Mark Brunell vs. Patrick Ramsey: The Final Word

[Whiskeypeet]

Human being? There's something deeper, I believe...

Are you related to Ramsey? Seriously...

I know! Isn't it great?

We can now condemn Joe Gibbs as a human being for his treatment of Ramsey. I'm sure Satan has a special place in hell reserved for Joe Gibbs.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I don't know what to do but laugh anymore.

[AJ_Skins]

Human being? There's something deeper, I believe...

Are you related to Ramsey? Seriously...

No. I just think when you're in a position of leadership, you have a responsibility to treat the people you're in charge of equally and fairly. I don't think he did that, and looking at the numbers, the only explanation left is that he didn't want to admit that he was wrong about Brunell.

[ArmchairRedskin]

No. I just think when you're in a position of leadership, you have a responsibility to treat the people you're in charge of equally and fairly. I don't think he did that, and looking at the numbers, the only explanation left is that he didn't want to admit that he was wrong about Brunell.

Right, because Gibbs would put his own ego above what's best for the team.

[Burgold]

Do you at least acknowledge that Ramsey absolutely terrible in the 05 preseason? At least one pick per half or quarter played. And horrible in the opener. Three turnovers in less than a half against the Bears.

Can't you understand how those impressions could impact Gibb's faith in Ramsey?

Gibbs leash was far too tight on Ramsey especially given what how long he allowed us to endure Brunell's 04, but Ramsey did not capitalize at all at the start of 05

[supersmartbrunell5]

brunell saved gibbs life in their first meeting. That debt was repaid to Mark with numerous chances to qb the redskins from his wheelchair.

[Jesus, Mary & Joe Gibbs]

No. I just think when you're in a position of leadership, you have a responsibility to treat the people you're in charge of equally and fairly. I don't think he did that, and looking at the numbers, the only explanation left is that he didn't want to admit that he was wrong about Brunell.

But he WASN'T wrong about Brunell...

When everybody wanted Brunell out of town after '04 Gibbs stuck with him. You might have thought it was the money, ego, or whatever but I believe he was being legit when he said "We haven't seen the last of Mark."

Mark Brunell made a complete 360 degree turnaround in '05. You could say Joe Gibbs did one of these :whew: after the season but I believe it was more of his confidence in his decision and the fact that he truly knew Brunell had game left in him. Not to mention the fact that as a President/Head Coach if you didn't draft a guy you don't have that feel or true sense of "loyalty" or sense of "I owe you" than someone you drafted and put time and money in to...

Just my 2:2cents:

[PA Skin Fan]

The only problem is we just traded away a 27 year old first round draft pick who still had room for improvement for a 6th round pick, in favor of a 36 year old QB whose performance will only get worse over time, and has in fact played worse than the 27 year old during the time they both played for the current staff. Oh yeah, that's right...we've got Jason Campbell on the bench. Maybe he'll be ready to play by 2010.

AJ, statistics don't show the whole picture. I dare you to name ONE TIME Ramsey had a clutch performance in a must-win game. Brunell did in the both Dallas games (the fourth qtr still counts), the New York Giants game, and others.

When I think of Ramsey, I think the word "ALMOST" fits him perfectly. Last year in the Eagles game, we ALMOST won, but Ramsey through a crucial interception to lose. That same year, we ALMOST won the second Dallas game but did not. The year before under Spurrier, we ALMOST beat the Giants, but Ramsey overthrew his man on an easy two point conversion. We almost tied the Eagles too I think that year, but again Ramsey choked under pressure. Yes, he has the stats, a nice arm and all, but who cares if the guy doesn't know how to win when it counts??? And unfortunately, that's what I see in Ramsey, and I believe that's what Coach Gibbs saw too - someone who does not have that extra something needed to pull out a victory when the whole team is relying on him.

And Brunell, he has his bad games sure, but there is no doubt he has won in this league with Jacksonville, and he just as surely won big games last year. Do you think there is any way Ramsey would come back and beat the Cowboys in Texas stadium like Brunell did? I think not. He might score the first TD, but if recent history holds, he would have found a way to botch that second TD pass to Moss.

I like Ramsey, and also did not like the benching, but the facts are, he never quite performed to the level of a winning NFL quarterback. Maybe he still will, but I have no reason to believe so.

[ouvan59]

III. Finally, here are Brunell's numbers from last year, compared to Ramsey's average under Gibbs:

BRUNELL 2005

3,050 yards

57.7% Comp.

23 TDs

10 INTs

11 Fumbles lost

Total Turnovers: 21

QB rating: 85.9

Record: 10-6 (1-1 playoffs)

RAMSEY AVG. SEASON UNDER GIBBS

3,001 yards

65.4% Comp.

18 TDs

14 INTs

7 Fumbles lost

Total Turnovers: 21

QB rating: 82.5

Record: 7-9

You want to tell me again how you didn't include Brunell's game against the Bears last year? Those sure look like Brunell's full season stats to me.

I also noticed that you left sacks out of the equation which has been Ramsey's bane since he got here.

And this is the argument that proves the statement, "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics." You can twist stats to say anything you'd like. But it gets pretty bad when even with your twisted stats that your conclusion is that Ramsey is only nearly as good as Brunell last year.

If you really want to find somebody of like mind with you, try e-mailing Lenny the Hut. You guys should get along famously.

[The Batman]

Yep. Just putting a period at the end of the sentence for anybody with a shred of intellectual honesty. In particular, it obliterates the "Ramsey is a turnover machine" argument.

Dude, what in God's name are you smoking? It must be the stickiest of the icky.

It does nothing but further the "Ramsey is a turnover machine" argument.

In every one of the extrapolated seasons [by the way, any given Sunday, don't forget that many an accountant has been fired for extrapolation], and I mean EVERY ONE, Ramsey has produced more turnovers than Brunell. EVERY ONE.

Additionally, all of Ramsey's simulated seasons have produced far less wins [3] and playoff berths than did Brunell's comeback year.

I have nothing against Ramsey, but you really shot yourself in the foot with this stuff.

Oh, and by the way, shove it sounds like a call out to me. Watch yourself.

:logo:

[AJ_Skins]

You want to tell me again how you didn't include Brunell's game against the Bears last year? Those sure look like Brunell's full season stats to me.

You're right in part...I did just grab the total stats from 2005 for the last section. In the previous two, I used the raw numbers and didn't include those games, but for 2005 I did use the actual numbers, to save time. So maybe it was slightly skewed because of the inclusion of the Bears game, but not by much.

[AJ_Skins]

Dude, what in God's name are you smoking? It must be the stickiest of the icky.

It does nothing but further the "Ramsey is a turnover machine" argument.

In every one of the extrapolated seasons [by the way, any given Sunday, don't forget that many an accountant has been fired for extrapolation], and I mean EVERY ONE, Ramsey has produced more turnovers than Brunell. EVERY ONE.

Three more, at worst, is a "turnover machine"?

Additionally, all of Ramsey's simulated seasons have produced far less wins [3] and playoff berths than did Brunell's comeback year.

No one will ever know how the team would have done with Ramsey starting last year. As a QB playing his individual position, Brunell barely did better in 2005 than Ramsey did in 2004 on a much worse team.

[TheSchwartz]

Unfortunately, AJ, this is an argument you cannot win vs. the homers and Joe Gibbs worshippers. You see, this Joe Gibbs guy is like the pope to these people, he's infallible. To try and reasonably explain any mistake he may or may not have made is futile because it falls on deaf ears.

But don't fear, when Ramsey is going to Pro Bowls we'll have the satisfaction ofbeing right, while everyone around here will be lamenting the latest ex-Redskin QB enjoying great success elsewhere.

And in the end the people I feel most sad for are the one's getting their hopes up because they think Brunell is the guy that will lead this team to a Super Bowl victory. When he hasn't showed in all his playoff appearances the ability to perform well under the pressure of the postseason...

[The Batman]

No one will ever know how the team would have done with Ramsey starting last year. As a QB playing his individual position, Brunell barely did better in 2005 than Ramsey did in 2004 on a much worse team.

According to you, yes, we do know how the team would have done.

According the fundamentals of your entire argument, yes, we do know how the team would've done AND we know EXACT numbers for each QB across an entire season.

Your anemic argument fails to take into account many X factors. Injury to Santana Moss, for instance. Or perhaps injuries to Oline. Hate to tell you, if Ramsey starts and Randy Thomas goes down in Week 1, we are fortunate to win 4 games. Very fortunate.

Also, you say that Brunell barely quarterbacked the position better across 16 GAMES than Ramsey did over 5. Brunell, while battling injury and injury around him, something Ramsey didn't have to deal with. He spent all 5 of those games healthy. This part of your statement is totally unqualified and borders on the moronic.

Do you see now how extrapolation gets you into trouble? Or will you resort to feeble arguments to justify your utter refusal to admit that maybe, JUST maybe, you are incorrect about something and a man who knows infinitely more about the game of football then you ever will was correct?

This argument is almost too stupid for words.

:logo:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

AJ, statistics don't show the whole picture. I dare you to name ONE TIME Ramsey had a clutch performance in a must-win game. Brunell did in the both Dallas games (the fourth qtr still counts), the New York Giants game, and others.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the whole Gibbs/Brunell/Ramsey situation, I think Ramsey did have a few games where he really came thru in clutch situations...the first one I thought of was the Atlanta game where the Skins were done something like 31-10 or something..lol..can't remember. But I do remember that Ramsey led them to a victory by coming back in the second half and doing some damn good damage...

The games I'd say Ramsey "came thru" in pressure situations:

1) Monday night opener of 2003 season against the Jets (on national stage):

17/23 185yds 1TD 1INT

(Ramsey was 12/13 in the first half; set up the winning score with a 24-yard scramble to New York's 31-yard line)

Skins 16 - Jets 13

2) Against Atlanta, 2003:

25/39 356yds 2TDs 0INTs

(Ramsey was 13/15 in the second half, brought the Skins back from a deficit on the road)

Skins 33 - Falcons 31

3) Against the Giants, 2003:

(Skins were down 21-3 at the half; Ramsey 18-31 with 2 TDs and a key 2-point conversion in 2nd half)

Giants 24 - Skins 21 OT

4) Against the Eagles, 2003:

(Skins down 27-16 with 3 minutes to go in the game; Ramsey leds them on two scoring drives in those three minutes, including a 32 yard TD pass with 19 seconds left in the game)

Eagles 27 - Skins 25

[hueman]

this is the silliest thread... i am reminded of car forums in which we argue endlessly over "supposed" car stats and who should win in a race, what mods make up how much power, blah blah blah.

and here's what you should understand:

those 'extrapolated stats' are NOT REAL.

get over it. as we say among car enthusiasts: run what ya brung. don't play the 'what if' game... it's NOT REAL. you can come up with all these numbers, and it doesn't matter because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

[TheSchwartz]

Hate to tell you, if Ramsey starts and Randy Thomas goes down in Week 1, we are fortunate to win 4 games. Very fortunate.

And Brunell would do better? At least we know Ramsey can still perform in an offense that can't run the ball. Brunell sure as hell couldn't and won't...

Also, Brunell's playoff history is known. He has choked as much as Peyton Manning when it comes right down to it. As for Ramsey, we'll never know how he'll perform here under the pressure...

[AJ_Skins]

According to you, yes, we do know how the team would have done.

According the fundamentals of your entire argument, yes, we do know how the team would've done AND we know EXACT numbers for each QB across an entire season.

Based strictly on the numbers, you would have to conclude that the team would have made the playoffs last year no matter who started.

You would also have to assume, based on reasonable logic, that the 26-year-old Ramsey would have had a much better chance of being healthy in the playoffs.

[Whiskeypeet]

Unfortunately, AJ, this is an argument you cannot win vs. the homers and Joe Gibbs worshippers. You see, this Joe Gibbs guy is like the pope to these people, he's infallible. To try and reasonably explain any mistake he may or may not have made is futile because it falls on deaf ears.

But don't fear, when Ramsey is going to Pro Bowls we'll have the satisfaction ofbeing right, while everyone around here will be lamenting the latest ex-Redskin QB enjoying great success elsewhere.

And in the end the people I feel most sad for are the one's getting their hopes up because they think Brunell is the guy that will lead this team to a Super Bowl victory. When he hasn't showed in all his playoff appearances the ability to perform well under the pressure of the postseason...

So if Ramsey can't win the starting job in NY, or toally blows if he does win it, are you going to come here and let everyone know how wrong you are?

I won't hold my breath.

[TheSchwartz]

AJ, statistics don't show the whole picture. I dare you to name ONE TIME Ramsey had a clutch performance in a must-win game. Brunell did in the both Dallas games (the fourth qtr still counts), the New York Giants game, and others.

What others? How about all the times he screwed up?

Check Brunell's games vs. Oakland, Arizona, Philadelphia and the two playoff games. All of these were pretty much must win and in all of them he screwed the pooch. Blame it on an injury if you want, but the one play that sums everything up is near the end of the TB game when he tried to force a pass over the middle to Jacobs and it was picked. Leading to Shepherd's dropped TD. That is a classic choke scenario, doing something you woudln't ordinarily do. And then vs. Seattle he couldn't lead the offense to any points? Are you kidding me. His only TD was a dropped INT. And the FG was off of a muffed punt. How is this guy a clutch performer?

And if you want you can look back at Brunell's playoffs stats for Jacksonville. I'll just let you know, it isn't real pretty...

[TheSchwartz]

So if Ramsey can't win the starting job in NY, or toally blows if he does win it, are you going to come here and let everyone know how wrong you are?

I won't hold my breath.

I guess I'll disappoint you because i have no problem admitting when I'm wrong...

[The Batman]

Based strictly on the numbers, you would have to conclude that the team would have made the playoffs last year no matter who started.

You would also have to assume, based on reasonable logic, that the 26-year-old Ramsey would have had a much better chance of being healthy in the playoffs.

Indeed, Ramsey would be better able to withstand injury. However, he would also take many more sacks then Brunell would. We all know that due to his time as a rookie with Spurrier, where according to many, his development was tragically skewed.

Based strictly on the numbers, you would have to conclude that anything could happen. We could win 16 games, or we could win 0. Your argument as to the numbers of the QB and games won only apply if the quarterback is the only player on the team. And you're playing Madden. The contributions of other starters on both sides of the ball may vary wildly irrelevant of who is quarterbacking the team. Ramsey may play at an All-Pro level and get no assistance from his teammates, leading to a failed season. Brunell may play at a Heath Shuler level and lead us to an excellent season, depending on the play of those around him, which cannot be accounted for by extrapolated statistics. The only thing, in fact, that we can glean from this information, is that on average, Ramsey would probably put us into a greater position to fail due to the difference in turnover ratios across not only Gibbs' time with the quarterbacks, but the overall time they've spent in the league that you cleverly chose to leave out of your statistics. The fact of the matter is, Brunell led us to a good season. The best season we've had in years. There is no way to tell if Ramsey could have done the same. Therefore, your argument is in vain and is in all likelihood a waste of your and my time.

:logo:

[s0crates]

I. If you take the average performance of Brunell and Ramsey in the games they started and finished in 2004 and extrapolate it over a 16 game season, as if each had started and finished all 16 games, this is what you get:

RAMSEY AVG. 2004

18 TDs

14 INTs

QB rating: 82.5

OK. I see. You did not notice that Ramsey had several pass attempts in games he didn't start. Surely, if you had, you would have included them in your inquiry. It would be cheating to omit available data in an honest inquiry. You must have just missed those games.

In 2004, Ramsey threw 10 TD's and 11 INT's in a little over 8 games. If I "extrapolate" that over 16 games, I get about 20 TD's and 22 INT's. These numbers, because they include a bigger sample, are more statistically accurate. Oh, and Ramsey's QB rating in 2004 was 74.8, a far cry from the 82.5 you got by ommitting readily avaialable data.

Most of your "findings" seem to be based on this sort of misrepresentation. You have omitted inconvenient facts. As such, I don't put much stock in your analysis.

[icbmayday]

i wont miss ramsey i dont think he was good 4 our offense and what we want 2 do here maybe he could have worked with saunders but we will neva know

[SouthernCali Skins]

some 411

Ramsey beat 2 teams in 03 that were cursed that year.

Jets... Chad went down in preseason, outcome might have been different if chad was in his pre injury status

Falcons... vick did not play, injured in pre season,

there is a correlation between ramsey performing great and the two QB-less teams.

you posted a what if ramsey started 16 games, stats, etc... what if julius jones had started 16 games in o4-05 season, "he would have broken the rookie record for rushing yards" lol.

Do u remember what Brunell's average yards and touchdowns per game was in the first 5 games? I believe he was projected to get close to 5000 yards

moss was projected to get 2000 yards in week 8 or so.

point being, the stats comparison is insignificant since you projected Ramsey's pretend stats.

there were a couple of games that Ramsey stepped a footbackwards instead of going forward.

Ramsey VS Eagles 04-05. last minute interception throw in the endzone, high soft passes(jump balls) , his game against the Giants.

ps... I do hope Ramsey Beats chad and succeeds with the Jets. just let it go man, he is gone.

:2cents:

[Ghost of]

So if Ramsey can't win the starting job in NY, or toally blows if he does win it, are you going to come here and let everyone know how wrong you are?

I won't hold my breath.

The problem is this already happened (re: Brunell.) When Brunell played well, though there was still a great amount of caution/skepticism (justified as it turns out) BUT he was given props by his critics. IN fact, more than a couple of people who were Ramsey defenders turned into semi-Brunell backers. Check these threads and the post history.

One of the biggest who sometimes posted here but most often at CPND delivered a 'crow-eating' address (Consiglieri.) But as will happen when our first instincts are actually RE-CONFIRMED, we went back to what we knew. If Ramsey sucks in the future, it will be apparent. No need to ask if we will own up to it. In fact, that would have happened this year had we seen more regular season playing time, I believe. People can talk about the preseason evaluation, but then I'd ask again--there's more weight to the preseason and opening day quarter than to MUST win games and playoff time? (or 8.5 games in 2004?) That makes no sense.

What IS interesting is to see how people refuse to see the entire tapestry of Mark's play here. Will you ever swallow and step up like a man to say, "you know what, putting aside Patrick's play one way or another, Mark just isnt' getting it done and he is the primary reason we looked like garbage on offense at the end of last year?" And if he fails to deliver this year or is beat out by Campbell (which if he's good enough, he shouldn't be) will you step up then?

All these questions will be answered and I think most of us on either side will stand up and take our medicine (or say we were vindicated.) There's no "gotcha" here except for a couple of souls.