Brunell
 

Besides the one bad pass that almost lost us the game, I was very happy with Brunell's performance. He managed the game well, threw strikes on a few clutch 3rd downs, and even showed off his running legs again today.

Who said anything about a QB controversy?

Re: Brunell
 

that int was inexcusable though...we got lucky it didn't lose us the game...brunell is supposed to be the one who doesn't throw those kinds of ints

Re: Brunell
 

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.

Re: Brunell
 

He managed the O very well today. That was a very efficient, professional game.

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]


its never the receivers fault for trying to make a play on the ball. It could have been ag reat catch, but either way it was a horrible throw and brunells fault.

Brunell looked excellent on the run, making some clutch passes. I cant beleive he even got that one ball to moss that was ruled incomplete.

Gibbs still needs to work on his play calling, and brunell is still not hitting players in stride. He is underthrowing players and not putting the ball where it should be.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]its never the receivers fault for trying to make a play on the ball. It could have been ag reat catch, but either way it was a horrible throw and brunells fault.

Brunell looked excellent on the run, making some clutch passes. I cant beleive he even got that one ball to moss that was ruled incomplete.

Gibbs still needs to work on his play calling, and brunell is still not hitting players in stride. He is underthrowing players and not putting the ball where it should be.[/QUOTE]

if the ball hits the receiver in the hands he should catch it. not quite like going for the bullseye in darts. if anything i thought the offense played great and the D bent a little more than we've been used to.

great win though

Re: Brunell
 

Brunell looked real good with that protection. everyone knows thats our weakness, but it seemed like wasn't rushed to throw the ball the whole game, the result: hardly no turnovers. as good as he threw, he didn't attack downfield enough, and it really hurt our running game.

Re: Brunell
 

Unless it hits the receiver perfectly square in the hands it's always the QB's fault. On that pass Burrell should have thrown down and low so that only Portis could catch it. Considering time was running out I was surprised that we didn't throw to the outside instead of the middle.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=VTSkins897]if the ball hits the receiver in the hands he should catch it. not quite like going for the bullseye in darts. if anything i thought the offense played great and the D bent a little more than we've been used to.

great win though[/QUOTE]


Nonesense! The reciever had all he could do to reach back and get his finger tips on it, totally Brunell's fault in a crucial part of the game, luckly their kicker bit the apple.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=VTSkins897]if the ball hits the receiver in the hands he should catch it. not quite like going for the bullseye in darts. if anything i thought the offense played great and the D bent a little more than we've been used to.

great win though[/QUOTE]


what do you mean its not like hitting the bullseye in darts, I dont get what you are saying? Brunell might have a hard time hitting the bullseye on a dart board with a football. Which is just weird underthrowing a stationary object.

Brunell is getting a lot better, but the bottom line is the scoreboard... Im very glad to have a defense that keeps us in these games.

Heres to our offense continually getting better and makign our defense better since they wont hvae to try for a shut out all the time :)

Re: Brunell
 

BRUNELL was awesome with 3rd down conv...........Game wasnt that close.......OH MY GOD..we have an offense. Bring on the AFC west baby!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Brunell
 

can't deny it anymore, Thrash = Clutch

Re: Brunell
 

Nice overall game by everyone's favorite QB.

20 of 36 for 226 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT. 81.5 rating.

Not too shabby. He even threw for over 100 yards, what do ya know. All against the league's #8 ranked defense.

I'm tipping my hat to him, hopefully more people will do the same, even if it's a reluctant tip.

Still alot of season to go, but so far he's looking much improved as he continues to settle in to a groove.

Re: Brunell
 

I'm still not sold yet. He had that great game last year vs Dallas and then fell off the map, so I'm still skeptical.


However, I give him a ton of credit on a awsome game today. He really does look like a completley different QB this year. Our offense as a whole looked better today than I've seen it since the begining of the 2003 season w/ Spurrier. I still think the playcalling needs some work because I still think were using Portis the wrong way. In any event, Brunell had a great game today and I'm excited to see if he can keep it up.

Re: Brunell
 

Key stat for today, Brunell was 11-for-15 for 138 yards on 3rd downs. I don't care who you are, that's big.

Re: Brunell
 

I was very impressed with his poise, especially down the stretch. His performance in OT, including that remarkable third down scramble, was awesome. I have to say, I'm not sure we would have won that game with Ramsey playing.

Re: Brunell
 

I thought Brunell played great,he was a late on some long throws,his scrambling was big,his throw to the endzone on the run that was ruled out was a thing of beauty,and I dont think the int was his fault,if we would have lost this game,I would not have blamed Brunell,but I'm still unhappy with the playcalling,Seattle was still stacking the box against the run,Portis 3.6 yrds a carry,Betts 2.9,so much for those passes to Moss last week stretching the defense,didnt seem to help at all,where are the audibles when Seattle's stacking the box against the run? It also seems like are run blocking is great in the 1st qtr and by the 4th it's practically non-existant

Re: Brunell
 

we could handle Seattle's pass rush. a QB with time becomes a pro-bowler. how we handle teams with a true pass rush will determine how far we go this season.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Key stat for today, Brunell was 11-for-15 for 138 yards on 3rd downs. I don't care who you are, that's big.[/QUOTE]


No way I can dispute that, I have alway's maintained the key to a great QB is his ability to make a play on third down and keep the drive moving, I would say Brunell was outstanding today in that department.

