Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian?

FireVenturi · 05-01-2005, 04:23 PM

Billy, do you mean as raw as AB in 2000?

GumboBC · 05-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Billy, do you mean as raw as AB in 2000?

Brooks was raw back in 2000. But, you have to remember that Brooks was in Green Bay for a year under Mike McCarthy.

So, Brooks went through 2 NFL training camps, 1 full season with the Packers, and one half-season with the Saints before ever seeing the field.

McPhearson on the other hand didn\'t see very much playing time in college. The only real playing experience McPhearson has is in high school. Since high school, McPhearson has only seen the field in the arena league.

BrooksMustGo · 05-01-2005, 10:07 PM

So, Brooks went through 2 NFL training camps, 1 full season with the Packers, and one half-season with the Saints before ever seeing the field.

Just going on Wonderlic scores, McPherson has a lot more raw material to work with than AB does. Being more intelligent should help him pick up the playbook rather quickly.

I\'d be ecstatic to actually see a rookie making rookie mistakes for a change. :thumbsup:

WhoDat · 05-02-2005, 08:39 AM

Anyway, here\'s the thing ... If Brooks gets injured or is struggling ... McPhearson probably won\'t be ready to go in. By ALL accounts, McPhearson is about as \"raw\" as they come.

FireVenturi beat me to the punch... as did BMG.

I don\'t know that Brooks has played as well at any point as he did in 2000 when he was \"raw\" and unprepared to play.

And like BMG said - it would be nice to a) have a reason for rookie mistakes, and b) know that the guy making them might actually learn from them.

Danno · 05-02-2005, 08:49 AM

From Breaux:

Sources report that several in the organization believe that since McPherson has a bit of pro experience with the Arena League that he might be capable of taking over the starting role quicker than most rookies and if Brooks were to flop in the first half of the season, then the team may be best suited to go with McPherson earlier than expected. While this is doubtful to develop, it does make for an interesting sub-plot during the pre-season.

mutineer10 · 05-02-2005, 09:01 AM

Maybe I\'m fooling myself, but seems to me this \"start A-Mac\" talk is awfully premature. While I\'d love to see improvement from (or if necessary, replacement for) Brooks, I just don\'t see McPherson being ready for the pro game right now.

If the consensus among NFL teams was that McPherson was generally ready to play - and the only drawback was his sketchy past - he\'d probably have been drafted higher than the 5th round. Heck, Castillo still went in the 1st after admitting to RECENT steroid (or some banned substance) use.

I wouldn\'t rule out the possibility, especially if Brooks gets fussy when a few \"A-Mac\" chants ring out in the Dome (and they will). But I wanna see the guy in uniform before I start calling for AB\'s head.

Danno · 05-02-2005, 09:17 AM

Maybe I\'m fooling myself, but seems to me this \"start A-Mac\" talk is awfully premature. While I\'d love to see improvement from (or if necessary, replacement for) Brooks, I just don\'t see McPherson being ready for the pro game right now.

If the consensus among NFL teams was that McPherson was generally ready to play - and the only drawback was his sketchy past - he\'d probably have been drafted higher than the 5th round. Heck, Castillo still went in the 1st after admitting to RECENT steroid (or some banned substance) use.

I wouldn\'t rule out the possibility, especially if Brooks gets fussy when a few \"A-Mac\" chants ring out in the Dome (and they will). But I wanna see the guy in uniform before I start calling for AB\'s head.

I don\'t think anyone is calling for A-Mac to start day one. I don\'t know of anyone who thinks he\'s ready to start. But I think its exciting to know that best-case, he might be able to start quite a bit sooner than the average rookie, maybe by the end of this season. I don\'t see what the harm is in getting excited about the PROSPECT of this kid eventually becoming a stud.

And there were many many people calling for AB\'s head before anyone even heard of Adrian McPherson.

GoldenTomb · 05-02-2005, 09:33 AM

I really hoped to get more responses from those who are very high on McPhearson.

Anyway, here\'s the thing ... If Brooks gets injured or is struggling ... McPhearson probably won\'t be ready to go in. By ALL accounts, McPhearson is about as \"raw\" as they come.

Kinda like Drew Henson in Dallas last year. Parcells didn\'t want to put in Henson when Vinny was struggling. But, Parcells caved and put Henson in. And Henson sucked. Vinny was back in the next game.

If Brooks is struggling, he probably still gives us a better chance of winning. Especially if our defense once again sucks.

Throwing in McPhearson when he\'s not ready could destroy the young mans confidence and he might never be the same. It happens frequently. That\'s why you see so many coaches sit their QB the first year.

Even Eli Manning (who is considered an Albert Einstien of QBs) wasn\'t put in unitl late in the season.

So, if Haslett sticks with Brooks, I can understand it.

[Edited on 1/5/2005 by GumboBC]

So you believe it\'s better to go with an injured Brooks than a \"raw\" McPherson??? I don\'t get it.

If the coaches think that he is in no way ready to hit the field in 05, then he will be on the inactive roster. I\'m telling you now that the chances of that happening are slim to none.

The coaching staff is banking that A-Mac is the QB of the future for this team.

What I would like to hear from all of the doubters of A-Mac is why they think he will struggle on the field. All signs indicate that he is the real deal. 5 INTs since graduating from high school, that\'s sick. Other than the off-field problems, he is a shoe in for the starting QB. Tall, fast, smart, cannon arm, and he makes few mistakes.

In an ideal situation, they would like AB to play well for the next couple of years while A-Mac hones his game. Will it happen like this....I\'m almost sure it won\'t. I believe that if AB plays anything less than spectacular this year, he is gone next year, similar to the Bledsoe/Losman deal in Buffalo. It\'s not all about results on the field. His cap number will be a huge factor in keeping him. He will have to put up career numbers this year.

Let me ask the AB supporters this....

How long would you say that the coaching staff should stick with AB before going to McPherson????

mutineer10 · 05-02-2005, 09:39 AM

I don\'t think anyone is calling for A-Mac to start day one. I don\'t know of anyone who thinks he\'s ready to start. But I think its exciting to know that best-case, he might be able to start quite a bit sooner than the average rookie, maybe by the end of this season. I don\'t see what the harm is in getting excited about the PROSPECT of this kid eventually becoming a stud.

Fair enough. I\'ve got nothing against A-Mac - in fact, after hearing him in recent interviews, I\'m starting to warm up to him - and his arena league stats are undeniably impressive. If he can step in quicker than expected, sounds good to me. What I wouldn\'t give to see a guy actually REACH his potential rather than simply HAVE potential!

And there were many many people calling for AB\'s head before anyone even heard of Adrian McPherson.

Indeed, I was among those ranks. That\'s old news, and developments since - the draft, free agency - have quieted me for now. But Brooks has seemed a bit thin-skinned in the past, and I worry that when the \"A-Mac\" chants come he may get his feelings hurt again. I want to see Brooks motivated ... not playing like he has an inferiority complex.

GoldenTomb · 05-02-2005, 10:15 AM

Indeed, I was among those ranks. That\'s old news, and developments since - the draft, free agency - have quieted me for now. But Brooks has seemed a bit thin-skinned in the past, and I worry that when the \"A-Mac\" chants come he may get his feelings hurt again. I want to see Brooks motivated ... not playing like he has an inferiority complex.

Yeah but the only thing is....this is the NFL, not Pop Warner. In the NFL everyone gets booed when they perform badly. I believe the coddling has stopped. The will to be a superior NFL quarterback should be all that AB needs to be motivated.

05-01-2005, 04:23 PM	#11
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Billy, do you mean as raw as AB in 2000?

05-01-2005, 04:33 PM	#12
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Billy, do you mean as raw as AB in 2000? Brooks was raw back in 2000. But, you have to remember that Brooks was in Green Bay for a year under Mike McCarthy. So, Brooks went through 2 NFL training camps, 1 full season with the Packers, and one half-season with the Saints before ever seeing the field. McPhearson on the other hand didn\'t see very much playing time in college. The only real playing experience McPhearson has is in high school. Since high school, McPhearson has only seen the field in the arena league.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

05-01-2005, 10:07 PM	#13
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? So, Brooks went through 2 NFL training camps, 1 full season with the Packers, and one half-season with the Saints before ever seeing the field. Just going on Wonderlic scores, McPherson has a lot more raw material to work with than AB does. Being more intelligent should help him pick up the playbook rather quickly. I\'d be ecstatic to actually see a rookie making rookie mistakes for a change. :thumbsup:

05-02-2005, 08:39 AM	#14
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Anyway, here\'s the thing ... If Brooks gets injured or is struggling ... McPhearson probably won\'t be ready to go in. By ALL accounts, McPhearson is about as \"raw\" as they come. FireVenturi beat me to the punch... as did BMG. I don\'t know that Brooks has played as well at any point as he did in 2000 when he was \"raw\" and unprepared to play. And like BMG said - it would be nice to a) have a reason for rookie mistakes, and b) know that the guy making them might actually learn from them.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

05-02-2005, 08:49 AM	#15
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,648	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? From Breaux: Sources report that several in the organization believe that since McPherson has a bit of pro experience with the Arena League that he might be capable of taking over the starting role quicker than most rookies and if Brooks were to flop in the first half of the season, then the team may be best suited to go with McPherson earlier than expected. While this is doubtful to develop, it does make for an interesting sub-plot during the pre-season.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-02-2005, 09:01 AM	#16
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Maybe I\'m fooling myself, but seems to me this \"start A-Mac\" talk is awfully premature. While I\'d love to see improvement from (or if necessary, replacement for) Brooks, I just don\'t see McPherson being ready for the pro game right now. If the consensus among NFL teams was that McPherson was generally ready to play - and the only drawback was his sketchy past - he\'d probably have been drafted higher than the 5th round. Heck, Castillo still went in the 1st after admitting to RECENT steroid (or some banned substance) use. I wouldn\'t rule out the possibility, especially if Brooks gets fussy when a few \"A-Mac\" chants ring out in the Dome (and they will). But I wanna see the guy in uniform before I start calling for AB\'s head.

05-02-2005, 09:17 AM	#17
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,648	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Maybe I\'m fooling myself, but seems to me this \"start A-Mac\" talk is awfully premature. While I\'d love to see improvement from (or if necessary, replacement for) Brooks, I just don\'t see McPherson being ready for the pro game right now. If the consensus among NFL teams was that McPherson was generally ready to play - and the only drawback was his sketchy past - he\'d probably have been drafted higher than the 5th round. Heck, Castillo still went in the 1st after admitting to RECENT steroid (or some banned substance) use. I wouldn\'t rule out the possibility, especially if Brooks gets fussy when a few \"A-Mac\" chants ring out in the Dome (and they will). But I wanna see the guy in uniform before I start calling for AB\'s head. I don\'t think anyone is calling for A-Mac to start day one. I don\'t know of anyone who thinks he\'s ready to start. But I think its exciting to know that best-case, he might be able to start quite a bit sooner than the average rookie, maybe by the end of this season. I don\'t see what the harm is in getting excited about the PROSPECT of this kid eventually becoming a stud. And there were many many people calling for AB\'s head before anyone even heard of Adrian McPherson.

05-02-2005, 09:33 AM	#18
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? I really hoped to get more responses from those who are very high on McPhearson. Anyway, here\'s the thing ... If Brooks gets injured or is struggling ... McPhearson probably won\'t be ready to go in. By ALL accounts, McPhearson is about as \"raw\" as they come. Kinda like Drew Henson in Dallas last year. Parcells didn\'t want to put in Henson when Vinny was struggling. But, Parcells caved and put Henson in. And Henson sucked. Vinny was back in the next game. If Brooks is struggling, he probably still gives us a better chance of winning. Especially if our defense once again sucks. Throwing in McPhearson when he\'s not ready could destroy the young mans confidence and he might never be the same. It happens frequently. That\'s why you see so many coaches sit their QB the first year. Even Eli Manning (who is considered an Albert Einstien of QBs) wasn\'t put in unitl late in the season. So, if Haslett sticks with Brooks, I can understand it. [Edited on 1/5/2005 by GumboBC] So you believe it\'s better to go with an injured Brooks than a \"raw\" McPherson??? I don\'t get it. If the coaches think that he is in no way ready to hit the field in 05, then he will be on the inactive roster. I\'m telling you now that the chances of that happening are slim to none. The coaching staff is banking that A-Mac is the QB of the future for this team. What I would like to hear from all of the doubters of A-Mac is why they think he will struggle on the field. All signs indicate that he is the real deal. 5 INTs since graduating from high school, that\'s sick. Other than the off-field problems, he is a shoe in for the starting QB. Tall, fast, smart, cannon arm, and he makes few mistakes. In an ideal situation, they would like AB to play well for the next couple of years while A-Mac hones his game. Will it happen like this....I\'m almost sure it won\'t. I believe that if AB plays anything less than spectacular this year, he is gone next year, similar to the Bledsoe/Losman deal in Buffalo. It\'s not all about results on the field. His cap number will be a huge factor in keeping him. He will have to put up career numbers this year. Let me ask the AB supporters this.... How long would you say that the coaching staff should stick with AB before going to McPherson????
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

05-02-2005, 09:39 AM	#19
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? I don\'t think anyone is calling for A-Mac to start day one. I don\'t know of anyone who thinks he\'s ready to start. But I think its exciting to know that best-case, he might be able to start quite a bit sooner than the average rookie, maybe by the end of this season. I don\'t see what the harm is in getting excited about the PROSPECT of this kid eventually becoming a stud. Fair enough. I\'ve got nothing against A-Mac - in fact, after hearing him in recent interviews, I\'m starting to warm up to him - and his arena league stats are undeniably impressive. If he can step in quicker than expected, sounds good to me. What I wouldn\'t give to see a guy actually REACH his potential rather than simply HAVE potential! And there were many many people calling for AB\'s head before anyone even heard of Adrian McPherson. Indeed, I was among those ranks. That\'s old news, and developments since - the draft, free agency - have quieted me for now. But Brooks has seemed a bit thin-skinned in the past, and I worry that when the \"A-Mac\" chants come he may get his feelings hurt again. I want to see Brooks motivated ... not playing like he has an inferiority complex.

05-02-2005, 10:15 AM	#20
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Jake Jake Jake to Adrian Adrian Adrian? Indeed, I was among those ranks. That\'s old news, and developments since - the draft, free agency - have quieted me for now. But Brooks has seemed a bit thin-skinned in the past, and I worry that when the \"A-Mac\" chants come he may get his feelings hurt again. I want to see Brooks motivated ... not playing like he has an inferiority complex. Yeah but the only thing is....this is the NFL, not Pop Warner. In the NFL everyone gets booed when they perform badly. I believe the coddling has stopped. The will to be a superior NFL quarterback should be all that AB needs to be motivated.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591