Brooks

JKool · 11-27-2004, 10:44 AM

LB,

Ok. I see an argument now. The objection that the \"keep Brooks\" people are making is just this: though we understand you fixation on his poor play, his poor play is still good enough to be a starter in this league; given our poor showings on defense and our o-line, Brooks is at least a tertiary concern. Getting rid of him make cost us the resources to get the players we need to fix our dead defense and ailing o-line (unless BMG is right, of course).

Whodi,

Good argument; nicely done. I cannot agree, but ONLY because I don\'t know how to decide if GB can or cannot win without Farve. There is no such regular season game to appeal to for evidence for as long as I can remember. Point taken either way - I believe we have reached an impasse on this. Still, nicely argued.

SFIAH,

Nicely put. I agree for the most part with what you are selling. Here is an argument for you (I can\'t really remember who gave it, but it sounded somewhat compelling to me): there is a learning period for QBs, a time frame in which they can really learn, after that they sort of settle in to one style or another. Brooks, who has only been taught by the chumps here, has missed his learning period and will never be much better than he is. Other than a few counter examples like Gannon, this view seems more or less plausible to me. What do you think?

As for trading Brooks, there are a lot of teams with the idea that \"WE can turn it around for a guy with skills like that\" (sort of like the girlfiend who stays with you because she thinks SHE is the girl that can whip you into shape). I\'m sure we could get something significant for him, but I\'m sure it is in between the really optimistic and the really pessimistic estimates that have been presented so far - perhaps a second rounder and a backup player (of course, if that was a young, backup QB, this would make many happy).

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by JKool]

11-27-2004, 10:44 AM	#11
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks LB, Ok. I see an argument now. The objection that the \"keep Brooks\" people are making is just this: though we understand you fixation on his poor play, his poor play is still good enough to be a starter in this league; given our poor showings on defense and our o-line, Brooks is at least a tertiary concern. Getting rid of him make cost us the resources to get the players we need to fix our dead defense and ailing o-line (unless BMG is right, of course). Whodi, Good argument; nicely done. I cannot agree, but ONLY because I don\'t know how to decide if GB can or cannot win without Farve. There is no such regular season game to appeal to for evidence for as long as I can remember. Point taken either way - I believe we have reached an impasse on this. Still, nicely argued. SFIAH, Nicely put. I agree for the most part with what you are selling. Here is an argument for you (I can\'t really remember who gave it, but it sounded somewhat compelling to me): there is a learning period for QBs, a time frame in which they can really learn, after that they sort of settle in to one style or another. Brooks, who has only been taught by the chumps here, has missed his learning period and will never be much better than he is. Other than a few counter examples like Gannon, this view seems more or less plausible to me. What do you think? As for trading Brooks, there are a lot of teams with the idea that \"WE can turn it around for a guy with skills like that\" (sort of like the girlfiend who stays with you because she thinks SHE is the girl that can whip you into shape). I\'m sure we could get something significant for him, but I\'m sure it is in between the really optimistic and the really pessimistic estimates that have been presented so far - perhaps a second rounder and a backup player (of course, if that was a young, backup QB, this would make many happy). [Edited on 27/11/2004 by JKool]
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks