Bills Sign Brohm
by John Morgan on Nov 18, 2009 10:32 PM PST
143 comments
30+ 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.
0 recs |
143 comments
|
Email
Print
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.
by Misfit74 on Nov 18, 2009 10:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It would have been awful to give up nothing to find out
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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
by jteckmann on Nov 19, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Damn, a 26 on the SAT
Now that’s hard to do.
by aerozeppelin on Nov 18, 2009 11:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
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
by Bramlet A. on Nov 18, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually it was 400, 200 per section.
Now it’s 600 I believe with the 3rd section.
by LantermanC on Nov 19, 2009 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Gihyou on Nov 18, 2009 11:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 1:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 2:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 2:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That isn't meant to be rude either
Forgive me if my tone sounded rude.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 5:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 5:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When I first wrote this post
the first sentence was an absolute mess. Buzzed writing is drunk writing.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 1:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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 whiskey chainsaw on Nov 19, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
You have no proof whatsoever Brohm is bad.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 5:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 6:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 19, 2009 4:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
Ah
Yes, that might be something to worry about.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 19, 2009 6:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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 whiskey chainsaw on Nov 19, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
I pray the plan is not to enter the wallace/teel era.
I’m about to throw up in my mouth at the thought.
by Misfit74 on Nov 19, 2009 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only part about the A11 that isnt legal in the NFL
is non-eligible position players need to declare themselves eligible. Surprisingly, the 3-3-3 alignment is actually legal.
Element of surprise greatly diminished, but how much time do defenses have to adjust? How about a Tom Moor-Peyton Manning no huddle-style offense, where each play the guys declare and then immediately line up for a snap. Couldn’t do as many things as you could when A11 was legal in high school, but it’d still be a lot more tricksome than the Wildcat. I would love to see someone try it in the pros
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by BrooklynHawk on Nov 19, 2009 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's actually "Broughm"
But I have to say, well played.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
too right
yeah I took the liberty of making the spelling adjustment. Glad someone else knew the ref though heh.
by BrooklynHawk on Nov 20, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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
by jteckmann on Nov 19, 2009 9:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
You don't have to make that assumption at all.
NFL execs are not infallible.
by BrianL on Nov 19, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, with the qualifier we do.
“…in the opinion of NFL GM’s.” It’s still an appeal to authority, but it’s valid.
by thebyron on Nov 19, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Argh.
Albert Pujols was signed in the 13th round.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For perspective, the Seahawks offered a 6th round pick for
Charlie Frye.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
No, it's not
It’s interesting the words needed to explain this compared to the words needed to refute it.
We do not know Brohm was passed up by other GMs, we only know he was not signed by another team.
We do not know what Green Bay actually thinks of Brohm’s ability.
Brohm not being signed by another team tells us nothing about Brohm himself. Working from the theory that Brohm being available equals Brohm being bad is inherently flawed. It’s illogical.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's so many logical fallacies at play here it's hard to keep up
If Bill Polian told me Brian Brohm sucks, it would mean nothing. Not that he has, but that seems like the crux of the argument against Brohm: GMs have passed on him.
If Shelly the crack whore shows me tape of Brohm misfiring on multiple deep throws, or his inability to sense the rush in the pocket, or penchant for yanking his center’s testicles during the QB exchange, then that would be evidence that Brohm is not a pro quarterback.
No evidence of this type has been offered by anyone. The closest is that Brohm has sucked in the preseason, which is not really truly and rather flimsy.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
This is not a logic problem operating in a vacuum
All 32 teams have an established and unquestioned incentive to sign him if he’s valuable, relative to the cost of acquisition. Diminished in some cases by current roster state, and due to the sensitivity of the position, a number of teams would not figure to middle-man it and pick him up and flip him on nflBay.
All 32 teams also have due diligent exposure to him.
We don’t know what any team actually thinks of him, but we can state with absolute certainty what they don’t think of him. They don’t think he’s Peyton Manning. This is something we can infer.
Buffalo picked him up. So I should say 31. I don’t dismiss the still substantive possibility that he could develop. I can be certain about the limited but unquantifiable, diminished probability that he will develop.
I only mostly took issue with the absolutions of whether it’s logical or not. Logic can be wrong. An inability to be conclusive does not preclude all inferences from being able to be made. Knowledge can’t really exist without heuristics. A comprehensive body of evidence on Brohm’s prospects could also still be wrong in the end.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's less than 31
The Patriots, Colts, Falcons, Ravens, Giants, Chargers, Cardinals, Jets, Dolphins, etc. would not have the incentive to sacrifice a roster spot to find out why the Packers cut Brohm.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if that's true.
Teams with established starters still can use talented QBs as depth.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
but I agree with Nate, that close to half the teams he listed would probably feel fine with their backup QB situation. You don’t want nothing but green back there.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Justin Forsett
Brendan: I agree with you that Brian Brohm may not a good NFL QB, but it cannot be argued logically.
