PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Brooks?


SteelCurtainUSNA
07-24-2007, 02:13 PM
Mike Tomlin wants to bring in Aaron Brooks to compete with Chaz Batch for the backup QB spot.

I don't like this one bit. For one, Brooks is Mike Vick's cousin, and that will only invite questions; and for two, Chaz is arguably the best backup in football. Why mess with that? I don't know if we are keeping three QB's on the roster, and since BSP is no longer practice squad eligible, it would be an upgrade in that department IF they are keeping 3 QB's on the active roster.

I like Ben, Chaz, and Bryan Randall on the PS. BSP is a thang of the past. What the hell, Mike.

A la KFFL Wire:
Steelers | Team visits Brooks
Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:33:07 -0700

John Clayton, of ESPN.com, reports the Pittsburgh Steelers have visited with free-agent QB Aaron Brooks (Raiders).

A la PFT:
The tipster who pointed the story out to us last week explained that new coach Mike is driving the bus on this one, and that Tomlin likes Brooks in part because they both are from the same general area in Virginia. (We have yet to purchase any of the available online "make me into a football scout" training programs, but we have a feeling that "real" NFL scouts base decisions on ability, not geography.)

If just fore more competition in camp, then I'm not upset about it, but I don't like Aaron Brooks. He has the skills but no idea how to use them.

I also don't want 3 QBs on the active roster. I would like to see as many WRs as we can fit, because I think given a couple of years, Dallas Baker could be something in the NFL.

fansince'76
07-24-2007, 02:15 PM
Already went through the six-year "Kordell Experiment." Don't care to repeat it. I find it hard to believe Tomlin is even entertaining this notion.

xXTheSteelKingsXx
07-24-2007, 02:39 PM
If he is planning on bringing in QB to compete with Batch I'd rather see Culpepper than Brooks. This would never work though because Culpepper does not want to be a backup and he would ask for way too much money. I honestly don't see us bringing in another QB now that camp has started and I believe that most of us are happy with Batch.

Jman
07-24-2007, 02:45 PM
This is a stumper for me as well. While PFT is a rumor mill, it says that Steelers met with Brooks. Can this be true? Is the available talent at QB that bad? Stratch that. I'd put Jacobs in before Brooks.

TackleMeBen
07-24-2007, 02:49 PM
i would have to agree with kings that most of us are very happy with batch as the backup. batch understands that that is his role on the team and he is capable of coming in and playing well when ben goes down. i think if they brought in brooks, he would want to be a starter and we know that isnt going to happen on this team.

tony hipchest
07-24-2007, 03:16 PM
since batch is one of the best back ups in the league, it only makes sense that atlanta would do their due diligence and call the steelers fron office and inquire about getting him. they saw him 1st hand last year when he torched them once ben went down. im sure theyve looked at the miami tape and his other recent games as well. if they offer a sweet deal its something that has to be considered. it is possible batch would like a trade if it meant double in pay and a starting job. i hope not, but i definitely wouldnt root against him if he got a shot to revitalize his career.

xXTheSteelKingsXx
07-24-2007, 03:24 PM
So who would we be willing to take in exchange for Batch? Maybe Michael Jenkins as a third WR or do you think they would offer DeAngelo Hall(wishfull thinking)?

The Duke
07-24-2007, 03:25 PM
If he is planning on bringing in QB to compete with Batch I'd rather see Culpepper than Brooks. This would never work though because Culpepper does not want to be a backup and he would ask for way too much money. I honestly don't see us bringing in another QB now that camp has started and I believe that most of us are happy with Batch.

Culpepper would be a "good" backup, but I think he would want a bigger contract than a backup contract. I don't like aaron brooks at all, please don't bring him to pittsburgh Tomlin

SteelCityMan786
07-24-2007, 04:25 PM
Why sign Brooks? He's going to get released eventually.

Crushzilla
07-24-2007, 04:40 PM
So who would we be willing to take in exchange for Batch? Maybe Michael Jenkins as a third WR or do you think they would offer DeAngelo Hall(wishfull thinking)?

I doubt they would offer up their project receiver and for sure not their stud corner.

Questionable decision-making by Tomlin if he follows through...

This may be...

a1Y73sPHKxw

The first poor move by Tomlin!

:jawdrop:

I dig the hypothesis, Tony, but I'm not sure if the Falcons have really strongly considered that offer. They are probably still trying to find a loophole in that Houston trade to get their QB back.

