Oakland expects to start Brooks

[neverlooking]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

This sucks, I think Brooks gives us a better chance to win now, but who cares it's the difference between 2 and 5 wins. I would rather see what we have with Walter, if nothing else groom him for a back up and put yourself in the position to get Brady Quinn. I am definitely not with Art on this one.

I'd say 5 wins with this OL is 12 wins next year and the division. I'd take that.

[neverlooking]

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

Add to the list of talented quarterbacks the Raiders failed to develop properly:

- Todd Marinovich (24th overall, 1991)
- Billy Joe Hobert (58th overall, 1993)
- Steve Beurlein (4th round, 1987)
- Marc Wilson (15th overall, 1980)

Looks like Andrew Walter will soon join their company.

If Beurlein had just been more patient and kept his mouth shut, he'd have gotten his chance with the Raiders and he would have been good for us.
Sort of reminds me of the Fox situation.

[neverlooking]

Originally Posted by Raiders18

Or how about we compare both there first 7 starts in the NFL. To say anything but Brooks is better than Walter at this point is stupid.

Brooks
113-194
58.2%
1,515 yards passing, 170 rush
9TD's also 2 rushing
6INT's
1 fumbles lost
4-4 record. One of those wins was a playoff win over the defending superbowl champs the St. Lois Rams.
During his first seven starts He became the first NFL quarterback to have a 400-yard passing effort and a 100-yard rushing game in the same season and only the sixth player to have both in a career.

O yeah and Walter is:
104-216
48.1%
1,305 yards
3TD's
9INT's
7 fumbles lost
2-5 record in which the defence won the pittsburgh game by itself.

You can say what ever you want about how Brooks was on a playoff team but don't be acting liek Walter is good. So far even on the plays he has had time to throw he hasnt shown much at all, If anything.

Not fair comparing rookies with rookies. Makes too much sense ;)

[socalraider420]

art shell isn't too smart thats all I have to say about this stink up!!

[Raiders18]

Originally Posted by neverlooking

Not fair comparing rookies with rookies. Makes too much sense ;)

Yeah i know it's crazy lol. Its stupid to say well John Elway and Troy Aikman turned out great because not every QB turns it around after a terrible rookie season.

[Gotta Love Al]

I think Art is hoping the offense does well with Brooks to get him and Waffle man out of hot water. If it does well, more blame is on Walter. if it sucks, then the blame is with Walsh, Shell and O line.

I have to say, Art seems to want to blame people for Waffle Man's shortcomings and has no patience when people speak out. I think that will be his undoing at the end of the day.

[OWShaddock]

Originally Posted by neverlooking

Not fair comparing rookies with rookies. Makes too much sense ;)

Actually, it's not fair comparing Brooks' situation in 2000 with Walter's situation now. Anyone remotely objective would see that.

Brooks took over a team that had just won six in a row and was on its way to the playoffs before he became the starter. Walter took over a team that was 0-2 and going nowhere fast.

Brooks took over a team that was averaging 20.5 points per game before he became starter. Walter took over a team that hadn't scored yet.

Brooks had for his offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy (now an NFL head coach who has greatly improved the Packers' offense). Walter has Tom Walsh. 'Nuff said.

Brooks had Ricky Williams. Walter has LaMont Jordan.

Brooks had Joe Horn. Walter has Butterfingers Moss.

Brooks had Andrew Glover. Walter has Courtney Anderson.

Brooks had Willie Roaf, Jerry Fontenot, Chris Naeole and Kyle Turley up front. Walter has Robert Gallery, Jake Grove, Langston Walker and Kevin Boothe.

Brooks took over a team allowing 2.5 sacks per game. Walter took over a team that allowed 9 in its first game.

But I suppose other than those minor details you choose to ignore, the comparison is dead on accurate.

[Jave]

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

Brooks had Willie Roaf, Jerry Fontenot, Chris Naeole and Kyle Turley up front. Walter has Robert Gallery, Jake Grove, Langston Walker and Kevin Boothe.

Brooks took over a team allowing 2.5 sacks per game. Walter took over a team that allowed 9 in its first game.

That is a SICK O-line. I forgot about that!

[Canadian Raider]

This is stupid. Brooks in not the answer QB.,. He is barely a decent QB. Sure his athletisism may prevent him from being killed in this high school offense, but the Raiders need to look to the future.

Give Walter the reps.. for better or worse.

Its interesting how Shell preaches all this "loyalty" and keeps Walsh in place when EVERYONE is seeing the offense as a major issue, but Walter gets benched (possibly) after taking seven games of brutal punishment for the team.

Rediculus.

[Raiders18]

Originally Posted by Canadian Raider

This is stupid. Brooks in not the answer QB.,. He is barely a decent QB. Sure his athletisism may prevent him from being killed in this high school offense, but the Raiders need to look to the future.

Give Walter the reps.. for better or worse.

Its interesting how Shell preaches all this "loyalty" and keeps Walsh in place when EVERYONE is seeing the offense as a major issue, but Walter gets benched (possibly) after taking seven games of brutal punishment for the team.

Rediculus.

Ok but why can't Brooks get a shot to prove he could be our QB for the next couple of years? Because he's 30 or you don't like him. He's thrown 14 pass' hardly enough to judge someone yet in a raider uni.

[Jave]

Originally Posted by Raiders18

Ok but why can't Brooks get a shot to prove he could be our QB for the next couple of years? Because he's 30 or you don't like him. He's thrown 14 pass' hardly enough to judge someone yet in a raider uni.

http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/2006-archives/87081-just-observation.html

People continue to answer your question, and you continue to ask it. We know you support Brooks, thats fine. Just realize, you already know what you are getting in Brooks and in your opinion that is fine. Saints fans are laughing their asses off right now.

[Raiders18]

Originally Posted by Jave

http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/showthread.php?t=87081

People continue to answer your question, and you continue to ask it. We know you support Brooks, thats fine. Just realize, you already know what you are getting in Brooks and in your opinion that is fine. Saints fans are laughing their asses off right now.

No one answere the questions i ask back to me. Most of it is just there opinions. But i know what Brooks does bring and i can see you are a Walter supporter to we wont come to an agreement on this one. If Brooks does horrible in his return then im all for Walter coming back i just want the best QB in. And we won't know who unless they both get a shot.

[d-mac37]

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

Actually, it's not fair comparing Brooks' situation in 2000 with Walter's situation now. Anyone remotely objective would see that.

Brooks took over a team that had just won six in a row and was on its way to the playoffs before he became the starter. Walter took over a team that was 0-2 and going nowhere fast.

Brooks took over a team that was averaging 20.5 points per game before he became starter. Walter took over a team that hadn't scored yet.

Brooks had for his offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy (now an NFL head coach who has greatly improved the Packers' offense). Walter has Tom Walsh. 'Nuff said.

Brooks had Ricky Williams. Walter has LaMont Jordan.

Brooks had Joe Horn. Walter has Butterfingers Moss.

Brooks had Andrew Glover. Walter has Courtney Anderson.

Brooks had Willie Roaf, Jerry Fontenot, Chris Naeole and Kyle Turley up front. Walter has Robert Gallery, Jake Grove, Langston Walker and Kevin Boothe.

Brooks took over a team allowing 2.5 sacks per game. Walter took over a team that allowed 9 in its first game.

But I suppose other than those minor details you choose to ignore, the comparison is dead on accurate.

How dare you analyse the statistical results with factual comparisons

[CHAMPION316]

Originally Posted by trur8r

Gee what a surprise, it should come to no shock to anyone that Walter's comments had a lot to do with this decision, hey Shell great Job on planning for the future now it's going to be harder to even evaluate if Walter is the future, once again great job Shell you always do the right thing(sarcasm)

very true you know i dont care about shell no more he lost my respect 100%

[NationVader]

Originally Posted by trur8r

Gee what a surprise, it should come to no shock to anyone that Walter's comments had a lot to do with this decision, hey Shell great Job on planning for the future now it's going to be harder to even evaluate if Walter is the future, once again great job Shell you always do the right thing(sarcasm)

Are you kidding me? Open your eyes!!!! Walter's play got him the bench not his words. I cannot believe some of you people.