If Brooks can throw for 3800 yards and 27 TD in NO (1 Viewer)

[ShotGunStyle]

Why can't he throw for 4000 and 30 TDs in Oakland? In 2001 Brooks had over 4100 total yards, and 2002 he had 29 total TDs. He averages 4000 total yards and 26 TDs per 16 starts. He was a top eight fantasy QB four years in a row with one bad year following a hurricane and no home games. Now he's in a perfect fantasy situation in Oakland and yet some people still have him ranked behind guys like Leftwich and Brees.

At worst, he puts together a season similar to what he did from 2001-2004.

At best, he has a career year, which means over 4000 total yards and 30 plus TDs.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison. You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do. Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders.

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did. But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

 

[joffer]

At worst, he puts together a season similar to what he did from 2001-2004.

although i agree Brooks is underrated right now, i see the worst case as much worst than that.

 

[ShotGunStyle]

The situation in Oakland, at least offensively, is better than it ever was in New Orleans. Kerry Collins was never a big TD producer, he only had one season with more than 20 TDs in his eight seasons before going to Oakland. Then, in Oakland, he has back to back 20 TD seasons. Oakland may not have won with Collins, and may not win with Brooks, but either way the QB production should be huge.

 

[David Yudkin]

Oakland may not have won with Collins, and may not win with Brooks.

Herein lies the potential downfall in Brooks. If he doesn't win, he may not continue to start. That's the downside that apparently has not ever entered in the equation. Davis seems to like Walters, and while we all think Brooks will be the 16-game starter, Brooks could conceivable not be the start at some point. If you believe what the team is saying, they are calling it an open competition at QB.

 

[diesel7982]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison. You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do. Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders.

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did. But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

When the entire coaching staff changes, you can pretty much throw out what happened the year previous.

 

[LHUCKS]

At worst, he puts together a season similar to what he did from 2001-2004.

i see the worst case as much worst than that.

As do I.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

I'm with you....but shhhhhh

I'm targetting Brooks in the 9th rd. Major value.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison.  You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do.  Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders. 

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did.  But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

When the entire coaching staff changes, you can pretty much throw out what happened the year previous.

IMO, it's still the place to start but the uncertainty factor goes way up. If a team was composed a certain way and a new regime comes in, unless they clean house of players too, there will be limitations as to what the new staff will be able to do.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison.  You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do.  Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders. 

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did.  But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

When the entire coaching staff changes, you can pretty much throw out what happened the year previous.

IMO, it's still the place to start but the uncertainty factor goes way up. If a team was composed a certain way and a new regime comes in, unless they clean house of players too, there will be limitations as to what the new staff will be able to do.

I agree there is some uncertainty w/ the coaching change. But, talent wise I'm not sure there is a whole lot of guys in better situations right now.

 

[ShotGunStyle]

I find it hard to believe a guy putting up Pro Bowl type numbers, like Brooks did at times from 2001-2003, he'd lose his job because the rest of the team is underachieveing. Like I said, Brooks averages over 4000 total yards and 26 total TDs per 16 starts. If he has a career year, like he should, he won't be benched, even if the team as a whole is mediocre.

You guys say you can't use TDs with previous teams to translate TDs with other teams. Sure you can. Was it crazy to think Jake Plummer would improve leaving Arizona to Denver? New Orleans is in the same class as Arizona in terms of being a bad franchise. Anyway, it's a prediction. Did Brooks trade up in talent? Hell yeah. Will he have a career year? Who know, but I think it's very possible.

 

[joffer]

I find it hard to believe a guy putting up Pro Bowl type numbers, like Brooks did at times from 2001-2003, he'd lose his job because the rest of the team is underachieveing. Like I said, Brooks averages over 4000 total yards and 26 total TDs per 16 starts. If he has a career year, like he should, he won't be benched, even if the team as a whole is mediocre.

have you really watched Aaron Brooks play? I'm not talking about his final year stats, I'm talking about his ability to lead a team?

 

[David Yudkin]

I find it hard to believe a guy putting up Pro Bowl type numbers, like Brooks did at times from 2001-2003, he'd lose his job because the rest of the team is underachieveing. Like I said, Brooks averages over 4000 total yards and 26 total TDs per 16 starts. If he has a career year, like he should, he won't be benched, even if the team as a whole is mediocre.

You guys say you can't use TDs with previous teams to translate TDs with other teams. Sure you can. Was it crazy to think Jake Plummer would improve leaving Arizona to Denver? New Orleans is in the same class as Arizona in terms of being a bad franchise. Anyway, it's a prediction. Did Brooks trade up in talent? Hell yeah. Will he have a career year? Who know, but I think it's very possible.

What a player did in the past really is not a great factor in determining how a player would do ON HIS NEW TEAM. Sure, Plummer went to a better offense so his numbers went up--but that was based on Denver's history not Plummer's.For a better example, Warner had 41 TDs for the Rams, but the Cardinals offense could not support that total so he had a fraction of that amount for the Cardinals. If Peyton Manning went to the Browns, would he be able to get Cleveland up to 48 TD passes?

I agree that Brooks could be in for a big season and have already drafted him this season. However, there were people that last year were saying the same exact thing about Collins (4000/30) and that there was no way that Collins could be anything but a Top 5 QB. Long story short, he wasn't. He did better than in the past but still not fantastic.

We don't know what game plan Shell will have, and the team conceivably could run more and pass less--making Brooks stats in New Orleans nothing more than things in the past.

 

[ShotGunStyle]

I've seen Brooks lead his team down the field for fourth quarter scores to win/tie the game over and over.

I don't see how Peyton Manning fits into the situation since going from the Colts to the Browns is the complete opposite of Brooks situation. Brooks is going to a much better offensive team. Sure, it may turn out the way it looks on paper, but it's easier to see a career best year than a career worst.

I'm not saying Brooks having a career year is a sure thing. There's no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL. All I'm saying is it looks like Brooks sitation in going from New Orleans to Oakland looks like a big upgrade on paper, and 4000 yards and 30 TDs might not be as crazy as it sounds.

 

[DeCleater]

I've seen Brooks lead his team down the field for fourth quarter scores to win/tie the game over and over.

OH YEAH, Kool-aid alert. The real question is why is his team always behind. Have you ever seen him lead his team to a score in the first quarter? If he was so good why did NO get rid of him? He is a very good fantasy QB but a terrible NFL QB. I have predicted Walters will have the job by week 10.

 

[Football Menace]

I've seen Brooks lead his team down the field for fourth quarter scores to win/tie the game over and over.

I don't see how Peyton Manning fits into the situation since going from the Colts to the Browns is the complete opposite of Brooks situation. Brooks is going to a much better offensive team. Sure, it may turn out the way it looks on paper, but it's easier to see a career best year than a career worst.

I'm not saying Brooks having a career year is a sure thing. There's no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL. All I'm saying is it looks like Brooks sitation in going from New Orleans to Oakland looks like a big upgrade on paper, and 4000 yards and 30 TDs might not be as crazy as it sounds.

As a New Orleans Saints fan, I can tell you that everyone overlooks this fact. Brooks made alot of bad plays, but he also made alot of good plays. The real downfall of the Saints was the front office's inability to put a better defensive team on the field. Brooks was constantly forced to play from behind. And that lead to him trying to force things. He couldn't depend of his defense. He also was under constant pressure b/c of bad oline play. I know we love to pick on Brooks, but he was far from a major problem in New Orleans. I think Oakland landed a major steal. If their oline plays half way decent, Brooks is going to put up great numbers with the Raiders.

 

[Football Menace]

I've seen Brooks lead his team down the field for fourth quarter scores to win/tie the game over and over.

OH YEAH, Kool-aid alert. The real question is why is his team always behind. Have you ever seen him lead his team to a score in the first quarter? If he was so good why did NO get rid of him? He is a very good fantasy QB but a terrible NFL QB. I have predicted Walters will have the job by week 10.

Didn't watch many Saints games..huh? See my above post.

 

[ShotGunStyle]

While the Saints first quarter offense was horrible in 2004, the 32nd ranked defense didn't help either. Also, Brooks had five fourth quarter comebacks in 2004, more than half his team's total victories.

 

[Tau837]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison. You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do. Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders.

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did. But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

I am very surprised to see this coming from you. Reasons why this doesn't make sense:1. New coaching staff.

2. Look at Collins' career numbers and compare to Brooks.

a. Collins was only a top 10 fantasy QB twice: QB8 in 2000 and QB9 last year. Brooks was a top 8 QB for 4 years in a row prior to last year, ans was top 6 3 times.

b. In his career, Collins has averaged 221 passing yards, 1.14 TD passes, and 1.09 interceptions per game... compared to 225, 1.41, and 0.99 for Brooks. Brooks is better across the board. Maybe some would say Brooks has been in a more favorable situation, but consider that this includes his horrible 2005, which appears to be an aberration compared to the rest of his career. And also note that Collins only reached 20 TDs three times in his career, with a peak of 22.

c. As fantasy QBs, we also have to look at rushing numbers. In the past 5 years, Brooks as 1243/11 rushing, compared to Collins with 193/1. Brooks gains 35 fantasy points per season on Collins right there. How much of that will carry over?

3. As has been noted in other threads, Brooks throws a better deep ball than Collins in the sense that it has more arc and thus is more catchable. The real point here, though, is that Brooks is simply a different QB than Collins. Another example is that Brooks is much more mobile. As QBs, they are very different.

4. In 2004, Collins didn't have Moss or Jordan, and the running game was the worst in the league. In 2005, Moss played injured and #3 WR Curry missed virtually the entire season last year due to injury. There is no reason to think any of these things will be true this year. In particular, if Moss is healthy, that makes a huge difference.

Despite the above, in the first 8 games last year, Collins had 2057 yards, 12 TDs, and 3 interceptions. In the second half, he had 1702/8/9 and missed one game. I'm not sure exactly why there was such a difference, but there is evidence that even Collins could have had a top 5 QB season. Since Brooks has proven to be a better QB, at least fantasy-wise but I personally think in real life as well, he may be able to capitalize on it where Collins couldn't.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I've seen Brooks lead his team down the field for fourth quarter scores to win/tie the game over and over.

OH YEAH, Kool-aid alert. I have predicted Walters will have the job by week 10.

I'll take the under.

 

[saintfool]

As a New Orleans Saints fan, I can tell you that everyone overlooks this fact. Brooks made alot of bad plays, but he also made alot of good plays. The real downfall of the Saints was the front office's inability to put a better defensive team on the field. Brooks was constantly forced to play from behind. And that lead to him trying to force things. He couldn't depend of his defense. He also was under constant pressure b/c of bad oline play. I know we love to pick on Brooks, but he was far from a major problem in New Orleans.

I think Oakland landed a major steal. If their oline plays half way decent, Brooks is going to put up great numbers with the Raiders.

Longtime Saints fan here. I have been a Brooks apologist for years but I am flummoxed by the revisionistlens used by some in evaluating him. Certainly, the Saints defense has been unsteady for much of the Haslet era. However, to offer up excuses like inconsistent o-line play or a porous defense is to ignore the fundamental issues with Brooks. The defense often played poorly but the offense failed to score first, sometmes not even in the first quarter at all. He needed to lead the offense to score and failed to do so repeatedly. Most teams can't wait for their offense to come to life late in the 3rd quarter, so to entirely fault them for that is unfair. I'm willing to fault the coaching staff, the o-line and defense but Brooks has to shoulder a lot of the blame for the offense's woes. This is the heart of the matter for me: he seemed to regress as time went by. We were willing to indulge the growing pains of a young QB, with one exciting play off-setting for a backards pass or whstever. I'm not one for the leadership argument, nor one to buy into the "he's too stupid to be a QB" theory, but I am one for the idea that he never progressed or grew as a QB. He had one good season but his QB rating has been consistently in the lower half year after year. He made the same boneheaded decisions year after year. If you've been a Saints fan like I have, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about too.

He may be the next Jake Plummer but I'm taking a wait and see outlook with him. If I had to pick him in the draft, I'd feel confident only if I knew my QB1 were healthy, productive and safe. I'd also trade Brooks away after the very fist good game he has too.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, you are looking at only a piece of the comparison.  You need to be comparing how Collins did to what Brooks will do.  Collins did XYZ before Oakland but PDQ with the Raiders. 

If we say Brooks is greater than Collins coming in, then maybe we add more production per game than what Collins did.  But the baseline should be adjusting what Collins produced in Oakland.

The TD total Brooks got in New Orleans has no bearing on how many TD Oakland receivers will see.

I am very surprised to see this coming from you. Reasons why this doesn't make sense:1. New coaching staff.

2. Look at Collins' career numbers and compare to Brooks.

a. Collins was only a top 10 fantasy QB twice: QB8 in 2000 and QB9 last year. Brooks was a top 8 QB for 4 years in a row prior to last year, ans was top 6 3 times.

b. In his career, Collins has averaged 221 passing yards, 1.14 TD passes, and 1.09 interceptions per game... compared to 225, 1.41, and 0.99 for Brooks. Brooks is better across the board. Maybe some would say Brooks has been in a more favorable situation, but consider that this includes his horrible 2005, which appears to be an aberration compared to the rest of his career. And also note that Collins only reached 20 TDs three times in his career, with a peak of 22.

c. As fantasy QBs, we also have to look at rushing numbers. In the past 5 years, Brooks as 1243/11 rushing, compared to Collins with 193/1. Brooks gains 35 fantasy points per season on Collins right there. How much of that will carry over?

3. As has been noted in other threads, Brooks throws a better deep ball than Collins in the sense that it has more arc and thus is more catchable. The real point here, though, is that Brooks is simply a different QB than Collins. Another example is that Brooks is much more mobile. As QBs, they are very different.

4. In 2004, Collins didn't have Moss or Jordan, and the running game was the worst in the league. In 2005, Moss played injured and #3 WR Curry missed virtually the entire season last year due to injury. There is no reason to think any of these things will be true this year. In particular, if Moss is healthy, that makes a huge difference.

Despite the above, in the first 8 games last year, Collins had 2057 yards, 12 TDs, and 3 interceptions. In the second half, he had 1702/8/9 and missed one game. I'm not sure exactly why there was such a difference, but there is evidence that even Collins could have had a top 5 QB season. Since Brooks has proven to be a better QB, at least fantasy-wise but I personally think in real life as well, he may be able to capitalize on it where Collins couldn't.

I often discuss both sides of a situation to review what's really going on. As I already mentioned, I have already drafted Brooks and he was one of my undervalued QB picks in the staff value article on the main site and in the FBG mag.But to play devil's advocate, as you mentioned the raiders had an insanely low amount of rushing attempts two seasons ago and had a fair amount more last year. Shell may opt for even more rushing plays and a lot of downfield passing attempts.

In theory, Brooks might have the arm for it but Collins also was supposed to be good at throwing the deep ball. The numbers you posted on Collins first half vs second half of last year are what makes a true Top 5 stud at any position as opposed to a Top 10 or average player. Few players at any position have elite production almost every game of the year. Collins' numbers fell off at the end of the year, and that may be a combination of his ability, the team quitting, poor coaching, etc.

