latest joke of a column by william c.

good lord

talk about a one-trick pony

this repulses me

and great question from heyabbott -- why on earth would you quote an unnamed source in the league saying Brooks is better than several quarterbacks in the league? get it on the record. WTF. i don't believe there is such a source. hell, if a GM thinks that, why hasn't HE signed him?

this is freaking garbage

 

Just as a matter of objective fact, Brooks probably is better than several people who are listed as QB's in the league. Given that there are roughly 90 NFL quarterbacks at a given time, and given that maybe a third of them are actually capable of playing the position with any kind of proficiency, you can probably say what WCR said about Brooks about any one of 50 unemployed quarterbacks.

 

Do you really think the Jaguars and James Harris care about the comments? If the Jaguars, the first team to have three African-American QB's on the roster, passed on Brooks, he must suck. Harris is a member of The Field Generals, a group that promotes and preserves the history of the black QB. He passed. Brooks sucks.

 

The answer is simple. . .

NFL coaches looking for a mid-season stopgap aren't looking for the quarterback with the most talent or physical ability, they're looking for someone with a proven ability to step into a foreign situation, learn a play-book, and assimilate themselves into a locker room in one or two weeks' time.

Todd Bouman, Vinny Testaverde, even Anthony Wright all fit the bill.

Aaron Brooks? Not so much.

Give most NFL coaches the choice of Brooks or Testaverde in April and they'll take Brooks. But the man couldn't even fit into Oakland's scheme after an entire offseason. What makes anyone - particuarly Bill Rhoden - think that he could fly into Carolina on a Monday morning and be ready to start the following Sunday?

 

How about a "Loser leaves town" showdown.

Rhoden writes a Brooks piece, Jason Whitlock writes a Jeff George piece.

SportsJournalists.com members get to vote on which writer has made the stronger case for his guy. Loser has to leave the business.

 

“I don’t think a couple million would hurt to make his team feel very comfortable every week.” Brooks added: “And for those who don’t understand, come down here to San Antonio and see what our conditions are like. It’s just bad.”
Brooks said he felt the league politicized the Saints’ “home opener” at Giants Stadium and was angry when he saw Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and officials from New Orleans and New York City on the field before that game. He felt Tagliabue should have visited the Saints’ players in the weeks after the hurricane.

There simply is no "race card" in play here. I know, I know, the usual gang of Rhoden-bashers can't keep their knees from jerking in that direction, but read the quotes and the column.
Brooks's comments are class-based, if they're anything at all, and mostly about how he and his teammates were inconvenienced, for which he blames his owner and the league. Given how the NFL and its owners generally react when players go that far off the reservation, I don't think it's implausible to believe that this is part of what's made folks believe that Brooks isn't worth the bother, and I have no problem believing that every owner in the league, given the choice between a mediocre backup who runs his mouth in a way critical of the ongoing business model, and one that doesn't, will choose the latter.

 

Good analysis.

 

That's a legitimate, rational, mature read.

Anyone wants to try and trump it . . . well, I'll be eager to read the successful message in this quest.

 

Why would Brooks, who has years of experience, many of them as a starting quarterback, be any less capable of learning an offense quickly than Todd Bouman, who was coaching HS football and not even looking to get back into the NFL? Why would he be less able to "assimilate himself into a locker room" whatever that means? You mean that teams would rather have a statue like Testaverde or a nobody like Bouman than a 31-year-old, mobile QB who has had at least some measure of success in the league? I thought heyabbott said earlier on this thread that it's all about talent. What, that's not true anymore? I'm not saying Brooks is a great QB by any means, but considering the way some teams have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel, the fact that he hasn't gotten even call to come in and work out suggests there's something else involved here.

And for those who are ripping Rhoden for the race card, he never said Brooks was out of the league because he's black, he said it was for his comments. Any racial overtones are coming from the reader, not the writer.

 

Oh, heyabbott is just grumpy because that kid in Georgia was set free.

 

Joe, that's true that the reason cited is not race. But, honestly, you don't think the reason Rhoden chose to write this piece has something to with race?

Quite many players have been cut out over the years for similar reasons (assuming, for argument's sake, that he's correct that the comments had to something to do with this), but Rhoden never took up their cause. George was a far better QB than Brooks when he was essentially blackballed, but I'm sure Rhoden felt no sympathy in that instance. Do you really believe Rhoden would be writing this piece if Brooks wasn't an African-American QB?

 

And convicted aggrivated child molestors across Georgia are planning for their first meal as free men, at Chuckie Cheese.