What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Aaron Brooks out 2-4 weeks (1 Viewer)

Texican

Texican

Footballguy
(KFFL) ESPNews reports Oakland Raiders QB Aaron Brooks (pectoral) will be out for the next 2-4 weeks with a strained pectoral muscle.

 
I think this is good for the Raiders. They get to have a serious look at Andrew Walter. Walter looked pretty good when he came in to replace Brooks. He made some mistakes, but was seen talking to Randy Moss on the sideline after each turnover. Randy likes the guy as their QB, so I see some extra effort there. The problem with the Raiders right now is there's no time to throw. The offensive line stinks. Walter seemed to get the ball out quicker than Brooks, so this should help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its an OL problem, but also a serious scheme problem ... you have to run plays to keep the D from pinning its ears back ...

 
Let Walter finish the year and to determine whether they need to draft Quinn or not. Get rid of Moss & Porter in the offseason.

 
Brooks as my QB2 blew up in my face.

Now I'm looking at swapping him out for Grossman or Brad Johnson.

Too bad Brooks never got a chance to get going with Moss on deep balls. They could have been a good combo in another situation.

 
The #1 problem with the 2006 Raiders is OFFENSIVE SCHEME.

They are trying to run a 1967 variant of the Air Coryell with 85% 7-step drops and a VERY POOR Oline. It doesn't matter who plays QB until they fast forward about 30 years in offensive philosophy.

Art Shell and Tom Walsh are a complete joke and so are the Raiders as long as these two are in control of the offense.

As of right now, ALL Raider players are being put in a position to fail. Walter could be a future HOFer on another team, but will look bad on the Raiders this year.

 
How about some designed rollouts, shotgun formations, draw plays, screens, etc? This is as bad as I've ever seen an offense look in the NFL. There were no adjustments from Week 1 made in Week 2. How embarrassing

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter what QB is behind that line. You have to believe this is good news, however, because Brooks is obviously not the answer at QB.

 
At least Brooks has produced as a fantasy QB before. What makes Walter's performance yesterday better than Brooks' performance in week 1?

On 24 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Brooks produced 95 yards, 0 turnovers, 0 points, and was sacked 7 times.

On 46 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Walter produced 198 yards, 5 turnovers (2 fumbles, 3 interceptions), 6 points (2 FGs), and was sacked 8 times.

Yes, Walter led Oakland to two FGs. But one of them came after an 8 play, 8 yard drive following a McNair interception. So I hardly think that is a discriminator.

Walter's yardage per play is about the same. He is sacked a bit less often. He produced one good drive for a FG. But he has 5 turnovers to none for Brooks.

Given the real possibility that Walter flops, Brooks might be a decent guy to stash on the bench in deep leagues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally like the idea of getting to see AWalter for a small period of time.

He gets 2 weeks of getting all the 1st string snaps, the coaches have 2 weeks to get their heads out of their ###, the OLine has 2 weeks to work out their issues (while they will never be a great line, hopefully they won't be the worst) and Walter will face Clevland and SF in his first 2 starts.

Its time for the Walter era to begin. Of course it may end week 17, only 15 weeks after it starts but it will be better then the Brooks era... :rip:

 
Just Win Baby said:
At least Brooks has produced as a fantasy QB before. What makes Walter's performance yesterday better than Brooks' performance in week 1?On 24 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Brooks produced 95 yards, 0 turnovers, 0 points, and was sacked 7 times.On 46 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Walter produced 198 yards, 5 turnovers (2 fumbles, 3 interceptions), 6 points (2 FGs), and was sacked 8 times.Yes, Walter led Oakland to two FGs. But one of them came after an 8 play, 8 yard drive following a McNair interception. So I hardly think that is a discriminator.Walter's yardage per play is about the same. He is sacked a bit less often. He produced one good drive for a FG. But he has 5 turnovers to none for Brooks.Given the real possibility that Walter flops, Brooks might be a decent guy to stash on the bench in deep leagues.
Click to expand...
Walter had 3 fumbles but only 1 was lost. Therefore it was 4 turnovers. Doesn't change analysis much. Just FYI.Also..what Walter did was coming off the bench without having a full week of practice as the #1. I'd like to see what he can do with a full week of preparing for the start.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Also..what Walter did was coming off the bench without having a full week of practice as the #1. I'd like to see what he can do with a full week of preparing for the start.
Click to expand...
He'll do what he always has done in important games: suck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usual Suspect said:
Just Win Baby said:
At least Brooks has produced as a fantasy QB before. What makes Walter's performance yesterday better than Brooks' performance in week 1?On 24 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Brooks produced 95 yards, 0 turnovers, 0 points, and was sacked 7 times.On 46 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Walter produced 198 yards, 5 turnovers (2 fumbles, 3 interceptions), 6 points (2 FGs), and was sacked 8 times.Yes, Walter led Oakland to two FGs. But one of them came after an 8 play, 8 yard drive following a McNair interception. So I hardly think that is a discriminator.Walter's yardage per play is about the same. He is sacked a bit less often. He produced one good drive for a FG. But he has 5 turnovers to none for Brooks.Given the real possibility that Walter flops, Brooks might be a decent guy to stash on the bench in deep leagues.
Click to expand...
Walter had 3 fumbles but only 1 was lost. Therefore it was 4 turnovers. Doesn't change analysis much. Just FYI.Also..what Walter did was coming off the bench without having a full week of practice as the #1. I'd like to see what he can do with a full week of preparing for the start.
Click to expand...
So you're going to compare Brooks' two games against the Chargers' and Ravens' defenses against Walter's two games against the Browns' and 49ers defenses and come to the conclusion that Walter is better...Have another one... :banned:
 
I remember when Collins was benched for Tui for a game last year and everyone thought it was great news for Randy Moss. And then Tui had a stinker vs the Jets and Collins was quickly put back in.

 
elshagon said:
I think this is good for the Raiders. They get to have a serious look at Andrew Walter. Walter looked pretty good when he came in to replace Brooks. He made some mistakes, but was seen talking to Randy Moss on the sideline after each turnover. Randy likes the guy as their QB, so I see some extra effort there. The problem with the Raiders right now is there's no time to throw. The offensive line stinks. Walter seemed to get the ball out quicker than Brooks, so this should help.
Click to expand...
Dude Walter had 3 fumbles (I know only lost 1) and 3 interceptions. Plus he throws rainbows like Chad Pennington, he did not look good at all! Did you watch the game? Yes he completed some balls, but wow there was no rhythm, he blows!
 
kncks12 said:
elshagon said:
I think this is good for the Raiders. They get to have a serious look at Andrew Walter. Walter looked pretty good when he came in to replace Brooks. He made some mistakes, but was seen talking to Randy Moss on the sideline after each turnover. Randy likes the guy as their QB, so I see some extra effort there. The problem with the Raiders right now is there's no time to throw. The offensive line stinks. Walter seemed to get the ball out quicker than Brooks, so this should help.
Click to expand...
Dude Walter had 3 fumbles (I know only lost 1) and 3 interceptions. Plus he throws rainbows like Chad Pennington, he did not look good at all! Did you watch the game? Yes he completed some balls, but wow there was no rhythm, he blows!
Click to expand...
Walter's arm > Pennington's arm
 
They have two problems OL and QB .

Walter wont get the work done .

1) is nt ready to play in the NFL.

2) Will never be rady to play in the NFL.

Wow they are in trouble , they have no QB of the future on the roster .

There no decent available QB out there, they will need to survive this season and try to strike a deal to get a QB for next season.

