Just observing. No defense for the indefensible.

Yes

Add to the fact Kordell played the "slash" role for quite a few years with the Steelers, meaning he provided more to the team than just being the QB.

GEEEZZZ,

I didn't mean to start ANOTHER anti Brooks thread!

I only was pointing out that Green Bay might possibly have some interest in aquiring AB. Since, it seems to be a forgone conclusion that AB is gone, why not get something for him if we can?

Well you did and I am here to DEFEND!!! LOLOL. Actually whodi...I think if Haslett would use Brooks on a few more rollouts that he could have easily provided a little more than just QB.

"He was a soldier of New Orleans....Honor Him!" LOLOL

Well FJ, I think you are dead wrong, but it's all good.

Here's my knock on Brooks, the guy can make great plays, he's made many in the past, the problem is he doesn't make good plays when we needed it the most, he's hurt us more than he's helped us

Couldn't have said it better LTF.
Brooks is a moron that can throw......period.

It will just be a great comfort to me, knowing that when our new starting QB drops back, I won't have to worry about the ball mysteriously flipping out of the back of his hand when he goes to throw it.

Or him throwing it to an OT.........moron...

Greenbay May Want AB!
 

AB has two good things going for him, a strong arm, and decent legs. The problem is his legs tend to send him backwards to often and his throws tend to go to the wrong guy.

Things against AB.
1. Arm, too strong for his own good, tried to fit passes in sometimes.
2. Arm, inaccurate.
3. Hands, must be the size of a fourth graders the way he drops the ball all the time.
4. Nothing upstairs, except some dust.
5. Poor attitude, if I see that laugh after another interception I will vomit.
6. Needed leadership training.
7. Blames problems on everyone else.
8. Mistakes ALWAYS at the wrong times. How many INT's or Fumbles do we have to see inside our or our opponents 20 yard line.
9. Could have made the Bears defense from this year look bad.

That being said there will be some HC and some QB coach that say, wow look at that RAW talent. I could make him into a star. I say AB is worth at least a third if not a second round pick.

If I have to hear RAW talent uttered together describing another one of our draft picks I may have to seek psychiatric help. I want to hear polished, poised, when describing our picks and Free agents this year.

Re: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Good post WDQB and welcome aboard.

Well then.....if its poised and polished you want...then who is available now with those particular characteristics?

I hate this predicament. Stay with AB or let him go and get a FA or draft pick and pray that niehter ends up like another Heath Shuler. WOW!!!

Welcome aboard whodat..
Great avy..great movie..
"I might just be wantin' a bagel with my coffee" :)

Greenbay May Want AB!
 

There is this Huge Freakin guy running around crushing people. A serial Crusher.

Fatius,
well I am not sure who I want, I am tired of AB crushing chances of winning games. Look at the turnovers inside the 20 for the last three years. Holy idiocy Batman.

As far as in the Draft, I want Leinart. Sorry VY is "RAW" and so is Cutler. We need a QB.

As far as FA, there are normally very few "RAW" guys around, most of them have been classified as a bust after four years. AB is still "RAW" and a bust if you ask me.

RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Question. Who was the last Norm Cow Quarterback or So. Cal. QB (Besides Palmer Gentlemen) that was not a bust in the NFL? Think about this one. As I do not believe there where any and that was the big knock on Palmer although he did buck that but he has the tools and the supporting cast in Cincy. Most others could not adapt from the system, so I would consider Leinart RAW also, like all college QB's.

Re: RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

... you make no sense.
Regardless what Chow's QB's did or didn't do in the NFL, not one school sends QBs into the NFL like donuts. Norm Chow's job while in college was to tutor QBs for the college game, not to groom them to be NFL superstars.

Chow was in USC for 4 years only... how many more QB's could he possibly groom?

Besides, he was in BYU in the early 80's, so you are talking Steve Young and Jim McMahon... I don't believe those 2 were busts...

And there never was a knock on Palmer when he came out.

I'm not saying Chow is God and magically creates HOF'ers, but the man has coached some very good college players - which was his job - and a few of those have turned out to be pretty good NFL players.

RE: Re: RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

I'm not even going to get into this debate but wanted to welcome Whodat to the board. I do think Brooks and Bouman need to go.

RE: Re: RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

[quote="CheramieIII"]IAmen brother...BOFUVEM!

Greenbay May Want AB!
 

CheramieIII, thanks for the welcome.

FanNJ,
as far as I can remember(and sometimes that is pretty short) there were no knocks on Palmer. He was rated very high. I will take a, "RAW" as you call Lienart, QB out of college rather than a RAW QB that has been in the league more than 5 years and still has not figured it out.

In the grand scheme all QB's are seen as somewhat Raw with the learnign curve moving from the college ranks to the NFL. IF a QB that is a proven winner, hates to lose, has all the tools to succeed in the Pros, can make all the throws, and has graded out by many to be one of the top QB's ever is considered RAW, then sign me up.

RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Im wit cha whodat..
And Matt has done nothing but win his whole career...(Rose Bowl exception)
as you say......SIGN ME UP!.........<ching>

RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Tobias put it perfectly, Chow (and Pete Caroll) have only been at USC for a short time. Any QBs taken prior to their coming can't be compaired. Most of the time when there's a prior bust QB from the same school it's because the HC has been there for 15-20 years so the system hasn't changed. USC runs a pro-style offense because it's what Caroll ran when he was an HC in the pros.

As for a backup, let's get rid of Brooks and Bouman. But then it comes down to a QB to compete for the starting possition/teach the rookie. That's the only reason I'd want Kitna. The last year he started (2003) he had an 87.4 rating and 26 TDs vs 15 Ints. Plus he's mentored a USC QB to become a starter.

RE: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

My question was as to the use of the word RAW made by others and that basically they are all RAW, as they all lack the experience, so to debate the values of one over the other you need to look into the system to which they are placed or to be placed with the tools they have. I am not knocking chow as I think he is an offensive genius, and the two BYU QB's you mentioned were good QB's Young esspeccially (but both were very mobile and strong armed QB's) But there are three in 20 odd years . I did here the comment on Palmer somewhere by an analyist, and I'll have to do some searching when I have the time to find it. The point I was trying to make was that I don't think any drafted QB will start this year, unless the new coaching design that system around him, and the tools (offensive tools that we will have in place).
That being said I would rather see Brooks or a quality strted this year in particualar running the offense for one year while whomever is drafted gets up to pro speed and the team fills some other glarring holes. If Brooks is traded so be it(granted that trade brings a quality player or additional picks), but hopefully there is someone who can step in immediatly to run the offense in whatever shape it takes this year.

Soory for not spelling the comment out.

Greenbay May Want AB!
 

FanNJ,
I understand, I guess I should have made myself clearer. Matt JOnes as a receiver was "RAW", VY, JCutler, MVick, ABrooks. I used RAW as a broad term, mainly plenty athletic, and either has not played the position much, or is plain stupid.

Anyone in the league more than three years and still considered a "RAW" talent is a waste of time. Most rookies will be a "Raw" talent as far as rookie production, exceptions: many defensive players have a chance to be good right off, RB's, and TE's. WR's DB's, Lineman, will be considered raw their first year because lack of NFL experience, but as far as a college player they could have been pretty darn good.

My main point is AB is killing our team and I want him gone. VY could be great, but he was not even a polished QB in college, neither was Cutler or many other QB's. Leinart is polished and he is the man and I want him on the Saints. Do we need a veteran? Maybe, Peyton did just fine starting from day one, you need an intelligent QB that will not get down on himself to get away with that. Maybe Leinart is that, maybe not, either way we need someone else in case of injury, AMAC isn't ready yet, unless he progressed more than JHaslett lead on. I would take Kitna in a heartbeat.

...aahh... semantics... it's a beautiful thing...

"raw talent" usually means that a player has physical, non-teachable abilities. "Talent" is something that has yet to be fullfilled into an actual skill.
Ex:
guy can throw the ball 80 yards = raw talent
guy can throw the ball 80 yards and put the ball in front of the receiver on full stride on the shoulder away from the defender = NFL skill.

Here's something tangible:
Matt Leinart can throw a screen pass better than Aaron Brooks.
Brooks has been in the league for 6 years now, and still can't throw a decent screen pass.
Leinart already knows how.

..again:
throwing the ball = raw talent
throwing a good screen passs in front of your receiver in full stride: NFL skill.

I guess I will agree to disagree on what we are evaluating and that's the point of this Sh!t. First I will preempt that My mind is not made up yet on who should be picked, but I don't think Leinart is the short or long term solution. I would rather see a Young or better yet Cutler, ride the pine for a year, and then come into the game, and I am willing to bet once the combines and the individual evaluations are complete you will not see Leinart in NO. Something scares me about seeing him more in US magazine than hearing about him hitting the gym. And it is funny how with all this team has been through you don't here more from the players about the supposed lame duck quarterback and how he was the reason for the losses (Other than the fight with Grant two years back, I have actually heard the opposite (not that the duck did not call himself out either), so that is one reason why I think he'll be back for one more season.

