ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   I Wish We Were Facing Walter Instead Of Brooks... (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=152454)

RINGLEADER 11-18-2006 07:17 PM

I Wish We Were Facing Walter Instead Of Brooks...
 
Not that Brooks is much better but at least it gives the Raiders something - however slim - to rally around. I just don't like how Gunther scales back our pressure when we play QBs prone to sacks/turnovers and fear a repeat with Brooks. Walter would have been lucky to move the ball 100 yards.

NaptownChief 11-18-2006 07:27 PM

That is like saying I would rather fight a 90 pound guy without a right arm instead of a 92 pound guy without a left....

It shouldn't matter and if it does shame on the Chiefs.

CupidStunt 11-18-2006 07:41 PM

Don't care about the rally around part, but Brooks is better than Walter on the basis that he isn't the WORST QB in the NFL. Maybe second- or third-worst, but that's it.

Damn it, Art!

Deberg_1990 11-18-2006 07:50 PM

Brooks should be good for at least 2 INT's at Arrowhead. It honestly doesnt matter much. Brooks and Walters are both bottom of the NFL barrel. I cant believe The Raiders passed on Leinert?? But im glad they did.....

Hammock Parties 11-18-2006 07:53 PM

You're joking right? Im almost glad we're playing against brooks.... He's one of the biggest idiots when it comes to quarterbacks.

TEX 11-18-2006 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
Brooks should be good for at least 2 INT's at Arrowhead. It honestly doesnt matter much. Brooks and Walters are both bottom of the NFL barrel. I cant believe The Raiders passed on Leinert?? But im glad they did.....


True, but Brooks can scramble if need be. Walters can't. That's the only reason I'd rather be facing Walters.

Halfcan 11-18-2006 07:59 PM

Brooks will be meat on a stick for our defense.

NaptownChief 11-18-2006 09:39 PM

Brooks is terrible to start with...now he is terrible and rusty. If we lose to him we deserve a fate worse than the plague.

siberian khatru 11-18-2006 10:07 PM

The only way we lose is if we play like complete shit. And if we play like complete shit, we deserve to lose.

OctoberFart 11-18-2006 10:22 PM

I sense nervous mulletheads.

KCJohnny 11-18-2006 10:40 PM

Conventional wisdom:

Oakland will sign Damon Huard in the offseason.
Remember this guy?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44...ABN/Gannon.jpg

milkman 11-18-2006 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCJohnny
Conventional wisdom:

Oakland will sign Damon Huard in the offseason.
Remember this guy?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44...ABN/Gannon.jpg

No.

Simply Red 11-18-2006 11:31 PM

something is telling me we really shouldn't worry. But the other is better than Brooks, I totally agree. Hopefully we won't have any major setbacks.

MGRS13 11-19-2006 03:39 AM

um...last time we played Brooks he beat us. Much rather face the young kid.

Chiefs Pantalones 11-19-2006 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaptownChief
Brooks is terrible to start with...now he is terrible and rusty. If we lose to him we deserve a fate worse than the plague.

I said that last week about Harrington and the Dolphins. Don't be shocked if we lose this game.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.