New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   A theory on Brooks (https://blackandgold.com/saints/4566-theory-brooks.html)

kenpersons 05-19-2004 07:26 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
You can hate him if you want, but you can't deny he's shown flashes of brilliance. Now then...

Have you ever seen Bull Durham? There's a quote that applies:

"Don't think, just throw"

When he's patting the ball, he's thinking too much. If they can get him to pull the trigger, right or wrong, it's a start. Not deciding is worse than a bad decision, and that's what's causing the fumbles.

I pose that if they focus on that during camp and preseason: the simple task of come hell or highwater, even if it's bad decision, slinging it; he'll be fine.

The next step is trusting the coaching, the system and receivers, and not worrying about the mistakes until it's time to overcome them.

Once he gets in the habit of trusting his instincts instead of thinking about it, he'll be hoisting a Lombardi trophy.

I can't wait to shop for that Super Bowl party. Our Super Bowl party.

Who DAT !?!

JKool 05-19-2004 07:33 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Uh oh...

JKool 05-19-2004 07:38 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
KP,

I\'m not sure I agree. It seems to me a bad decision is worse than no decision. Think about when a QB \"takes a sack\" rather than throwing it up for grabs, that is tantamount to deciding to do nothing, and we think that IS a good idea.

Brooks has had some trouble with bad decisions in the past, and I for one prefer the fumbles to the interceptions - interceptions away from the pile are much more likely to go for big returns or TDs than fumbles near the line.

I guess, I agree with the spirit of the post - it is hesitation that is killing Brooks (we all saw that several times last year). However, slinging the ball all over the place is not the right move either. It would be very nice to see Brooks looking more intuitive out there on the field, and I\'m sure that is what you were getting at.

kenpersons 05-19-2004 08:07 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
The logic is, how do you make a non decision better? I have no answer for that. But I\'d be willing to bet the coaches know what to do to fix bad ones.

Slinging the ball all over the place isn\'t a permanent solution, but it\'s a step towards the answer: eliminating the hesitation. Once that\'s done, then it\'s a matter of transforming \"all over the place\" into \"throwing strikes\" which is a natural progression.

They\'ve had four years and now have one more training camp and four preseason games. I think it can be done. He\'s close.

The bottom line is, Crash Davis is up there with Buddha, Christ, and Yogi Berra when it comes to ultimate wisdom.

no_cloning 05-20-2004 06:58 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

The bottom line is, Crash Davis is up there with Buddha, Christ, and Yogi Berra when it comes to ultimate wisdom.
No he\'s not. ESPECIALLY if you\'re talking about football. \"Don\'t think, just throw\" is not the advice Brooks needs. Name one Hall of Fame quarterback who got there using this approach.
Brooks just needs to speed up his decision making if options one and two are not viable. I\'d like him to use his legs more (forward), not force more throws into double coverage.
The fumbling ... I prefer fumblest to interceptions too. It had to do with the way he grips the ball (I think), having only 3 fingers on the ball instead of 4 or 5. So that can be worked on, he will not lose 10+ fumbles again this season - I would bet on it.

Danno 05-20-2004 07:24 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Here’s my theory on Brooks.
The vast majority of fans focus entirely too much on the QB position.
Fans do not know if the WR turned the wrong way, or ran his route too wide or narrow.
Fans don’t know if the FB missed his block forcing the ball to be thrown too soon.
Fans don’t know about 70% of the facts when they judge a QB’s performance.

There are 11 guys on each side of the ball. All 11 must do their job to succeed.
Theres a reason for the cliché that QB’s get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.

So basically my theory is that most of us are too ignorant of all the facts to accurately determine if Brooks is really the problem.

We judge the QB based on the play of a 53 man team.

Now Kordell Stewart? Well he really does suck.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by Danno]

BlackandBlue 05-20-2004 07:47 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook. It\'s a show where they take game footage and break down plays. They did a few on AB and how he can\'t read defenses. Was interesting. All three sportscasters agreed that AB would have to stop being so inconsistent in order for the Saints to make it to the next level (ie Super Bowl). This is strictly info being passed along, don\'t jump my ass- you don\'t want any.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

whowatches 05-20-2004 08:10 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
I agree with the premise that Brooks seemed more exciting and more of a game-breaker during the season when he replaced Blake. AB was scrappy, and his play looked more off-the-cuff, if you will. Watching him play that year was nothing short of awesome.

The more I think about it, the more I blame coaching and gameplanning for the two years after that one. Like Danno, I also think the failings of the WR corp hurt AB last year.

All that being said, AB held the ball too long, too many times last year. I appreciate that he cut down on INTs, but the more \'instinctual\' player that AB was during his first year kept defenses off-balance and made plays.

As far as his reading defenses, I hope that we don\'t jump in that mud puddle again. Let\'s wait til the season; can\'t wait for all the AB/JT debates!

BnB, is the NFL Network worth the cash? Haven\'t had a chance to check it out yet.

BlackandBlue 05-20-2004 08:28 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Not that I care that much, the QB position is not one of our problem areas, in my humble opinion. I believe we are good enough at that position to win, we need to focus on other areas. He does miss some reads, not all, and that may not be because he doesn’t read the defense, but is trying to do more with the ball on a single play than a 3 and out route by the tight end.
All I watch, when I’m allowed to touch the remote, is the NFL Network. They have some decent shows, and I was even able to record the 2000 playoff game between the Saints and the Rams.

saintfan 05-20-2004 08:48 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
BlackandBlue (lookie there I got the name right!)

I watched that show last night too...and I found it interesting that they didn\'t have much good to say at all...about anybody really other than Howard and Grant. They did pretty much blame the whole thing on Brooks, which tells me they\'re clueless. Personally I didn\'t think they provided much insight either -- and I expect most of the regulars of this board could have done a better job breakin\' down the Saints than those three clowns.


WhoDat 05-20-2004 09:07 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Saintfan - I wouldn\'t have expected anything less from you. Someone in the media questioned Brooks - of course they\'re all clueless.


Quote:

I agree with the premise that Brooks seemed more exciting and more of a game-breaker during the season when he replaced Blake. AB was scrappy, and his play looked more off-the-cuff, if you will. Watching him play that year was nothing short of awesome.

The more I think about it, the more I blame coaching and gameplanning for the two years after that one. Like Danno, I also think the failings of the WR corp hurt AB last year.
While I agree that AB was more fun to watch when he was playing only with instinct, I don\'t think his success was entirely due to that. I think that his success in 2000 was due in large part to the fact that opposing defenses knew NOTHING about him. They couldn\'t game plan for the guy.

Of course, he was more of a sandlot player and that affected his escapability and capacity to make plays out of nothing. The main problem did start in 01 when the coaches asked Brooks to think and to stand in the pocket and beat teams with his arm and mind. Still, defenses would have caught up with the sandlot Brooks quickly and it would have been ugly.

He has progressed, all be it slowly, and he\'s not far. IF the guy can eliminate the mistakes that have plagued him to this point in his career, he can go to the Pro Bowl. Of course, every year since he was named the starter the guy has found new and exciting ways to F-up. He SHOULD have it all together by now. It\'s time he stands up and becomes the top 5 guy he claimed he was years ago.

saintz08 05-20-2004 09:09 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook.
Heard that the feature was the whole NFC South and the sportcasters did a pretty good analysis on the other teams and then came to the Saints and did the Hatchet job on Brooks .

Quote:

They did pretty much blame the whole thing on Brooks, which tells me they\'re clueless.
NFL has it\'s own network , and the sportcasters are the ones that are clueless ???... ;)

GumboBC 05-20-2004 09:14 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
The guys on that show basically blamed EVERYTHING on Brooks. They proclaimed Mike Vick to be the second-coming. Look, I have no idea where Brooks is supposed to be throwing the ball. I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything.

Besides, if we\'re going to take the guys in the media\'s word for ANYTHING -- Last night Pete Prisco said Aaron would emerge as a top 5 QB this year. He said Brooks has improved every year and made great strides last year. Who ya gonna believe? Me, I don\'t believe any of \'em.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

saintfan 05-20-2004 09:21 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Whodat and 08 --

If either of you had watched that show you\'d know what I\'m saying. Those guys were completely clueless...NFL Network or not. And they were, in my opinion, clueless about far more than just their assessment of Brooks. Like everything else on that Network, I\'m sure they\'ll re-run it at least a dozen times. Maybe you guys will catch it...you\'ll be as disgusted as I was I guarantee.

WhoDat 05-20-2004 09:25 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything.
Quote:

Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook. It\'s a show where they take game footage and break down plays. They did a few on AB and how he can\'t read defenses.
You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise. But I agree with Prisco that Brooks made strides last year and should emerge as a top 10 (probably top 7 but not top 5). He could be a Pro Bowler.

GumboBC 05-20-2004 09:31 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise.
WhoDat -- FUNNY,FUNNY,FUNNY!! Have you EVER watched that show? Maybe you THINK that\'s what they do, but I HIGHLY doubt they spend too much time breaking down anything. Do you think every NFL expert that\'s on TV really breaks down a QB\'s game and gives a TRUE analysis? If you do think that, it would not be wise!!

BlackandBlue 05-20-2004 09:41 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake.

Quote:

I watched that show last night too...and I found it interesting that they didn\'t have much good to say at all...about anybody really other than Howard and Grant.
I didn\'t understand that either, Grant was as guilty, if not more, of incosistent play as Brooks was last year. Howard, I could understand, upon his return, he made the defense better.
So Saintfan, I guess you really liked that stat comparing Brooks\' output against winning teams vs. losing teams. I\'ll need to pull that off the show and post it here, just to stir the muck.

GumboBC 05-20-2004 09:48 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake.
Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point. I Guarantee you that I can go pick out as many plays as they broke down and make Brooks look like Joe Montana.

Anyway, I could care less what those guys say.



[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

saintfan 05-20-2004 09:50 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
That stat is about the only thing they got right. They just didn\'t go very deep man. I thought it was telling too that they always managed to get Vick into the conversation regardless of WHICH team they were talkin about.

Buncha clowns if you ask me, and I know you didn\'t, but there still a buncha clowns.

WhoDat 05-20-2004 10:04 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point.
Billy - are you suggesting that these analysts have some preconceived idea of players and/or teams and simply use their show to further that opinion. In other words, they simply don\'t like AB and they use their show to find and play clips of his mistakes to make fans and the public dislike him too. And why would they dislike AB? Wow, what an agenda those guys have. They must be miserable people who just want to pick on AB for no good reason. Thank God they\'re not Saints fans.

GumboBC 05-20-2004 10:16 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Billy - are you suggesting that these analysts have some preconceived idea of players and/or teams and simply use their show to further that opinion.
Absolutely brother!! All you have to do is look at the way they hyped Vick as the second coming. But, you know this is true. You\'re smart enough to know how it works!

These guys get paid to have an OPINION. They don\'t get paid to be correct. They get paid for RATINGS. So, it\'s in their best intrest to hype players such as Mike Vick. Controversy also sells pretty good. So, buy into if ya want.

Me, they can tell me Aaron Brooks is the next Joe Montana of the next Heath Shuler and I don\'t believe any of it.

BlackandBlue 05-20-2004 10:22 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point. I Guarantee you that I can go pick out as many plays as they broke down and make Brooks look like Joe Montana.

Anyway, I could care less what those guys say.
You could care less what they have to say, even though you haven’t seen the show, and probably don’t have the foggiest as to who is even on the show? Trying to figure out if you saw it, I can\'t tell by your posts. These are not guys that they just threw on a show, they do have credentials and they do have a history in what they do. They may not have shown a complete season, but they showed enough to prove their point, at that particular time.
NFL “experts�, and I use that term very loosely, are on any and all channels that have anything to do with sports. Whether or not you agree with what they have to say is your decision, but I’m not one that will totally dismiss everything they have to say all the time, just because I think they are “clowns.� I still read Peter King’s columns, even though I think he’s a clown. I don’t think there is a single “expert� out there that I have completely agreed with all of the time. I just think it’s naïve to dismiss everything they say just because you don’t agree with it.

EDIT: I have alot of respect for Solomon Wilcots, but I think Mike Mayock is a homer, not a clown- there is a difference :D



[Edited on 20/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

GumboBC 05-20-2004 10:30 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
B&B --

Oh, I watched the show. And, basically this one guy blamed everything on Brooks and the other 2 guys sat there and agreed with him. Just the fact this guy blamed Brooks for most of the problems and said Brooks would have to play better in order for us to get over the hump made me think he doesn\'t know what the HELL he\'s talking about. You see, I actually watched all the games last year.

Brooks played consistent enough for us to get to the playoffs. He played incosistently at times, but what QB does\'t. Our wide recievers, O-line, and play calling were inconsitent too. The only thing that was consistent was our inability to stop the run.

So, yeah, I\'m dismissing damn near everything those guys said.



[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC 05-20-2004 11:29 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
I\'m sure most of my posts about Aaron Brooks sounds one-sided. Some proabably get the impression I think Aaron does no wrong. It\'s not that way at all.

For the record, I do think Aaron has some problems reading defenses. I don\'t think his \"pocket awareness\" is where it should be. I think he makes some bone-headed decisions at times. I don\'t think he has natural leadership skills.

So, if anyone thinks I\'m not aware of Brooks\' short-comings. Believe me, I am.

But, the thing is, there\'s a lot of successful QB\'s in this league that have more faults that Aaron Brooks.

I don\'t put a lot of stock in what these football experts say. Bill Walsh once dubbed Rick Mirer the next Joe Montana. At the time, a lot of folks bought into that. I remember a lot of experts talking about his accuracy, decision making, and his mechanics being great. The fact is, Bill Walsh (who\'s suppose to be a QB expert) couldn\'t have been anymore wrong.

We\'ve all heard one expert say one thing about a player and the next expert say just the opposite.

So, when someone tries to use something said by one of these \"experts\" to prove they were right about their opinion of Aaron Brooks. Well, it really doesn\'t prove anything.

Oh, I know B&B didn\'t bring up what was said about Brooks to further any agenda he has. I understand you were just passing along the info...

saintz08 05-20-2004 11:55 AM

A theory on Brooks
 
Any analyst worth his weight in salt who analyizes Brooks at the quarterback position is going to see the same things .

lack of leadership
Streaky play
L-11 / R-1 just not in the arsenal
No hard count
No optioning at the line

Brooks put under the microscope is simply a street ball player .

Danno 05-20-2004 12:07 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
I think Brooks is better than the vast majority of QB\'s starting in this league.
I think he\'s better than these \"Highly Respected\" QB\'s...
Favre
Hasselback
Bledsole
Pennington
Bulger
Vick
Delhomme
Culpepper
and even McNabb

But he\'s still a notch below McNair/Manning/Brady

WhoDat 05-20-2004 12:30 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Bill Walsh once dubbed Rick Mirer the next Joe Montana. At the time, a lot of folks bought into that. I remember a lot of experts talking about his accuracy, decision making, and his mechanics being great. The fact is, Bill Walsh (who\'s suppose to be a QB expert) couldn\'t have been anymore wrong.
Here is the basic difference between you and I Billy. This is a perfect example. You look at a single event and use it to show POSSIBILITY. You have faith in Brooks and Haslett (admit it you do), b/c it is POSSIBLE for them to turn it all around. You hope they will and so you use these examples to show that it isn\'t impossible.

I look at a guy like Bill Walsh and note that he was right a whole lot more often than he was wrong - and he produced a whole lot of great players especially at the QB position. I look at the trend over time, rather than one individual event, and try to determine what is PROBABLE given past performance. I never discount the POSSIBILITY, but I try to make my decisions based on PROBABILITY.