To respond to the second, response that is, I agree there has not been a decent screen pass, but is that because there is 0 chip on and of the defenders? There always seems to be a defender right on the back leaving the backfield and then either a short throw or a sack (don't know who to blame for that?) But looking beyond the screen pass you also need to make the passes downfield and into tight coverage. That's some thing unless we get some 6-5 recievers with a great vertical leinart I am afraid will not be able to do.

Hell I'll support whomever they put back there next year, but I just think alot of people will be dissapointed, but pleasantly surprised. Hell it;s the offseason we can all dream.

What's up with McPhereson? Is he or isn't he good enough?

Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Tobias-Reiper,


I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO THAT.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Greenbay May Want AB!
 

Why, thank you. I'll be here all week :)

..well, I don't see Young lasting long in the NFL, to be honest, because I don't see ANY NFL QB skills in him, and while I do have reservations about Leinart, I'm sure he can do better than Brooks.

As for not hearing about the "lame duck QB", well, there was Grant, there was Turley, and I'm sure there have been others, but for some reason - guess raw talent - Brooks has been cradled and protected by the coaching staff... I am pretty sure there have been other incidents that we the public don't hear of...

.. . there's also this thing called "pocket presence"... pocket presence is not raw talent, and it is a skill that can be learned, and you would think that it would take less than 5 years of playing QB as a starter... if you drop back further than your tackles, guess what, you will have someone in your face immediately, and would seem that there's always someone in the backfield.. I'm not absolving the o-line by no means, but if you don't know how to use the pocket, you are going to be doing some running back there...

Again, I don't think any college player is a solution to anything in the NFL until they prove me wrong, but looking at Leinart's football skills vs Brooks' lack thereof, I do think Leinart can do better than Brooks from the git-go.

Wow Tobias, first I agree with you and now I don't, all in the same thread. But pleae don't take this as me wanting to have Brooks stick around.

Leinart, or any other rookie QB, probably won't do any better than Brooks has done historically. Most rookie QBs do horribly their first year, on average they have a QB rating of 68.1, where as Brooks rating last year was 70.0 and 79.7 career. Now these are first year starters: P.Manning (71.2), Roethlisberger (98.1), E.Manning (55.4), Orton (59.7), Bledsoe (65.0), Plummer (73.1), Boller (62.4), Carr (62.8), Harrington (59.9), Leftwich (73.0). And most of these guys (7 of 10) threw more Ints than TDs, something Brooks only did this year. Now I'm all for drafting Leinart, but statistic show it's best to sit him for a year.

Does anyone besides me realize QBs drafted high usually go to crap teams? Look at the exception on your list BJ. Ben. He went to a team that just had an off year, but was still a good TEAM. I would put the Saints in that category. I am willing to bet, with passes in stride, and as tobias puts it, a QB with pocket presence, you will see a drastic improvement in the offense. Not top 10, but better than what we have been getting. But every one of those players you mentioned BJ went to losing orgs when they got there. That's not the fault of any of the QBs there.

No I completely agree. Because the second list I had was of QBs that got to sit their rookie year. They had a QB rating their first year as a starter of 81.7 with more TDs than Ints (19/14), Those names include: Favre (85.3 - can anyone still believe Atlanta sat this guy?), Brees (76.9), Brady (85.3), Culpepper (98.0), Frerotte (70.2), McNabb (77.8), and Palmer (77.3). Look at the teams these players are with. The only bust in the list is Frerotte, and alot of people think he's still an OK QB.

Do I hope Leinart comes in and does amazingly well? Hell yes, but it's hard to say that he'll do well with the questions surrounding this team. Will Duece return to Pro-Bowl form? Can we improve a mediocre defense into a top ten (or better a top three) defense? Can a rookie QB really lead the team to the promise land? Will our O-line play up to it's potential? Can our recievers remember their job is to CATCH the ball?

That's a lot of questions and I didn't hit them all. But I think you're also right that last year we should've been a 9-7 (possibly 10-6) team (pre-Katrina) and with luck and good coaching should return to that form.

..that's what I'm saying...

... I just want to see 10 yd passes to Stallworth in front of him, or Hilton not have to reach low and behind to catch a ball - how do you throw a pass low and behind to a TE that's 6'8"? Oh, yeah, I forgot :) -

... don't want to see them 15-step drops, though...