Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Opinions? How many teams, if handed Aaron Brooks right now, would make him their starter over the current #1?

My guess: 10
Dallas, Washington, Chicago, Carolina, Arizona, Seattle, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh(?)

I'm not sold that Pitt would but I think the others all would do it. Keep in mind the teams are handed Brooks, I'm not saying they would actively seek his service given their current depth or project QB's. I'm sure every team would grab him if handed for no compensation, but they wouldn't supplant their starter.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

1. Tampa Bay.
2. Panthers.
3. Arizona.
4. Denver.
5. Cowboys.
6. Vikings.
7. Detroit.
8. Ravens.
9. Washington.
10 Cleveland.
11. Ptitsburg.
12. Devner.
13. Miami.
14. Jets
15. Chargers.
16. Seattle.
17. Kansas City.
18. Bengals.
19. Jacksonville.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

You seriously believe that Denver (who you listed twice by the way) after just picking up Plummer would lead with Brooks? And Culpepper and his $100M would take a back seat?The Jets would sit Pennington? The Chiefs Green? I think teams like Jacksonvillewould rather start Leftewich before they\'d plant a new QB in ahead of Brunell. I don\'t see there being a shot in hell of your #1,4,6,13,14,15,17,19 being on thelist, IMO.

Here\'s why:
1. Tampa-Gruden has proven he likes gritty leaders that can manage an offense. That\'s why he\'s signing guys like Jim Miller and not looking at Shaun King types.
4. Denver-Same thing for Shanahan. He wants a guy who can win it himself if needed, but he can\'t deal with mistake throws. Plummer had to force too much in Arizona with one WR option and no running game. He will succeed in Denver.
6. Minnesota-Culpepper is as talented or more than Brooks and more of a competitor. I would take him over Brooks.
13. Miami- Norv Turner also likes a mistake free pocket manager. Not Miami\'s style of ball either.
14. NY Jets- Same thing. Hackett built that offense around Testeverde and Pennington\'s style fits it like a glove.
15. Chargers- Shottenheimer would have no hair left with Brooks in there. Brees will only get better.
17. Chiefs- Green is well suited for Vermiel\'s offense also. If it\'s not broke why fix it.
19. Jaguars- Although Brooks is a Jaguars type QB, why lose chemistry on your veteran unless you are going to the future today-and that is Leftewich.
14. J

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

June 13, 2003) -- Given the choice between improving with potentially great new players or potentially great new strategy, any rational NFL coach would say there is nothing to choose.

Talent always comes first.

I absolutely beleive that. Brooks will be a Pro Bowl player this year. As far as the coaches that want QB\'s that play not to lose (which is basically what your saying) if given the option to have a QB like Brooks, I think they would start him. Are you saying Brooks can\'t manage a game and play virtually mistake free?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

So all of the coaches that start a veteran player at any position over a more talented young player apparently don\'t know that rule? I\'m ceratin that Byron Leftewich has way more physical talent than Mark Brunell at this point in his career. Should they throw him in if talent should always win over? Talent cannot be the only factor in deciding who plays. If that was the case, a players career would be 6 years. Talent will fade and experience and veteran saavy will replace it and often eclipse it.
I\'m sorry, but to use WhoDat\'s analogy, you don\'t put a stock car diver into an indy car race and expect him to succeed. If he does it is very, very, very rare. And I\'m sure that the teams I listed wouldn\'t do that regardless of the fact that Aaron Brooks has more physical talent than their current starter.
The phrase \"talent always comes first\" signifys that the physically gifted players get looked at first. That doesn\'t mean they are the best players. Sammy Knight was an undrafted rookie because he wasn\'t a \"talented\" player. But he was a smart player and grew to overcome his physical limitations and took the job from a more talented player because of his intellengence and instincts.

Brooks has shown he can move the ball. He lacks roundedness. You can\'t do three things phenomenally and three things poorly and not expect people to attack your strengths and make you win on your weaknesses. A QB has to do almost everything above par or he will be predictable. Brooks can\'t yet do everything above par. He can\'t play mistake free. I have never seen a game where he did and not many QB\'s do. I don\'t expect him to be mistake free, and don\'t get me wrong, I think he is a great talent, has alot of potential untapped, and will be better every year. In my comments I was asking if given all factors involved in the teams, would they start him. You have to quit focusing on who you think is the better talent and look at the big picture. You just signed Culpepper to a $100M deal. He\'s had three years to learn the offense, build chemistry with his weapons, and develop a repoire with the team. You get Brooks for free on waivers. You start him? You may as well get the rope and kick the chair because you just coached your last game.

