Mike & Mike - Ramsey to Jets for a 6th(Merged)

[318 SKIN]

Art - Just for the record to reflect - based on all your personal observations of PR do you or do you not think he will succeed in the NFL when he finally gets his chance with another team?

[Art]

Art - Just for the record to reflect - based on all your personal observations of PR do you or do you not think he will succeed in the NFL when he finally gets his chance with another team?

It depends on the system as to whether he'll succeed. In Washington he played for two systems requiring adaptability within each play. It required a high level of QB thought and independence both with Spurrier and Gibbs to make the offenses go. Obviously Ramsey isn't good when he has that much to process. In a system where he has limited options and must simply run the play he'd probably be wonderful. In Norv Turner's offense, as an example, he'd probably be a Pro Bowl player. In any system he can drop and throw and the game is made easier for him in that way, he'd be great.

Unfortunately he never showed he could develop in a more flexible system like we ran with him.

[visionary]

You know, maybe these pundits are all mixed up ;-)

Maybe he gets traded for a 4th and a 6th.

(Actually I was thinking of that yesterday...lol)

[Bhutanibeast]

i would rather just hold on to him until the regular season. Then when there is culpepper like injury, we let him go for a decently high pick, in the next draft.

[Larry Gude]

Larry,

Ramsey led three drives for 119 total yards with one drive going 70 and the other two 23 and 26.

Brunell led five drives (excluding end of half/game drives) for 226 yards with the lowest being 35 yards on the drive. You sure you have the facts you want?

No! I have no facts. I bow to the crystal ball! Ramsey is terrible! How we got out of there alive with him holding a clip board is BEYOND me...

[Larry Gude]

Ok folks, how about we get back to the trade discussion itself.

What trade discussion?

PR ain't worth a tuna sandwich. Yesterdays tuna sandwich.

Why would anyone trade us anything for him?

[Larry Gude]

Art - MB was 8/14 70yds and a terrible pick that we got a break on. PR 6/11 105 1pick and 1td called back on a very questionable call. Let's don't be to quick to hail MB as a savior based on the Bears game.

318,

You don't seem to accept the fact that Art knows what would have happened had Pat played more. Are you sure you wanna question someone with that kind of power?

[Jumbo]

Re Larry, 318, etc.

As gauche as it is to quote myself

"Ramsey as a board topic is 90% belief systems and personality-invested arguments and 10% objective analysis."

And the point that continues to be missed in responses like larry's is that presenting only the questionably chosen stats that you believe support your argument is PART of the meaning for my quote.

To exaggerate what I'm saying, it's like creationists who pick one or two "science facts" that they think complicates some aspect of evolution as science proving they're right.

I could respond to larry (as I have with other posters) with other stats, or put my interpretation (or spin if you prefer) on the ones he (and they) used and what they mean in context that support my contention that Ramsey's own play is the single biggest factor in where he's ended up, and not his being treated "unfairly" or having been "robbed".

And you guys must know by now that I like him and don't think he's some sort of bum.

But,as I've also said many times, there are some differences between the two camps here that I note. The vast majority of us who support Joe's 2005 decision, and the final status of Ramsey as not just "unwanted" by Joe, but also as just not the guy who can do it for us period, are not blind "Brunell" (or Gibbs) boosters.

Most of us opnely say Mark real limitations too, hell everybody except Brady & Manning has! Mark's gaffes have been duly (if differently) noted by his supporters, without such admissions changing the opinion that after 2004 mark became the better choice at QB based on observable performance.

Sometimes I want to ask all you other guys, especially the so-resolute ones, wtf you think the coaches were doing? just deciding to switch for ***** & giggles? Or because Pat's so friggin unlikeable? NO ONE wanted that swtich to have to be made.

Any reasoning mind could figure it would take a LOT of impetus to make that move. And Joe made that clear when it happened. That alone should be a huge clue as to what the performance difference between Mark & Pat that they were seeing was like. And once more, that would be the same BIG difference that every fargin reporter assembled commented on in anticipation of the "big story" of a switch.

