss (although his timing with Patten is pretty decent) but I'm hoping he can continue to improve as we finish out the preseason.

We'll see.....but I think pulling Patrick now would be a mistake.

[fansince62]

1) the Vikes were trending downward. as demonstarted by their prompt exit from the playoffs.

2) winning is what counts. when PR does that against the Iggles and Cowpukes on a regular basis - an absolute miminum for any team that hopes to make the playoffs coming out of the NFC East - then he will be the man. Results before accolades - at least I used to think that was the equation.

PR is getting his chance...I don't understand why the defenders of virtue are so wrought over what some doubters might be posting. he is getting his chance. we will all know after the first 4-6 games whether he has moved it to the next level or not. it's really rather simple.

[goldenster95]

1) the Vikes were trending downward. as demonstarted by their prompt exit from the playoffs.

2) winning is what counts. when PR does that against the Iggles and Cowpukes on a regular basis - an absolute miminum for any team that hopes to make the playoffs coming out of the NFC East - then he will be the man. Results before accolades - at least I used to think that was the equation.

PR is getting his chance...I don't understand why the defenders of virtue are so wrought over what some doubters might be posting. he is getting his chance. we will all know after the first 4-6 games whether he has moved it to the next level or not. it's really rather simple.

1) The Vikes were also fighting for their lives for a playoff spot. They might not have been a top flight team, but they were quality competition.

2) Yes, winning is what counts. You're missing my point, however. My point is ferreting out why we didn't and using that as a basis to project future decisions. If Taylor doesn't blow that coverage at the end of the game or Kozloski can hold on to a ball that hits him right in hands (which ended up getting picked), he beats the Pukes and has a winning record as a starter.

And Ramsey is getting his chance this year. This really is his second year under a real pro system. I think he deserves more than just 4-6 games, but that's another issue altogether.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1) the Vikes were trending downward. as demonstarted by their prompt exit from the playoffs.

2) winning is what counts. when PR does that against the Iggles and Cowpukes on a regular basis - an absolute miminum for any team that hopes to make the playoffs coming out of the NFC East - then he will be the man. Results before accolades - at least I used to think that was the equation.

PR is getting his chance...I don't understand why the defenders of virtue are so wrought over what some doubters might be posting. he is getting his chance. we will all know after the first 4-6 games whether he has moved it to the next level or not. it's really rather simple.

1) It wasn't THAT prompt...the Vikings did beat the Packers in the playoffs...and in Green Bay...the very next week...

2) None of the Skins teams for the last 5 seasons have been able to beet the Eagles or the Cowboys...why losses to these teams during the few times Ramsey started should say something about him, and not about the team in general, baffles me.

3) It's because the doubters are using such flawed logic at times in their insistence in refusing to see anything positive in Ramsey's play--nonetheless allowing anyone else to see it--that it becomes frustrating and beyond irritating. I actually saw one poster say that he needed to see Ramsey throw more TDs than INTs over a 4-5 game span before he'll stop criticizing. Strangely enough, Ramsey's already done that several times in his career. I saw another poster say that until Ramsey has a game where he completes 75% of his passes and has more TDs than INTs, he hasn't shown anything. Strangely enough, Ramsey did just that last season against the Giants. You tell me...are these "doubts" these posters have lacking logic?

[Streater101]

I think you completely missed the poster's point...

Believe it or not, McNabb didn't do any better against those tougher defenses than Ramsey did....so using the argument of Ramsey only doing well against weaker defenses is moot, because the same can be said of McNabb, and many other top QBs. When your logic is applied to other QBs not named Ramsey, it falls apart.

No I didn't. My point is that there is no comparison. McNabb has proven he an elite QB, so the patience one would have with him struggling is not comparable to a player of Patrick's accomplishments. I'm sorry, but having you're best body of work is against poor teams just isn't as re-assuring to me as it is to you, or the author of this thread. Apparently, the Redskins organization feels similarily, hence Jason Campbell.

Also, I will go on record and say that Patrick will NOT make the Pro Bowl. He could have a successful 05, but for him to goto Honolulu, he would have to out play, or play up to par with Favre,McNabb,Culpepper,Delhomme, and Hassleback. Do you honestly see him having a better year than year then those guys?

[Hogskin1]

Um..you can't be tied for 35th..there isn't 35 teams that I know of. :laugh:

"Ummmmmmmmmmmm" There are more than 35 QB's in the NFL, last time I checked. He cam in behind several 2nd stringers, as a matter of fact. Check the stats. :doh:

[Clinton Portis]

"Ummmmmmmmmmmm" There are more than 35 QB's in the NFL, last time I checked. He cam in behind several 2nd stringers, as a matter of fact. Check the stats. :doh:

So your comparing him to people who didn't even start?

A backup can go 5 of 5 and throw 1 TD and he has an 100 something rating.

Isn't that a bit unfair?

[Hogskin1]

So thats refrencing backups too? Because I'm pretty sure theres only 32 STARTING Quarterbacks...so is he also counting backups?

I believe his 74.8 Rating was 30th in the NFL.

And he was 20 something in YPA.

But if you know Brunell was Deadlast in most likely both of those categorys, and he sucked it up agains teams that averaged 6 wins.

Even when your injured what kind of excuse is that.

Yes, it includes backups. But also, there were teams that had injuries, so they had 2 (or more) strarters during the season - and not just due to benchings like the Redskins had. This was from the official NFL stats for QB's that they release each year. Any QB that gets a certain minimum number of pass attempts qualifies for the list.

