3irty1 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I want to see Brohm do good. As a Packer fan I hated to see him go, and couldn't comprehend the moving him to PS in the first place. But later it was stated we were focused on our (read Horrid) special teams. I agree with the earlier comment saying no team took Brohm, not because they thought he wasn't good, but that they weren't in the market. Which teams needed a QB? Lions? They happy with Stafford. Jets? See Sanchez. Living in Buffalo, i was excited to see him come in, noting he may have a shot at the starting position in the 2010 season. I hate Trent, and woulda liked to see Fitz do better than he did, but to give up on Brohm so early before one complete offseason is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I want to see Brohm do good. As a Packer fan I hated to see him go, and couldn't comprehend the moving him to PS in the first place. But later it was stated we were focused on our (read Horrid) special teams. I agree with the earlier comment saying no team took Brohm, not because they thought he wasn't good, but that they weren't in the market. Which teams needed a QB? Lions? They happy with Stafford. Jets? See Sanchez. You can't be serious. QB is not about need, it's the most sought after position in the NFL and if teams could find 4 good ones they would. If a team believed that Brohm had a future, they'd move heaven and Earth to get him, either for a future trade or as a QB. Look at what the Eagles did with Vick. Did they need him, no. He's a 3rd string QB, but they saw future value in him and he's been on the market all offseason. So to say that teams value the 53rd man on their roster instead of a QB with a future is ludicras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3irty1 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Team's desire for Vick and Brohm is an unfair comparisson. Vick had played as a starter, and had proven his worth. Brohm hasn't gotten the chance. Rogers is a top 5 QB, and Flynn caught on faster. Teams aren't gonna "move earth" for a QB they havn't seen in action. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Teams aren't gonna "move earth" for a QB they havn't seen in action. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have potential. Did you see what Seattle did to get Whitehurst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Team's desire for Vick and Brohm is an unfair comparisson. Vick had played as a starter, and had proven his worth. Brohm hasn't gotten the chance. Rogers is a top 5 QB, and Flynn caught on faster. Teams aren't gonna "move earth" for a QB they havn't seen in action. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have potential. He was drafted in the 2nd round the year before and started for 3 or 4 years at Louisville, I'm sure teams "saw him in action". Doesn't every player coming out of college have potential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Over exaggeration of the situation...Brohm was put on practice squad at a time where teams were completely set at QB with the season about to start. Its not very common for teams to add a QB at the point barring an injury because the QB essentially will be so far behind, especially one thats never played, that he would take a spot from someone else that could contribute. Not to mention, being he had a poor showing in what very few pre season reps he had and that GB put him on the practice squad leads others to make assumptions too. I 100% guarantee that if Brohm was released in the offseason he would have been signed. Way too much is made of the fact no one claimed him at that point without the consideration of the entire situation. I lol'ed. And not in a good way. So you mean to tell me that NFL talent evaluators are lead to assumption by not considering the situation, but Alphadawg, with his guru-like wisdom, was able to recognize the fallacy of their logic without a single shred of inside information, all from the comfort of his own sticky keyboard? Dood you ARE impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Again, when has an NFL franchise ever put a young QB (who was a high draft pick just a year earlier) first on waivers and then on a practice squad? Please answer this question! So LMFAO all you want, your argument that GB thought anything of him is absurd because he would have never been put on waivers or the practice squad! Again, I trust the other 30 teams who had a shot at him, not the previous regime or you. Please answer the above quetsion because you seem to be avoiding it. Jack Kemp. San Diego Chargers, 1962. Kemp was a top prospect and they were pissed when Saban grabbed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Jack Kemp. San Diego Chargers, 1962. Kemp was a top prospect and they were pissed when Saban grabbed him. 1962? Not that things have changed since then, but how about a post merger reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooly22 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 1962? Not that things have changed since then, but how about a post merger reference? What about Kurt Warner? He was cut and out of the league, and once he got his chance he made the most of it and now is a possible Hall of Famer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDVA Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 The likelihood of a team finding a starting QB from another club's PS is remote. Besides, 32 teams passed on signing the guy after hitting GB's PS. For another team to sign him, all they had to do was put him on the active 53 man roster, yet no one did. Pro Personnel Departments are looking for guys all the time; it's their job after all. I have to believe that after hitting waivers, he hadn't demonstrated enough to be on someone's roster. And that's with the NFL being a QB driven league. League inactivity tells me a lot re: Brohm. The Packers did not win the Superbowl. Therefore, their pro personnel department obviously isn't so great at evaluating players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 What does it tell you when an established offensive minded coach who knows how to run a brilliant offense thinks a player needs more time to develop and is worth losing him by placing him in the practice squad? They freaking WAIVED him and then resigned him to the practice squad. It tells me that the Packers don't think the guy has panned out at all for their system... and because he was such a high draft choice they didn't want to just release him. So congratulations... the Bills stole a guy that make take 3-4 years to develop, that is, "if" he can ever learn to read defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I lol'ed. And not in a good way. So you mean to tell me that NFL talent evaluators are lead to assumption by not considering the situation, but Alphadawg, with his guru-like wisdom, was able to recognize the fallacy of their logic without a single shred of inside information, all from the comfort of his own sticky keyboard? Dood you ARE impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffaloed in Pa Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 How many starts did Fitzpatrick have before he came to Buffalo? Plus he was here all offseason to learn playbook. How many games did Brohm start before he came here? How many weeks was he here before Brohm Started? Don`t bother , there are so many kids on here that know nothing. It`s amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Don`t bother , there are so many kids on here that know nothing. It`s amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Don`t bother , there are so many kids on here that know nothing. It`s amazing. I guess sticking to the topic is a bad thing? "Why are we down on Brohm?" is the title. Reading comprehension is something "kids" struggle with all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts