Bills Sign Brohm
by John Morgan on Nov 18, 2009 10:32 PM PST
Email
Print30+ teams have passed on Brian Brohm. He was a highly ranked high school recruit*, a successful college quarterback at an overmatched program, that fell, fell, to the second round. The Bills acquire him for asking. Brohm turned 24 September 23. The Bills are his second team in two seasons. The Bills are in diseray. Brohm could be quarterbacking a simplified offense before the season is out.
I swear, if the Toronto Bills have a better quarterback than Seattle in 2010, this is going to be the scene at the VMAC, August 2011.
bust some VMAC security
ass...
and then...
I know a number of you will resort to the "if ... then something must be wrong with Brohm" argument. While this coincides with truth, it is not, in fact, a logical statement. You can not prove something with something you do not know.
*His 26 on the SAT may be cause for alarm.
P.S. - Please, please allow me to believe he's bad or unwilling to sign with Seattle.
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I read the news and immediately thought:
What a smart move.
Why didn’t we do that again? It’s like getting a QB for free…
Why get one for dirt cheap when you can pay eleventy-million guaranteed for a rookie and expend a 1st-round pick in the process? Never mind his experience flattening out the learning curve a bit.
There would've been a transaction cost
To sign him off Green Bay’s PS, he would have to go directly on our 53-man roster (and IIRC, stay there for at least 3 weeks before we could attempt to move him to our own PS). So it’s either risk Teel going on the PS or cut that 53rd guy from another spot.
Sorry to be nitpicking. Brohm would’ve been cheap, he just wouldn’t be completely free. As a Brohm fan, my easy answer would’ve been “cut Terrill, let Walker take his spot in the rotation, and let Brohm occupy the Brandon Coutu Memorial gameday inactive spot for the rest of the year.” And IMO his potential upside was worth whatever replacement-level player we had to sacrifice. But from the team’s perspective it would’ve required either the sacrifice of a gameday contributor or their own handpicked QB prospect to give a guy what amounts to a workout.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
I respect the opinion but think it's bad risk management.
Terrill actually contributes on a weekly basis (gets game reps). The odds that Brohm ever becomes a serviceable (let alone solid) NFL QB dropped considerably when he got placed on the practice squad in Green Bay. I just couldn’t see cutting a guy that gets game reps, for a QB that may never have seen regular season game action in a Seahawks uni.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
Hahahah, that's what I was thinking when I read that....
Especially since the lowest possible score is was like 200
If life gives you lemons, keep the receipt
SAT: 26 makes very little sense to me
26 points? Impossible. I think you could hand in a vomit-encrusted, completely unwritten in test, and it would score better than 26 as long as you had your name on it.
26th percentile? Perhaps, although doesn’t fit the rest of the formatting. What the hell are they trying to convey here with this mystifying number?
It might be his ACT score, which would be a above average score (certainly nothing embarrassing), and typically the SAT is more likely to be used on the coasts and the ACT in the interior.
Anyway, enough on that. I can’t believe he’s been allowed to languish this long. Obviously Buffalo is smart in that they were the first to sign him but they needed to wait this long? Green Bay may have hated him for some reason but I agree in that I don’t care what their reasoning was, I would have liked a chance to find out why he supposedly sucks this much. Maybe Green Bay was wrong.
I would love to entertain the "Logical Fallacy" about Brohm if I may?...
I know a number of you will resort ot the “if … then something must be wrong with Brohm” argument. While this coincides with truth, it is not, in fact, a logical statement. You can not prove something with something you do not know.
You are absolutely correct in your assertion John, that the preceding statement would NOT be an acceptable argument, but you follow it up with an auto-epistemic vein of reasoning (a form of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) which is also fallacious. An auto-epistemic rationale involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. It argues as follows:
If x were true, then I would know that x.
I don’t know that x.
Therefore, x is false.
or
If there was something wrong with Brohm as an NFL QB, then we would know about it by now.
We don’t know there is something wrong with Brohm.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with him as an NFL QB.
Would you be OK with the following argument?
Based on the fact that Brian Brohm has not succeeded in becoming a stable, starting NFL QB for the teams he has played for, Brian Brohm MAY not be a quality option at QB in the NFL.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Nice straw man, but way too much effort to argue with yourself.
I never made the argument that not knowing Brohm is bad means he is good. I only said, as you quoted, you can not argue Brohm is bad because he was passed up.
John: I didn't misquote you like that sir... I wouldn't do that to you.
…and this is the one thing that bothers me a bit about trying to make a point on this site. It not only took me less than 3 minutes to write (not too much effort), but why is it that I am arguing with myself? I read your point and made a counter point. Why throw in the ad hominem (way too much effort & I am arguing with myself)?
Back to the point:
This isn’t straw-man straw man in that I didn’t misrepresent your claim as being that Brohm was good. Your point was that nobody could prove that there was something wrong with Brohm. ….. oh wait a minute…. I see where the mix up is.
Your post said "I know a number of you will resort ot the “if … then something must be wrong with Brohm” argument.“, and you have clarified that it was in reference to his draft position. That…”we can’t say there is something wrong with him because teams passed him up". Total misunderstanding. The draft position portion of your argument is 100% CORRECT but wasn’t in your original post. I thought you were saying that we couldn’t make the “something wrong with Brohm” argument based on his failed stint with Green Bay, because he was never given a chance to fail on the field and therefore “You can not prove something with something you do not know”.
OK… clear!
What would you say we could conclude about Brohm at this point? Obviously it isn’t about physical tools. He has those.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Actually, I guess you did mention draft position in the post...
Prior to the video. I guess the Ricky-Oh Jedi mind trick worked flawlessly.
I didn’t relate the second part of your post to the latter part (post Peyton Manning) comment.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Maybe if I had read it buzzed as well it would have worked out... ;) (please forgive the smiley but I want to convey tone)
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
It's not an ad hominem
A straw man is a fabricated argument conceived to knock down. I person who uses a straw man argument is in effect arguing with themselves.
Yeah, I meant the "way too much effort part" was ad hominem'ish...
Attempting to discredit another’s argument by drawing attention to the characteristics of the person making the argument…
At any rate… now that I am clear as to the draft position reference, I feel a tad foolish for having mis-read the intended meaning and debating a phantom. Had you actually been using his Green Bay experience as reference, I would have had a logical leg to stand on…. but the hindsight on this one is 20/20. Thanks for the clarification.
PS: No need to apologize… this was an example of a healthy exchange. The way a proper debate should be handled. It just happens that we were debating two entirely separate things.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Ok I feel a bit less awkward about my comments now that someone else below has mis-read your meaning.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
When I first wrote this post
the first sentence was an absolute mess. Buzzed writing is drunk writing.
Try buzzed drinking...
err… i mean reading.
And Iverson’s post just made me realize I’ve either had waaay too much, or not nearly enough.
Pass out time. The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets. Who gives a fuck?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 19, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions
Brohm
I know a number of you will resort to the “if … then something must be wrong with Brohm” argument. While this coincides with truth, it is not, in fact, a logical statement. You can not prove something with something you do not know.
Ok, so what I’m going to say doesn’t jive with the quote above, but… I don’t really understand how you came up with the quote above, so here it goes.
What makes you think Brohm is good? All the he has ever had is pre-draft hype. When it came down to it NFL front offices did not consider him to be worth a first round pick (or at least as good as the 55 players selected before him). Then the Packers did not think he was worth a 53-man roster spot. Then all 32 teams did not think he was worth a roster spot for the first 10 weeks of the season. Finally, the desperate Bills decided to claim him. What evidence beyond, “he was once considered a possible top 5 pick” is there that Brohm is good? And if there is none, how is that any more logical a position than saying, “32 teams passed on Brohm for the majority of the season, therefore he is likely not very good”. Of course this position is not always true (see James Harrison or Kurt Warner) in the large majority of cases it is.
I would compare this to another player in this year’s draft that could potentially be in the same situation, Colt McCoy. He is considered by some to be a possible top 5 pick, but by others not worthy of being drafted until the later rounds. If McCoy were to last until the end of the second round next year before being picked by the Packers, and then subsequently waived a year later and left on the Packers practice squad for ~3 months before finally being picked up by another team, isn’t it logical to conclude that McCoy is not very good? I just don’t see how you can say that is not the most likely outcome.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:39 AM PST reply actions
I don't think he ever said he thought he was good.
Just that nobody outside of the NFL FOs really know what he’s capable of. We’ve never seen him play in a regular season NFL game. We can assume that he’s most likely not a starting QB due to the facts you presented. John’s argument is simply, we need a QB, why not bring in someone who costs nothing and had success in college to let our FO evaluate him. I wish no ill fate for Brohm, I only hope whatever QB we end up with is five times better.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Nov 19, 2009 2:49 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, okay
If that’s true I just misread his tone then. I agree it could be a good idea to bring him in as a 3rd stringer to see what he can do (although the Hawks already have 3 QB’s so I don’t know how he’d fit), but I just sincerely doubt he’s anything but downright bad because otherwise he wouldn’t have been cut by the Packers so quickly or left on the practice squad so long.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 AM PST up reply actions
What? Of course I do
Proof as defined by Princteon Dictionary, “any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something”.
If the fact that absolutely no teams thought he was good enough to put on their 53 man roster isn’t proof that he is bad then I don’t know what is. Really, it’s not even like the guys just isn’t good enough to play, he’s not even good enough to make a roster! Now, this doesn’t prove that Brohm is bad, but it is damning evidence. Certainly much, much more than any evidence that he is good. Literally, no one in the NFL wanted the guy enough to make him an inactive 3rd stringer. If you don’t think the fact that every NFL GM decided he wasn’t good enough to be on their team over over some veteran scrub means he’s probably bad then I don’t know what to say.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 4:51 AM PST up reply actions
You can prove he hasn't been successful so far...
Proving he is bad is not possible from a logical argumentation standpoint.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Right, as I said I can't prove he is bad
But I can say that he is very, very likely to be bad based on the evidence we have. But for John to say I have no proof whatsoever is just completely wrong. Quarterbacks (especially second round picks) who show any kind of promise don’t get cut in their second season, let alone passed up on for 3 months by the rest of the league.
It’s very similiar to an undrafted free agent. You cannot prove that he is bad, there have been very good players who were undrafted like James Harrison and Tony Romo. But you can say that in all likelyhood if every team passed on him seven times in the draft he is probably not a very good player.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think he liked being third string in GB
It could be that the whole thing was a terrible fit there. Rodgers is the golden child – he even talks about how close he is with the GM. Who knows. The idea that his abilities won’t translate to the pro game based on what one GM does isn’t all that solid IMO.
Watch him become a Pro-Bowler.
And we draft Tebow.
Sigh.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
Every team passed on him
It’s not like some smart team like the Ravens scooped him up before anyone else had a chance, the fricken Bills wanted him as an emergency QB because Edwards is hurt. I wouldn’t worry about it.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 4:53 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I know.
I mostly worry about Ruskell drafting Tebow.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 19, 2009 4:56 AM PST up reply actions
Ah
Yes, that might be something to worry about.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
I hope Ndamukong Suh is our first pick (if he's available)
Just imagine him next to Mebane … oh boy. Disgusting.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 19, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Just wait..
He may not ever get on the field for the Bills and get cut by years end…
I am not sure what ever happened to Brohm that has all these teams sour on him. He was in the conversation for top quarterback leading up to the 08 draft. THen Louisville sunk as a team and Brohm got the brunt of it, despite the issues being largely defensive. One has to remember that we are talking about a draft class that included Ryan, Flacco, and Henne, all guys that look long for the league (if not future pro-bowlers) at this point..
I’d like to see what Zorn has been able to do with Colt Brennan by now…
The J.Russell benching has me thinking.. man that 2007 qb class hasn’t produced a single legit QB, now three years out. People like to slam Russell as a pure measurables pick by Davis, but he did put up big numbers at LSU and many thought he looked ready for the pro-game after that big bowl win. I don’t really know that much about him, but he wasn’t just a bad pick, he seems to be dogging it to, man those numbers are bad. The only guy from that class that has looked the least bit decent is Kolb.. I wonder if we could move Wallace and Teel for him.
This college class has some real QB talent too, McCoy, Claussen, Locker, Bradford, Tebow, Pike, Ponder..
I think Knapp could build a really interesting and quality offense around a combination of Tebow and Wallace.
Ugh. Just ugh.
“A quality offense around a combination of Tebow and Wallace?”
I hope not. Call me old fashioned, but I want a pocket QB with a rifle and touch. I can’t remember the last QB to win a SB that wasn’t one of those or on his way to being one.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 19, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
Completely Agree.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 19, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
You guys don't know genius when you see it.
If the A11 were ever to become legal in the NFL, there could be no better combination to run it than Tebow-Wallace. In all future history. 19-0 for a decade.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
Obligatory
‘B’ stands for
Bronco, Benz, BMW, Bass
Bang those in the pickup bars
When you see us pullin’ up down the alley
You all act like we are stars
We’re not tryin’ to make a joke
We’re just tryin’ to make it known
That people in the world
That we call B-Girls
Like bars on a Cadillac Brohm.
It's actually "Broughm"
But I have to say, well played.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
I can't understand why Ruskell wouldn't want Brohm
Everything about him fits the Ruskell profile: Proven Winner™, great production as a multi-year starter, a football-lifer with reputation as a film room junkie, quality character, undervalued after a difficult Senior year. And he has the big school pedigree – obviously the team’s paying attention to the Big East, since we’ve plucked Schmitt, Teel & Greene out of there the past 2 drafts.
I have to console myself by believing the team has a detailed scouting report for Brohm sitting on someone’s desk, and that they’ve flagged the same things that have caused other teams to show little interest.
I have no clue what’s caused him to slide. I have a friend who’s a Packers fan and I’ve asked him about Brohm before and this is the (completely biased, fan-perspective) take he’s given me: That mainly, his accuracy has completely disappeared, even in practice he would consistently misfire and sail the short-to-mid stuff. His deep throws are all line drives and he doesn’t put arc on them when necessary to let WRs make plays. He was supposed to be a good decision maker, but he has just looked completely confused and over his head. He frequently made the wrong reads or would only get 1-2 deep in his progressions. His footwork got worse from his 1st to 2nd year. In short, Packers fans were expecting at the very least a competent “game-manager” type of QB and what they saw in 2 preseasons was David Greene. He said that overall, Brohm just looked like he had been a product of Petrino’s system who teased you with the possibility he could be more because of the prototypical size/build, but that he looked like Chris Redman 2.0.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
If paragraph #3 is at all true...
That would be a very good reason for Ruskell to NOT want him. It it possible for a QB to get the “yips”?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
If nobody thought he was good enough to put on their roster
We have to assume that’s because he did not have the skills to make it in the NFL, at least in the opinion of NFL GM’s. I find it very unlikely he was passed over because there was a personal conspiracy against him.
Also, IIRC he had faired very poorly in the preseason, just as some evidence of that. I believe he lost the backup QB job in 2008 to fellow rookie Matt Flynn, who was a 6th round pick, which caused some controversy. I am not 100% sure about that though.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
You don't have to make that assumption at all.
NFL execs are not infallible.
Actually, with the qualifier we do.
“…in the opinion of NFL GM’s.” It’s still an appeal to authority, but it’s valid.
Not infallible, of course not
No one is. But why else would they pass on him? The same reason they would pass on you or I, because we’re probably not NFL players. They could be wrong, of course, but it’s more likely that when none of them think he’s worth a roster spot that he isn’t.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
I have to agree with Brendan.
We’re not talking about one GM here that sees a problem with Brohm. We’re talking about the NFL as a whole. Not one team even offered a 7th round pick for Brohm before the deadline, at a time when teams knew GB was willing to dump him for close to nothing.
To elborate on my position, I think you're
completely correct that we should have taken a flier on Brohm and dropped Adams, who could be probably resigned to our PS.
I just think that doubting his ability based upon his complete lack of attraction to other NFL teams is valid.
It isn't though.
It assumes other teams do not like Brohm as a quarterback, something we do not know, and also assumes that because other teams do not think he is good, he must not be. It is illogical. Maybe Brohm was waiting to sign with a team he thought he could start for. Maybe other teams contacted him and he declined. Maybe other teams that ignored Brohm are wrong. It’s illogical at its very root.
It's not even close to illogical.
It’s just that it’s not water tight.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time….
No, it’s not conclusive. But it’s substantial and compelling.
The question isn’t whether Brohm is good or not, but whether he’s a good prospect, a worthy project. Science is essentially heuristics corroborated by logic and demonstration. Not only is scouting an inexact science, but development is, too. Kurt Warner wasn’t Kurt Warner, in Europe.
When educated guessing is already the best you can do, and your resources are finite (not in money but in draft picks, roster spots, and time) there’s nothing wrong with a heuristical approach to gauging his prospects for success.
Market supply & demand factors. It’s been a bull market for QBs, recently. 2004, 2006 and now 2010, look strong. 2008 (Brohm’s year) was average. In 2008, however, 2009 looked strong. You can commit yourself (I use that term lightly but there is some sensitivity with the QB position and also with a QB prospect with name recognition who was previously highly regarded) to a closer look at a reject, unearth what had been overlooked, or take a look at the next prospect coming out of college, which obviously is much more fertile ground.
And yes, that very context may have been why half or more of the league didn’t take a closer look, and not because they actually passed because of their scouting report. That’s not hard to concede. I won’t attempt to say anything about him with certainty. But it’s not illogical, it’s just not conclusive. Identifying better prospects, surer probability, isn’t a bad way for us to fantasy GM. It’s not proof, but it’s a compelling and completely valid case.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
What information does an NFL GM have about another teams player?
Game tape and what else? Why are we assuming that the GM of say Jacksonville has as much knowledge about Brian Brohm as the GM of the Packers does? NFL GM’s are not a hive mind and I’d assume scouting of their own players would be considered highly proprietary.
Wait, so GM's aren't always right?
Come on, your making a lame argument. Because GM’s aren’t always right does not mean that when every single one of them agrees that a player is not worth a roster spot there is not a very strong chance that they or correct. GM’s don’t have to be perfect for us to reason that when 32 of the brighter NFL minds in the world don’t want a player, that player is probably not very good.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
The fact that a GM didn't pick him up isn't proof that they don't think he's good enough
Take the 9ers for example. I would bet a small amount of money that Brohm could be the best quarterback on the team next year. But the 9ers might make that argument that because they have a 1st overall pick showing some improvement, a solid back up in Shaun Hill and another project already on their team they aren’t in a great position to take advantage of the Brian Brohm opportunity.
The argument you’re making, that GMs are passing on him so he must be bad, is exactly why theres an opportunity here at all. It’s a reclamation project that Seattle absolutely should have attempted.
I did not say that he must be bad
I said in all likelyhood he is bad, because otherwise somebody would have wanted him much sooner than the Bills picked him up. 32 NFL GM’s decided he wasn’t worth a flier during training camp, doesn’t it seem more likely that he’s just not good enough to make a roster?
As for that bet, I would take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m not sure what would make you think Brohm could outperform Smith or Hill when the Bills could have picked him up earlier instead of keeping Gibran Hamdan, but didn’t. Brohm hasn’t shown anything, and he’s probably more likely to be out of the league in two years than starting.He could be better than Nate Davis, but at least Davis looked good in the preseason.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
"We have to assume" makes even less sense than "he must be"
Why make that assumption?
It does not seem likely that Brohm went from a highly regarded college quarterback drafted in the second round to not good enough to make an NFL roster. It doesn’t make any sense that a GM wouldn’t want to bring him in for essentially nothing to find out for sure why the Packers lost interest. Why overlook all of the information that led to him being a first day draft pick in favor of one teams decision to cut him?
Why
Because when every GM doesn’t want a player enough to put him on a roster, 95 times out of 100 that player isn’t good enough to make a roster. Some GM’s are wrong quite often, but when no one wants a guy it says a lot about what kind of player he is.
It doesn’t make any sense that a GM wouldn’t want to bring him in for essentially nothing to find out for sure why the Packers lost interest
Really, then why did no one bring him in? All of the GM’s were being non-sensical? Sorry, I just don’t buy that at all, I’d say it’s more than likely they just didn’t think he was good enough.
Why overlook all of the information that led to him being a first day draft pick in favor of one teams decision to cut him?
The Bucs drafted wide receiver Dexter Jackson of Appalachian State ahead of Brohm that year. Jackson is out of the NFL. Sometimes GM’s just make mistakes, and it seems pretty obvious by the information we have that Brohm is nowhere near the player the Packers thought he was on draft day.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever the hell that means
You don’t seem to want to look at the facts here, at least the ones that don’t support your side.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
As I said before
He looked terrible in preseason, lost the backup job to a 7th round rookie, was cut a year later, and then no GM in the whole league felt he was even worth hiding at the back end of their roster for most of the season.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
The GM argument is irrational
and as for him losing his job, we do not know the circumstances of that either.
We do know
that he was 3rd string in a small town in rural Wisconsin with a starting QB who is like the adopted son of the GM and who just signed an extension.
How could he not be happy with that?
/sarcasm
Here's a question: Who here trades Wallace straight up for Brohm and why?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I don't.
I’m holding onto the hope that we eventually move Seneca to WR, line him up outside most of the time and let him take direct snaps occasionally in the SeaCat.
Do you think your hope is more likely with Mora in charge than with Holmgren? I think I do.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know if that's too good of an idea at this point in his career.
As jteckman posted right as I’m in the middle of writing this, Seneca is reaching 30, and his peak. He’s going to slowly lose the athleticism that made the Seahawks take a flier on him in the first place way back in 2003.
I still think he'd be dangerous as a WR.
Yes, he’s aging, but he’s got very good speed and great hands. When we drafted Teel my hope was that he’d prove able to replace Seneca as backup QB and we could move Seneca to WR. I also agree with jteckmann in doubting that the coaches will use the SeaCat more than occasionally, but I’d be fine with that.
Still, even if he’s just the backup QB I think I’d rather keep Seneca over Brohm. Kevin Kolb would probably be a different story though.
How can you make the judgement that he has great hands?
I don’t think we’ve seen him in action enough to be able to judge that.
I would
I believe we’ve seen Seneca at his peak. I don’t think the coaching staff is committed to running the “SeaCat” as anything more than the occasional gimmick, so I don’t factor his versatility into my decision. I’m looking at him just as a QB
So IMO, it’d be like buying a lottery ticket. Seneca’s $100. Brohm’s probably worth $0, but there’s a small chance at $1M. If you win, you’re set for life. If you lose, it’s easy to move on. And ultimately I think it would be relatively easy to replace Seneca the QB.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
That's pretty fair
I can see that point of view.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Trade an established, decent backup QB in his prime
for a player that’s completely and utterly a mystery in the NFL?
yeah i don’t think so.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 19, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Why not?
Seneca has proven that he isn’t good enough to start. The value of a backup is to provide some form of offensive continuity should your starter go down, which is a luxury the Hawks don’t need now that their chances of making the playoffs are miniscule. If you believe that Brohm has talent and could be a starting QB, what’s the downside?
