Brooks

saintswhodi · 07-04-2005, 11:29 AM

If your answer is a flat "no", then I ask what was going on in those four games? If the answer is a "qualified no", then I can see where you might be coming from and I am interested in hearing the qualifications

.

Um, the answer is a flat no. Did anyone else see who we played the last 4 games? Did anyoen see New England, San Diego, Indy, Philly, ANYONE DECENT? HELL NO. Sorry, but you can't win anything with a QB who loses just as many games as he wins, or takes 3 quarters before he decides to show up against bad teams. We all saw what happened when we played the AFC West, outside of the Raiders. The backwards pass against San D. and Denver LB pass. Brooks sucked the vast majority of the 4 game winning streak, but the teams we played sucked worse. IS it really exciting to beat Dallas who picked 11th, Tampa Bay who picked 5th, Atlanta's back-ups, and Carolina with 14 starters on IR? Damn, color me impressed. We played NO WINNING TEAMS at the end of the year.

Top 20 in the NFL is still a good QB (consider that each team has three QBs and most teams have a QB on the practice squad) - that is still an elite group. Either way, as SFIAH points out, it was a conservative estimate.

Is this a good thing? Practice squad players and 3rd stringers usually don't play no? I am having a hard time seeing the relevance of bringing them into the convo. Brooks is in the bottom 50% in STARTERS going by passer rating, you know the QBs who actually effect games? That's poo with the offense he has around him. Just by watching games you can pick at least 15 QBs that you would flat out take before Brooks, and maybe another 5 or so who you can go either way on.

07-04-2005, 11:29 AM	#11
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	If your answer is a flat "no", then I ask what was going on in those four games? If the answer is a "qualified no", then I can see where you might be coming from and I am interested in hearing the qualifications . Um, the answer is a flat no. Did anyone else see who we played the last 4 games? Did anyoen see New England, San Diego, Indy, Philly, ANYONE DECENT? HELL NO. Sorry, but you can't win anything with a QB who loses just as many games as he wins, or takes 3 quarters before he decides to show up against bad teams. We all saw what happened when we played the AFC West, outside of the Raiders. The backwards pass against San D. and Denver LB pass. Brooks sucked the vast majority of the 4 game winning streak, but the teams we played sucked worse. IS it really exciting to beat Dallas who picked 11th, Tampa Bay who picked 5th, Atlanta's back-ups, and Carolina with 14 starters on IR? Damn, color me impressed. We played NO WINNING TEAMS at the end of the year. Top 20 in the NFL is still a good QB (consider that each team has three QBs and most teams have a QB on the practice squad) - that is still an elite group. Either way, as SFIAH points out, it was a conservative estimate. Is this a good thing? Practice squad players and 3rd stringers usually don't play no? I am having a hard time seeing the relevance of bringing them into the convo. Brooks is in the bottom 50% in STARTERS going by passer rating, you know the QBs who actually effect games? That's poo with the offense he has around him. Just by watching games you can pick at least 15 QBs that you would flat out take before Brooks, and maybe another 5 or so who you can go either way on.