But the Ramsey boosters seem to live in a world where his failings either don't exist or aren't even his responsibility, they're the fault of others. Only the good stuff counts, and it's all good. Ramsey has been a helpless victim in the NFL. I only exaggerate their general stance here a little.

When I see a Ramsey booster acknowledge Pat's shortcomings and that he's had plenty of opportunity to take the job, and that Mark was the best choice at the time in 2005, yet still believes that Pat might have been the one who could have done it all, and can maybe do it somewhere else, then I'm talking to the kind of Ramsey fan I don't inlcude in my quote.

[318 SKIN]

It depends on the system as to whether he'll succeed. In Washington he played for two systems requiring adaptability within each play. It required a high level of QB thought and independence both with Spurrier and Gibbs to make the offenses go. Obviously Ramsey isn't good when he has that much to process. In a system where he has limited options and must simply run the play he'd probably be wonderful. In Norv Turner's offense, as an example, he'd probably be a Pro Bowl player. In any system he can drop and throw and the game is made easier for him in that way, he'd be great.

Unfortunately he never showed he could develop in a more flexible system like we ran with him.

Please, the NFL is the NFL, it's never made easy or dumb downed (your words). If he succeeds and becomes a great player Gibbs/Redskins made a mistake. If he fails then Gibbs was right all along and I take my deserved rash of crap.

[Larry Gude]

Re Larry, 318, etc.

As gauche as it is to quote myself

"Ramsey as a board topic is 90% belief systems and personality-invested arguments and 10% objective analysis."

And the point that continues to be missed in responses like larry's is that presenting only the questionably chosen stats that you believe support your argument is PART of the meaning for my quote.

To exaggerate what I'm saying, it's like creationists who pick one or two "science facts" that they think complicates some aspect of evolution as science proving they're right.

I could respond to larry with other stats, or put my interpretation (or spin if you prefer) on the ones he used and what they mean in context that support my contention that Ramsey's own play is the single biggest factor in where he's ended up, and not his being treated "unfairly" or having been "robbed".

And you guys must know by now that I like him and don't think he's some sort of bum.

But,as I've also said many times, there are some differences between the two camps here that I note. The vast majority of us who support Joe's 2005 decision, and the final status of Ramsey as not just "unwanted" by Joe, but also as just not the guy who can do it for us period, are not blind "Brunell" (or Gibbs) boosters.

Most of us think he real limitations too, hell everybody except Brady & Manning do! Mark's miscues have been duly noted by his supporters I see here being regularly challenged by the Ramsey boosters, without such admissions changing our opinion that after 2004 mark beacme the better choice at QB based on observable performance. Sometimes I want to ask all you other guys, escpially the so-resolute ones, wtf you think the coaches were doing? just deciding to swtich for ***** & giggles? NO ONE wanted that swtich to have to be made.

Any reasoning mind could figure it would take a LOT of impetus to make that move. And Joe made that clear when it happened. That alone should be a huge clue as to what the performance difference between Mark & Pat that they were seeing was like. And once more, that would be the same BIG differcne that every fargin reporter known commented on in anticipation of the inevitable "big story" of a switch.

But the Ramsey boosters seem to live in a world where his failings either don't exist or aren't even his, they're the fault of others. Ramsey has been a helpless victim in the NFL. I only exaggerate their general stance here a little.

When I see a Ramsey booster acknowledge Pat's shortcomings and that he's had plenty of opportunity to take the job, and that Mark was the best choice at the time in 2005, yet still believes that Pat might have been the one who could have done it all, and can maybe do it somewhere else, then I'm talking to the kind of Ramsey fan I don't inlcude in my quote.

You got me all wrong. I've seen the light, or Arts crystal ball anyway.

If we get a used towel for Ramsey we're up one towel. I'll be shocked if he even gets another job in the NFL as bad as he is.

Ramsey would NOT have played better than Brunell. No way. He would have played worse. We would have gone 0-16. There is simply no way Pat Ramsey could have done a better job against the Eagles at the end of the year or against the Bucs in the playoffs or the Seahawks OR Gibbs would have played him and that's all there is to it.

If he DID not play it's because he COULD not do the job.

I GOT IT!

I've got to learn my place and learn to stop questioning these things...

