Brooks Works Out For The Skins?!

That's great jsarno but why would Culpepper even think twice about signing with a team that's already committed to a 3rd year QB?

I would think he'll want to go somewhere where he'll have a realistic shot at playing. He's not ready to become a career backup just yet.

Well, if you read my post just under your last one, I do think we are set with our QB's...I just know that Culpepper will be back on top, and would hate for us to miss out on that.
Brooks is nothing. I'd rather have Palmer.

Plus, this is the first season in a while that everything is set in stone. No new player coming in (no I don't count a 4th stringer), no one fighting for a job. JC is the guy, Brunell is the back up. There is consistancy here, and I like it. We needed that. I think that bodes well for JC.

In regards to the offense, I am still a bit uneasy about the effect Doc's departure will have on the running game. But that's for a different thread.

Because I feel Culpepper still has something in the tank to show us, Brooks doesn't. Culpepper was taken out of the lineup the last 2 years (1 in Minnesota 1 in Miami) because of significant injury, Brooks...well Brooks was taken out cause he sucked. Also, why was brooks left out for Andrew Walter???? That speaks volumes.
Culpepper is a 3 time pro bowler, Brooks 0. I don't normally use pro bowl appearances as evidence that one is better than the other, but these are both QB's that played in the same era and the same conference. Culpepper has had one of the greatest QB season of all time, and it happened to be the season before he busted up his knee. Culpepper came back too early and hurt his legacy...but he'll be back.
ps- comp % is usually a good indication of a productive QB, Brooks career 56.5%, his highest in a season 59.1%...Culpepper's career 64.2%, highest season 69.2%. Culpepper's LOWEST season 60.4% which is 1.3% higher than Brook's best mark.

Actually Brooks was taken out because he was hurt. Then we clashed with the coaching staff. What QB in your opinion would have played well in Oak last year? Not even Peyton Manning could have done well. So I'm not sure why NFL guys are judging Brooks on that. I would judge him on what he did when he had a good supporting cast. I'm not saying to have him be our starter. But jeez the guy has real good numbers, has a great arm, he can scramble and has NFL starting exerience. I knowt he blows Todd Collins away as far as talent goes. But I guess knowing an NFL system keeps you employed for several years. If that's the case someone steal this 700 page playbook and I'm going to study the living hell out of it.

In Minn. before DC got hurt he was downright dreadful. He got hurt well after he was playing very poorly. Then he played last year and was awful too. Was it the injury? It probably had something to do with it. But he also was missing guys and had a ton of fumbles. So that has nothing to do with it. I think the injury hurts his scrambling ability but probably not his throwing and def not his decision making.

I like Culpepper and he did have a great season. And he probably is not quite done yet if his knee heels. But it seems to me if his knee is a problem he should get his weight down cause he looks real heavy in the video ESPN shows when he was at Miami. But I am starting to wonder how many QB's could have done what he did if they had Moss and Carter in their prime.

Actually Brooks was taken out because he was hurt. Then we clashed with the coaching staff. What QB in your opinion would have played well in Oak last year? Not even Peyton Manning could have done well. So I'm not sure why NFL guys are judging Brooks on that. I would judge him on what he did when he had a good supporting cast. I'm not saying to have him be our starter. But jeez the guy has real good numbers, has a great arm, he can scramble and has NFL starting exerience.

Look at his numbers. I posted a link to his stats earlier. 20 INTs and a dozen fumbles (consistently) is not "real good". He had ONE somewhat good year in 2003...the rest were ugly.

Look at his numbers. I posted a link to his stats earlier. 20 INTs and a dozen fumbles (consistently) is not "real good". He had ONE somewhat good year in 2003...the rest were ugly.

Yes but what you failed to mention is he had 26 td's during the one year when he had 20+ ints.

The fumbles are somthing I would not worry about. That can be corrected.

Yes but what you failed to mention is he had 26 td's during the one year when he had 20+ ints.

The fumbles are somthing I would not worry about. That can be corrected.


Ok, so he threw 4 more TDs than he potentially gave the other team. :benched:

Brunell goes 23/10 and we want to bench him, yet we want a guy who goes 26/22 AND gets benched on the Raiders in his career? OK...makes sense.

Fumbles can be corrected for RBs, but not typically with QBs. Ask Dave Krieg.

Are we really having a 4 page discussion on Aaron Brooks?

:doh:

Friday can't come soon enough.

Are we really having a 4 page discussion on Aaron Brooks?

:doh:

Friday can't come soon enough.

No, different groups of people are having many smaller conversations about Aaron Brooks. If you were to take out most of the repeats, and of course all of us flat out dumb member posts, you would find about 5 credible replies.

No, different groups of people are having many smaller conversations about Aaron Brooks. If you were to take out most of the repeats, and of course all of us flat out dumb member posts, you would find about 5 credible replies.

LOL ok, just checking.

I was worried for a second.

Brunell is the best back up we can ask for.