It would make more sense to find a temporary resolution, like Batch, at this point, though. They MAY still get Vick back in a year and finding a long term guy could show that they no longer are backing the guy, even if they shouldn't be.

fansince'76
07-24-2007, 05:00 PM
I doubt they would offer up their project receiver and for sure not their stud corner.

Their stud corner, along with Crumpler (and we already have a stud TE of our own), are about the only two players on that team I'd personally be interested in. I doubt this goes through - hard to deal when you don't have anything to deal with. I wouldn't be willing to part with a top-5 backup QB for anything on that roster besides the two players I just mentioned if I'm Tomlin.

SteelCurtainUSNA
07-24-2007, 05:21 PM
The KFFL Wire has him definitely meeting with the Steelers. I don't know if this just means Tomlin or Khan, but one thing's for sure, the Rooneys have to agree to sign Brooks, and I don't know if that would happen or if this was any more than Tomlin reaching out to another guy from Hampton Roads.

tony hipchest
07-24-2007, 05:21 PM
It would make more sense to find a temporary resolution, like Batch, at this point, though. They MAY still get Vick back in a year and finding a long term guy could show that they no longer are backing the guy, even if they shouldn't be.pat kirwan is working on an article addressing this specific situation. vick and the falcons aside, he says all teams gm's are currently scouring other teams depth charts to see if they are strong in an area where there own team may be weak.

he sounds pretty confident that the falcons have already, (or soon will be) contacted the bears, eagles, browns and tampa bay.

any of these guys: k. orton, k. holcomb, c. frye/d. anderson, b. gradkowski would probably serve as back ups to harrington. however, its safe to say harrington would serve as back up to batch if he were brought in.

the falcons dont have anybody we really need. what we really could use is one of their 2nd round picks next season (both should be pretty high).

fansince'76
07-24-2007, 05:24 PM
The KFFL Wire has him definitely meeting with the Steelers. I don't know if this just means Tomlin or Khan, but one thing's for sure, the Rooneys have to agree to sign Brooks, and I don't know if that would happen or if this was any more than Tomlin reaching out to another guy from Hampton Roads.

I hope that's all it is - we don't need to be wasting roster spots.

HometownGal
07-24-2007, 05:58 PM
While I am admittedly not a huge Batch fan, he knows the system and in a backup role ONLY, I feel he is capable of handing the ball off and the short drop pass. Botch Batch and Brooks have comparable lifetime QBRs, but the key here is Batch being the experienced STEELERS backup. If Aaron Brooks couldn't cut the mustard in Faiderland, I don't see him making a mark here as a backup to Ben.

Stlrs4Life
07-24-2007, 06:03 PM
All I can say is, OMG.

tony hipchest
07-24-2007, 06:05 PM
it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

HometownGal
07-24-2007, 06:09 PM
it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

YAY! :cheer:

In other words, thank God!

The Duke
07-24-2007, 06:13 PM
it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

That's better :coffee:

jtyler1383
07-24-2007, 06:16 PM
Get real Mikey, his biggest highlight in the NFL is throwing the "cell phone" touchdown to Horn. Aside from that, I don't remember a single other thing he has done. Garbage... I hope he isn't entertaining this seriously.

jtyler1383
07-24-2007, 06:20 PM
it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

What a relief, though I hope we don't need to see a 3rd stringer playing QB for us this year, whoever that may be. Unless of course we are up by "many a touchdowns"!

fansince'76
07-24-2007, 08:51 PM
it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

Well, like I said before, hard to deal when you (see Falcons) don't really have anything valuable to the other team (see Steelers) to bargain with.

fansince'76
07-24-2007, 08:52 PM
What a relief, though I hope we don't need to see a 3rd stringer playing QB for us this year, whoever that may be. Unless of course we are up by "many a touchdowns"!

Agreed - I hope to see plenty of Batch this year in a mop-up role.

SteelerWatch
07-24-2007, 09:11 PM
I would wager it was merely Mike exploring options. Kind of a, "If they made the right offer for Charlie, what is out there that we could shore up the backup QB spot with?" I don't think it was active pursuit more than it was just checking to see if the gain would outweigh the loss if Batch was traded.

83-Steelers-43
07-24-2007, 10:47 PM
It was also stated tonight on KDKA that the Steelers have no intentions on bringing in Brooks. I'm content with Charlie. He has given me no reason to not trust him.

Galax Steeler
07-25-2007, 03:43 AM
Thank god that was a scare.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-25-2007, 03:50 AM
Brooks would have bee an upgrade at #3...nothing more....I dont see anyone wanting (or expecting) him to give Batch serious competition at #2.

I think that we probably wont field a #3 anyway.

Preacher
07-25-2007, 04:41 AM
Brooks would have bee an upgrade at #3...nothing more....I dont see anyone wanting (or expecting) him to give Batch serious competition at #2.

I think that we probably wont field a #3 anyway.

LOL.. Gotta disagree with you there...

With our luck at QB over the last few years... we need a number 3!

LETS BRING MADDOX BACK!

:couch::tomato:

Elvis
07-25-2007, 05:07 AM
:coffee:
So, what everyone is saying is that if we brought in Brooks and he outplayed Batch in the upcoming preseason and clearly should be number 2 that the Steelers would be wasting their time having someone better than Batch? I love Batch and what he did for us last year was great, but he is not the long term answer if somthing crazy was to happen to Ben. Now, I am not saying that Brooks is, but if for example.. Ben gets hurt early in the season in cleveland.. then we have to go to Batch... then if the Steelers didnt have Brooks, a proven starter... then they would have to go with Brian St. Pierre and he cant get off the practice squad in past years... well... I feel better knowing that atleast everyone would be willing to get Brian a chance...:jawdrop:

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-25-2007, 05:13 AM
LOL.. Gotta disagree with you there...

With our luck at QB over the last few years... we need a number 3!

LETS BRING MADDOX BACK!

:couch::tomato:

I think we will HAVE a #3..just may not field him on a regualr basis

SteelerWatch
07-25-2007, 07:53 AM
So, what everyone is saying is that if we brought in Brooks and he outplayed Batch in the upcoming preseason and clearly should be number 2 that the Steelers would be wasting their time having someone better than Batch?

Even if he outplayed him in camp, Brooks is known as nothing more than a gifted athlete with virtually no accuracy or intelligence when it comes to rapid-fire decision making. Camp is one thing, game time is another.

I love Batch and what he did for us last year was great, but he is not the long term answer if somthing crazy was to happen to Ben. Now, I am not saying that Brooks is, but if for example.. Ben gets hurt early in the season in cleveland.. then we have to go to Batch...

...I'll rest easy knowing we're in the hands of a very gifted quarterback who has no problem accepting his backup role and who has proven that he can win clutch games. If you need an example, go back to last season's opener against Miami.

then if the Steelers didnt have Brooks, a proven starter...

And Batch isn't? Aaron Brooks got to throw to Joe Horn when he was a starter in the Big Easy, and had Deuce McAllister running behind him to free up the passing game -- and he never made it beyond a few playoff games. When Batch was the starter in Detroit, he was throwing to, who, again? And had who running behind him except for his rookie season when Barry Sanders was still in town?

then they would have to go with Brian St. Pierre and he cant get off the practice squad in past years... well... I feel better knowing that atleast everyone would be willing to get Brian a chance...

Brian is actually a pretty gifted QB. There's a reason why he's always on the roster, even if he can't supplant Batch for the number two spot (and that is probably a result of the fact that Batch has extensive game experience and St. Pierre doesn't).

Oh, and here's another very important statistic: in his career Batch has fumbled 21 times. Brooks has fumbled 64 times including 51 times in four years. A backup's role, even as a temporary starter, is to manage the game and not screw up. No one expects them to come out and do what Ben did after Maddox got hurt. I don't want a QB who fumbles once every 1.5 games in which he plays. For the record, Batch's average is twice as good at once every three games. Ben plays, on average, more than four games between fumbles.

Livinginthe past
07-25-2007, 08:10 AM
Aaron Brooks isn't a great starting QB by any stretch, but his career stats aren't actually that bad.

He has thrown 123 TD's and 97 INT's - I wouldn't put anymore weight on his time at Oakland last year any more than i'd judge Moss for what his achieved/ didn't achieve there.

Batch has 55 TD's and 41 INT's for his career, which is hardly earth shattering.

Batch 1.34 TD's for every INT.

Brooks 1.27 TD's for every INT.

I think the guy would be a capable back-up, you would imagine his action would be limited anyway.

I liked Tony's hypothesis about the possibility of trading batch to Atlanta for a 1st day pick and then bringing in someone else.

Batch is the better guy...but if you could swap them and get a 2nd rounder into the bargain..well, that would be great business.

Jman
07-25-2007, 08:38 AM
Culpepper would be a "good" backup, but I think he would want a bigger contract than a backup contract. I don't like aaron brooks at all, please don't bring him to pittsburgh Tomlin

Culpepper is looking for a 1 yr "prove it" deal. They could sign him for 1 yr, but we all know he won't play if Ben remains healthy. And he is not a long term QB for the franchise.

polamalufan43
07-25-2007, 08:48 AM
I think we are gonna stick with Batch, not just because Brooks has Vick relations, but because in all honesty Batch is better QB for the job IMO. Even though the stats would lead you to another conclusion

Culpepper is looking for a 1 yr "prove it" deal. They could sign him for 1 yr, but we all know he won't play if Ben remains healthy. And he is not a long term QB for the franchise.

Culpepper vs. Ben, I'd pick Ben, and think the team would too.

~PF43:tt02:

Jman
07-25-2007, 08:54 AM
.... but the key here is Batch being the experienced STEELERS backup. If Aaron Brooks couldn't cut the mustard in Faiderland, I don't see him making a mark here as a backup to Ben.

And that would have been my point if the pursuit of Brooks continued. Charlie Batch works well in this system. He had a successful 2006 season. But.....

it wasreported on sportsbeat that the talks with brooks went nowhere and the steelers wont be persuing this any further.

:banana:

That's all I got to say about that.

SteelerWatch
07-25-2007, 09:01 AM
I ignored Oakland entirely. Outside of fumbles, there's not much difference statistically (rating and completion percentage differ by tenths of a percent). There's a certain lack of incompetency, though, that is visibly evident when watching Brooks play. And consider that his supporting cast in New Orleans was far better most of the time than what Batch had to work with in Detroit.

And when it comes down to it, Batch always appears more comfortable, confident and mature in the pocket.

Jman
07-25-2007, 09:11 AM
It was also stated tonight on KDKA that the Steelers have no intentions on bringing in Brooks. I'm content with Charlie. He has given me no reason to not trust him.

I'll give a nod to that. :toast:

DACEB
07-25-2007, 09:18 AM
And when it comes down to it, Batch always appears more comfortable, confident and mature in the pocket.

Amen, I'll take Batch as the backup anyday for as long as he's willing and capable. Batch is a solid backup with veteran experience who knows his role and plays it well.

I'm glad the Brooks deal fell thru.

Virginia Steeler
07-25-2007, 10:26 AM
Mike Tomlin wants to bring in Aaron Brooks to compete with Chaz Batch for the backup QB spot.

I don't like this one bit. For one, Brooks is Mike Vick's cousin, and that will only invite questions;



I can see where you're coming from on this, but I've been a Virginia Cavaliers fan for the last 25 years and I can assure you that Aaron Brooks is a class act and nothing like his Hokie cousin Mike.

steelpride12
07-25-2007, 11:37 AM
ya im not ready for another Kordell so i think ill pass on the offer and just have faith in Batch ha sorry Tomlin!

yinzer-inseattle
07-25-2007, 03:01 PM
ya im not ready for another Kordell so i think ill pass on the offer and just have faith in Batch ha sorry Tomlin!

Comparing Brooks to Kordell, I don't get it? Brooks came into the league as an NFL caliber QB (maybe not of starting pedigree, but definitely a capable backup) and that's the end of it. Kordell was drafted as a gifted athelete and an attempt made to make him into something he is not (an NFL cailber QB, backup or otherwise). Some of the responsibility for that debacle rests with Steelers coaching staff.

I'm not a Brooks fan, but if we got a day one pick for Batch and all we had to do was hedge Brooks on the roster for a year. I say go for it.

Elvis
07-25-2007, 03:06 PM
Well if Brooks is willing to take the league veteran minimum I would sign him and let him compete because he is more of a talent than St. Pierre ever will or ever has been.. but I guess all this chatter doesnt really matter anyway does it?... the Steelers say they are not gonna check him out anyway....
:tt02:

Stlrs4Life
07-25-2007, 08:29 PM
And, yes, said Kevin Colbert, the Steelers did bring the former New Orleans playoff quarterback in for a workout last week. Colbert said that it wasn’t so much Mike Tomlin’s Virginia ties that led to the workout, but that the Steelers were simply “interested in a veteran quarterback who’s available.” But Brooks “wanted to explore his options” and didn’t take the Steelers up on their offer to join the team at training camp. Now, it’s too late. “We’re rolling now,” Colbert said. “It’s dead.”

steelpride12
07-25-2007, 08:58 PM
Comparing Brooks to Kordell, I don't get it? Brooks came into the league as an NFL caliber QB (maybe not of starting pedigree, but definitely a capable backup) and that's the end of it. Kordell was drafted as a gifted athelete and an attempt made to make him into something he is not (an NFL cailber QB, backup or otherwise). Some of the responsibility for that debacle rests with Steelers coaching staff.

I'm not a Brooks fan, but if we got a day one pick for Batch and all we had to do was hedge Brooks on the roster for a year. I say go for it.

Because he is everything like Kordell he came into the league trying to prove something and started out great, and after the years just lost him touch!

ChronoCross
07-25-2007, 10:11 PM
Ok so we are talking about Brooks the guy who throws the ball 20 yards backwards and helps the other team score. Nope do not want him. Do not need him. He is a flat out joke as a QB.

Livinginthe past
07-26-2007, 01:51 AM
Ok so we are talking about Brooks the guy who throws the ball 20 yards backwards and helps the other team score. Nope do not want him. Do not need him. He is a flat out joke as a QB.

Every QB makes bad decisions.

Ben almost single handedly threw the game to Oakland last year - 4 INT's and 2 of them were returned for the only TD's the Raiders got all night.

That doesn't make him a bad QB, or a joke.

Brady threw a ball while falling backwards onto his ass a year or two back, got away with it ........and admiited he had been mighty lucky.

A few games later he did the exact same thing and the ball got picked off.

A flat out joke does not have more TD passes than INT's.

steelpride12
07-26-2007, 10:38 AM
Every QB makes bad decisions.

Ben almost single handedly threw the game to Oakland last year - 4 INT's and 2 of them were returned for the only TD's the Raiders got all night.

That doesn't make him a bad QB, or a joke.

Brady threw a ball while falling backwards onto his ass a year or two back, got away with it ........and admiited he had been mighty lucky.

A few games later he did the exact same thing and the ball got picked off.

A flat out joke does not have more TD passes than INT's.

But Brooks always sucked!

Preacher
07-26-2007, 12:35 PM
Trust me...

The only black on Gold you will see on Aaron Brooks is the 3 day old bruises when he is playing on a scouting squad someplace.

Steel Pit
07-27-2007, 01:10 AM
And, yes, said Kevin Colbert, the Steelers did bring the former New Orleans playoff quarterback in for a workout last week. Colbert said that it wasn?t so much Mike Tomlin?s Virginia ties that led to the workout, but that the Steelers were simply ?interested in a veteran quarterback who?s available.? But Brooks ?wanted to explore his options? and didn?t take the Steelers up on their offer to join the team at training camp. Now, it?s too late. ?We?re rolling now,? Colbert said. ?It?s dead.?

Thank God! This whole Aaron Brooks thing just didn't pass the smell test.

Galax Steeler
07-27-2007, 04:04 AM
I agree brooks and kordell are almost the same mold.

Preacher
07-27-2007, 04:03 PM
We could always bring Jake Plumber out of retirement?!

Jman
07-27-2007, 04:06 PM
We could always bring Jake Plumber out of retirement?!

:sofunny:

stlrtruck
07-27-2007, 09:31 PM
Guys and gals, let's not get our panties in a bunch here.

Let's think about this rationally. First, if Brooks does come in to camp it only means competition to keep Batch on his feet and not to become complacent. Second, we all know how good Batch is and what he brings to the field. Finally, if Brooks does remain on the team, it will be as a third stringer and from what we've seen from Batch and Roethlisberger, it usually doesn't get down to the third string guy (ask Maddox)!

ChronoCross
07-27-2007, 11:55 PM
Guys and gals, let's not get our panties in a bunch here.

Let's think about this rationally. First, if Brooks does come in to camp it only means competition to keep Batch on his feet and not to become complacent. Second, we all know how good Batch is and what he brings to the field. Finally, if Brooks does remain on the team, it will be as a third stringer and from what we've seen from Batch and Roethlisberger, it usually doesn't get down to the third string guy (ask Maddox)!

For one it wont happen. :P Brooks has already been turned away.. Thank goodness.

noto45
07-28-2007, 06:35 PM
one word NO!!!

Jman
07-28-2007, 07:46 PM
For one it wont happen. :P Brooks has already been turned away.. Thank goodness.

Extremely thankful this didnt happen.