Author |
Topic: back at ya...vick or brooks (Read 258 times) |
|
Red Zone Master
    
# 179

oh Lord, deliver us from the fury of the Norsemen!

Posts: 1045
Back to top
|
 |
Re: back at ya...vick or brooks
« Reply #1 on: Sep 23rd, 2004, 11:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree that w/o Deuce, Brooks is throwing more; however, STL will know that too. I'd expect them to do a lot of blitzing with no respect for the run. When not blitzing, expect mostly nickel and dime coverages. Could be a decent day rushing for Brooks, but I wouldn't expect huge #s passing. I'd go with Vick. Good Luck!
|
|
Logged |
3 straight underperforming seasons, one nitwit head coach, 2 problem child WRs, 1 collosal trade bungle....but a wild boat party with booze and hookers!!!????? Priceless.
|
|
|
Red Zone Master
    
# 179

oh Lord, deliver us from the fury of the Norsemen!

Posts: 1045
Back to top
|
 |
Re: back at ya...vick or brooks
« Reply #3 on: Sep 23rd, 2004, 2:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 23rd, 2004, 1:30pm, Philly wrote:| Brooks really isn't a running QB... don't know why that perception is out there. He averaged 11 rushing yards a game in 2003. |
| That's a bit of an eye opener! I've never seen that stat. I don't know why that perception is there, but you are correct, it's not deserved. I'd still go with Vick though. I don't like it when a team is one dimensional, even if it is to your players advantage.
|
|
Logged |
3 straight underperforming seasons, one nitwit head coach, 2 problem child WRs, 1 collosal trade bungle....but a wild boat party with booze and hookers!!!????? Priceless.
|
|
|
|