Justin Forsett…
…was passed over by every team in the draft, placed on the practice squad, signed by the colts, cut… and look where he is now. A single failed attempt in Green Bay is not enough evidence YET to conclude Brohm isn’t worthy of picking up.
In the scientific world there is no absolute proof. “Laws” are formed based on a preponderance of evidence. Gravity for example, has so much evidence to support it that it becomes law. If at some point, if somewhere in the world, there were an unexplored anti-gravity field, the entire “proof” would have to be re-visited.
At this point, the thought that Brohm isn’t a solid NFL QB because every NFL GM passed him over, would be a theory (supported with a single stint in GB). Should the Bills end up dropping him, the theory would gain weight.
Just not enough to call it proof at this point.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
that some of this discussion has been about whether it can be irrefutably demonstrated that he’s not a good QB. What is even the point of that discussion? Logic and science (evidence, falsifiability, the scientific method) are not the same thing. It’s not illogical, because it cannot be proven irrefutably.
The issue ought to be whether it’s acceptable to consider the aggregate lack of action on the rest of the league to have some merit in evaluating him. Yes, it is acceptable. In football and scouting, you’re never afforded the opportunity to only move on irrefutable cases. If you guys are frustrated by the use of the 32-GM argument, it’s just as frustrating, to me, to dismiss it entirely because it’s not conclusive. It’s quite telling to a limited extent.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 6:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have shared your frustration along these same lines before...
Ultimately it turns into Semantics Wars… If we all use the same (appropriate) terminology it may solve much of the debate.
Your theory (not yours alone by the way), is that Brohm may not be a good NFL QB based on GM’s passing him over while sitting on the practice squad. I actually share your sentiments, and am not at all excited about Brian Brohm, but it is well short of proof. Theories require time and evidence to gain strength.
Justin Forsett is a great example of how a guy can get sent packing to the practice squad, picked up, cut again, resigned, designated again to the practice squad, to eventually experience some decent success.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is well short of conclusive
and I don’t think there’s anyone involved in the conversation who’s not aware of that by this point. What it is not short of is logic. So yes, semantics.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its illogical to assume from the single premise of inaction in the middle of the season to be a league wide dismissal of his ability. There are dozens of factors involved in those decisions that haven’t even been mentioned.
Quite telling to a limited extent? That sounds a lot like who knows.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you're assuming assumption.
At least in this strain of the conversation, Redwolf said, doubting his ability because of the lack of interest is valid. John said it’s illogical, which is wrong, it’s got clear and reasonable logic. Probability is clearly in favor of it.
It’s not conclusive. Inconclusive does not mean illogical.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
heuristics?
One GM and one coach don’t have a roster spot for him. They’re also kind of strange people. Thompson has some high big hits in talent evaluation and a whole bunch of ugly Ks. Its the middle of the season and there aren’t roster spots just sitting empty.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
saying other GMs don't want him
is a lame argument.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
"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?
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Yes, 95 times out of 100.
You are a font of abusive argumentation.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
facts not in evidence
You’re referring to your assumptions as facts.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 6:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
He did not look terrible in preseason.
He looked unfinished and young.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The GM argument is irrational
and as for him losing his job, we do not know the circumstances of that either.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 7:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a question: Who here trades Wallace straight up for Brohm and why?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
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.
by thebyron on Nov 19, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by thebyron on Nov 19, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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
by jteckmann on Nov 19, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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?
by abender20 on Nov 19, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
You're awfully confident about something you say theres no way to prove
by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
And yet you have no proof whatsoever to support this assertion.
An illogical assertion at that.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you can prove something, you can't infer from that same evidence it is more likely either.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Yes, can't.
If you can’t prove something, you can’t infer from that same evidence it is more likely either.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
Might I suggest
that this whole Brohm argument is racist and political?
Just trying to bring a mirthy killing to this thing.
by dagraham on Nov 19, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
Right.... what your describing is a theory about Brohm...
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is this, Plato's Cave?
Why don’t we all go all Socrates and conclude nothing at all except that we know nothing at all, and abandon all other intellectual discourse?
It’s football, man. Yes, Brohm being on the practice squad might just be a shadow on the wall of a cave, and I think it means he’s not demonstrated enough ability or development to be worth retaining on the active roster and developing into a franchise quarterback, or trading. Like John said, maybe the fekker has acute, chronic halitosis. We’ll never really know Maybe there’s some tail wagging the dog in there somewhere.
But other than that, this isn’t terribly complex. The dictating factors, even in some cases minutiae, of football personnel management, have some fair exposure in fandom. Not all factors are accounted for, but the dictating factors can be to a limited extent. Enough of an extent to know that they didn’t put the fekker on the PS because he’s a jerk. Yes, we can infer this. Enough of an extent to know that the teams without a Peyton Manning didn’t consider that he has any real prospect of becoming Peyton Manning.