[Larry Gude]

Please, the NFL is the NFL, it's never made easy or dumb downed (your words). If he succeeds and becomes a great player Gibbs/Redskins made a mistake. If he fails then Gibbs was right all along and I take my deserved rash of crap.

NO! Ramsey will obviously succeed on some level but it does not reflect on Gibbs because PR was not right for our system. Or Gibbs would have played him.

Don't you see????

[Jumbo]

You got me all wrong. I've seen the light, or Arts crystal ball anyway.

If we get a used towel for Ramsey we're up one towel. I'll be shocked if he even gets another job in the NFL as bad as he is.

Ramsey would NOT have played better than Brunell. No way. He would have played worse. We would have gone 0-16. There is simply no way Pat Ramsey could have done a better job against the Eagles at the end of the year or against the Bucs in the playoffs or the Seahawks OR Gibbs would have played him and that's all there is to it.

If he DID not play it's because he COULD not do the job.

I GOT IT!

I've got to learn my place and learn to stop questioning these things...

When steadfastly disagreed with, you often degenerate into these childishly mocking mini-rants. I use the term childish in the wearisome sense, not in the endearing sense. I remember you announced upon your arrival (reccommenede reading for newbies) that you had "posted terabytes" on the Redskins on other forums. So obviously this is the way you like to present things, your habits are well-ingrained and that's fine too.

Its very disengenuous, and,well, stupid IMO, to so frequently imply that people here are under some pressure to think a certain way or there's 'repercussions'. No one is asking you to change your mind, though some are arguing your contentions.

I am not bothered at all by disagreements of Redskins matters per se, I can't imagine anyone on a board is, really. I still read and consider everyone though, knowing who responding to may end up being a bother, but would not have anyone (almost) change to suit my views.

[Larry Gude]

When steadfastly disagreed with, you often degenerate into these childishly mocking mini-rants. I use the term childish in the wearisome sense, not in the endearing sense. I remember you announced upon your arrival (reccommenede reading for newbies) that you had "posted terabytes" on the Redskins on other forums. So obviously this is the way you like to present things, your habits are well-ingrained and that's fine too.

Its very disengenuous, and,well, stupid IMO, to so frequently imply that people here are under some pressure to think a certain way or there's 'repercussions'. No one is asking you to change your mind, though some are arguing your contentions.

I am not bothered at all by disagreements of Redskins matters per se, I can't imagine anyone on a board is, really. I still read and consider everyone though, knowing who responding to may end up being a bother, but would not have anyone (almost) change to suit my views.

I know. You're right.

I do it with my kids whenever they, as you guys are doing, claim to KNOW things like how Ramsey would have played. Then the insisting goes on.

May as well have fun if you can't communicate.

I have stated simple facts about Ramsey from the day I set finger tips in here.

1. He played better than Brunell in 2004, by a good bit, both in wins and QB rating.

2. He did NOT get a fair shot at starting in 2005. Had he simply been allowed to play we would KNOW if he was the guy or not AND we would have had a Brunell with a few less miles on him to go the rest of the way.

3. Mark benefited from being in the same system for a second year and having a healthy line. As would have Ramsey or anyone else.

4. I do understand that Gibbs is the coach and I don't get to make the decisions.

5. Mark Brunell player HORRIBLE in several games, not least of all the last three of the year. Mark played BRILLIANTLY in a few.

No one has yet shown me how those positions ae wrong or even controversial.

(I did not announce I had posted terrabytes on any other forum.)

Now, how am I to communicate with you or anyone else when all you add is "because coach said so." ???

You can call me stupid or whatever you need to. It's a forum. I don't know you. It's not personal. All I've ever offered about Ramsey is the above and all it is is an opinion. You don't accept it and don't have to. The thing is, my points are incredibly obvious; we would KNOW if Joe had simply played him, say, 5 games. 4 games. But again, you and others only answer;

"He is not playing because Joe isn't playing him and therefore he's not playing and shouldn't play because Joe said so."

I do get it. I really do.

so frequently imply that people here are under some pressure to think a certain way or there's 'repercussions'

Would you please show me where I implied such?

No one is asking you to change your mind, though some are arguing your contentions.

