Brunell

We're 3-0 with Brunell, and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 with the playcalling and thats all that should matter.

We're 3-0 after beating Chicago, Dallas, and Seattle, and thats all that should matter.

WE ARE 3-0!!!!! It has been 14 YEARS since we were 3-0!!! Lets enjoy this while it lasts....


'nuff said! :food-smil

I dont think Bailey is healthy enough to play and if he does play, Moss will run circle around him if he isnt 110%.

Are you saying he hasen't been motivated up till now?

I don't care how motivated he is, it's irrelevent if we don't force defenders from stacking the box.

I am curious you don't believe the entire denver team will more motivated to stop Portis being he left them because he felt he was the reason they were so good at running the ball?

You don't think Bailey will be motivated to shut down our passing game, although I don't know how motivated you have to be to do that?

Remember the air is awfully thin at mile high!


That's ............ah............alot of conclusions/questions from a rather innocent remark. To address, 1) I do believe he has shown motivation to this point. I also believe any performance can be eclipsed given the proper environment 2) Irrelevant is pretty strong talk. Our passing game is taking shape and proving to be effective. It will greatly aid in said prevention, and asundry box stacking. 3) Are you asking me if I believe the entire Denver roster will be lining up opposite Portis, with coaching staff? No I don't believe that will happen. If it does, Poor, poor Clinton. 4) Bailey, ain't no Darryl Green! Finally, the air is getting pretty thin here as well!

we played well, but we need audibles, BAD. they new we'd run every first down, we watched them stack 8-9 on the line, not even TRYING to disguise it, and then we'd run headfirst into them anyways. That's just beyond retarded.

luckily brunell had 3rd down conversion after conversion... our team faltered a bit in the 2nd half, but we pulled it out, which i what counts.

we played well, but we need audibles, BAD. they new we'd run every first down, we watched them stack 8-9 on the line, not even TRYING to disguise it, and then we'd run headfirst into them anyways. That's just beyond retarded.

luckily brunell had 3rd down conversion after conversion... our team faltered a bit in the 2nd half, but we pulled it out, which i what counts.


Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.

I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a toss sweep....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes, but I believe the playcalling we had Sunday plays to our strengths. It keeps a very good offense off the field and allows our defense a chance to rest. Even if we don't score on that drive, we're not allowing the other team as much time to score....we're keeping the score low which is going to be the key in beating teams with very very good offenses...i.e. Philly and NYGiants!

Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.


excellent post

Think about it though, let's say we do audible out of a run, and pass it every single time someone lines up 8 in the box. Remember - lining up 8 or 9 in the box doesn't necessarily mean they're ONLY keying in on the running back. We rush the pass and throw either an incompletion or worse - an INT. But, what is bad about passing it is that you throw an incompletion and the clock stops...you're giving a highly potent offense (and apparently the Seahawks were since they were #2 in the NFL,) plenty of time to get back on the field and run the score up. Plus, you still haven't gained anything on first down.

Even though it looks like some of those runs up the middle are "give up" plays or plays most of us feel aren't going to gain loads of yards, those plays are keeping the clock rolling, and with an improved passing attack, apparently it's not such a big thing for us to get into a 3 and long situation. It's just a characteristic of a ball controlled offense. It eventually wears down the interior of the defense. It's allowing OUR defense more time to rest. Which apparently is better for us than to force them to play more minutes.

I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a toss sweep....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes, but I believe the playcalling we had Sunday plays to our strengths. It keeps a very good offense off the field and allows our defense a chance to rest. Even if we don't score on that drive, we're not allowing the other team as much time to score....we're keeping the score low which is going to be the key in beating teams with very very good offenses...i.e. Philly and NYGiants!

why not toss it to portis on the outside then? just cause they load 9 guys up in front of the oline doesn't mean you've got to throw it deep every time... they could audible to a sweep or outside run and keep the clock ticking while avoiding the pitfalls of running straight into 200 guys that aren't going to be moving.

why not toss it to portis on the outside then? just cause they load 9 guys up in front of the oline doesn't mean you've got to throw it deep every time... they could audible to a sweep or outside run and keep the clock ticking while avoiding the pitfalls of running straight into 200 guys that aren't going to be moving.


Isn't that what I just said?

I do agree that it would be nice to see more audibles with a toss sweep....something to keep the offense on the field for more minutes,

However, I'm not only thinking in terms of a deep pass....receivers can drop short passes that are rushed just as easily. Either way, there is a potiential of gaining no yards AND stopping the clock. The only thing with the toss sweep is that if the defense starts sniffing it out, because we're going to audible to it quite often, then blowing up a toss sweep can have the potiential of even more loss of yards than running it up the middle. Most of the time, at worst, a run up the middle might lose you a yard, but a toss sweep has the chance to lose big yards.

And, thinking about it more, an NFL defense loading 8 or 9 guys up in the box, do we really think they're not fast enough to stretch the defense out?

What alot of us failed to mention was that Gibbs' gameplan for that second half was to open the offense up more and take some shots, but we couldn't bury the Seahawks' offense enough to take those chances. I personally like the steady pace of our offense mixing it up and eating time off the clock...it takes alot of pressure off our defense and gives our offense more confidence.

Anyway, I came to this thread (reading some of it along the way) to say this. I am happy that Brunell is playing well and I do definately acknowledge it. I'm very glad that he is because it not only answers questions about Brunell, but it also shuts up alot of the media that said the game has passed Gibbs by, and he was crazy. I was questioning the switch, and I am a Ramsey fan, but we're winning and Brunell is looking good. If I knew more than Gibbs I'd be coaching.

That's ............ah............alot of conclusions/questions from a rather innocent remark.

oh i know that feeling :doh: