Should Brunell be replaced? (merged)

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

All I'm asking for is a good solid reason and evidence to assume that Patrick Ramsey would be better for us at this point than Mark Brunell. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence but only maybes and what ifs, which mean nothing. I certainly hope you take up for the rest of us when Offiss accuses us for not knowing anything about football and only being "cheerleaders."




Patten was brought in because he runs precise routes and that he can occasionally get behind the defenders. He is not a deep threat like Santana Moss, but because he is very good with running his routes, he can occasionally become a deep threat. However, comparing the two, it is obvious that Santana Moss is our only true deep threat. He is our home run receiver, the other guys are more possession type of guys.

Really? OK now I get it your just messing with us SG, Patten wasen't brought in to be a deep threat, now I can laugh, the purpose of both Patten and Moss was to provide a deep threat, Gibbs felt our recievers last year couldn't stretch the defense. So what was it about Pattens play in New England that led you to beleive he isn't a deep threat? Was it all his TD's, or his yards per catch? Or did you base it on his 4.2 speed? Or is that occasional 4.2 speed?

Pay attention, the reason a lot of us wanted a big WR in the draft was because most of felt that we needed a big target to be a possession type WR, because all we had was deep threats in Moss and Patten.