Look, that's a nice twist, but how does one argue that we 'know' how Ramsey would have played? I've never done it. You guys do it all the time. "Well, Joe would have played him if he was any good and Joe didn't, so, blah, blah, blah..."

I've said this repeatedly; Joe Gibbs is the greatest coach in league History. That does not make him non-human.

I think he made a mistake by yanking Pat so quick. I think he made a mistake by not letting him (or Campbell) mop up the 49'ers and the Boys the second time around.

My sarcastic answers are, literally, the only reasonable reply to people who insist they KNOW the answers. I mean, maybe they're right? Maybe they DO know?

There's a good many people in here who get very upset when it is suggested that Joe Gibbs is not always right and that the only true fan is the fan who doesn't question.

That cracks me up most because of Joe's humility. He's appreciate the unfailing support but he'd agree with me because he's said it before; he ain't always right.

Anyway, if my sarcasm really bothers you, I'll try to cut it out.

OK, how about cut it down?

OK, limit some?

Damn.

[Jumbo]

Larry Gude

I did not announce I had posted terrabytes on any other forum

Here you are larry:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2116272#post2116272

"Now, I word for you folks; I wasn't born today. I've posted terabytes on the Skins on my regular forums and only found this place recently."

Now the following has nothing to do with the above proof of what is a frequent (not always) lack of integrity in your arguing/debating behaviors.

Your self-inflating ego as the "persecuted bringer of light to the heathen idol-worshippers" is as silly (and unoriginal) now as from the first day you arrived, chock-full of bluster and posturing.

In your last post, you infer some of us are like your children in how we frame our disagreements with you, and you choose to treat us like you would them.

I think, like one other poster here I know, you seem oblivious to the hypocrisy and disingenuous nature of many of your responses. Or you deny it, or sometimes dismiss it as "having fun."

You too insult and posture directly and more often via innuendo, which we all do from time to time (as I did ablove), but you will deny that you're doing it, or call it sarcasm as though that refutes the instance that someone is trying to hold you accountable for.

In fact, you habitually do things that you deny you're doing, or ask for proof, and you habitually accuse others of "getting personal" with you while trying to project that you haven't done the same (and usually first) by how you respond to their posts.

You also do this with opposing views where you'll engage in one strategy, then deny another use of the same approach.

i.e. accuse someone that they are saying they "know" pat woulda sucked in 2005 (even if its not really their words), and how ridiculous their "crystal ball" stuff is, and then in the very same post contend there's good reason based on 2004 to expect he would have progressed in his fourth year and played well. Hypocritical. Your crystal ball is the right one I guess.

Most (not all) every other comment you made in your response here is a reprise of things you had just said that people already countered or answered (agree or disagree), but you do not incorporate those responses (even if just to reject them and say "we just don't agree") and you just repeat your personal closed feedback loop as though they never happened.

I had been leaving that loop closed as far as my participation for some time, other than reading you, and I return to that choice. I don't disagree with everything you've ever said about the Redskins.

Ironically, you lament a lack of ability you're being shown in the art of communication, and thats exactly what I feel you regularly bring to the table: A lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate, but a great ability (and willingness) to talk and impress yourself.

[skeenzfan]

We got 6th for Gardner and there is no way we only get a sixth for Ramsey. It could also be a conditional pick in next year's draft where the pick will depend on Ramsey being a starter or some other performance conditions....

[Tazhog]

This is Bologna...

[PcolaChuy]

we should wait until preseason when a qb goes down in some other team's training camp, the value will go up then

I usually don't reply because I think reading what everyone thinks and finding a middle ground works best for me. But this quote is probobly the best I've seen in a long time. It is always the case and always draws the most in returns (pick/trade, etc.)

[Larry Gude]

Damn! You got me cold there.

For the record I have not ACTUALLY post terabytes though I said I did.

"persecuted bringer of light to the heathen idol-worshippers"

Did I say that, too??? I'll take your word for it!

I object to this lack of integrity label and my ego is NOT self inflating. Not always anyway. I get kudos for my shtick on occasion. I even get the odd compliment on a point or two. What's with bluster and posturing?

