Oakland expects to start Brooks

[r8erray]

Starting Brooks makes zero sense another reason why this franchise has been going nowhere. We have a young QB we have to let him develop & now we sit him for a proven loser. Man we really got to get rid of Shell & Walsh & get a real HC & a real OC in here so we can get things turned around!

[Raider Ran]

Originally Posted by jimi18

The one thing.... only one.. and it is the ONLY thing about this WHOLE thing that really... really, really, makes me puzzled???


How can.... Brooks be injuired (claim his knee) then fumble two snaps, shows on tv he hurt his finger, then be out for 2-3 weeks cause some other shoulder injury, then it was listed to.. when Aaron can look like a QB i will see, now it is..
I am mad at walter, so Brooks is healthy???

weird **** to me!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo.../injuries.html

[NWTF]

Originally Posted by DarthBubba

.....the majority of whom have just enough intelligence to nod repeatedly, like a drunk at a rock concert to come into this thread and start saying ".......Noooooo, it has nothing to do with Walter's comments, Brooks is getting the 'injury can't lose you your job' exception.......bla bla bla..........."

You and I know this is all about Art Shell's stupid pride, his sheer stupidity, his lack of intelligence period, his lack of motivational power........................................it is about one thing and one thing only......


FACT: Art Shell, is a tremendously proud and arrogant idiot.

WOW. I couldent agree more.

[ShotGunStyle]

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

Well, God knows Aaron Brooks has never thrown a bad ball in his career. In fact, he's quite famous for his accuracy and smart decisions. Good to know the Raiders won't have to worry about errant passes again this season.

Seriously, here's the point that seems to be escaping you: Walter has and will make mistakes. It's to be expected out of a young quarterback starting his first NFL games - particularly one in this disastrous NFL scheme. But Walter also has an upside. He's not at his ceiling. He has room to grow and get better.
None of that is true with Aaron Brooks. He's as good as he'll ever be and, quite honestly, probably much worse. He hasn't had a quality season since 2003 (aka 31 starts ago). He's looked dreadful from the moment he's slipped on a Raiders jersey.

Hey, you want to compare a player's first seven starts? Compare Brooks' and Walter's. In Brooks first seven starts, he had a 441 yard passing game, 108 yard rushing game, and a 4 TD pass playoff game win. How about Walter? Oh, he had one game with a QB rating over 80. Sure, he's had two games with a QB rating under 20 already, something Brooks has never done in his 84 starts, but hey, he's 24 therefor he must be the second coming of every legend that pops in your head.

[trur8r]

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

Hey, you want to compare a player's first seven starts? Compare Brooks' and Walter's. In Brooks first seven starts, he had a 441 yard passing game, 108 yard rushing game, and a 4 TD pass playoff game win. How about Walter? Oh, he had one game with a QB rating over 80. Sure, he's had two games with a QB rating under 20 already, something Brooks has never done in his 84 starts, but hey, he's 24 therefor he must be the second coming of every legend that pops in your head.

You can't compare their first seven starts because Brooks was with a decent team that made the playoffs, he wasn't getting sacked every other play

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by raiderran

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo.../injuries.html

I still believe that Brooks milked that right shoulder injury as to save himself
for next year/free agency ala Randy Moss..

[Jimi18]

Originally Posted by raiderran

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo.../injuries.html

nice find..alot of shoulder injuries.... make you wonder now why he has been nursing this one... he prolly been through it before, and knew his best chance to have it heal is on the bench.?

still curious about the finger on that 2nd snap in the baltimore game....

[Jave]

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

Why do all Walter supporters always feel the need to compare Walter to first overall draft picks such as Palmer, Aikman, Manning, and Plunkett?

No one is comparing Walter to them. We are showing you that statistically, it's been proven that qb's don't just walk into NFL starting jobs and succeed. It has been posted time and time again that if you compare their statistics to Walters, it looks about the same. Their coaching staffs stuck with them and went on to win Superbowls and watch them go to pro bowl after pro bowl.

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

First off, Walter is not a rookie. Stop comparing him to rookies. Second, he's not the first overall pick, or even a first round pick.

How many snaps from center did he take during last year? Zero if I recall correctly. With no experience, he is going to play like a rookie regardless of his actual amount of years in the league.

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

Second, he's not the first overall pick, or even a first round pick. There is no obligation to play him.

Art Shell will be glad to hear this. Sure makes these decisions easier.

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

Third, he has played, he's sucked, and should go back on the bench until he's ready.

He sucks? You know this from his 7 NFL starts?
Untill he is ready? When will that be? If you know, please send an e-mail to Art Shell, that will be usefull information. Players sit on the bench untill they "magically" develop and then run right in to throw for 300 yards and 3 touchdowns. Thats how it works right?

[Jimi18]

^^ NIce post!


Ok... for one, it is the point... meaning of why many are up in arms over this whole scenerio...
do i think Brooks?? or walter gives us the best chance to win??
Hell IDK? from what i seen I have no clue? Brooks should had given us a chance to win the first two, but did'nt, if he plays, lets just hope it is more like a preseason performance, than his last...
BUT.....
what is the point.. "you play to win the games" ???
maybe Walter does need a week or two off, but he needs to start another game this season, or we have NO QB at all.. future or present!!

