Brunell

hurrykaine · 10-02-2005, 10:04 PM

Brunell was efficient. Play calling certainly deteriorated in the 4th Q.

That INT was neither Portis' nor Brunell's fault. It wasn't a good throw, but it was a freak INT - good alertness and reflex by the defender.

It's hard to sit an hypothesize about how well we would've done in this game with Ramsey, but I highly doubt that Ramsey would've made the scramble on 3rd and 9 to get us into hawks territory - he would've tried to force a throw in that situation and had it batted down or picked.

Must say Gibbs' move to start Brunell is looking good as of now.

illdefined · 10-02-2005, 10:10 PM

no telling what Ramsey would've done with the time and protection we had today. we may not have had the scramble, but i bet we would've gotten deeper completions and consequentially more Portis yds..

wolfeskins · 10-02-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

no telling what Ramsey would've done with the time and protection we had today. we may not have had the scramble, but i bet we would've gotten deeper completions and consequentially more Portis yds..

you can't say that because if ramsey was the starter the hawks defense would have problably blitzed a whole lot more, putting more pressure on the qb and forcing him to make bad decisions.

SUNRA · 10-02-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

no telling what Ramsey would've done with the time and protection we had today. we may not have had the scramble, but i bet we would've gotten deeper completions and consequentially more Portis yds..

Stop dreaming and the woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff. Ramsey is not the QB. Brunell has proven with his head, arm and legs why he is running this team, so please stop wasting time on a mute point.

illdefined · 10-02-2005, 10:19 PM

back off. i was responding to someone else who brought it up by saying 'there's no telling...'

and wasn't Seattle blitzing a lot? that line was packed every down. i just thought our team was better than their pass-rush this time.

SmootSmack · 10-02-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUNRA

Stop dreaming and the woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff. Ramsey is not the QB. Brunell has proven with his head, arm and legs why he is running this team, so please stop wasting time on a mute point.

Agreed, but I'm pretty sure it's "moot" not "mute" point, or as Joey Tribianni would call it- a "moo point-like a cow's opinion, just doesn't matter"

SUNRA · 10-02-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Agreed, but I'm pretty sure it's "moot" not "mute" point, or as Joey Tribianni would call it- a "moo point-like a cow's opinion, just doesn't matter"

Moot as is in Smoot? By the way Smoot isn't looking too good up there in Minnesota. He's still my dude, but I'm sure he's paying close attention at what's going on down here.

wolfeskins · 10-02-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdefined

back off. i was responding to someone else who brought it up by saying 'there's no telling...'

and wasn't Seattle blitzing a lot? that line was packed every down. i just thought our team was better than their pass-rush this time.

i'm mainly talking about your comment when you said you "bet there would have been more deeper completions" with ramsey as the starter. i believe the seahawks would have blitzed even more than they did and thus ramsey not having the time to sit in the pocket and make the deep throw.

MTK · 10-02-2005, 10:27 PM

Why can't we just talk about the solid performance that our starting QB had today without the conversation reverting to the tired 'what would Ramsey do' debate??

Seriously, what's the point??

Is is that hard for people to admit that Brunell played a good game??

SmootSmack · 10-02-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why can't we just talk about the solid performance that our starting QB had today without the conversation reverting to the tired 'what would Ramsey do' debate??

Seriously, what's the point??

Is is that hard for people to admit that Brunell played a good game??

sadly, yes. yes it is matty

MTK · 10-02-2005, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i'm mainly talking about your comment when you said you "bet there would have been more deeper completions" with ramsey as the starter. i believe the seahawks would have blitzed even more than they did and thus ramsey not having the time to sit in the pocket and make the deep throw.

Good point, it's pointless to play guessing games as to what Ramsey would have done, because the circumstances would have been totally different.

Seattle would have had a different gameplan and attacked differently. It's not as cut and dry as saying well if Ramsey was in there he would have completed more deep passes. He could have also been sacked a few more times, thrown another INT or two, or not as been effective on 3rd downs.

