Mark Brunell vs. Patrick Ramsey: The Final Word

[AJ_Skins]

Yep he had a rating of 85 in 2004 :doh:

600 yards does not change a rating from 69 in 2004 to 85 in 2005 or change his completion % from 49 to 58.

It lowers it significantly since yards per attempt is one of the four stats that go into QB rating. Most of the bump Brunell got to his Qb rating in 2005 was from a much higher number of TDs, specifically all of those times he rolled out to the left and dumped it to Cooley or Sellers inside the ten.

In other words, the statistics line up with reality. Brunell had 9 more TDs in 2005 than he was averaging in 2004. Mike Sellers had 7 of them, all in short yardage. The addition of Santana Moss and the tweaks the coaches made to the red zone offense account completely for the difference between Brunell in 2004 and Brunell in 2005.

Mark had a rating of below 80 twice in his career in 2004 and his rookie season. Pat has never been able to break 76 for a season yet you somehow believe they were identical in Washington.

The NFL average for QB rating is about 75. The fact that Ramsey stayed there despite the extremely poor circumstances he was asked to play in is a plus, not a minus. In games he started under Gibbs, his QB rating was 82.5.

Pat also had more interceptions then TD's in 2004 not Mark.

I'm only including games where they started and played the whole game, which to me seems fair, not to mention the most accurate way of assessing performance while controlling for other factors.

[jbooma]

you're getting ridiculous. - Now you're taking other players out of the equation to doctor your stats again?:laugh:

so maybe if Ramsey had 5 Santana Moss's he'd be waaaay better than Brunell.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I guess you would do anything to prove a point when you are wrong. Next he is going to say since Gibbs was in his second season we should deduct the ability of the O performing better as a whole so lets take away at least 5 tds as well add 5 more fumbles to make it fair :laugh: :laugh: :doh: :doh:

AJ just stop, please, this is getting bad.

[fahqcowboys]

Agreed. Brunell was a winner in college, with J-ville, and with us. Ramsey, though I had high hopes for him, has never won diddly in college or with us. Thems the facts, pardner.

True

[TheSchwartz]

you're getting ridiculous. - Now you're taking other players out of the equation to doctor your stats again?:laugh:

so maybe if Ramsey had 5 Santana Moss's he'd be waaaay better than Brunell.

Well, when all you have to do is throw it as far as you can to get a TD pass, then yeah it makes a difference.

When all you have to do is throw a screen pass to a WR and he runs for a TD, then yeah it makes a difference.

If all you want to see is 23 TDs and 10 INTs then the only way to refute that is to bring up the fact that Brunell was playing with more dangerous weapons this year than Ramsey had last year and still wasn't able to completely outclass Ramsey.

For whatever reason, most of you are blinded by Brunell's stats and are unable to see the fact that Brunell was indeed the same QB as 2004, the difference was the players making plays around him.

[jbooma]

For whatever reason, most of you are blinded by Brunell's stats and are unable to see the fact that Brunell was indeed the same QB as 2004, the difference was the players making plays around him.

The difference was he was not throwing 10 yard outs and bouncing it to the WR like he did in 2004. This year he was throwing it well deep and short, that is the difference, not just Moss but the fact he could run and throw which he could not.

The sad thing is a hobbled Brunell played at the same level as Ramsey in 2004 but showed in 2005 when healthy he was be far a better QB right now.

[AJ_Skins]

The difference was he was not throwing 10 yard outs and bouncing it to the WR like he did in 2004. This year he was throwing it well deep and short, that is the difference, not just Moss but the fact he could run and throw which he could not.

The sad thing is a hobbled Brunell played at the same level as Ramsey in 2004 but showed in 2005 when healthy he was be far a better QB right now.

I'll post what I did above again since it got passed by while I was editing:

Most of the bump Brunell got to his QB rating in 2005 was from a much higher number of TDs, specifically all of those times he rolled out to the left and dumped it to Cooley or Sellers inside the ten.

In other words, the statistics line up with reality. Brunell had 9 more TDs in 2005 than he was averaging in 2004. Mike Sellers had 7 of them, all in short yardage. He had about 700 more yards passing than he was averaging in 2004. Santana Moss had 616 YAC.

The addition of Santana Moss and the tweaks the coaches made to the red zone offense account completely for the difference between Brunell in 2004 and Brunell in 2005.

[TheSchwartz]

Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler

Agreed. Brunell was a winner in college, with J-ville, and with us. Ramsey, though I had high hopes for him, has never won diddly in college or with us. Thems the facts, pardner.

True

What exactly has Brunell won in the NFL? As far as I can tell he choked any time the games got too important with the Jaguars, just go back and look at his playoff games. And then the Jaguars sucked since 2000...

And a winner with "us"? He's 14-12 in his 26 starts with this team. That's the kind of record I dream about, lemme tell ya...didn't Norv get fired for those kind of results??

[jbooma]

In other words, the statistics line up with reality. Brunell had 9 more TDs in 2005 than he was averaging in 2004. Mike Sellers had 7 of them, all in short yardage. The addition of Santana Moss and the tweaks the coaches made to the red zone offense account completely for the difference between Brunell in 2004 and Brunell in 2005.

So out of 9 now 7 were short yardage, yet you and your partner in crime were saying all the long tds make the difference, which one is it you are chaging your stance every post, and thus making arguement look worse.

Have you ever thought he had 9 more tds because he played every game, and thus has nothing to do with who he was playing with :doh:

The fact is Mark was healthy and entire year and won 10 games and a playoff game, Pat has never been able to do at least one of those.

[Gilgamesh]

Right...the problem is, Gibbs's preference for Brunell and Campbell was based on the old offense he was running the past two years, which wasn't very good, and wasn't particularly concerned about throwing the ball down the field. Now that Saunders is here, we don't have a QB that can run his offense.

Ok, now you're just baiting folks. This sort of presumptive arrogance does not naturally occur in someone with any sort of life experience outside of their parents house. It's is however just common sense to understand that Gibbs and Saunders know what they see and have seen in Ramsey, and you do not.

[TheSchwartz]

I'll post what I did above again since it got passed by while I was editing:

Most of the bump Brunell got to his QB rating in 2005 was from a much higher number of TDs, specifically all of those times he rolled out to the left and dumped it to Cooley or Sellers inside the ten.

In other words, the statistics line up with reality. Brunell had 9 more TDs in 2005 than he was averaging in 2004. Mike Sellers had 7 of them, all in short yardage. The addition of Santana Moss and the tweaks the coaches made to the red zone offense account completely for the difference between Brunell in 2004 and Brunell in 2005.

I even posted in an earlier thread about the QB situation that at least 11 of Brunell's TDs this year were passes that traveled less than 7 yards. Also 16 of his TDs came inside the Red Zone. Unfortunately AJ, the Brunell supporters will simply say that it was Brunell's ability to read the play and check down that led to these TDs and that Ramsey would have been unable to make these types of plays...

If you look at his stats in the middle of the field (between the 20's) he's a mediocre to below average QB, and it's not much of a surprise that this team struggled to score points when the team wasn't set up for an easy score by the defense...

[jbooma]

What exactly has Brunell won in the NFL? As far as I can tell he choked any time the games got too important with the Jaguars, just go back and look at his playoff games. And then the Jaguars sucked since 2000...

And a winner with "us"? He's 14-12 in his 26 starts with this team. That's the kind of record I dream about, lemme tell ya...didn't Norv get fired for those kind of results??

He beat the #1 Broncos and took the Jags to the AFC title game.

So what has Pat done, he has not won 10 games in a season, never won a playoff game, and all the games he needed to win he lost.

[AJ_Skins]

Ok, now you're just baiting folks. This sort of presumptive arrogance does not naturally occur in someone with any sort of life experience outside of their parents house. It's is however just common sense to understand that Gibbs and Saunders know what they see and have seen in Ramsey, and you do not.

Yeah. We'll see next year whether our offense looks like KC's or whether it looks more like a slightly spiffed up version of the past two years. With Brunell and Campbell, the latter is the only option. Neither is a very good downfield passer. That's reality.

[AJ_Skins]

So out of 9 now 7 were short yardage, yet you and your partner in crime were saying all the long tds make the difference, which one is it you are chaging your stance every post, and thus making arguement look worse.

Have you ever thought he had 9 more tds because he played every game, and thus has nothing to do with who he was playing with :doh:

The fact is Mark was healthy and entire year and won 10 games and a playoff game, Pat has never been able to do at least one of those.

I don't think you understood anything about what I was saying. The comparison is between the statistical averages if he had played all 16 games in 2004 vs. what he did in 2005.

They added Moss, and they started using that rollout to the left inside the red zone instead of trying to run it in. Those two factors by themselves account for 90% of the improvement in Brunell's numbers from 2004 to 2005.

[jbooma]

Yeah. We'll see next year whether our offense looks like KC's or whether it looks more like a slightly spiffed up version of the past two years. With Brunell and Campbell, the latter is the only option. Neither is a very good downfield passer. That's reality.

So I assume next year you will be a Jets fans since you are putting one player above the team :doh:

You claim our coach does not know what QB to play and rather does not care about winning.

Let me help with what you need to learn:

J E T S JETS JETS JETS

[Whiskeypeet]

If you look at his stats in the middle of the field (between the 20's) he's a mediocre to below average QB, and it's not much of a surprise that this team struggled to score points when the team wasn't set up for an easy score by the defense...

Where do you find those stats?