I called you a child after you called me a name. Nah. The point stands though; People are claiming to KNOW the un-knowable, how Ramsey would have played. Daggone posturing and blustering I say.

And, actually, I treat the kids like people learning something. They are kids. For those who insist they know the unknowable, well...

What am I being hypocritical about??????? I disapprove of that more than posturing and blustering. Example please?

You too insult and posture directly and more often via innuendo, which we all do from time to time (as I did above), but you will deny that you're doing it, or call it sarcasm as though that refutes the instance that someone is trying to hold you accountable for.

Hold me accountable for what? It's the terabyte thing, right? I already fessed up! You got me! What else?

In fact, you habitually do things that you deny you're doing, or ask for proof, and you habitually accuse others of "getting personal" with you while trying to project that you haven't done the same (and usually first) by how you respond to their posts.

This will shock you; I have an ex wife who used to do that all the time; make the argument all about what I did.

I'm sorry if I am getting personal with you dear Jumbo. You see, by using ones real name, one assumes a responsibility of being upfront with people because one is not using some nickname that has zero responsibility or accountability. It's like talking to someone in the kitchen while you're sitting at the bar. people in the kitchen say all sorts of things they might not otherwise try to argue face to face.

So, Jumbo, people like you and I try to converse as though we were in person because we are who we are.

You also do this with opposing views where you'll engage in one strategy, then deny another use of the same approach.

Oh, so now you're calling me a lawyer, huh?

i.e. accuse someone that they are saying they "know" pat woulda sucked in 2005 (even if its not really their words), and how ridiculous their "crystal ball" stuff is, and then in the very same post contend there's good reason based on 2004 to expect he would have progressed in his fourth year and played well. Hypocritical. Your crystal ball is the right one I guess.

Your honor, isn't there a difference between saying one 'knows' something vs. saying 'good reason'? I even provide supporting evidence; Brunells career took off in his fourth year. It did. I plead to the jury. Know vs. Good reason. You decide!

Most (not all) every other comment you made in your response here is a reprise of things you had just said that people already countered or answered (agree or disagree), but you do not incorporate those responses (even if just to reject them and say "we just don't agree") and you just repeat your personal closed feedback loop as though they never happened.

So, you're saying I am inconsistent as well, huh? Allow me to compose myself before I continue...*sniff*...I have repeated the argument made to me, near verbatim by a WHOLE bunch of people; Ramsey did NOT play because Gibbs did NOT play him. Gibbs is coach and therefore Ramsey would not have played well or is not capable of playing well BECAUSE Gibbs did not play him.

That type of logic will get you blown up in a science lab. It's blatantly faulty.

I have this nagging feeling that one is not supposed to use back to back 'ly' words.

I don't disagree with everything you've ever said about the Redskins.

A ray of hope. Would it be even better if I just took the position of 'aw shucks, whatever Joe says'?

Ironically, you lament a lack of ability you're being shown in the art of communication, and thats exactly what I feel you regularly bring to the table: A lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate,

Now see. I don't blame that on y'all. Here, an example;

Ramsey played a good bit better in 2004 than Brunell, yes?

Based on that, Gibbs did name Ramsey the '05 starter, right or wrong, in order to have that issue settled going into camp, yes?

While playing poorly in the pre-season, Ramsey was starting to be effective against the Bears, yes? (This is my opinion)

Ramsey got hurt pretty good, yes?

Normally, a Gibbs starter does not lose his job to injury, yes?

Brunell didn't do anything particulcarly noteworthy against the Bears, yes? (my opinion)

Ramsey lost his starting job.

Am I communicating? Now, you say "Gibbs is right. You are wrong."

Now, do we agree that had Ramsey been given a few games, say up to five, that we would not be having any Ramsey based arguments around here?

Is it POSSIBLE that Joe yanked him a bit prematurely?

Is it POSSIBLE that, being his fourth year which is the fairly typical 'get it' year for NFL qb's, qb's like Mark Brunell, Ramsey MIGHT have become our guy?

Now, I know I am NOT the coach and I confess to NOT knowing as much about football as Joe Gibbs has forgoten. I stand by that as FACT.