We have no idea why other GMs didn't sign him
so we can’t possibly use that as proof he is not a good quarterback.
Maybe’s he’s a jerk.
Maybe he’s a furry enthusiast.
You can not prove something from something you do not know.
You cannot "prove"
That doesn’t mean there’s not any “proof”. Sorry, but it doesn’t. The guy has no history of character questions or anything that would make us suspect that was the problem. And even if he does, loads of guys do. It’s not as though being a jerk is unheard of from professional athletes. A guy who was a second round pick a year ago wouldn’t be left on a practice squad unless no one thought he could contribute.
You’re looking at his draft status from two years ago and ignoring all evidence we have to the contrary. He looked terrible in preseason, lost the backup job to a 7th round rookie, was cut a year later, and then no GM in the whole league felt he was even worth hiding at the back end of their roster for most of the season.
Just because he has not played in the regular season does not mean we cannot be fairly certain that he is a very bad player. Saying that we “have no idea” why nobody signed him things is at best reaching.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
No, it's fact.
We don’t know why other teams did not sign him.
You are assuming that means he is bad, but have little evidence to support that. He was not that bad this last preseason, nor would two preseasons undo years worth of data.
The assumption that because another GM did not sign him, he must be bad, is illogical. It holds no water. You can not support something with something you do not know.
You keep making strawman arguments
I did not say “he must be bad”, in fact I have stated several times that there is no way to prove either way whether he is good. Please stop misqouting me to try to make a point, I know there is a chance that he is a good player.
If I were to revise your statement to:
The assumption that becauseanother GMevery GM did not sign him, hemust beis almost assuredly bad, isillogicalvery logical.
That’s a logical statement, and to suggest otherwise is laughable. GM’s sign players they think are good, especially if they are quarterbacks. No one wanted Brohm.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
You contradicted yourself in your own comment.
in fact I have stated several times that there is no way to prove either way whether he is good
The assumption that because another GM every GM did not sign him, he must be is almost assuredly bad, is illogical very logical.
Where is the contradiction?
You left out the strikeouts of the second sentence so it’s a mess, but I have no clue what your talking about. We can’t prove that he is good or bad, but we can make a very informed judgement based on the information we have. Where’s the contradiction in that?
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
Hehehe
Yes, I am awfully confident that every GM wasn’t wrong on the same player, as most people should be. That’s a pretty standard thing.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
John, I don't know how to debate with you
When you don’t read my comments. Proof is factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. This is proof:
He looked terrible in preseason, lost the backup job to a 7th round rookie, was cut a year later, and then no GM in the whole league felt he was even worth hiding at the back end of their roster for most of the season.
Those are facts, he looked bad in preseason, he did lose the backup job to a 7th round rookie, he was cut a year after being drafted, and he wasn’t picked up by anyone else for a long time. I do have proof, if you don’t want to look at it that’s your fault.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
Looking terrible is an opinion. He completed over 60% of his passes in 2009. That is a fact.
Losing his job is a fact, so to speak, but why and how is not established. Maybe Green Bay wished to motivate him.
This:
and then no GM in the whole league felt he was even worth hiding at the back end of their roster for most of the season.
is speculation grounded in fallacy. We do not know why another team did not sign him. You can not extend that to mean he is bad. If every GM in the NFL did think he was bad, that still would not prove he is bad.
Are you sure you didn't mean "can't" there?
I can’t respond until I know what your trying to say.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, can't.
If you can’t prove something, you can’t infer from that same evidence it is more likely either.
So because we can't prove that aliens are real or not
We can’t look and evidence and say it’s likely (or not) that they exist? Sorry, I’m not sure where you got that idea, but it’s completely untrue. We can’t prove how good Tebow or Colt McCoy would be in the NFL right now either, that doesn’t mean we can’t be fairly certain that they’d be in way over their head at this point in time.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
I have to go
I will resume this debate with you later, if you care to, otherwise we’ll agree to disagree.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
Might I suggest
that this whole Brohm argument is racist and political?
Just trying to bring a mirthy killing to this thing.
Not that I enjoy the arghy bargy
but it frustrates me when people spout nonsense like it’s fact. The history of tragedy is the history of illogical beliefs enforced by overconfident believers.
By this reasoning: Kerouac would have never published ‘On the Road’, Michael Jordan would have never played college hoops and Radiohead would have dissolved before Pablo Honey.
If you can't prove an *instance* of something,
you can infer from demonstrated outcomes of other applicable instances, that it is more likely.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
Recently, you said
you hadn’t yet looked comprehensively at Mebane to see how he’s doing, at 3-tech. You said, you don’t know for sure if he’s struggling, but if he’s not struggling, neither has he demonstrated he’s a force at the position.
A logical statement. Not enough for the jury to bring a guilty verdict, but it has substance. I agree with it. We’ve got more data to work with, because he’s a starter, but I know enough about defensive line play, and have watched enough, without looking closely, to know he has not been a force at 3-tech. He’s made modest impact for himself or the players around him. I can observe that there is no extraneous factors in play enough to cover up a Warren Sapp performance from Mebane. I can be certain that he’s not a force, just as astronomers have confirmed 440 extra-solar planets without directly observing nearly any of them.
Brohm’s taken practice snaps and had two camps. Encouraging progress would give him intrinsic value, I am positive. Ted Thompson is a bit of a dealmaker, he’s kind of a draft pick stockpiler, he demonstrated a good deal of confidence in Aaron Rodgers. Extraneous factors could account for the Brohm Mystery Story. The Coutu active roster story contrasts with it mightily, though. Extraneous factors couldn’t account for him being close to starting-ready, demonstrating any progress at all, and not retaining trade value.
So I can be positive Brohm is not close to making progress as a starting QB. I can’t be positive that he won’t develop. I can’t approximate the extent to which his potential has diminished. I can be certain it has a little. Arm strength, inconsistency, and decision making have been questioned, albeit quietly, I’ve come across it before this article. We have evidence. Practice Squad designation is evidence. It’s just not conclusive.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
I can't see how the Seahawks could acquire Brohm.
Where would we find the space? We’re not going to cut Matt or Seneca midseason, and we JUST got Teel. I know the argument could be made to get rid of one of those guys, but ditching any of them for Brohm would make very little public relations sense.
Buffalo, on the other hand, has nothing to lose on their roster, and just dumped their coach. They’re in an optimal position to try Brohm.
Jamar Adams, D.D. Lewis, Roy Lewis, Cameron Morrah, Derek Walker, Mansfield Wrotto
Seattle has players it could subtract.
We somehow managed to keep two kickers last season
Four quarterbacks seems doable.
I don't mean on the roster in general, I mean at QB.
You could add Brohm and have four QB’s, but when would Brohm get any snaps?
Matt needs to play.
Seneca needs to keep himself ready if Matt goes down.
And we still need to know what we have with Teel.
If it was this next offseason, I’d be all for taking a flyer on Brohm. So, presumably, would the Seahawks’ front office. You could cut Seneca, or Matt (gasp) and Brohm would get some time behind center. But right now I just don’t see how it would be possible unless a truly shocking roster move was made.
I must really be missing something
so let me back waaaaaay up for a second.
Brohm was on Green Bay’s Practice Squad during his second year. His second year.
Players who show coaches great promise of being starters aren’t sitting on practice squads during their second year. Players whom teams are eager to hang on to aren’t sitting on practice squads during their second year.
That’s where you keep a nice practice player that you could live without.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Radio Row Video: Marcell Dareus of the Buffalo Bills
- Not to be outdone, Tecmo Bowl also predicts a Giants win
- Shutdown Corner previews and predicts Super Bowl XLVI
- With help from a police escort, Giants get their hometown pizza in Indianapolis
- ‘Why Is This News’ podcast: Doug Farrar on Super Bowl XLVI
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
