Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]


thank you.

thats all i was saying.

agreed.

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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=hurrykaine]Must say Gibbs' move to start Brunell is looking good as of now.[/QUOTE]

^^^^^^^^^

ok, ok i got it. only Brunell's name can be mentioned here. understood

Re: Brunell
 

I said it before and I will say it again, I do not care who our QB is as long as he is efficent and gets the job done...

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]^^^^^^^^^

ok, ok i got it. only Brunell's name can be mentioned here. understood[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: :Smoker:

Re: Brunell
 

i thought brunell played very well, very efficient. the one pass wasnt "horrible". horrible is throwing it where theres no reciever, or right to an opponent. it was a tipped ball. it was overthrown, and a mistake, but not horrible. i am extremely pleased with his play.

Re: Brunell
 

gotta love these admins and moderators :Smoker:

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]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.[/QUOTE]

Brunell was 12 for 17 overall on first down conversions. 2 TDs, 1 INT. Again when he knew the 3rd down in the fourth was crucial, he ran for the first down. That's all we ask. Be efficient.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=SUNRA]Brunell was 12 for 17 overall on first down conversions. 2 TDs, 1 INT. Again when he knew the 3rd down in the fourth was crucial, he ran for the first down. That's all we ask. Be efficient.[/QUOTE]

those clutch 3rd and longs were what won the game. Brunell, Thrash, Cooley and the Oline couldn't have executed better on 3rd and long. after the game, Moss and Brunell himself said that it was being in 3rd and long so many times that was the problem and i agree.

whether it's the conservative playcalling (which has been getting lots of flack here) or Brunell's throwing tendencies, we DO have to work on that because other teams will come with a much stronger pass rush than Seattle.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]gotta love these admins and moderators :Smoker:[/QUOTE]

So should I not have an opinion??

There are no rules as to what you can and can't discuss, if there are please point them out I'd love to see them.

All I was saying is why can't we be happy about Brunell and discuss his performance without it always going back to Ramsey??

Re: Brunell
 

I can't believe people are pissing in the punch here. Brunnell played WAAAAAY better than I thought he would (or maybe even could). Blaming him for that int to try to justify why Ramsey should still be in there is just childish. Brunnell got the job done. He was great on third downs. I don't understand why people can't take off their blinders and be happy that we're playing well. For now, I was wrong about Brunnell and Gibbs decision to put him in. So were a lot of others. However, I'm happy I was wrong.

Re: Brunell
 

i thought everyone has a right to an opinion here. it's when you're told to stop expressing yours by admins and moderators that i begin to ask if there's 'rules'.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=jacobyfan]I can't believe people are pissing in the punch here. Brunnell played WAAAAAY better than I thought he would (or maybe even could). Blaming him for that int to try to justify why Ramsey should still be in there is just childish. Brunnell got the job done. He was great on third downs. I don't understand why people can't take off their blinders and be happy that we're playing well. For now, I was wrong about Brunnell and Gibbs decision to put him in. So were a lot of others. However, I'm happy I was wrong.[/QUOTE]


Yep! I'm with ya 100% on this one JF!

Re: Brunell
 

my honest opinion.... we are 0-3 with ramsey

Re: Brunell
 

Regardless, we're 3-0 WITH Brunell playing quite well. If Ramsey comes into the game, I'll be pulling for Ramsey...but until that happens, I'll continue to support Brunell and the team as a whole, because our 3 wins so far have come from a team effort.

Re: Brunell
 

I deserve my due, I called for the head of Ramsey......for Brunell, hell it worked:FIREdevil

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=mooby]the ball was tipped, i thought it was more of the receivers fault because he shouldn't have even touched the ball, but hey, mistakes happen. overall a pretty good performance by him today.[/QUOTE]

that was Portis smackin that ball ,if your not gonna catch it make sure no one else does..........Brunell 's run late in the game was a CLUTCH run...............3-0
yeeeaaaa...........