[Hogskin1]

So your comparing him to people who didn't even start?

A backup can go 5 of 5 and throw 1 TD and he has an 100 something rating.

Isn't that a bit unfair?

Again, it's the NFL list, not mine. As far as whether it is "fair", there is no one on the list with 5 attempts. I believe the minimum is somewhere over 100 attempts. In any case, if there are one or two guys that you feel don't qualify for the list on that basis, it still is not going to get him to even a decent position.

Let's all hope he can get it together this year. I, for one, would love to see him make the middle of the pack. If he does, the Redskins will be deep into the playoffs.

[e16bball]

No I didn't. My point is that there is no comparison. McNabb has proven he an elite QB, so the patience one would have with him struggling is not comparable to a player of Patrick's accomplishments. I'm sorry, but having you're best body of work is against poor teams just isn't as re-assuring to me as it is to you, or the author of this thread.

I think perhaps I disagree with the core of your argument. I think the best way of condensing what you're saying is that you don't trust PR because he has shown brilliance against only the weaker defenses, and been just mediocre against the best defenses.

I would submit, however, that this is generally the case for ALL QBs. Look at Peyton Manning last season. He destroyed teams like the Lions and Texans, but was really somewhat subdued by the more highly-ranked defenses of the Ravens and Patriots. I haven't heard TOO much about Peyton never progressing to stardom. And so, while no one is saying "bench Peyton," he is still doing the same things as Ramsey, as was McNabb, as was Daunte, as was Brady for that matter. All QBs have their "best body of work" against weaker defenses, almost by definition. It's just easier to succeed against a poor defense.

And, quite frankly, I feel Patrick looked pretty solid against the Eagles last season, excepting of course that hideous endzone pick. That was a dagger, and quite frankly, I think that single play is a big reason why a lot of people don't trust him, but aside from that, he was very solid and efficient against a very aggressive and frenzied defensive scheme, even with an extremely restricted scheme of his own. I realize it's become the chorus for "Ramsey Supporters," but give the guy some time to cut the mistakes out completely (or as completely as possible). If he truly can't do it, then we'll move on, but if he can, he could be quite the gunslinger in our offense.

[Streater101]

I think perhaps I disagree with the core of your argument. I think the best way of condensing what you're saying is that you don't trust PR because he has shown brilliance against only the weaker defenses, and been just mediocre against the best defenses.

I would submit, however, that this is generally the case for ALL QBs. Look at Peyton Manning last season. He destroyed teams like the Lions and Texans, but was really somewhat subdued by the more highly-ranked defenses of the Ravens and Patriots. I haven't heard TOO much about Peyton never progressing to stardom. And so, while no one is saying "bench Peyton," he is still doing the same things as Ramsey, as was McNabb, as was Daunte, as was Brady for that matter. All QBs have their "best body of work" against weaker defenses, almost by definition. It's just easier to succeed against a poor defense.

And, quite frankly, I feel Patrick looked pretty solid against the Eagles last season, excepting of course that hideous endzone pick. That was a dagger, and quite frankly, I think that single play is a big reason why a lot of people don't trust him, but aside from that, he was very solid and efficient against a very aggressive and frenzied defensive scheme, even with an extremely restricted scheme of his own. I realize it's become the chorus for "Ramsey Supporters," but give the guy some time to cut the mistakes out completely (or as completely as possible). If he truly can't do it, then we'll move on, but if he can, he could be quite the gunslinger in our offense.

You can't be serious? Manning completed 20 of 33 passes for 249, 1 TD, and 0 INT's vs the Ravens. He also led his team to the win, but I digress...there is no point in trying to piece together similar stats from similar opponents under somewhat similar circumstances in an attempt to make Patrick on par with a Brady, or a Culpepper, or McNabb,etc... Those guys have accomplished a lot more than a few good games against bad teams on the tail-end of a losing season.

This getting redundant.

[Bangee7]

I've been hard on Ramsey (and Brunell).

That's normal when you don't win consistently.

They have the best chance to influence the game cause they're the QB.

His last game was an up-trend...and that's good news.

But, don't you think something's wrong when you have to get on here

and defend him so fervently with the same people watching the same plays you did?

It is his 4th year.

He's a big boy making big money...he needs to step up and play well.

Otherwise, he doesn't deserve to have the ball in his hands.

If he can play well frequently, nobody will cheer louder than me.

I don't care who the QB is...just as long as they play well and help us win.

[fansince62]

bangee7...right on brotha!!!!

[bulldog]

for all those that base what they would do for an NFL team on the preseason, let's remember that last year Sultan McCullough was such a cause celebre here. Some folks thought we were releasing a potential 1,000 yard rusher in order to keep Rock Cartwright.

instead McCullough is likely camp fodder again, this year with the Browns while Cartwright scored a touchdown and looks to be a guy that can contribute in a number of different areas to the club in 2005.

Brunell has played well in the three games. But he hasn't been hit much. I think like Drew Bledsoe that the 34 year old Brunell can be effective as long as his jersey is kept clean. If he gets hit repeatedly, he is a guy that is fragile and will end up limping. He has not shown the resilience that Ramsey has.

Durability is an important factor in the NFL, often underrated by fans. This staff, however, looks at it as a VERY important factor. They would much rather have the consistently solid player around than the guy that can be star at times but ends up spending half his time on the IR or inactive list.