I know what you are saying, but Weeden does not win that game by throwing underneath all game and getting sacked 4 times. If we would have won with Weeden playing you are basically saying the defense would have come up with enough plays to win the game, in spite of having maybe 9-13 points of offense. Weeden would not have even attempted any of those second level throws. If you replace every throw of greater than 8 yards with a 4 yard throw, that probably makes the running game look worse too. Part of the reason the running game was doing well was because the Giants defense was on the field more, because of the 27 first downs and well, unfortunately the turnovers and big plays. You can't just swap out part of the equation and substitute in a few select conservative plays. If that is what you want then Cassel just needs to be smarter next time about his choices, which he admitted to and addressed after the game. He basically said that he should not have gone after DRC, even though that is where his progressions lead him because he was really the only guy that could make a big play and it wasn't necessary to push it. So lets see if he test Sherman on those same routes or looks elsewhere. We should be able to compare the Seattle game to the Atlanta game since they run similar defenses, although Seattle has more talent at corner and safety.