Talent does not always answer the question.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Brooks debate #17,890 summary....

1. All the necessary talent.
2. Lacks leadership and consistency.

3. If he improves #2, he can be one of the great ones, if not he\'ll join the 10,000 other QB\'s that had #1 and lacked #2.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

That\'s a lot to cover, but let me try.

The reason talent should always win over strategy is because you fit the system to the players not the other way around. Your right about talent fading, as was the case with Sammy Knight. The reason he is no longer here is because we have a faster more talented player , to fit our denfensive scheme. I don\'t agree with you that Aaron cannot manage a game just as well as some other QB\'s that you have mentioned, if that\'s what he is asked to do, but that\'s not what they are asking him to do. They want a high flying offense, that can strike at any time, not an offense that dinks and dunks its way down the field. You might or might not agree that is the way to go on offense, but this is the case with the Saints. When you have that kind of offensive mentality, more mistakes are going to happen, because the risks are greater, but so are the rewards. If you look at the offenses that the QB\'s \"manage the game\", it is a low risk passing game they are using and basically relying on their defese to keep them in the game, and try to win it in the 4th quarter. The Saints are trying to blow teams out of the game with our high-powered passing attack. It\'s really not even fair to compare Brooks with a passing attack like that. If Brooks was put in an offense like that, his passer rating would be higher. Also, if we had a defense that could stop someone, his passer rating would be higher because he could hand off more and not rely on Brooks so much. in the 4th quarter, where most of his mistakes are made. So, to anwser your queston, I would start Brooks on all of the teams I mentioned, regardless of how much money they make, and all of the other reasons you mentioned, because I beleive in the guy.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

No way - you fit the players to the system... what changes more often, a team\'s strategy/scheme, or the players on the team? You don\'t fit your strategy to your players... no. Maybe you tweek it based on that... but a good organization finds the right players to fit their strategy....

And let me ask you this... if you think the Saints should base their offensive strategy on any one guy, or group of guys, who would it be?

1. Deuce
2. Horn, Stallworth, Pathon, etc.
3. Brooks.... although with Sloan AND Conwell AND Boo Williams, that may change this year. If our tightends play up to potential they could be a hotter commodity when this season is over than Brooks.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

If you take over a team like, lets say the Rams, and you previuosly run an offense like tampa, what offense do you run. You use the system that maximizes that talent. You don\'t change all the players, do you?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Of course not... but we\'re talking about a coaching staff that has been here for three years... they\'re not taking over... If you think back you will remember that this team\'s players were VERY different when Haslett took over. There was no Brooks. There was no Deuce, or Horn, or Stallwaort, or Pathon, or Conwell, or Sloan, or Boo Williams, or Gandy, or Bentley, or Jacox, or Riley... in fact, ulness I\'m mistaken, Fontenot is the ONLY player on O who was around when Haslett got here... so did he change the players to fit his system... or did he change the system to fit his players?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

WhoDat,

That\'s funny man. We were not talking about the Saints. We were talking about do you change the system to fit the players or vice-versa, with no preconceived situation. And yes the Saints changed the offense to fit the players. They started out with all intentions of running a West Coast Offense. But having to play the Rams twice per year(when they were in our divison, they kind of modeled their offense after them. The Saints just changed their defensive sytem to utilize Sullivan or did you not read about that?




Read this and get back with me?

June 13, 2003) -- Given the choice between improving with potentially great new players or potentially great new strategy, any rational NFL coach would say there is nothing to choose.

Talent always comes first.

Yet even in areas their teams have addressed with high draft picks and/or high-profile free agents, coaches will still seek ways to maximize their productivity. They will still tinker, adjust, modify and perhaps overhaul. They will do anything and everything within the realm of their playbooks and philosophy to make certain they are getting the most out of the players they have.

Five prime examples can be found in the offseason workouts of teams trying to upgrade their defensive lines:

New Orleans Saints: They made a bold move in the draft, trading up to select Johnathan Sullivan. Now Jim Haslett and his defensive assistant coaches are showing some creativity in utilizing his ample size (6-foot-3 and 313 pounds), strength and quickness.

Sullivan has been lining up at nose tackle, a position usually associated with the lone occupant in the middle of a three-man front. The Saints still employ a four-man look, but their tackles aren\'t designated in normal left-right terms. Sullivan is on the nose, directly across from the center, and a \"three-technique\" tackle lines up on one side of Sullivan or the other in an effort to exploit certain blockers or blocking schemes, or just to create confusion.