Enter Shell, and things will be different. How different, who knows? That's why I suggested we start with last year's numbers and evaluate what the coaching and player changes may mean. Starting with what the Saints offense did is looking at the wrong team. What matters is who is on the Raiders, not who was on the Saints.

There are several QB that on paper have upsides of 4000/30, but reality has shown that it does not happen very often (only 23 times to date).

 

[Gargoylez]

I do not think Brooks has the mental capacity, or the maturity to handle a new system with alot of pressure. I have a sneaking idea that Andrew Walter has a run on the starting job by the end of pre-season. Maybe a long shot, but IMO walter seems to be what they look for, he has a big arm and was VERY heady in the few pre-season games they played with him in.

Brooks is a head case, to many years of the same ol meltdown not to say that.

 

[Football Menace]

As a New Orleans Saints fan, I can tell you that everyone overlooks this fact.  Brooks made alot of bad plays, but he also made alot of good plays.  The real downfall of the Saints was the front office's inability to put a better defensive team on the field.  Brooks was constantly forced to play from behind.  And that lead to him trying to force things.  He couldn't depend of his defense.  He also was under constant pressure b/c of bad oline play.  I know we love to pick on Brooks, but he was far from a major problem in New Orleans. 

I think Oakland landed a major steal.  If their oline plays half way decent, Brooks is going to put up great numbers with the Raiders.

Longtime Saints fan here. I have been a Brooks apologist for years but I am flummoxed by the revisionistlens used by some in evaluating him. Certainly, the Saints defense has been unsteady for much of the Haslet era. However, to offer up excuses like inconsistent o-line play or a porous defense is to ignore the fundamental issues with Brooks. The defense often played poorly but the offense failed to score first, sometmes not even in the first quarter at all. He needed to lead the offense to score and failed to do so repeatedly. Most teams can't wait for their offense to come to life late in the 3rd quarter, so to entirely fault them for that is unfair. I'm willing to fault the coaching staff, the o-line and defense but Brooks has to shoulder a lot of the blame for the offense's woes. This is the heart of the matter for me: he seemed to regress as time went by. We were willing to indulge the growing pains of a young QB, with one exciting play off-setting for a backards pass or whstever. I'm not one for the leadership argument, nor one to buy into the "he's too stupid to be a QB" theory, but I am one for the idea that he never progressed or grew as a QB. He had one good season but his QB rating has been consistently in the lower half year after year. He made the same boneheaded decisions year after year. If you've been a Saints fan like I have, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about too.

He may be the next Jake Plummer but I'm taking a wait and see outlook with him. If I had to pick him in the draft, I'd feel confident only if I knew my QB1 were healthy, productive and safe. I'd also trade Brooks away after the very fist good game he has too.

Oh...No doubt Brooks should shoulder some of the blame for the offensive woes, but he wasn't the main problem. I think it's one of those situations where the QB gets too much credit for successes and failures, except Brooks never got any credit for the team's successes. But boy, when he has a bad game, did we hear about it. I think that Brooks mistakes would have been at least cut in half, if he had a better defense. Take a look at the 2003 season. Brooks had his best year when the Saints had it's best defensive season (still middle of the road) in his 5 years as a starter . Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

Now he's going to be in an similar situation in Oakland, but he also has a better supporting cast. If the Raiders oline give him the time, I think were going to see great offensive production.

 

[saintfool]

Oh...No doubt Brooks should shoulder some of the blame for the offensive woes, but he wasn't the main problem. I think it's one of those situations where the QB gets too much credit for successes and failures, except Brooks never got any credit for the team's successes. But boy, when he has a bad game, did we hear about it.

I think that Brooks mistakes would have been at least cut in half, if he had a better defense. Take a look at the 2003 season. Brooks had his best year when the Saints had it's best defensive season (still middle of the road) in his 5 years as a starter . Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

Now he's going to be in an similar situation in Oakland, but he also has a better supporting cast. If the Raiders oline give him the time, I think were going to see great offensive production.

Brooks best season was 2003? Sure, he solid passing numbers and his fewest INT's but he also had 11 fumbles for a loss. That led ALL QBs that year and put him in the elite company with Harrington, Quincy Carter and Tommy Maddox for total QB turnovers. So, on balance, this shows that if it's not one thing it's another with AB. i'd like to also remind you that 2003 was the season where Deuce totalled 2100+ yards of total offense. So, yeah, the defense played better but then so did everyone else but AB. AB was just AB in the end.

I'm not saying that AB isn't without talent - cannon for an arm, mobile, etc - but I don't see why the love affair with him should continue. We were prepared for inconsistencies as a young QB when he took over for Jeff Blake. We just never saw him move beyond these inconsistencies. I'd expect him to put up the similar numbers across the board - TD's and TO's - in Oakland, regardless of the situation there because he's proven that year after year.

 

[rascal]

I looked at the % increase that Collins had after he joined the Raiders. Collins had a slight decline in yardage, but a 11% jump in TD's, and a 8% jump in INT's (the four year average @ NYG compared to 2 year average @ Oak). He had roughly the same average of attempts although his completion average was about 3.75% less at Oakland then at NYG.

Then I looked at Brooks (eliminated last year) and came up with the following 4 year averages (2001-2004): 3690 yards, 24.5 TD's, 15.25 INT'. He had the same number of attempts as Collins but with 56.4 completion % (Collins 58.675 in NYG and 54.9 in Oak).

If you believe that Brooks will get teh same bump as Collins did, then you get the following numbers for Brooks in 2006:

3677 yards, 27.2 TD's, and 16.4 INT's.

 

[Football Menace]

Oh...No doubt Brooks should shoulder some of the blame for the offensive woes, but he wasn't the main problem.  I think it's one of those situations where the QB gets too much credit for successes and failures, except Brooks never got any credit for the team's successes.  But boy, when he has a bad game, did we hear about it. 

I think that Brooks mistakes would have been at least cut in half, if he had a better defense.  Take a look at the 2003 season.  Brooks had his best year when the Saints had it's best defensive season (still middle of the road) in his 5 years as a starter .  Is that a coincidence?  I don't think so.

Now he's going to be in an similar situation in Oakland, but he also has a better supporting cast.  If the Raiders oline give him the time, I think were going to see great offensive production.

Brooks best season was 2003? Sure, he solid passing numbers and his fewest INT's but he also had 11 fumbles for a loss. That led ALL QBs that year and put him in the elite company with Harrington, Quincy Carter and Tommy Maddox for total QB turnovers. So, on balance, this shows that if it's not one thing it's another with AB. i'd like to also remind you that 2003 was the season where Deuce totalled 2100+ yards of total offense. So, yeah, the defense played better but then so did everyone else but AB. AB was just AB in the end.

I'm not saying that AB isn't without talent - cannon for an arm, mobile, etc - but I don't see why the love affair with him should continue. We were prepared for inconsistencies as a young QB when he took over for Jeff Blake. We just never saw him move beyond these inconsistencies. I'd expect him to put up the similar numbers across the board - TD's and TO's - in Oakland, regardless of the situation there because he's proven that year after year.

This is typical in a Brooks bashing. IMO, fumbles for a loss is luck of the draw. A football is a funny shaped object, and when it hits the ground it could bounce in funny ways. Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way. That's why I don't think you could rely on the "fumble for a loss" stats in an "how good/bad is a QB" arguement. I think the total amount of fumbles is more accurate. Let's look at a few of the fumble stats from 2003:A. Brooks - fumbled 14 times and loss 11

J. Delhomme - fumbled 15 times and loss 6

D. Culpepper - fumbled 16 times and loss 6

All-World T. Brady - fumbled 13 times and loss 6

and 2003 MVP S. McNair - fumbled 12 times and loss 6

As you can see, many QBs fumbled at the same rate as A. Brooks, and some fumbled more. Unfortunately for the Saints and AB, the ball just didn't bounce their way.