 
Traders2001 said:
They have two problems OL and QB .Walter wont get the work done .1) is nt ready to play in the NFL.2) Will never be rady to play in the NFL.Wow they are in trouble , they have no QB of the future on the roster .There no decent available QB out there, they will need to survive this season and try to strike a deal to get a QB for next season.
Click to expand...
On what basis are you making this statement? Walter hasn't even started one full game in the NFL.
 
pnewtonjr said:
Usual Suspect said:
Just Win Baby said:
At least Brooks has produced as a fantasy QB before. What makes Walter's performance yesterday better than Brooks' performance in week 1?On 24 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Brooks produced 95 yards, 0 turnovers, 0 points, and was sacked 7 times.On 46 plays (pass attempts, runs, sacks), Walter produced 198 yards, 5 turnovers (2 fumbles, 3 interceptions), 6 points (2 FGs), and was sacked 8 times.Yes, Walter led Oakland to two FGs. But one of them came after an 8 play, 8 yard drive following a McNair interception. So I hardly think that is a discriminator.Walter's yardage per play is about the same. He is sacked a bit less often. He produced one good drive for a FG. But he has 5 turnovers to none for Brooks.Given the real possibility that Walter flops, Brooks might be a decent guy to stash on the bench in deep leagues.
Click to expand...
Walter had 3 fumbles but only 1 was lost. Therefore it was 4 turnovers. Doesn't change analysis much. Just FYI.Also..what Walter did was coming off the bench without having a full week of practice as the #1. I'd like to see what he can do with a full week of preparing for the start.
Click to expand...
So you're going to compare Brooks' two games against the Chargers' and Ravens' defenses against Walter's two games against the Browns' and 49ers defenses and come to the conclusion that Walter is better...Have another one... :banned:
Click to expand...
Ummmm...no. But momentum is a big thing in NFL. He gets 2 solid starts against those teams and then continues on against Den the following week...etc. etc.. The jury is still out on Walter and it will be nice to see what he can do. In a start 2 QB league..I'm definetly watching this one. I'm also happy I didn't waste a 6th round pick on Brooks. That I will :banned: to. Fact: Raiders aren't even sniffing the playoffs this year.Fact: We don't know what the Raiders have in Walter.Conclusion: Why not see what the kid can do. Can he be better then Brooks. Yes. Can he be worse. Yep. Lets find out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are hurting at DEF you could try a new DTBC philosophy for the next few weeks, I call OAKvDTBC:

Week 4 vs CLE

Week 5 vs SF

 
Usual Suspect said:
Fact: Raiders aren't even sniffing the playoffs this year.Fact: We don't know what the Raiders have in Walter.Conclusion: Why not see what the kid can do. Can he be better then Brooks. Yes. Can he be worse. Yep. Lets find out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the Raiders don't know what they have in Walter? They looked at him in practice all year last year, and decided to bring in Brooks instead of turn it over to him. You think three fumbles and three INTs earns you more of a "look"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
Usual Suspect said:
Fact: Raiders aren't even sniffing the playoffs this year.

Fact: We don't know what the Raiders have in Walter.

Conclusion: Why not see what the kid can do. Can he be better then Brooks. Yes. Can he be worse. Yep. Lets find out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the Raiders don't know what they have in Walter? They looked at him in practice all year last year, and decided to bring in Brooks instead of turn it over to him. You think three fumbles and three INTs earns you more of a "look"?
Click to expand...
Why does ABrooks get the benefit of the doubt when you talk about comparing his starts against Balt and SD but AWalter doesn't get any when talking about his games against the same teams?Don't forget...ABrooks had 0 pass attempts and 2 fumbles (both lost) in the Balt game before Walter came in.

When did Walter come back from his injury last year? Did they really get a good look at him ALL last year? And how good of a look can you get in practice against what type of Def. That comment doesn't make sense to me. Maybe a better look would be the 2 preseason he played in. What were his stats in the 2 preseasons he played in?

I'm not saying Walter is the second coming. I'd just rather see what he can do then continue seeing what ABrooks can't do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usual Suspect said:
CalBear said:
Usual Suspect said:
Fact: Raiders aren't even sniffing the playoffs this year.

Fact: We don't know what the Raiders have in Walter.

