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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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