Re: Brunell
 

Brunell/Moss BRUNELL/MOSS has a good ring to it ..........and RAMSEY BACKIN HIM UP depth............

Re: Brunell
 

I agree with your analysis 100% Skinsguy and wish more of us could feel that way. It wasn't a perfect game, but none are, and I'm very pleased to be able to relish in the win. Maybe last year we would have lost today's game, so I do see progress, and that's all anyone can ask for.

On the Brunell Int. I thought it may have been wise for Portis to just make an attempt to knock the ball away since he didn't have much of a chance to catch it. It's possible that he wasn't thinking to do that, but when you tip the ball (espically up into the air) it's likely it just might fall into the hands of a defender.

It seems now that even when we win games we somehow find little things to nit-pick about. It was a great win despite being a little nerve racking at the end.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Longtimefan]On the Brunell Int. I thought it may have been wise for Portis to just make an attempt to knock the ball away since he didn't have much of a chance to catch it. It's possible that he wasn't thinking to do that, but when you tip the ball (espically up into the air) it's likely it just might fall into the hands of a defender.
[/QUOTE]

no one can blame Portis or Brunell for that INT, that's just ridiculous. we had more chance to make that catch then miss it.

Re: Brunell
 

No matter how good anyone say's Brunell played the Hawk's were in a position to beat us at home on the final play, personally I don't lay our offensive woe's on Brunell as much as Gibbs, it's Gibbs job to get it into Brunells head to hit recievers out of their cut's and so on.

IMO we are more talented than the Seahawks, and as talented as any team in the league, it is unacceptable to be in a position to lose at home on the final play to seattle, I don't care what their record was coming in, I have never been impressed with Ray Rhodes on defense, and Holgrum is nothing special, we wont get away with this kind of play against better teams, who IMO we haven't faced yet.

Chicago- no QB

Dallas- no nothing

Seattle- poorly coached

IMO going into Denver will be our first real test.

Re: Brunell
 

I was at the game and as was mentioned earlier. He looks like a completely different QB. He made great reads and got the ball to the open guy.

Also, is it just me or does the playcalling seem much improved? Gibbs was running a trick play or two, AND the routes were run deeper this week, rather than those 5-6 yard routes we're used to.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=offiss]we wont get away with this kind of play against better teams, who IMO we haven't faced yet.

Chicago- no QB

Dallas- no nothing

Seattle- poorly coached

IMO going into Denver will be our first real test.[/QUOTE]

I hear you offiss, but here's the thing every week there has been a so-called first real test for our Skins team. Go back and read the threads prior to each game, and pretty much the consensus was that we're facing a much tougher opponent this week, then next week.....and so on.

Every week we have "gotten away" with what some say would call mediocre play and came away with a win. If we happen to split on our next two week road trip, it shouldn't take anything away from our past three victories. Seems like we are a waiting for a loss to confirm our doubts about our team. (not you necessarily) IMO, whether we lose to Denver or beat the hell out of them, I still believe, as do you, that we can play with any team in the NFL.

I don't think Jake Plummer is more effecient than Hasselback, and Denver certainly doesn't have the same running attack as Seattle does. Then on the other hand, Denver's D isn't as good as Chicago's, IMO.

See where I'm going? We've already passed different tests along the way on some level this year, we'll just find out a little more about our team next week.

Re: Brunell
 

Well put, 12th man.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Let's also remember that Brunell didn't get much work in the offseason with the starters, so he's still working on getting his timing down with those guys.[/QUOTE]


Best post in this thread. The focus on a mis-thrown pass, which did not effect the outcome of the game, in what otherwise was an incredible outing, is ridiculous. The numbers for the QB are formidable. The best part is this offense is still a toddler. It is growing up FAST!!!!!!!!!!
And we stil have a few more weeks til' we play another division rival.
at the moment THEISMAN IS A GENIUS

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]i thought everyone has a right to an opinion here. it's when you're told to stop expressing yours by admins and moderators that i begin to ask if there's 'rules'.[/QUOTE]

Who told you to stop expressing your opinion??

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Why can't we just talk about the solid performance that our [i]starting[/i] QB had today without the conversation reverting to the tired 'what would Ramsey do' debate??[/QUOTE]

and the like.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]and the like.[/QUOTE]

I think you're putting words in my mouth if you think that's me saying you can't talk about something.

Hardly what I would call 'rules'.

Re: Brunell
 

look back and see exactly what i wrote as a response to someone else. for that i get piled on by everybody, admins and moderators alike. even the hint of some opinions are 'officially' unwelcome here. seems like only one way of thinking is "mod-approved"

Re: Brunell
 

You're really taking things too far Ill and frankly I don't appreciate someone insinuating that certain conversations aren't welcomed and there are unwritten rules here. That really flies in the face of what this site is all about.

All I said was the Ramsey talk is getting tired... I never said you can't talk about this, or you can't talk about that. I never said all talk regarding Ramsey is hereby banned from the board. That's what I would call rules.

Even the admin and mods are entitled to having their own opinions, but twisting that in to we're trying to tell you what you can and can't talk about is a very strong accusation and something I really do not appreciate.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=illdefined]look back and see exactly what i wrote as a response to someone else. for that i get piled on by everybody, admins and moderators alike. even the hint of some opinions are 'officially' unwelcome here. seems like only one way of thinking is "mod-approved"[/QUOTE]
Dude, chill.
You got dumped on because you brought unwarranted negativity based completly on conjecture into a discussion about a different guy who had a good game. Matty and TAFKAS may be "mods and admins" but that doesn't mean they can't participate in a disucssion like the rest of us. If they think you are full of it then they can say so and that DOESN'T mean they are regulating you with some "rules".

Re: Brunell
 

it shouldn't matter if ppl speculate about ramsey. it's only slightly less warranted then any fan opinion. as for the game. i thought that the game was very well played by the offense. though we did complete a bunch of 3rd and longs, i'd have rather seen more 3rd and shorts out there but clearly i'll take it.

and like some people have been saying; the closeness of the game at the end was more of the defense bending a bit than anything. good play-calling really tired out a good SEA offense. they arent the best team out there but it was a great win.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]You're really taking things too far Ill and frankly I don't appreciate someone insinuating that certain conversations aren't welcomed and there are unwritten rules here. That really flies in the face of what this site is all about.[/QUOTE]

listen, i thought so too. but as an active poster, this is what it's felt like recently. just look back on this thread, even the mere mention of the R word as response to someone else started this furor, so what was taken out of context? of course mods and admins can have opinions, but there's been direct dismissal of others from you guys that's hardly welcoming, and as site authorities, it's just encouraged people taking even more aggressive positions.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]You got dumped on because you brought unwarranted negativity based completly on conjecture into a discussion about a different guy who had a good game. [/QUOTE]

check again, its not unwarranted when [i]other[/i] people bring up the QB switch and you react to it. i had already moved on before this all happened.

Re: Brunell
 

There's plenty of other sites out there you know. I suggest checking some of them out and then comparing it to what you have here.

Re: Brunell
 

I thought I was familiar with this site, was a member since long before the big server quake in '03 and you switched to vbulletin. that's why im surprised.

Re: Brunell
 

Surprised at what? That someone has a differing opinion??

Once again, nobody told you that you're not allowed to discuss something. There are no rules regarding discussion topics. Never has been, never will be.

We can talk about Ramsey until we're blue in the face if that's what makes people happy. I don't care. Will I say I'm tired of hearing about it, yeah probably, but that's just my opinion, it's not me hinting that discussion of that nature is not allowed. If you think differently, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But if you've been here for any length of time I'd think you would know what we're all about here. Again, if you disagree, oh well. There's always other sites like hailredskins or thehogs.net. Two sites that I highly recommend.