I\'m not knocking you - we just have different styles. That Bill Walsh comment shows it clearly.

St.Shrume 05-20-2004 12:45 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Wow! That\'s saying a lot for Brooks. Can\'t agree on that, although i will not rag him until the season starts. Then.... :P

That show last nite was disappointing to a true football fan. NFL Playbook could be so much better. ESPN does a similar show EA Sports...something (forgot the name), but their analysts are SO much better.

If they say Brooks sucks, they will explain why intelligently. These guys on Playbook did nothing like that. You could tell they love the big names. Vick, Gruden, and now Fox etc. If the Saints kicked butt this year, they\'ll be like flies on shhhhhh...... all over us.

I love shows that breakdown plays and strategies. But these guys are all based in Connecticutt and mostly come from NY, New England or Midwest, so they naturally gravitate to their childhood teams. And then as an after thought, they\'ll mention the Saints (they have to...it says so in their contract ;) )

One thing they said was that the reason the team under achieves year in year out, was maybe the city itself. My first reaction was to say \'fuct that!\' , but deep down i have thought that myself.

I have lived in a few places around the world and in the US. There is no place like Nawlins.

saintfan 05-20-2004 12:50 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
In other words, they\'re clowns. ;)

:P

GumboBC 05-20-2004 12:56 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Here is the basic difference between you and I Billy. This is a perfect example. You look at a single event and use it to show POSSIBILITY.
Let\'s put this in CONTEXT, shall we? What I did was compare Bill Wash\'s ANALYSIS to the experts comment on Brooks. I wasn\'t looking at Bill Walsh\'s track record. Just showing that not only is it a possibility that experts are wrong, they are actually are wrong a lot.

The big difference in you and I is, you look at players and coaches and use only part of the story to further your beliefs. You\'ve pointed out that Haslett should have already been gone(you know you\'ve said it) and you say he isn\'t a good coach and compare him to other coaches that have been more successful in a shorter amout of time.

But, you don\'t bring up coaches like Mike Holmgren, Shannahan, or Jimmy Johnson, who have about the same record or worse than Jim Haslett over a 4 year period. You don\'t bring up Bellichick who failed miserably in his first 4-years. I understand why you don\'t. It\'s because it completely dismisses your so-called logic. Fact is, if you want to talk about probability, you don\'t make a good arguement. You\'re arguement is pretty one-sided and most of the time you close your mind to the REAL facts.

And you\'ve also stated Brooks should have been gone.(you know you said that too.) You look at Brooks and see a player that doesn\'t have what it takes. (although you do seem to be changing your tune lately) But the fact is you would have gotten rid of Brooks had you have been the one in charge. You\'re quick to put Brooks under the microscope.

However, I must point out that you\'re pretty close-minded when it comes to QB\'s, also. Petyon Manning (who you know you love) has been one of those QB\'s that has shown a PATTERN (you know those patterns that show probability) to choke in the playoffs. Yet, you still had faith in Peyton and could come up with all kinds of reasons why he was going to be great. I believe that\'s because you have preconceived ideas and you refuse to be open minded about things.

No knock on you here either WhoDat.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

WhoDat 05-20-2004 02:36 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
LMAO - I must have hit a nerve.

So Billy, Bill Walsh was wrong more often than not about QBs? Or was Rick Mirer the EXCEPTION to the rule? You do understand the concept probability, I\'m sure...


GumboBC 05-20-2004 02:43 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

LMAO - I must have hit a nerve.

So Billy, Bill Walsh was wrong more often than not about QBs? Or was Rick Mirer the EXCEPTION to the rule? You do understand the concept probability, I\'m sure...

I understood the concept perfectly. But, here\'s my concept. I compared the ONE analysis made those clowns about Brooks to the ONE analysis made by Bill Waslh about Rick Mirer. I\'m not trying to look at the track records of Bill Walsh and compare it to those clowns. As far as I know those clowns don\'t have a track record -- :P

No, WhoDat, you didn\'t strike a nerve. I just tried to cover all the bases in one post. No need draggin\' it out -- :P LMAO!!