We can infer a ceiling. The most conclusive evidence, short of giving him a starting career and waiting for 10 years to see if he went HOF, is the inexact science of scouting. A prospect facing inferior competition gets a red flag because of it. is it conclusive? No, it’s identifying risk. Identifying probability. Identifying potential. A red flag from not being a demonstrably pursued prospect is just as heuristical, and just as legitimate.
by jacobstevens on Nov 19, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
About Brohm being pursued
did we know Kent had been pursued in 2008?
I don’t think that not being able to prove Brohm was pursued really tells us anything.
He was signed to an active roster despite having little chance of contributing this season. To me, that is, by your own standards, much stronger evidence that Brohm is good.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I'm so rigid
and I don’t think you are, either. That’s an unreasonable characterization of my standards. Buffalo is dissatisfied with the QBs on hand and they are exploring other options. Yes, it is evidence that he has value. Value being good and/or potential.
Value of course is relative, but in a mostly closed system, value can reach a sort of critical mass. If it were Matt Ryan on the PS, unsigned for 9 weeks, would it change your feelings on his prospects? I am comfortable considering the lack of action as evidence. If you’re not, don’t use it as evidence.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love the Plato's Cave Comment.
Why don’t we all go all Socrates and conclude nothing at all except that we know nothing at all, and abandon all other intellectual discourse?
Your on a roll. I will actually work “go all socrates on your ass” into a discussion today. Awesome!
The thing I want to convey however, is that we CAN have an intellectual discussion about it, as long as we are discussing support for our theories. Proof is something that is very very hard to come by.
Theory of relativity
Theory of gravity
These are theories that have amassed so much support that we consider them “proved”. A single Brohm stint in GB isn’t enough evidence yet to support the theory (a theory btw that I personally subscribe to).
Justin Forsett
Kurt Warner
countless others… have shown that it’s possible to get passed over several times by all 32 NFL GM’s and not be “bad” players.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 19, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Falcons thought they raped the Packers
when they dumped a drunk loser for a first round pick. He’ll start game 301 this Sunday and has some of the best stats of all available QBs in the world so far.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I get all that.
Let me re-state my position, I understand it’s not conclusive. I just think it’s unreasonable to preclude all inquiry, all analysis, all discussion, because it might be incorrect. That’s my position, but I got caught up in trying to illustrate the value that it has.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This has gotten out of hand
I won’t respond anymore. I’ve said my piece. I should accept people disagree with me and let it go.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mad about Brohm
more than I thought I would be.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't have to apologize
You’ve done an incredible job with the discussion. I’m sorry to have gotten under you skin. I’m more frustrated with it, too, than I should be. Sorry for pushing it this far. I respect your opinion on the matter.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can infer a ceiling?
I guess you can infer anything, but his ceiling based on scouting reports is extremely high.
by Salty on Nov 20, 2009 7:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Peyton Manning were on the PS
and no one picked him up for 9 weeks, I could infer that in the relatively closed system of the NFL, where teams try to win, either they didn’t want him, something was preventing them from getting him, or some extraneous factor was involved to account for it. That extraneous factor would have to be significant. I would expect, in this closed system, to be able to identify it or identify other signs that an extraneous factor were present. Lacking one, I could be certain that there was a reason that made teams with a demonstrated need and incentive to pick up Manning, couldn’t or didn’t want to.
Brohm, Dennis Dixon, maybe teams wouldn’t clamor to get them. Value is relative but reaches critical mass with Manning. Teams don’t not want him, right? I mean they just don’t. A handful of teams love their QB and don’t want the PR drama. Two handfuls of teams love their QB but would pull the trigger. I mean, Brohm is not Peyton Manning or he wouldn’t be on the PS, that’s a ceiling. Not conclusive about what he could develop into, but we’re talking value: how good he is right now, and what his remaining potential is.
I thought Brohm was more of a high floor guy. NFL ready, cognitive, good but not great arm. Needed consistency and to put it all together. Two training camps is enough to change a scouting report, that’s a significant amount of development time.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but you forget Descartes.
Cogito ergo sum: I have knowledge of my own existence. Beyond that, doubt everything.
by thebyron on Nov 20, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by djafrot on Nov 19, 2009 1:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jamar Adams, D.D. Lewis, Roy Lewis, Cameron Morrah, Derek Walker, Mansfield Wrotto
Seattle has players it could subtract.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Reed
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 19, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Quarterback is more important than rotational end.
by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We somehow managed to keep two kickers last season
Four quarterbacks seems doable.
by Gihyou on Nov 19, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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.
by djafrot on Nov 19, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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
by Stevo's on Nov 19, 2009 8:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