This Ramsey stuff is really getting tired.

illdefined · 10-02-2005, 10:31 PM

wtf. i was responding to someone else bringing up the switch, you know, like in a discussion? if you look around you'll find tons of praise for Brunell today.

wolfeskins · 10-02-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Good point, it's pointless to play guessing games as to what Ramsey would have done, because the circumstances would have been totally different.

Seattle would have had a different gameplan and attacked differently. It's not as cut and dry as saying well if Ramsey was in there he would have completed more deep passes. He could have also been sacked a few more times, thrown another INT or two, or not as been effective on 3rd downs.

This Ramsey stuff is really getting tired.

thank you.

thats all i was saying.

agreed.

MTK · 10-02-2005, 10:33 PM

He was 11 of 15 on 3rd downs today folks, that's clutch. Plain and simple, that's clutch. Yet all I'm hearing is he didn't lead the WRs enough, he overthrew/underthrew, etc.

He played a pretty good game, that's all I care about.

You can pick apart any QBs performance, even guys like Peyton Manning.

Is Brunell perfect? Far from it.

Is he a heck of a lot better than last year, and far more effective than a lot of us though he could be? Hell yes.

illdefined · 10-02-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i'm mainly talking about your comment when you said you "bet there would have been more deeper completions" with ramsey as the starter. i believe the seahawks would have blitzed even more than they did and thus ramsey not having the time to sit in the pocket and make the deep throw.

yeah i know. i saw Seattle run-blitz almost every down, i think that's the general gameplan vs. the skins no matter who's QB. again, i just think it was our OLine outmatching this particular team's blitzing LBs and Dline. good look for us.

10-02-2005, 10:04 PM	#31
hurrykaine Impact Rookie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Age: 51 Posts: 762	Re: Brunell Brunell was efficient. Play calling certainly deteriorated in the 4th Q. That INT was neither Portis' nor Brunell's fault. It wasn't a good throw, but it was a freak INT - good alertness and reflex by the defender. It's hard to sit an hypothesize about how well we would've done in this game with Ramsey, but I highly doubt that Ramsey would've made the scramble on 3rd and 9 to get us into hawks territory - he would've tried to force a throw in that situation and had it batted down or picked. Must say Gibbs' move to start Brunell is looking good as of now.

10-02-2005, 10:10 PM	#32
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Brunell no telling what Ramsey would've done with the time and protection we had today. we may not have had the scramble, but i bet we would've gotten deeper completions and consequentially more Portis yds.. __________________ a fan. not a cheerleader.

10-02-2005, 10:19 PM	#35
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Brunell back off. i was responding to someone else who brought it up by saying 'there's no telling...' and wasn't Seattle blitzing a lot? that line was packed every down. i just thought our team was better than their pass-rush this time. __________________ a fan. not a cheerleader.

10-02-2005, 10:27 PM	#39
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Brunell Why can't we just talk about the solid performance that our starting QB had today without the conversation reverting to the tired 'what would Ramsey do' debate?? Seriously, what's the point?? Is is that hard for people to admit that Brunell played a good game?? __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

10-02-2005, 10:31 PM	#42
illdefined Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: nyc Age: 48 Posts: 2,631	Re: Brunell wtf. i was responding to someone else bringing up the switch, you know, like in a discussion? if you look around you'll find tons of praise for Brunell today. __________________ a fan. not a cheerleader.

10-02-2005, 10:33 PM	#44
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Brunell He was 11 of 15 on 3rd downs today folks, that's clutch. Plain and simple, that's clutch. Yet all I'm hearing is he didn't lead the WRs enough, he overthrew/underthrew, etc. He played a pretty good game, that's all I care about. You can pick apart any QBs performance, even guys like Peyton Manning. Is Brunell perfect? Far from it. Is he a heck of a lot better than last year, and far more effective than a lot of us though he could be? Hell yes. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

Brunell

Locker Room Main Forum