 

[saintfool]

This is typical in a Brooks bashing. IMO, fumbles for a loss is luck of the draw. A football is a funny shaped object, and when it hits the ground it could bounce in funny ways. Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way. That's why I don't think you could rely on the "fumble for a loss" stats in an "how good/bad is a QB" arguement. I think the total amount of fumbles is more accurate. Let's look at a few of the fumble stats from 2003:

A. Brooks - fumbled 14 times and loss 11

J. Delhomme - fumbled 15 times and loss 6

D. Culpepper - fumbled 16 times and loss 6

All-World T. Brady - fumbled 13 times and loss 6

and 2003 MVP S. McNair - fumbled 12 times and loss 6

As you can see, many QBs fumbled at the same rate as A. Brooks, and some fumbled more. Unfortunately for the Saints and AB, the ball just didn't bounce their way.

I'm using the fumbles to point out how even Brooks "best" season is one undercut by the TO's. On the balance, Brooks is just Brooks, a 2O+ Td's and 15+ TO's and that's not especially exciting to me. If you think he can reinvent himself in Oakland then that's great. There has been nothing to suggest that he's progressed as a QB over his career to warrant it though. I said in my first post in this thread that I was a Brooks apologist while he was with the Saints. I'm not "Brooks bashing" but more pointing to the fact that he's always been that same guy and Saints fans have waiting for him to take that next step. It never happened. Why would anyone expect him to suddenly do that now? "Change of scenery" is not terribly compelling but stranger things have happened...

 

[ShotGunStyle]

I looked at the % increase that Collins had after he joined the Raiders. Collins had a slight decline in yardage, but a 11% jump in TD's, and a 8% jump in INT's (the four year average @ NYG compared to 2 year average @ Oak). He had roughly the same average of attempts although his completion average was about 3.75% less at Oakland then at NYG.Then I looked at Brooks (eliminated last year) and came up with the following 4 year averages (2001-2004): 3690 yards, 24.5 TD's, 15.25 INT'. He had the same number of attempts as Collins but with 56.4 completion % (Collins 58.675 in NYG and 54.9 in Oak).If you believe that Brooks will get teh same bump as Collins did, then you get the following numbers for Brooks in 2006:3677 yards, 27.2 TD's, and 16.4 INT's.

That's a pretty creative way of putting it. I can't argue with that prediction.On the subject of fumbles, in 2003 LeCharles Bentley became the new center after being a guard his rookie season. So many of Brooks fumbles were simply aborted snaps, a problem he never had with Jerry Fontono. Yeah, Brooks had some of those phantom fumbles where the ball just slips out while he winds up, but not every fumble is the QBs fault.

 

[T Man]

The problem with AB is that he not only has to start off hot, but must win as well.

IF Walters has a good preseason, and the Raiders lose early, look for Walters to get the nod.

AB has always been a decent fantasy QB, but if he is not a starting NFL QB he can't put up the fantasy numbers.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I looked at the % increase that Collins had after he joined the Raiders. Collins had a slight decline in yardage, but a 11% jump in TD's, and a 8% jump in INT's (the four year average @ NYG compared to 2 year average @ Oak). He had roughly the same average of attempts although his completion average was about 3.75% less at Oakland then at NYG.Then I looked at Brooks (eliminated last year) and came up with the following 4 year averages (2001-2004): 3690 yards, 24.5 TD's, 15.25 INT'. He had the same number of attempts as Collins but with 56.4 completion % (Collins 58.675 in NYG and 54.9 in Oak).If you believe that Brooks will get teh same bump as Collins did, then you get the following numbers for Brooks in 2006:3677 yards, 27.2 TD's, and 16.4 INT's.

Flawed logic. Oakland has a new coach which usually means a new offensive philosophy.