[jbooma]

I don't think you understood anything about what I was saying. The comparison is betwee the statistical averages if he had played all 16 games in 2004 vs. what he did in 2005.

I understand you keep changing your position. You are trying to predict what Ramsey would have done this year yet have nothing to back it up with. If you project each player in 2004 to how the stats would be for the entire year then Mark still ends up with a better TD to INT ratio as well I believe more wins.

However when Mark has numbers in 2005 that are similar to everything he did in the past instead of 2004, yet Pat has never been close to them in his career.

[AJ_Skins]

So I assume next year you will be a Jets fans since you are putting one player above the team :doh:

You claim our coach does not know what QB to play and rather does not care about winning.

Let me help with what you need to learn:

J E T S JETS JETS JETS

I think Joe Gibbs put his personal biases above what was best for the team when it came to the QBs, and now we're stuck with a questionable QB situation. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

[Hooper]

Yeah. We'll see next year whether our offense looks like KC's or whether it looks more like a slightly spiffed up version of the past two years. With Brunell and Campbell, the latter is the only option. Neither is a very good downfield passer. That's reality.

Brunell and Campbell both throw better deep balls than Ramsey. Brunell's isn't great , but it's serviceable. And Campbell threw a bomb in preseason that was a thing of absolute beauty -- the best deep ball I've seen a Skin throw in years. Ramsey can't throw the deep ball at all -- he doesn't put enough air under the ball. He does, however, throw a great intermediate ball. If being a NFL qb was simply about dropping back and throwing a laser to your first read, he'd be a stud. But as most of us know, it's about a lot more.

[TheSchwartz]

Where do you find those stats?

NFL.com player page...under player statistics there's a tab for situational stats...

[AJ_Skins]

I understand you keep changing your position. You are trying to predict what Ramsey would have done this year yet have nothing to back it up with. If you project each player in 2004 to how the stats would be for the entire year then Mark still ends up with a better TD to INT ratio as well I believe more wins.

No, one less win, and the TD-INT ratio is identical, with Ramsey throwing 4 more TDs, and 4 more INTs than Brunell. The numbers are on the first page in a very easy-to-read format. Just look at it.

However when Mark has numbers in 2005 that are similar to everything he did in the past instead of 2004, yet Pat has never been close to them in his career.

Brunell's numbers in 2005 were only slightly better than Ramsey's in 2004 on a much worse team. Without Moss and some changes in the red zone offense, his performance would have been just as bad as it was in 2004.

[Gilgamesh]

Yeah. We'll see next year whether our offense looks like KC's or whether it looks more like a slightly spiffed up version of the past two years. With Brunell and Campbell, the latter is the only option. Neither is a very good downfield passer. That's reality.

What are you basing your Campbell opinions on? I'm not going to argue that Brunell has much in the way of a deep ball left, but when he's healthy, it's been enough to get the job done. Brunell is just a better game manager than Ramsey, and as many bad sacks and fumbles that he takes, he still makes better decision with the ball than Ramsey, and it the way he makes his coverage reads that elevates him over Ramsey. Seriously, other than a cannon arm, why are you so in love with this man? Jay Schroeder was a far better QB than Ramsey ever was, yet Gibbs was ready to part company with him when he saw that he had reached his potential and it still was not enough. He's a good as he's ever going to get, and Gibbs knows it. Ramsey was a great guy, sure, but that has no bearing on anything in Pro Football. And why would you assume anything about what our offense will look like next year, with or without Ramsey?

[AJ_Skins]

Brunell and Campbell both throw better deep balls than Ramsey. Brunell's isn't great , but it's serviceable. And Campbell threw a bomb in preseason that was a thing of absolute beauty -- the best deep ball I've seen a Skin throw in years. Ramsey can't throw the deep ball at all -- he doesn't put enough air under the ball. He does, however, throw a great intermediate ball. If being a NFL qb was simply about dropping back and throwing a laser to your first read, he'd be a stud. But as most of us know, it's about a lot more.

Every NFL scouting report listed deep ball accuracy as one of Campbell's biggest deficiencies, along with reading defenses. We'll see. Keep believing though.

[Hooper]

You're conveniently ignoring the reports that Brunell clearly outplayed Ramsey in training camp and that there wasn't ONE player who voiced any kind of concern when Gibbs pulled Ramsey for Brunell. In fact, according to John Keim, the players were relieved that it happened and thought Brunell gave them the best chance to win.

[Hooper]

Every NFL scouting report listed deep ball accuracy as one of Campbell's biggest deficiencies, along with reading defenses. We'll see. Keep believing though.

Maybe they're right. But we already know that Ramsey can't throw the deep ball or in fact read defenses so what's your point?

[Whiskeypeet]

NFL.com player page...under player statistics there's a tab for situational stats...

Thanks