In closing:

but a great ability (and willingness) to talk and impress yourself.

...it is my fondest wish that I have provided you with as much entertainment as I provide myself. Hell, look at all the attention from me you've earned. If this were not the case, if it were just about me, I could write to myself and you'd never know.

[Larry Gude]

Mr. Jumbo,

I have a question for you:

Most (not all) every other comment you made in your response here is a reprise of things you had just said that people already countered or answered (agree or disagree), but you do not incorporate those responses (even if just to reject them and say "we just don't agree") and you just repeat your personal closed feedback loop as though they never happened.

Is it OK if I make these points to a new post from someone I haven't chatted with yet? Or does your disagreement make my opinions null and void? Even the ones you haven't changed my opinion on?

[Art]

318,

You don't seem to accept the fact that Art knows what would have happened had Pat played more. Are you sure you wanna question someone with that kind of power?

Larry,

At issue is not what I knew, but, what you refuse to admit YOU knew. You knew what Patrick Ramsey could do as a player. Now I realize he has somehow become the perfect NFL player in your view, with no flaws who somehow just never got on the field in a conspiracy to keep his greatness at bay, but, in reality, you have years of history to know what you'd get from Ramsey on the field.

The coaching staff knew his strengths and weaknesses within the offense and felt they could not count on him to win for them in the offense based on what they knew of him. You know the same things, though you've chosen not to admit it and pretend Ramsey is something he never actually showed himself to be at any point on the football field.

[Art]

Please, the NFL is the NFL, it's never made easy or dumb downed (your words). If he succeeds and becomes a great player Gibbs/Redskins made a mistake. If he fails then Gibbs was right all along and I take my deserved rash of crap.

This is simplistic and silly.

If Ramsey becomes a Pro Bowl player it doesn't mean the Redskins or Gibbs made a mistake. Some players fit in some systems better than others. Gibbs has to believe in the system he has. He has to work with the players within his beliefs to get them to perform at a consistent level. If he can't get what he needs in his view, he may have a situation where the player leaves, gets married up with a system that is more suited for him, and performs well, but, that doesn't mean there was ever a mistake made in determining he couldn't and hadn't performed well for you in the system YOU employ.

Nothing that happens in the future with Ramsey should he go to another team validates or invalidates the determination made by the coaching staff that within the system we run, Ramsey had flaws enough not to be a legitimate option for us. While we may hope for the best, this isn't a "gotcha" situation. Once it's done here, it's done. Clearly Ramsey has to grow wherever he ends up and I hope he does great wherever that is. But, that has nothing to do with the past. The past is measured on the obvious things we all know to have existed and it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude from the information we have that Ramsey was suited for a system like we run. The question is whether there is enough time to get him to fit it better or not and we presume there just isn't.

[Jumbo]

Mr. Jumbo,

I have a question for you:

Is it OK if I make these points to a new post from someone I haven't chatted with yet? Or does your disagreement make my opinions null and void? Even the ones you haven't changed my opinion on?

Ah, classic larry: "Mr. Jumbo"

As for this, my point refrred to you doing that behavior in the same thread to the same people, hence the closed feedback loop comment. This to me, is another example of your brand of inaccurately applied and grade-school level of sarcasm. Quality sarcasm should be on the money and witty. Yours is usually neither.

Per your longer (I'll call it a reaction rather than a response) post above, what I note is you seem to admit to lying ("For the record I have not ACTUALLY post terabytes though I said I did") and I seem to have moved from being compared to your children to now being like your wife. You seem to be a very confused man, larry, when in comes to relationships.

As for your comment on my logic, that was perfect. This is like Pastabelly lecturing on journalistic objectivity. I make a very good living in a field (my second now) where proficiency in logic, self-awareness, and the scientific method are fundamental to success. It also helps not to be a disengenuous jerk since there are many people involved.

As for the rest of your stuff there, its the same ole sheet. No one wants you to think a certain way, that's more of the continued posturing. As for the other observations I made regarding some of your posting behaviors (not you as a whole person) that you object to, I have mentioned that your initial posts say it all and anyone curious enough can make up their own mind. For me, this has already become too long a back-n-forth on such matters for the open forum. These sort of exchanges can quickly become a pizzing contest boring everyone and not advancing either participants point of view.

I'm sure some do like your shtick, I know of at least one. There's enough people here that everyone, and I mean everyone, has some friends and supporters. That's a cool thing about this community.

I'll do what I said and recuse myself from further replies on these matters, but there's always future football issues available to discuss.

One thing I sometimes say to myself about what I read on here: if nothing else, at the bottom line that guy/gal is a Redskins fan and 99% of the time, that's means something.

[Larry Gude]

Larry,

At issue is not what I knew, but, what you refuse to admit YOU knew. You knew what Patrick Ramsey could do as a player. Now I realize he has somehow become the perfect NFL player in your view, with no flaws who somehow just never got on the field in a conspiracy to keep his greatness at bay, but, in reality, you have years of history to know what you'd get from Ramsey on the field.

The coaching staff knew his strengths and weaknesses within the offense and felt they could not count on him to win for them in the offense based on what they knew of him. You know the same things, though you've chosen not to admit it and pretend Ramsey is something he never actually showed himself to be at any point on the football field.

??? Man, this whole communication thing has me baffled.

I'll type slow:

Didn't Ramsey play a good bit better in 2004 than Brunell?

Let's start there.

[Larry Gude]

Jumbo (I dropped the Mr.)

As for this, my point refrred to you doing that behavior in the same thread to the same people, hence the closed feedback loop comment

OK. I accept that.

This to me, is another example of your brand of inaccurately applied and grade-school level of sarcasm. Quality sarcasm should be on the money and witty. Yours is usually neither.

You said usually! That means SOMETIMES I make you laugh. Come on...!

(I'll call it a reaction rather than a response) post above, what I note is you seem to admit to lying ("For the record I have not ACTUALLY post terabytes though I said I did")

Well, you call me a liar if it makes you feel good. I said I did not say something. You proved I did. I accepted your correction. Sorry if that's not good enough.

Per your longer and I seem to have moved from being compared to your children to now being like your wife. You seem to be a very confused man, larry, when in comes to relationships.

Words cannot describe how much better I feel with your concern for my mental state in regards to human relations.

As for your comment on my logic, that was perfect. This is like Pastabelly lecturing on journalistic objectivity. I make a very good living in a field (my second now) where proficiency in logic, self-awareness, and the scientific method are fundamental to success. It also helps not to be a disengenuous jerk since there are many people involved.

Well good! Then, you stand by the assertion that you know a player would not have played well because the coach did not play him? Yes?

As for the rest of your stuff there, its the same ole sheet.

That is so unfair. You could say I apply the same old sheet to new subjects...but even then, some of it's new.

I have mentioned that your initial posts say it all

Jumbo, let's be honest. You think I'm a jerk and you don't like very much of what I post yet, while professing a desire to let others make up their own minds, you feel compelled to add in, thoroughly, your thoughts in an effort to influence the opinion of what I write. You must like me on some level. Even if to just throw stones.

I'm sure some do like your shtick, I know of at least one. There's enough people here that everyone, and I mean everyone, has some friends and supporters. That's a cool thing about this community.

Dude, that SO makes my day!

One thing I sometimes say to myself about what I read on here: if nothing else, at the bottom line that guy/gal is a Redskins fan and 99% of the time, that's means something

Why would you need reminding of that? I don't know about you, (I really don't) but there is NO WAY in hell I would go on and on about any of this if I wasn't what one would call a hardcore Redskin fan.

Let's hope that the CBA gets extended, the Skins keep Ramsey, he comes in to save the season, win a Superbowl and I get to gloat about it endlessly.

[Larry Gude]

Now I realize he has somehow become the perfect NFL player in your view, with no flaws who somehow just never got on the field in a conspiracy to keep his greatness at bay, but, in reality, you have years of history to know what you'd get from Ramsey on the field.

While it may be true that I once used the word 'terabyte' I did NOT, ever, NEVER say that.

I have said if he played 5 games in 2005 we would KNOW.

You say we KNEW.

I say 4th year.

You say we already knew.

I say not.

You say did so.