The problem he has is he waits to long to make his throws, he has recievers open and he's still holding the ball, I noticed on the replay early in the game when he hit Cooley about 25 yards downfield, Cooley was wide open as soon as he made his break but Brunell waited allowing the defense to catch up, so instead of a real big gain and possible TD, we just had a 25 yd gain, right after that the analist started to make those same statements.

He also made a poor throw to [ I believe it was Patten ] on a deep ball late in the game when he had badly burned the corner, but instead of throwing it towards the middle of the field away from the saftey, he threw it directly to the reciever which alowed the saftey to come over and bust up the pass, all he had to do was lead the reciver away from the saftey and it's an easy TD, it's things like that, that keep teams in games, Seattle shouldn't have been remotly close late in the game.

Re: Brunell
 

Offiss--I agree. Brunnell was late on a number of throws. With our speed, hitting guys in stride is crucial. Seems like the read process is slow. But Brunnell made it happen when he had to. Very clutch plays (minus the int--whoever's fault it was, that cannot happen), and that scramble was vintage stuff.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]what do you mean its not like hitting the bullseye in darts, I dont get what you are saying? Brunell might have a hard time hitting the bullseye on a dart board with a football. Which is just weird underthrowing a stationary object.

Brunell is getting a lot better, but the bottom line is the scoreboard... Im very glad to have a defense that keeps us in these games.

Heres to our offense continually getting better and makign our defense better since they wont hvae to try for a shut out all the time :)[/QUOTE]

no i think you're misunderstood. you don't play darts with a football. i feel that if it hits the rec. in the hands he should snag it. to me that throw wasn't so grossly thrown that CP couldn't pull it in.

as for the darts i was sorta implying that i dont feel the QB doesnt have to hit him on the numbers every time in my opinion... wasnt the best analogy. but i went to VT so dont expect much.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=VTSkins897]no i think you're misunderstood. you don't play darts with a football. i feel that if it hits the rec. in the hands he should snag it. to me that throw wasn't so grossly thrown that CP couldn't pull it in.

as for the darts i was sorta implying that i dont feel the QB doesnt have to hit him on the numbers every time in my opinion... wasnt the best analogy. but i went to VT so dont expect much.[/QUOTE]

heh, its cool, we cant all be canes ;) j/p

anyhow, as far as the throw, portis was stretched out diving and being jumped on. Hitting someone in the hands means the receiver puts his hands up and the qb puts the ball there. A dump off pass should not require a stretch dive.

Re: Brunell
 

As a true supporter of Brunell and his overall play today, I must admit that he ran an efficient offense to say the least. He threw to five different receivers and scrambled for a first down drive. He was robbed of his best pass of the day to Moss in the endzone, but certainly showed poise and conviction in the redzone to Royal and Sellers. Let's chalk this one up, we are 3-0 sitting on top of the NFC East Baby!

Re: Brunell
 

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.

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]

True that.

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]


He's had 3 regular season games plus the by week, if that's the case why didn't we here this about Ramsey? That's more quality time than he was given.

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]


but hey, did you notice how great our defense was at stopping the screen pass...it was almost like our defense, regardless of our starting qb, gets a lot of pratice during the week at stopping the screen. lol

Re: Brunell
 

Overall, Brunell had a great day! That one INT was crucial and it definitely wasn't Portis' fault.

Not sure why people are complaining about the playcalling. I thought Gibbs called a great game today. Nice ball controlled offense that kept the number 2 offense off the field. If anything, think about our defense allowing the Seahawks to go 90+ yards down the field to tie the game.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Overall, Brunell had a great day! That one INT was crucial and it definitely wasn't Portis' fault.

Not sure why people are complaining about the playcalling. I thought Gibbs called a great game today. Nice ball controlled offense that kept the number 2 offense off the field. If anything, think about our defense allowing the Seahawks to go 90+ yards down the field to tie the game.[/QUOTE]


i agree with you 100%, the only reason the game was close is because the defense had a few breakdowns today.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Overall, Brunell had a great day! That one INT was crucial and it definitely wasn't Portis' fault.

Not sure why people are complaining about the playcalling. I thought Gibbs called a great game today. Nice ball controlled offense that kept the number 2 offense off the field. If anything, think about our defense allowing the Seahawks to go 90+ yards down the field to tie the game.[/QUOTE]

12 of 17 first downs is outrageously good! The majority were on third downs and notice the penalties were at a minimum. The play calling is fine, the execution has to keep getting better. The pass to Portis would have picked up the first down. That's just the risk you take to win. We didn't play to not lose, we clearly played to win and that has been the difference this year.

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.

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..

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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..[/QUOTE]



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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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..[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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"

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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"[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Brunell
 

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]


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.

Re: Brunell
 

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??

Seriously, what's the point??

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

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??

Seriously, what's the point??

Is is that hard for people to admit that Brunell played a good game??[/QUOTE]

sadly, yes. yes it is matty