[Edited on 16/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

The Saints traded Ricky Williams because they felt Deuce fit better into the style of offense they wanted to run. You fit players into your system. If you run a defense that demands man coverage you don\'t go drafting players that have had four years of college in zone and you don\'t sign free agents that don\'t match up well as one on one cover men. You get players that play that style of defense.

I don\'t care how talented a player is at the thing he\'s good at. If he can\'t do what the team wants him to do you get the guy that can.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

LummOx,

While that is basically true, not always. What if your the coach of a team that runs a ball control offense and the next year you are coaching the Rams offense? Do you run the same system. Futhermore, you might not revamp your whole system but you do change it somewhat to take advantage of a players strength. If not they are very foolish.

And one more thing. Is that why in the draft a team usually takes the best player on the board and doesn\'t draft for need?


[Edited on 16/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

First off, if I run a ball contrl offense on one team, I don\'t take a job with a team where I have no experience running the style they currently play, or I see if their bringing me in there to make the change over. And if so, either the players accept my style changes or they know in advance they will be walked if they can\'t fit.

No one brings in a coach or coordinator that runs a system opposite what their currently set up to run unless they want the change to happen. Coaches and coordinators specialize just like players.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Really? Didn\'t Tampa bring in Gruden. I belive he ran a totally different offense in Oakland but he took the same players that Tampa had the year before and adjusted his offesive style to the players he had. Am I wrong here?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

That teams are drafting the best available player is a very recent occurence and is a luxury afforded to few teams today. As you know, teams have both a wish list, a need list and a ranking list. They will always try to combine them into a single player. I\'m certain the reason the Saints drafted Deuce was not simply because he was the best available, but because they saw how they wanted to change from a ground and pound offense and he would fit better. Plus at the time Ricky was injury prone and they needed depth. He filled a less prominent need, but the weight of the pick was good for need and value.

No team drafts a player they have no intention of using or baiting another team with. They had no intention of parking him for 10 years just because he was the best guy on the board.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

The ownership and GM wanted a full bore offensive change. That\'s just what I said. They didn\'t want him to come in and run the old Buc O. And Gruden brought players in to fit his system and turfed the ones that couldn\'t.

You just added to what I said.

The offense he ran in Oakland was very similar to what he did in Tampa.

[Edited on 16/6/2003 by lumm0x]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

The truth is we\'re both right. It just depeds on the situation. If a coach goes to a team that is at or near the bottom, they get players to fit the system they want to run. If they go to a team that is talented they adjust their offensive scheme. Wouldn\'t you agree?


LummOx,

You can\'t be serious about Tampa running the same offense as Oakland. It was nowhere close. Look at some game film man...LOL

[Edited on 16/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

I think both coaches and players try to migrate to what best suits their skills.
Agreed.

Oakland didn\'t run the same O last year, but in the Gruden era you can definitely see the influences Gruden has brought to the Bucs that mirrored the Raider stuff. Truth be, some of the current Bucs really fit well into Gruden\'s plan already. You have to admit that their offense was more 2001 Raider than it was 2001 Buc wasn\'t it. He didn\'t have all the pieces in place last year and I think you\'ll see it get more Raiderish every year.

[Edited on 16/6/2003 by lumm0x]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

No, I don\'t agree. He pouded Alstot and thew short passes, pretty much like Tampa did the year before. Oakland threw the ball all over the field. He tried to do some things simular to what Okland did, but in the end he had to adjust his system to the players he had.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Please do me a favor and go to nfl.com and look at the 2002 Bucs stats, the 2001 Bucs stats and the 2001 Raiders stats. You will see that the Bucs offense spread the ball out way more than 2001 where a RB was the second leading reciever by 30 catches over the #2 and #3 WR. They had way more TE contributions, Alstott had way less carries than Pittman in 2002, while in 2001 he had way more than Dunn. He was used like the Raiders used Wheatley and Garner, not like the Bucs used Dunn and Alstott. They were much more spread in 2002. He brought in McCardell because he needed the Tim Brown look alike since Keyshawn was playing the Rice possession role. He also brought in Jurevicius because he wanted the Jerry Porter size mismatch at #3 WR. He also brought Ricky Dudley with him and got Dilger because his offense has the TE as a more recieving threat than the blocker role that Tampa used to use the TE in. Tampa used to use the TE primarily as a red zone reciever, while Gruden uses the TE more seam patterns.

Brad Johnson\'s yards per attempt raised last year to within 0.2 of Rich Gannon\'s 2001 stats. Much higher than they were in 2001 for Johnson.


Point: He tried to implement the Raiders offense.


[Edited on 16/6/2003 by lumm0x]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Look at the number of pass attempts for the 2001 Raiders compard to the 2002 Bucs. The Raiders pass attempts were 549 to Tampas 451.

So while you compare individual stats and try to show me where he\'s using McCardell as Tim Brown and all the other comparisions, those players and the whole offense for the Bucs were not as talented as the raiders offense.

Because of that, Gruden could not throw the ball as much. He played more of a ball control offense and relied on the great Bucs D more. The simple fact is they did not throw as much as the raiders and they had many more opportunities because the Bucs defense got the ball back for the offense way more than the Raiders D ever did.

Sure, Gruden tried to implement his offense, but he knew the heart and soul of the Bucs was the defense. The Raiders offense struck fear in the heart of opposing defenses, if you think that\'s what the Bucs offense looked like, you entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

lummox...i was scanning the posts to see if anyone mentioned the Williams move....good call.....replace the player who better fits the scheme

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

All of this was to try to say one thing.....a coach designs a system and tries to fit players into it. A coach doesn\'t get a bunch of players and try to make a system that exploits their talents. The players that are there are there only because they can mesh into that system. The system is only so adaptable. I concede that Gruden bent his system somewhat, but it was clearly a more diverse Gruden offense than when Dungy coached.
Spurrier came to the Skins and installed his offense. Granted is wasn\'t successful. Vermiel went to K.C. and implemented his offense rather than the Schottenheimer/Cunningham handoff.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Lummox,


What I am trying to say if you have a system in place and you get a player that his stengths do not fit into your system, you change your system somewhat to that player. Not throw your whole system out the window for that one player.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

I agree with you. Just to clarify that then....you run a ground and pound ball control offense and you have an injuryto your running back. The free agency has two equally talented running backs available (with different talents). Do you go after Charlie Garner or do you go after Corey Dillon? You get players that fit your system.

If you are a coach that walks into a new system you try to adapt the players in the direction of your method. If you have a system in place, you try to upgrade positions with guys that will fit the mold you need best. No team will go after a player that clearly doesn\'t fit the system unless they see the need to change direction.

I see we both have valid points, we just sit on opposite sides of a fence here. You feel the game is geared more around the ability of the players, while I see the players abilities are geared more around the systems they play in. No harm in either.

Damn, I trying to control my profanity now because of Gatorman. What a bad influence he was.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

You don\'t purposly go after a player that doesn\'t fit into your system I agree that you want players that can execute your sytem first but you have to be flexiable.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Actually I just went back to review the team stats, rather than the individual. They are as follows:

The 2001 Raiders rushed the ball 43 more times than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs also rushed the ball more than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders threw the ball 40 less times than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs also threw the ball less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders had the ball in offensive possession less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs had the ball in offensive possession less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders rushed the tailback almost 2 to 1 over the full back. The 2002 Bucs rushed the tailback almost 2 to 1 over the fullback. The 2001 Bucs rushed the ball to the full back over tailback. The 2001 Bucs had the #1 WR account for nearly 63% of WR receptions. The #2 WR accounted for 21% of WR receptions and the #3 had 14 %. The 2001 Raiders #1 WR accounted for 47% of WR catches, the #2 WR had 43 % of WR catches, and the #3 had 10 %. The 2002 Bucs had the #1 WR make 43%, the #2 made 43 % and the #3 made 25%.

So rather than look at individuals, the team stats show that they transformed the offense in the direction quite heavily towards the way Gruden likes the carries and catches split up. He didn\'t say, gee, Keyshawn Johnson is head and shoulders more talented than the #2 and #3 WR and capable of catching 63% of the passes. My system calls for the #1 reciever to line up in a shifting slot and recieve less than 50% of the throws. The 2002 Bucs also accounted for WR TD\'s in the following manner #1-5/#2-6/#3-4. The 2001 Raiders did it #1-9/#2-9/#3-3. The 2001 Bucs did it #1-1/#2-1/#3-1. That\'s right the top three WR for the 2001 Bucs had a combined 3 TD catches.

