Any news on Santana?

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:27 pm

I just wanted to check in with you local folk and see if you have heard anything about Santana coming back this week or not. It may be a good thing to not have him in there and use guys we haven't played yet this year. That will limit the film that the Eagles have on us.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:50 pm

I think the term I've seen i "uncertain," so basically, who knows.

hatsOFF2gibbs · Post by **hatsOFF2gibbs** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:22 pm

he's day to day. Personally, I think MB is a batter QB without Santana. He actually spread the ball to the other WRs in the Dallas game which is unfortunate because 89 is such a dominant player.

BossHawg · Post by **BossHawg** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:48 pm

hatsOFF2gibbs wrote:he's day to day. Personally, I think MB is a batter QB without Santana. He actually spread the ball to the other WRs in the Dallas game which is unfortunate because 89 is such a dominant player.

Not sure that I agree with you here (other than the comment of Santana Moss being a dominant WR in this league). With all of Brunell's struggles this year, it has been pretty noticeable that a majority of the time there are open wide receivers and the quarterback is not getting the ball to them. I know that there are a few issues contributing to this (o-line, new offensive scheme, portis injured, etc), but I have a hard time swallowing that the offense was better without this guy in there on Sunday IMO.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:51 pm

I hope he can go, but if he can't, I think that we can beat the E-gals without him

spudstr04 · Post by **spudstr04** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:53 pm

he'll play this week...I don't think he should, but he'll play...he'll be a great decoy if nothing at all...

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:24 pm

hatsOFF2gibbs wrote:he's day to day. Personally, I think MB is a batter QB without Santana. He actually spread the ball to the other WRs in the Dallas game which is unfortunate because 89 is such a dominant player.

i had a thought similar to that. if brunell is looking for moss on every passing down and, imo, seems to lack the ability to see all of his options before the pocket collapses, is moss out of the line up good for the 'saunders style' offense. if we were still in a gibbs style offense then the loss of moss would be huge, but the pressure that Al puts on a qb to disect a D rather than, like gibbs, design plays to isolate a specific reciver in a man on man situation, it could be said the team could benefit from moss on the bench, ie allowing brunell to look at a different guy first.

that being said, without moss we lack a serious deep/speed threat and it is a huge error to consider his being on the bench a good thing.

though considering a long term approach, if brunell will be here long term, it could give lloyd and ARE time to make a connection with brunell, get them all on the same page without having to compete with moss for balls. when moss comes back i think (if brunell is still in) the flow of the passing game will be better for it.

aswas71788 · Post by **aswas71788** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:41 pm

I had the same thought that Brunell was more ???? I don't want to say better but can't think of a word.... maybe efficient? It did seem that he spread the ball around to more receivers and was more aware of their locations. I can't fault the recievers Sunday and was particularly glad to see Thrashes contributions. Maybe if anything, the other receivers were trying harder to make up for Mosses absence. Whatever the reason, there seemed to be more balance than before.

I hate to see Moss not in the line-up as he is our best offensive threat and hope that he is recovering nicely.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:01 am

aswas71788 wrote:I had the same thought that Brunell was more ???? I don't want to say better but can't think of a word.... maybe efficient? It did seem that he spread the ball around to more receivers and was more aware of their locations. I can't fault the recievers Sunday and was particularly glad to see Thrashes contributions. Maybe if anything, the other receivers were trying harder to make up for Mosses absence. Whatever the reason, there seemed to be more balance than before.

I hate to see Moss not in the line-up as he is our best offensive threat and hope that he is recovering nicely.

Maybe we can get him to change his jersey number? Mark found a comfort zone with him after the game against that team in Texas last year and has been locked in ever since, Cool

ey is his second option but a lot of times it seems as though he's not even going that far into his reads before he unloads it out of bounds. I think B-Lloyd is growing on him and Cool

ey will not be left out, another game on the sidelines for Moss might do Brunell more good than Santana.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:05 am

http://www.santana.com

This probably has the most current information.
Maybe not.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:05 am

Maybe this would work ?

old-timer · Post by **old-timer** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:26 am

1niksder wrote:Maybe this would work ?

LOL - pure genius. Send that idea off to Al Saunders.

HailSkins94 · Post by **HailSkins94** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:15 am

They said he had a good workout yesterday and looks like he is profgressing well. Brandon Lloyd said he thinks he will play on sunday but we will see how he does later in the week.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:41 pm

TincoSkin wrote:that being said, without moss we lack a serious deep/speed threat and it is a huge error to consider his being on the bench a good thing.

Actually, Lloyd and ARE have deep speed. We lack a deep threat because Brunell can't throw deep.

Moss makes big plays because of individual effort and scheme. Not because he goes past people (excepting the Dallas game last year, of course)...because Brunell isn't able to get the ball to him deep.