Conclusion: Why not see what the kid can do. Can he be better then Brooks. Yes. Can he be worse. Yep. Lets find out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the Raiders don't know what they have in Walter? They looked at him in practice all year last year, and decided to bring in Brooks instead of turn it over to him. You think three fumbles and three INTs earns you more of a "look"?
Click to expand...
Why does ABrooks get the benefit of the doubt when you talk about comparing his starts against Balt and SD but AWalter doesn't get any when talking about his games against the same teams?Don't forget...ABrooks had 0 pass attempts and 2 fumbles (both lost) in the Balt game before Walter came in.

When did Walter come back from his injury last year? Did they really get a good look at him ALL last year? And how good of a look can you get in practice against what type of Def. That comment doesn't make sense to me. Maybe a better look would be the 2 preseason he played in. What were his stats in the 2 preseasons he played in?

I'm not saying Walter is the second coming. I'd just rather see what he can do then continue seeing what ABrooks can't do.
Click to expand...
You're not the coaching staff. The coaching staff has been looking at Walter for over a year now, and last year they put in Tuiasosopo instead of Walter, and this year they brought in Brooks instead of giving the ball to Walter. If they're smart, the coaching staff really doesn't care what you as a fan would like to see.Edit to add: I'm not saying Brooks is good, just that Walter is not any kind of answer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This season is Art Shell's retribution for his first firing. The dude brought in an Offensive Coordinator that is about as offensive as they get.

How can ANY QB even complete a pass, much less score a TD with an offensive line and scheme that seems intent on setting the record for injuries to QB's in one season?

They are already on track for the most sacks in a single season.

 
I have no news to make me think this is true, but hear me out. Do you think Tenn starts to rethink trading Volek to SD (if the rumors are true) to try and get a better deal out of OAK? I don't know if this would make sense for OAK, but I was just thinking.

:popcorn:

 
CalBear said:
Usual Suspect said:
CalBear said:
Usual Suspect said:
Fact: Raiders aren't even sniffing the playoffs this year.

Fact: We don't know what the Raiders have in Walter.

Conclusion: Why not see what the kid can do. Can he be better then Brooks. Yes. Can he be worse. Yep. Lets find out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the Raiders don't know what they have in Walter? They looked at him in practice all year last year, and decided to bring in Brooks instead of turn it over to him. You think three fumbles and three INTs earns you more of a "look"?
Click to expand...
Why does ABrooks get the benefit of the doubt when you talk about comparing his starts against Balt and SD but AWalter doesn't get any when talking about his games against the same teams?Don't forget...ABrooks had 0 pass attempts and 2 fumbles (both lost) in the Balt game before Walter came in.

When did Walter come back from his injury last year? Did they really get a good look at him ALL last year? And how good of a look can you get in practice against what type of Def. That comment doesn't make sense to me. Maybe a better look would be the 2 preseason he played in. What were his stats in the 2 preseasons he played in?

I'm not saying Walter is the second coming. I'd just rather see what he can do then continue seeing what ABrooks can't do.
Click to expand...
You're not the coaching staff. The coaching staff has been looking at Walter for over a year now, and last year they put in Tuiasosopo instead of Walter, and this year they brought in Brooks instead of giving the ball to Walter. If they're smart, the coaching staff really doesn't care what you as a fan would like to see.Edit to add: I'm not saying Brooks is good, just that Walter is not any kind of answer.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily put my faith in this coaching staff to make the right decision on just about anything. Plus Walter clearly wasn't ready last season, he's a raw prospect. He's probably still not ready, but what's the alternative?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

starks
Deep Dynasty Stashes 2025
2 3
Replies
103
Views
26K
King of the Jungle
King of the Jungle
Hartliner
2024 Trade Deadline
2 3
Replies
136
Views
9K
BLOCKED_PUNT
BLOCKED_PUNT
T
Travdogg's positional rankings from week 11 onward
Replies
27
Views
2K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top