JimmiJo Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Ummmm . . . let's see here . . . Ramsey was 3-4 while playing against three of the top three teams and defenses in the NFL . . . that's nearly half of the games he started . . . if he plays a "normal" NFL schedule during that time, he's definitely over .500, which gives us nine wins and playoff berth . . . What nonsense is this? He was 3 and 6 as a starter. Are you smoking some new kind of weed? There I was off to bed but you keep pulling me back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Oh hey, you've got to count that since it's the only way geniuses like illone can support their arguments. Your starting to wave that white flag of yours. I'll warn you now to stop the name calling. I'm gonna call your mommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH Yes, I sure do, in fact after playing as bad as he did in preseason last year, I would have sent him packing, but that's me. What makes it idiotic, the fact you say it is? You can't even figure out how to display your age in your forum profile. :laugh: :laugh: Sure, and after he would posted his QB rating as a starter, I guess that somehow sours your point doesn't it? You're laughable man. And what does it matter how old I am? Did it ever occur to you that the fact that I don't post my age is the result of a volitional act as opposed to some lack of know-how in doing so? Of course, this is yet representative of the idiotic assumptions and logic you employ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted August 14, 2005 Author Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Oh hey, you've got to count that since it's the only way geniuses like illone can support their arguments. Three losing seasons isn't enough for you. I get it. Agree to disagree. I want to win, you want to talk about what ifs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo What nonsense is this? He was 3 and 6 as a starter. Are you smoking some new kind of weed? There I was off to bed but you keep pulling me back in. Are you friggin' serious. He started SEVEN games, dummy. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302216/gamelogs/2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 :laugh: Sure, and after he would posted his QB rating as a starter, I guess that somehow sours your point doesn't it? You're laughable man. And what does it matter how old I am? Did it ever occur to you that the fact that I don't post my age is the result of a volitional act as opposed to some lack of know-how in doing so? Of course, this is yet representative of the idiotic assumptions and logic you employ. I'm poking fun at your dumb ass. There, I came down to your level, happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH Your starting to wave that white flag of yours. I'll warn you now to stop the name calling. I'm gonna call your mommy. Oh God. I see this is what you resort to after getting punked. More power to you. I've never seen anyone as daft as you at employing logic, sonny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Are you friggin' serious. He started SEVEN games, dummy. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302216/gamelogs/2004 Look at the situation stats you mook http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302216/splits/2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH I'm poking fun at your dumb ass. There, I came down to your level, happy now? Well, I guess that's all you have left. Pretty sad, isn't it? A 41 year old who's as lost as you are and can't defend a point to save his life. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo This is what happens at 4AM when the starting QB sucks - we're up all night arging about it. Goodnight all, we'll get 'em next week. Goldy - brevity is the friend of the writer, simplicity is the key. I shouldn't have to defend goldy but I think this it's hilarious when someone who is uncomfortable or not up to the task lectures someone else on being plainspoken when neither the elementary nor the grandiloquent makes a dent. In any case, your repeated insistence on concern over 'wins' doesn't make your case stronger, illone. You are not concerned about wins, apparently, because you spent the first several posts touting Brunell on a small sample in the first preseason game. This, in spite of the fact, that Ramsey is universally regarded as having a better camp than Brunell. Oh and in spite of that inconvenient fact that he was terrible last year and that Ramsey led the team to point totals that Brunell couldn't. You continue to assume that your opponents arguments are based on fantasy and wild-eyed scenarios, but you do a disservice to us that we do not return. I said you have a specific view of facts. I at least gave you that. You recite from that script, but there are plotholes all up and down that screenplay. Hello, we've done nothing BUT use facts in Facts are not mere statistics or the win-loss record. They are facts, no mistake, but they are only PART Of the tapestry. You could at LEAST give your opponents that respect, that they are simply viewing a different set of facts, some less 'concrete' than yours, but no less 'factual.' You remind me of the people at work who look only at 'closing ratio' but don't look at the fact that I was basically running the office day-to-day and didn't have time to only focus on the one task. You seem to be saying that only the one set of numbers matters, not OTHER numbers, not OTHER facts. That is 'tarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo Look at the situation stats you mook http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302216/splits/2004 Hey idiot, try looking at the table I linked you to and go down the column that said "games started." Wow. Get a clue, retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin I shouldn't have to defend goldy but I think this it's hilarious when someone who is uncomfortable or not up to the task lectures someone else on being plainspoken when neither the elementary nor the grandiloquent makes a dent. Amen. I guess Chewy can't think too well after inhaling all the oil fumes from his job at the fry bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin I shouldn't have to defend goldy but I think this it's hilarious when someone who is uncomfortable or not up to the task lectures someone else on being plainspoken when neither the elementary nor the grandiloquent makes a dent. Well, as I am a professional writer I probably am allowed to posit an argument on the subject. But you, Ghost, are my favorite. You are wordy to the point of comedy. With all of your supposed eloquence you are not terribly effective in communicating. An argument with merit can be made in the simplest terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo Look at the situation stats you mook http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302216/splits/2004 As a further point, the 3-6 record was simply a reflection of what the team's record was in games he played in. Two of those games, which were losses, were ones he didn't start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo Well, as I am a professional writer I probably am allowed to posit an argument on the subject. But you, Ghost, are my favorite. You are wordy to the point of comedy. With all of your supposed eloquence you are not terribly effective in communicating. An argument with merit can be made in the simplest terms. Yes, brevity is the soul of wit. Lawyers are now counseled to crunch their arguments down as much as possible. However, stuff written here is first draft, off-the-top-of-your-head material. As such, it tends to be rambling and disjointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUBAKAH Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Amen. I guess Chewy can't think too well after inhaling all the oil fumes from his job at the fry bin. Are you serious? I think it may be a good idea for you to take the rest of the evening off. You obviously have me confused for someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH Are you serious? I think it may be a good idea for you to take the rest of the evening off. You obviously have me confused for someone else. Yeah, I do. That other guy actually has a job. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.A.M.F. Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 A great quaterback can't save a hopeless team, but a great team can be good with a so-so quarterback. We are trying to build a great team, we may or may not have a great quarterback on the roster (great currently or in the future that is, Burnell was great back in the day) Ramsey hasn't had a shot with a good defence and a serious offence, again, Spurrier doesn't count. Does anyone think Burnell would have excelled under him? Lets give Ramsey a few regular season games at least. He doesn't have to be Manning, just has to do ok for the time being while Campbell learns the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by goldenster95 Hey idiot, try looking at the table I linked you to and go down the column that said "games started." Wow. Get a clue, retard. So, he started 7 and his record was 3/4. I agree with you, he started 7, played in 9, started 7. If we apply your numbers - at BEST he is 7 and 9, not the number you cited. You Sir are an imbecile, what is worse is that you are a victim of your Rah Rah Go Team emotions, rushing to defend someone because in your heart, you hope him to be something terrific. The reality, as many have righfully stated, is that he has done nothing to demostrate that he is a good QB in 4 seasons. Thus, he is not a quality starter in the NFL. This is what I started out saying 2 hours ago before you climbed up my ass, like an idiot. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoneblitz Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by CHUBAKAH Yes, I sure do, in fact after playing as bad as he did in preseason last year, I would have sent him packing, but that's me. What makes it idiotic, the fact you say it is? You can't even figure out how to display your age in your forum profile. :laugh: This from a guy with Ramsey in his sig banner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo Well, as I am a professional writer I probably am allowed to posit an argument on the subject. But you, Ghost, are my favorite. You are wordy to the point of comedy. With all of your supposed eloquence you are not terribly effective in communicating. An argument with merit can be made in the simplest terms. You are allowed to do whatever you wish, regardless of your chosen career. Don Banks and Pete Prisco are 'professional writers,' as well. Edit: Ok, that was uncalled for, you're better than that. You'll forgive me if I dismiss your opinion on the subject of my internet posting style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by JimmiJo So, he started 7 and his record was 3/4. I agree with you, he started 7, played in 9, started 7. If we apply your numbers - at BEST he is 7 and 9, not the number you cited. You Sir are an imbecile, what is worse is that you are a victim of your Rah Rah Go Team emotions, rushing to defend someone because in your heart, you hope him to be something terrific. The reality, as many have righfully stated, is that he has done nothing to demostrate that he is a good QB in 4 seasons. Thus, he is not a quality starter in the NFL. This is what I started out saying 2 hours ago before you climbed up my ass, like an idiot. Thank you. I see, this from the guy who couldn't tell what his record as a starter was. Yeah, who's the idiot? As for his starting record, it was 3-4. Of course, only some light-loafered fool like you would simply apply those straight up to come up with some overall record right? How about the fact that three of those games came against the Eagles and Steelers? Would it be an appropriate measure to use that built in assumption over the course of a whole season? Think you friggin' mook. That might be asking a whole lot of you, though, since you can't master the ability to read and understand basic stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by zoneblitz This from a guy with Ramsey in his sig banner. I have to be honest. I did not notice that until you mentioned it. :doh: OK, fellaz We can diss each other without name-calling. Let's back off so that the thread remains open. That's not aimed at just one poster but everyone who tossed out the names, however frustrated or upset we get. I want this one to stay open and self-policed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin You remind me of the people at work who look only at 'closing ratio' but don't look at the fact that I was basically running the office day-to-day and didn't have time to only focus on the one task. You seem to be saying that only the one set of numbers matters, not OTHER numbers, not OTHER facts. That is 'tarded. Well at least you're not bitter. You said - "You could at LEAST give your opponents that respect, that they are simply viewing a different set of facts, some less 'concrete' than yours, but no less 'factual.'" I'll let you think about how the above reads. I did not tout Brunell as anything other than better the PR tonight. He W/L record career is better however and he did go post-season and pro-bowl. What I don't respect is that I have an opinion, express it, use 'facts' to support me point of view, and then some clowny like goldster climbs up my ass because I'm somehow denigrating Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 I'm not going to say that I think we should bench Ramsey now. However, the problems he displayed tonight are the same ones that he's displayed for some time now. Not looking off DBs (he always stares down his reciever. Think back to the Dawkins interception in the endzone on the pass for Cooley that lost us that game), he's as immobile as a house and has no feel for buying time in the pocket or avoiding a rush and his accuracy is erratic at best. As for Brunell, he's got the mental part of the game. I don't think that can be questioned. That being said his pyshical tools looked seriously eroded all of last year, preseason and regular season. He seemed to move in slow motion and his throws had no zip and sailed all the time. I must say though, he threw some pretty nice bullets out there tonight and was moving well, buying time. I know it was a second string defense but, to me, he never once threw the ball with the same zip last year that he was putting on it tonight. I think that mentally, there's no question that Brunell is the better quaterback. The question is was tonight an epiphany or did the rest he got really return some of his pyshical tools. Remember, he did have elbow surgery on his throwing arm last offseason and a bad hamstring for most of his starts. Basically, if his physical skills are significantly better than last year, I don't see how Ramsey could be the better quaterback. Obviously, that's an if that still needs to be proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.