Mark Brunell vs. Patrick Ramsey: The Final Word

[ZoEd]

The guys that can move around, that's a huge advantage, a guy who can give you three or four plays a game like that. But it has to be a natural thing. The way Michael Vick gets out of the pocket is just the way he is. You can't coach that. The great ones can feel (the rush) coming without seeing it. That's one of the most important things for a quarterback to have other than being super tough and super smart. The arm is way down the list. Dan Fouts didn't have the arm, but he was a great quarterback. If you don't have a sense of where (the rush) is coming from, you're going to be more prone to getting the ball knocked out. Guys that have that sense are really special."

—Redskins coach Joe Gibbs

AJ I just found this while doing some research on Campbell and I think it just about sums up why PR just wasn't Gibbs' guy. I liked PR as much as you and think that he was given a raw deal but there has to be some basis for Gibbs and other coaches to be so down on him. PR has everthing going for him except for being able to feel the blitz. I hope he develops the ability and succeed's. Well just have to wait and see.

[Newera]

It's not really now about Brunell. It's really now about Jason. Truth be told.

[Newera]

I would put Jason's number up against Ramsey's number anytime. And, quite frankly, will look forward to it.

[Mordy]

bottom line: Gibbs preferred Brunell and the Redskins are back as playoff contenders. All the rest of the charts and graphs to me are meaningless. This game is about winning.

Arrington and Ramsey may go to other teams and be busts or heroes. To me it doesn't really matter as long as Gibbs finds the guys he needs to win something HERE

Get off Gibb's Tit.

[Crazyhorse1]

"Ramsey was a better QB for Joe Gibbs than Brunell was"

Then how come Gibbs chose otherwise? Could it be Ramsey's 10 cent head atop the million dollar arm? Could it be that Ramsey couldn't hit the side of a barn from 25 yards out? Could it be that Ramsey just didn't read defenses well?

Ramsey was here for 4 years and couldn't nail down the starters spot. What part of that don't you understand?

HE HAD HIS CHANCE!

He's gone. Perhaps you should follow.

:helmet:

Do you understand this statement: Ramsey played roughly 24 games for the Skins and threw for over 5,600 yds and 34 TD's, which are not only pro-bowl numbers but numbers that have been equaled by Brunell only once in 12 seasons.

How about this one: The above stats make your remarks that Ramsey had a 10 cent head, couldn't read defenses, and couldn't hit the side of a barn from 25 yards out seem like the remarks of less than serious person.

Ramsey did win a position as a starter each time he was given a fair chance, both under Spurrier, and under Gibbs in 2004. The only time he lost the position was under Gibbs was opening day, 2005, when he outperformed Brunell by a considerable margin, throwing for over a 100 yds and a TD (called back) in a little over a quarter. Brunell threw for 85 yds in almost 3 quarters and for no TD's.

Previous to that, Brunell had failed to crack the starting lineup in a single pre-season game and had never played against a first string. Your saying that Ramsey was given a fair chance is a pathetic joke.

No stat, no consideration other that Gibbs' personal preference for an older, Christian man, prompted the decision. Worse, by mid season, the older man was obviously finished and Ramsey clearly the only hope in the playoffs; still, Gibbs stubbornly stuck with a lame QB and threw away Redskin chances.

Also, do not tell me that Brunell had a great year. He had a great year for Brunell. Brunell's year would have been a statistical norm for Ramsey.

[Major Harris]

why did i get dressed and come over to the stadium??

[Newera]

here's an interesting stat.

Ramsey was 10-14 as a starter for the Redskins - only 2 road wins.

10 wins is what Mark Brunell had LAST YEAR.

Oh, but you can't count those Spurrier years. That's not fair. I'm only comparing the Gibbs era!!

[Newera]

We all know that the even among coaches and people who work in personnel departments in the NFL, perception very often carries more weight than anything else. Gibbs drove down Ramsey's trade value through his own actions. In 2004, the Dolphins were prepared to give us a first round pick for him. Two years later we get a 6th. Statistically, he played better under Gibbs than he did under Spurrier.

Then they saw him play! LOL

[Newera]

I may have misread the stats, which list fumbles and fumbles recovered. Some of those fumbles they didn't recover themselves may have been recovered by team members. If so, I misread them for both, and both of their turnover numbers are inflated.

Lawyer speak now. When you're talking about recovered or not recovered to make a point, that's called in the stand up comedy biz . . .stretching!! You've become so predictible in your arguments, I always know where you're going.

Oh, that's right. Brunnel did have a fumble that Chris Samuels recovered, so technically that was a lost fumble. But because Strahan was on his back at the time he didn't have the leverage to pull the ball away from Chris. If Strahan was more on his stomach, he probably would have been able to get that fumble away from Chris, therefore that would have been one more fumble for Mark.

See, my point, such arguments, can and never will end. Lawd, if Ramsey blows up in New York we will never hear the end of it. Quite frankly, you're setting your case up now. Again, predictible.

When I evaluate Ramsey, I evaluate four years. Sure, he could have been successful in Gibbs system. However, for whatever reason, Joe has chosen Jason instead. Personally I think Jason has much more upside then Patrick. It's called poise, pocket presence, escapability, and accuracy.

Go Jason.

[Newera]

Jaaaaaaaaasooooooooooooooooon!!!!!

[Gilgamesh]

Get off Gibb's Tit.

That Tit brought us three championships and a playoff victory last year. Wow, what a low-brow turn of phrase.

[powerANDgut]

ex·trap·o·late Audio pronunciation of "extrapolate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-strp-lt)

v. ex·trap·o·lat·ed, ex·trap·o·lat·ing, ex·trap·o·lates

v. tr.

1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

2. Mathematics. To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.

This is so dumb to even argue. You took numbers from like 2 games and "extrapolated" them for an entire season. If a player has never attained those numbers in his life, how can you reasonably expect him to ever reach them? OK, lets take Portis' attempts, completions and TD's and extrapolate them over an entire season. For every 3 passes he has a TD...OMG POrtis would throw for 300 TD in a season if he threw it 30 times a game!!!!You didn't do research, as some have said. You took existing numbers and said "what if".

What if doesn't work in the real world. People change, teams change, and defensive schemes change.

Peyton and the Colts were rolling along this past season. Teams thought that putting more people back in coverage would stop their passing games. That didn't work. San Diego and Pittsburg did the opposite. They blitzed more than the line could handle and guess what, they succeeded.

Ask any math teacher, statistician or CPA...you CAN extrapolate inside a given range to predict what will happen because you have the figures to back it up. There is a linear regression to show this to be true. Once you take those figures and predict outside that range, it is impossible to know whether those numbers can be trusted.

Lets say you meet 3 women

the first is 150 pounds and is worth $100,000

the second is 200 pounds and is worth $150,000

the third is 250 pounds and is worth $200,00

Mathmatically speaking, for every pound the woman is heavier she's worth $1,000 more. Taking those numbers...if you met a 300 pound woman, she would have to be worth $250,000. Extrapolating is BS and cannot sustain an entire arguement.

Don't bash the examples, I put something for you to understand. Hopefully you can.

Ramsey will have one decent game followed by a horrible game. Brunell, before his injury, was pretty even keel throughout the season.

[powerANDgut]

Do you understand this statement: Ramsey played roughly 24 games for the Skins and threw for over 5,600 yds and 34 TD's, which are not only pro-bowl numbers but numbers that have been equaled by Brunell only once in 12 seasons.

How about this one: The above stats make your remarks that Ramsey had a 10 cent head, couldn't read defenses, and couldn't hit the side of a barn from 25 yards out seem like the remarks of less than serious person.

Ramsey did win a position as a starter each time he was given a fair chance, both under Spurrier, and under Gibbs in 2004. The only time he lost the position was under Gibbs was opening day, 2005, when he outperformed Brunell by a considerable margin, throwing for over a 100 yds and a TD (called back) in a little over a quarter. Brunell threw for 85 yds in almost 3 quarters and for no TD's.

Previous to that, Brunell had failed to crack the starting lineup in a single pre-season game and had never played against a first string. Your saying that Ramsey was given a fair chance is a pathetic joke.

No stat, no consideration other that Gibbs' personal preference for an older, Christian man, prompted the decision. Worse, by mid season, the older man was obviously finished and Ramsey clearly the only hope in the playoffs; still, Gibbs stubbornly stuck with a lame QB and threw away Redskin chances.

Also, do not tell me that Brunell had a great year. He had a great year for Brunell. Brunell's year would have been a statistical norm for Ramsey.

The redskins scored more points under the Spurrier offense than Gibbs. That is a given. They scored points but Ramsey had is head caved in on a weekly basis. Stats do not tell the whole story. Ramsey throws for 3 TD's in a game, fine, then throws a costly interception that loses us the game.

Do those 3 TD's make any difference compared to that 1 INT? It's when he throw's those INT's and when he holds the ball and takes a sack. I used to be a huge Ramsey backer. He holds the ball and has a live arm. The strength of his passes mean nothing if he can't put the ball where it's supposed to be.

[gilbertarenas]

Brunell also had a more productive year was because the offensive line was better, the new zone blocking scheme, Santana Moss, his old quarterback coach, and Gibbs just doesn't like Patrick Ramsey.

Ramsey will have his chances but he clearly did not get it in 2005.

[The Batman]

Building off the post before mine, I'd like to say this.

This is what happens when you extrapolate in the football world.

Let's take Tiki Barber's 201 [pardon me if I'm off a few yards] performance against us in 2005. If we took that data and extrapolated it to a 16 game season, Tiki would have 3,216 yards on the season. Why did he not break the single season NFL rushing record?

Let's apply it to the business world.

Let's say an accounting firm takes first quarter numbers and extrapolates them to cover an entire year. The company bases its finances on this value and borrows that much money, etc. Now when the company all of a sudden underperforms the extrapolated estimate, your ass is out of a job and the company is in serious trouble.

Finally, let's apply this to the healthcare world. Let's say a man has 2 heart attacks in a 4 year span. If we extrapolate this over a lifetime, he'll have a heart attack every two years. Now what if he has a gastric bypass [akin to an X factor in the NFL]? Is he still just as likely to have a heart attack every two years?

Extrapolation is very similar to using imaginary numbers or asking the Tooth Fairy to explain the CBA extension to you. It is a VERY inexact science.

This argument has not a leg to stand on.

:logo:

[Ghost of]

Ramsey throws for 3 TD's in a game, fine, then throws a costly interception that loses us the game.

You mean like Mark in the playoffs when he threw for 45 yards total?? That INT, against his body, late in the game, in our territory---the one that would have probably turned the game to the Bucs if not for a DROPPED pass?

Or maybe you mean that INT he threw right to a Seahawk that miraculously bounced off and got snagged by Moss for a TD?

Or maybe you mean his several turnovers vs. Bucs and KC in games that turned our season DOWNWARD before it got better?

[Jumbo]

I like to think I'm pretty objective in my assessment of Brunell last season...and I give him HUGE credit for the Skins making the playoffs, while also being realistic to see the obvious (and significant) limitations in his play. There were times when Brunell's veteran savvy was so thick it blanketed the field...and I was soooo damn happy he was behind center. You could just see it and feel it, you knew neither Ramsey or Campbell would have done the things he was doing or made the decisions he was making. There were also times when you thought you were watching your dad out there trying to throw the ball...and it was disheartening.

However, there was more of the former than there was the latter. (I'm not counting the games after he got injured against the Giants)...I'm hoping a faster start for the offense and more weapons for Brunell will keep him fresher longer, and that it will keep opposing defenses off-balance, which is like taking candy from a baby for a smart, savvy veteran QB (look at the SF game, for instance).

this is very similar to my basic stance, as i've always laid it out..it describes a lot people's position which I think is encouraging from a love-for-humanity viewpoint...which I'd like to purchase for a reasonable price ....

[Crazyhorse1]

ex·trap·o·late Audio pronunciation of "extrapolate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-strp-lt)

v. ex·trap·o·lat·ed, ex·trap·o·lat·ing, ex·trap·o·lates

v. tr.

1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

2. Mathematics. To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.

This is so dumb to even argue. You took numbers from like 2 games and "extrapolated" them for an entire season. If a player has never attained those numbers in his life, how can you reasonably expect him to ever reach them? OK, lets take Portis' attempts, completions and TD's and extrapolate them over an entire season. For every 3 passes he has a TD...OMG POrtis would throw for 300 TD in a season if he threw it 30 times a game!!!!You didn't do research, as some have said. You took existing numbers and said "what if".

What if doesn't work in the real world. People change, teams change, and defensive schemes change.

Peyton and the Colts were rolling along this past season. Teams thought that putting more people back in coverage would stop their passing games. That didn't work. San Diego and Pittsburg did the opposite. They blitzed more than the line could handle and guess what, they succeeded.

Ask any math teacher, statistician or CPA...you CAN extrapolate inside a given range to predict what will happen because you have the figures to back it up. There is a linear regression to show this to be true. Once you take those figures and predict outside that range, it is impossible to know whether those numbers can be trusted.

Lets say you meet 3 women

the first is 150 pounds and is worth $100,000

the second is 200 pounds and is worth $150,000

the third is 250 pounds and is worth $200,00

Mathmatically speaking, for every pound the woman is heavier she's worth $1,000 more. Taking those numbers...if you met a 300 pound woman, she would have to be worth $250,000. Extrapolating is BS and cannot sustain an entire arguement.

Don't bash the examples, I put something for you to understand. Hopefully you can.

Ramsey will have one decent game followed by a horrible game. Brunell, before his injury, was pretty even keel throughout the season.

Ramsey's superior numbers don't rely on that particular extrapolation. Any reasonable way you want to work it, he's worth more points and yds than Brunell. His norm for 16 games is Brunell's best for a season among 12 seasons. Neither is Ramsey inconsistent. You're pulling that one out of you whizbang, as you are Brunell's consistency. Brunell didn't just suck toward the end of the season last year, he also sucked for the first two games and at one point, before Portis took over, was 5-6. His performance in the playoffs was perhaps the worse I've ever seen by an NFL QB in the playoffs.

[Jumbo]

why did i get dressed and come over to the stadium??

same reason you'd go into the house of mirrors at the carnival? to see distorted reflections of people? :laugh:

i'm sorry, i'm really sorry, that was vewwy vewwy bad and tawdry even...

sometimes i juss i cant hep mysef :cool:

[gilbertarenas]

Brunell was also 3-6 in the beginning of 2004 with losses against the Browns, Ravens, and the Pukes.

Ramseys 3-4 record in 2004 was decent. His 3 losses came against the Eagles twice (super bowl losers) and the Steelers who did not lose a game under Big Ben until the postseason. If Ramsey started the whole season, they could have made the playoffs IF they had won 2 more games.

Brunell looked good in preseason against the backups; not the starters. People shouldn't call for his head preseason if he performed. Ramsey "struggled" against the Panthers, Ravens, and Steelers; those seemed to be good defenses last time I checked.

The whole Ramsey thing needs to be put to rest, but that still leaves out the fact that Brunell cannot play hurt and he can get hurt pretty easily especially at 36. When healthy he is effective as seen against the Cowboys but how long can he stay healthy for. His mobility is used mostly to avoid sacks but rarely creates plays. His accuracy remains questionable at times when he lobs it over receivers heads.

I hope that the o line can protect Brunell the whole season now with these new receivers spreading the field but teams will blitz Brunell in order to get hits on him and once he's injured his accuracy would be ruined.

Luckily the Redskins have Randle El, Lloyd, and Moss to stretch the field. If Brunell is unable to pass this year, the leash on him should be shorter then it was in 2004.

Then again this is all irrelavant if Portis can rush for 2000 yards next season.

[sashae]

Unfortunately, the only things behind that short leash on Brunell are the unknown quantity (Campbell) and the stiff (Collins).

Ditching Ramsey in a year which we're clearly loading up for a serious playoff run is ludicrous, especially considering Brunell's overall mediocre play and injury history. We have witnessed some of the absolute *worst* games from a QB in burgundy from #8, and he's a year older with more miles on the tread this year... it's not like they can hook him up to the juvenation machine.

It's shameful the way this franchise jobbed Patrick. I hope he thumps Penny in Jersey and gets his chance to start.

[Gilgamesh]

Unfortunately, the only things behind that short leash on Brunell are the unknown quantity (Campbell) and the stiff (Collins).

Ditching Ramsey in a year which we're clearly loading up for a serious playoff run is ludicrous, especially considering Brunell's overall mediocre play and injury history. We have witnessed some of the absolute *worst* games from a QB in burgundy from #8, and he's a year older with more miles on the tread this year... it's not like they can hook him up to the juvenation machine.

It's shameful the way this franchise jobbed Patrick. I hope he thumps Penny in Jersey and gets his chance to start.

Gibbs would have loved to keep Ramsey around, but Ramsey wanted a chance to start, and Joe promised Patrick he would move him if he was not the starter. The trade was just Joe keeping his word to Patrick.

[sashae]

Yeah, like he kept his word to give Patrick a shot at the starting job last year :doh:

[Gilgamesh]

He did give him a shot. It was a short one, I'll admit that, but I doubt he would have benched Patrick if he hadn't been hurt in the Bears game. It's very obvious though that there was something about Ramsey's decision making ability that Joe really did not like when he watched him on film and in practice. I suspect that it had something to do with his coverage reads, but I don't know that for a fact...

[Deefense]

Ramsey Sucked!!!