What looks more alike? The 2001 and 2002 Bucs, or the 2001 Raiders and the 2002 Bucs. Plays were created to exploit the talents of the individuals. The system was created to distribute the game plan to Gruden\'s style. Gruden implemented his offense and, yes, I\'ve watched the game film, probably two or three times each game more than you have. Just to let you know, I\'m a football freak and I have it set up where I get every game recorded. Every game. I watch the 2002 year all offseason, over and over. I live football, I can\'t not watch it. I\'ve seen every game from last year at least twice. The 2002 Bucs more resemble the 2001 Raiders than they do the 2001 Bucs in offensive style. You go watch some film. Are you basing your knowledge of these two teams on the fact that you saw probably 6 total games in which one of them appeared last year? YOu bet your ass Gruden started to toy it up a bit in the playoffs and especially the Super Bowl. The win came down to the fact that he knew more about Callahan and the Raiders than they knew about him.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Is that suppose to impress me? You can throw all of that out there you want, but I\'m telling you he changed his systmem SOMEWHAT to his players.


LummOx,

You know your stuff. It\'s just when I watch Tampa\'s offense, they look nothing like the Raiders too me.

[Edited on 16/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Billy, I\'m not trying to impress you. I\'m trying to show you, by using statistics and factual evidence, my position on a debate. I\'m providing names of players that support my arguements, data that was generated as a result of a football game, and my own personal insights into the arguement. You have responded with nothing, but repeating your opinion. When two people have a debate, they take a side in a question and defend their position with stuff like this. Your side of the debate is: \"well, that\'s not what I see!\".

Then show me what you see. Just because the two teams have different colors and the names are different, if you transparencied the formations and alot of the plays as they transpired, you see Gruden offense. Gruden runs alot of formations and plays in Tampa that he ran in Oakland. He uses different players and mixes up where they line up and what diversions he uses to generate the same play. Of course he uses the players that have the best ability to exploit that play. But he uses the play. And he uses the play with a variety of players. The 2001 Bucs had two plays that stood out and that was run Alstott, force the ball to wherever Keyshawn is, and the screen to Dunn. I\'m really generalizing that, but they were less dimensional in 2001, and they became much more balanced in 2002. You said that Oakland throws it all over. Yes they do and so did the 2002 Bucs. They spread the ball around more, ran more TE seams, ran more multi-wide crosses and more outs. Alot of that looked like dink and dunk, but it was the same thing as Oakland in a shorter work space. When you learn something you start small and work big. They were preparing the plays in short space and gradually making them intermediate routes. I could clearly see that across the course of 2002.

Back up your side with something. I\'m just debating you on a topic, not insulting you. You need something substantial in here.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Gruden absolutely brought his offensive system with him from Oakland. Without going back and watching game film, I have absolutley no way of knowing what % of it got implemented. You seem like you\'ve done your homework on it, so i\'ll take your word for it.


No insult was taken..........

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Gruden changed the system to fit his players?!!! Are you nuts...

Is it just me, or did Tampa go out and sign a TE, 2 WRs, a RB, and one or two QBs last offseason?? Gruden drastically changed their style of offense.... and in case you missed the Super Bowl, Tampa looked more like the Oakland offense than Oakland did...

You are flat wrong Billy. A coach runs his system... he gets players that fit that system... you don\'t think so? Why did Haslett get rid of two pro bowlers in Joe Johnson and La\'Roi Glover? They are obviously much better than the alternatives at that time Whitehead and Grady Jackson... b/c they wanted big D-linemen to fit their defensive system... which was supposed to be geared at stopping the run. You\'re wrong... wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

Here ya go folks,


I want to send out congrats to LummOx. LummOx proved me wrong. I did a little
search and Tampa did indeed run many multipe offences and changed offensive formantions at the line of scrimmage. Way more so than the previous Bucs team. He also used in players in different ways. However, if you think he did not adjust his offense to his players somewhat, then I suggest you do some research. YOU WILL NEVER EVER HEAR ME SAY I\'M WRONG AGAIN. Man that hurt.

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

It is the coach and his assistants that have the system. The players don\'t have the system,it is given to them. Doesn\'t it make sense that a coach and his staff would try to fit in the pieces of the puzzle?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

As long as we\'re bringing old threads back.... Aaron anyone?

[Edited on 29/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

As long as we\'re bringing old threads back. Aaron Anyone?

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...
 

stardate- 2687.14........again....i,,,,,,hear,,,,,,,,the,,,,,,,,letters.........ab..........my crew....seems to be........coming around,,and.......talking..............to one another....instead of...........arguing.........................and fighting....................................but..............is it a genius plot.... to pull me into.....................the dark side.............luke.....................use the force..................kirk..out............