WhoDat 05-20-2004 02:44 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
PS - I\'m going to try and play nice here Billy. I wasn\'t insulting your intelligence with my post but rather demonstrating how I like to look at trends over time, which is why I tend to be generally more \"pessimistic\" than you. On the contrary, you like to look at the exceptions to the rule, which is why you\'re generally more \"optimistic\" than I. I wasn\'t knocking your personality, but the more I read your response the more it pisses me off.

I\'m close minded? OK, I\'ll take \"close minded\" and right over \"open minded\" and totally wrong all of the time. Shall I dig up the 12-4 quotes again? Shall I dig up the WhoDat was right thread?

Don\'t put words in my mouth Billy. I would have Haslett gone, yes. And I would have had Brooks on the bench behind Delhomme too. Saintfan said the same thing after Ditka left, so don\'t be so quick to judge. I was simply making a jovial post about our differences. But hey, if I were you, the truth might hurt me too.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by WhoDat]

WhoDat 05-20-2004 02:47 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

I understood the concept perfectly. But, here\'s my concept. I compared the ONE analysis made those clowns about Brooks to the ONE analysis made by Bill Waslh about Rick Mirer. I\'m not trying to look at the track records of Bill Walsh and compare it to those clowns.
That about sums up the way you make ALL of your analysis. ONE event, not all of them. But go ahead and show us how open minded you are by calling professional analysts clowns b/c they disagree with your opinion. You were calling me a clown last off-season too weren\'t you? Hhmm - funny how that stuff works out.

BlackandBlue 05-20-2004 02:54 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

Oh, I know B&B didn\'t bring up what was said about Brooks to further any agenda he has. I understand you were just passing along the info...
My reasons are my own. Sometimes I post things just to watch the song and dance that will inevitably ensue. ;)

GumboBC 05-20-2004 03:03 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
WhoDat --

Calm down. I actually respect your opinion highly. I do think you are close-minded sometimes, though. So am I. No one is going to change my mind about Brooks. I think Brooks is a good QB already. Only time will tell if he will be great. No \"expert\" is going to change my view of that.

Look, I\'m no genius. I\'m wrong all the time. I wish I had it all figure out. I\'d be in Vegas bettin\' the house.

As far as puttin\' words in your mouth? I only said what you have said in the past. You put words in my mouth ALL the time. Remember? \"Penalties are worse than turnovers?\" I don\'t get upset about it. I just tell ya I didn\'t say that.

It\'s no shame in being wrong about the NFL, WhoDat. The \"experts\" are wrong just as much as you and I.

Really, this is all B&B\'s fault. I bet the little ****** is sitting there eatin\' popcorn waiting on the fireworks :P

Anyway, I didn\'t mean to insult you.





[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC 05-20-2004 04:17 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
WhoDat -- Here\'s a little info on Bill Walsh\'s track recored with QB\'s. Not exactly genius.


Quote:

Walsh has seen bits and pieces of Joe in the following people:

Rick Mirer (dubbed \"the next Joe\" by Walsh prior to the 1993 NFL draft);
Steve Stenstrom (Walsh mistakenly referred to Stenstrom as \"Joe\" during an interview in his second coaching stint at Stanford);
Jake Plummer
Jeff Garcia
and now apparently Dick Vermeil.
Quote:

Update: Walsh is backpedaling so much on the Druckenmiller issue.
And what of the infamous USA Today quote, in which Walsh alleged that Druck was at the top of the class? In case you\'ve forgotten, we\'ll refresh your memory: \"He can really throw the football,\" Walsh told USA Today in 1997, referring to Druck. \"He\'s got a great arm, comparable to Drew Bledsoe and some of the best arms in the NFL, and he seems to have good command of what he\'s doing. I didn\'t see anybody in his category.\"