[LATE HIT!]

If he (Brooks) does start, atleast he can possibly move the chains on pass plays with his legs since our recievers can't catch the damn ball..... And he cannot count on the O-line for time in the pocket anyway... Bottom line is the Offense needs to execute better-it takes all 11 and not just Brooks or Walter.... But none of these are not recipes for success I posted!! LATER

[LATE HIT!]

Originally Posted by r8erray

Starting Brooks makes zero sense another reason why this franchise has been going nowhere. We have a young QB we have to let him develop & now we sit him for a proven loser. Man we really got to get rid of Shell & Walsh & get a real HC & a real OC in here so we can get things turned around!

After the season some changes will be made most likely..
Just a GUT feeling..

[OWShaddock]

Originally Posted by ShotGunStyle

Hey, you want to compare a player's first seven starts? Compare Brooks' and Walter's. In Brooks first seven starts, he had a 441 yard passing game, 108 yard rushing game, and a 4 TD pass playoff game win.

Sure, because what Aaron Brooks did on a playoff team in 2000 (a team that, by the way, had a better record without Brooks as starter than with him) is so analagous to what Andrew Walter is doing in 2006 with this team. Quite on point, indeed. Except for the fact Walter doesn't have Joe Horn, Willie Roaf, Ricky Williams or a legitimate NFL offensive coordinator (Brooks had current Packers coach Mike McCarthy), the situations are nearly identical.

I've got a better idea ... let's compare Brooks' last seven starts to Walter's first seven. Of course, even then it's not a great comparison since we're talking 30-year-old veteran vs. a 24-year-old first-time starter, but what the heck?

Aaron Brooks
111-for-193 (58 percent complete)
1,192 yards
7 TDs
7 INTs
4 fumbles lost
1-6 record

Andrew Walter
92-for-184 (50 percent complete)
1,115 yards
3 TDs
6 INTs
3 fumbles lost
2-5 record

Boy, I can see now why you so badly want Brooks to start. What a difference!
Are Brooks numbers a little better? Sure. But just a little, which is hardly surprising when you talk about a veteran of 80+ starts versus a veteran of zero starts.

How about Walter? Oh, he had one game with a QB rating over 80. Sure, he's had two games with a QB rating under 20 already, something Brooks has never done in his 84 starts,

I'll assume that you, for convenience sake, are pretending that 0.0 rating he posted in week two doesn't count.

but hey, he's 24 therefor he must be the second coming of every legend that pops in your head.

But hey, that's called a straw man. Congrats on its proper use.

[Hawaiian Raider]

Brooks started every game for 4 straight seasons for the Saints, and it would have been 5 if he hadn't been benched the last 3 games of last season - the Saints "Katrina" season in which the whole team stunk it up.

During his 4 year stretch, Brooks had nearly 15K yards and 98 TDs.

I'm not a big Brooks fan so, it's hard to advocate for him but, I want to win. I don't believe in all this "rebuilding" crap. Every team in the NFL wants to win now, and most wheel-n-deal to make that happen. The Raiders lead the way.

Our defense is quite young but, it's not like they got a 5-year run in them. Sapp and Burgess will be gone before we know it. So, as far as the rebuilding goes, either it's built or, it's coming apart.

Our offense on the otherhand, either it's built or, it's coming apart because, besides Andrew there's really no "new" parts in the offense. Lamont has a lot of years in terms of a RB. He's kind of new with us and really hadn't been used that much as a Jet still, the body don't lie. Gallery and Grove will be entering their 4th season next year. In any other trade, they'd be considered "journeyman" - experienced. Our big-time receivers will more than likely be gone next season so, it's now or never with these guys. I wouldn't count on every draft pick we had this season to end up being all-pros, most guys in every draft aren't.

In the end, I don't care who starts - I just want to win. But, I don't think there's any waiting "until we rebuild". Each and every season starts new, and either you're ready or you're not.

[trur8r]

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

Sure, because what Aaron Brooks did on a playoff team in 2000 (a team that, by the way, had a better record without Brooks as starter than with him) is so analagous to what Andrew Walter is doing in 2006 with this team. Quite on point, indeed. Except for the fact Walter doesn't have Joe Horn, Willie Roaf, Ricky Williams or a legitimate NFL offensive coordinator (Brooks had current Packers coach Mike McCarthy), the situations are nearly identical.

I've got a better idea ... let's compare Brooks' last seven starts to Walter's first seven. Of course, even then it's not a great comparison since we're talking 30-year-old veteran vs. a 24-year-old first-time starter, but what the heck?

Aaron Brooks
111-for-193 (58 percent complete)
1,192 yards
7 TDs
7 INTs
4 fumbles lost
1-6 record

Andrew Walter
92-for-184 (50 percent complete)
1,115 yards
3 TDs
6 INTs
3 fumbles lost
2-5 record

Boy, I can see now why you so badly want Brooks to start. What a difference!
Are Brooks numbers a little better? Sure. But just a little, which is hardly surprising when you talk about a veteran of 80+ starts versus a veteran of zero starts.



I'll assume that you, for convenience sake, are pretending that 0.0 rating he posted in week two doesn't count.



But hey, that's called a straw man. Congrats on its proper use.

Excellent Post