Sounds like an endorsement of Druck to us. Yet, now Walsh is backpedaling on that quote: \"If I did (say it) it was ... probably out of a (scout) book,\" Walsh said. \"They say, \'Who are the top quarterbacks?\' And I\'m thinking, \'Now, how do I get off the phone here? Just a minute, let me think about it.\' I\'d never seen Jim play.\"

So there you have it. According to Walsh, he\'s not even responsible for his own opinion -- kinda like Charles Barkley claiming that he was misquoted in his own autobiography. It wasn\'t that Walsh was high on Druck; it was just that some pesky reporter wanted an opinion, so Walsh referred to a scout book and authoritatively passed off the opinion of the book as his own.
Quote:

Walsh\'s former co-conspirator, Dwight Clark, provides the evidence to impeach Walsh\'s latest statements. Now mangling the roster of the Cleveland Browns, Clark claims that Walsh was far from being an innocent bystander as the Niners nabbed Druckenmiller in the \'97 draft. \"I was in those meetings; I heard Bill say (Druckenmiller) was the most talented quarterback in the draft and that Plummer fit the (49ers\') offense better,\" Clark told the Contra Costa Times. \"I was there; I know what was said. Bill never said which one he would pick. He just made that statement and it was really up to us.\"

According to Clark, then, Walsh did see Plummer as the better fit for the Niners\' rinky-dink West Coast Offense, but he also touted Druck as a better QB, and didn\'t go on record as to which QB San Francisco should take. Two years later, Plummer is a rising star, Druck is a laughingstock, and Walsh wants people to think that he stood squarely behind Plummer the whole time. Genius, isn\'t it?
Quote:

Apparently, Rams coach Dick Vermeil kinda, but not really, reminded Walsh of Joe. It seems that among the few things Walsh is able to clearly remember is the play of Vermeil, who was a quarterback for San Jose State in the 1950s, when Walsh was a graduate assistant there. According to Walsh, the young Vermeil \"had tremendous energy and was really competitive ... He came in the first year, and I think he might have been a backup. But he had a really solid career as a quarterback and was smallish as you know.\"

Oh, it doesn\'t end there. \"There was some Montana in him,\" Walsh continued. \"I just don\'t think the arms and legs were long enough. He had everything else.\"
Read all of it. Quite interesting...
http://www.49erhaters.com/revisionist.html

kenpersons 05-20-2004 06:46 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Quote:

\"Don\'t think, just throw\" is not the advice Brooks needs. Name one Hall of Fame quarterback who got there using this approach.
I do not pose that he should use this philosophy throughout the season. I simply recognize the basic philosophical step it represents in solving the problem. Is it the only step? Nope. Is it a beginning? Very much so.

Equally important is the trust. I can\'t help but wonder if his desire to make big plays takes away from his ability to make the play that is available. Whether he\'s waiting for a deep shot to develope or trying to find Joe Horn, it would be better to scatter the rock and move the sticks. \"Taking what the defense gives you\" as it were.

That said, there is a time to take it from the defense as if it were lunch money. However, becoming a more consistant, accurate, and turnover free quarterback will come from spreading the ball around to open targets instead of trying to get too much done in a hurry.


JKool 05-20-2004 09:02 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
Ok, KP, when do you propose Brooks implement the \"just throw strategy\"? In the preseason (he\'s unlikely to see much playing time there), in practice (a lot of good it\'ll do him then), in the first 8 games of the regular season (yikes)?

I can see it is your view that the the \"just throw strategy\" plays SOME role in correcting for Brooks\' problems, but it just seems to me that what role it plays is either small, insignificant, or inappropriate (depending on when and how it is implemented).

JKool 05-20-2004 09:03 PM

A theory on Brooks
 
PS - I don\'t know how many of you played sand-lot ball once you\'d stopped playing college or junior (or high school), but I have. If a player the calibre of Brooks had been out there in the sand-lot, I would have had to have taken my ball and go home - he would have eaten us alive! I understand it is just a way of saying that \"he\'s not that great\", but \'common, he\'s a starter in the NFL for crying out loud (and would be on several teams - not just ours).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com