Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks?

[Hate]

i'd settle for Shelton Quarles

We already have quite a few Sheltons imo.

Well that's where we disagree!!

[chace1986]

Re: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks?

i'd settle for Shelton Quarles

...but is Shelton any good without Brooks next to him and Sapp in front of him? I think we need some special players on this team to make guys like Shelton look great. We already have quite a few Sheltons imo.

Shelton played an important role in a important position on that defense. Another question would be..is Brooks as good as he was if a less solid player would have been in the middle causing #55 to overcompensate and be caught out of position? Quarles was a good, relieable, consistent LB. You could combine all of the current abilities of the LBs on the squad and they dont measure up to Quarles...sure there is "potential" with some of the LBs...but they are the weakest unit on the team until proven otherwise.(which I believe they will..as long a Quincy is on the bench)

[Skull and Bones]

Brooks was a 4.4 guy.  Rumored to be the 2nd fastest on the team in his prime.  David has somewhat average measurables.  Ran a 4.65 at combine iirc.

[Skull and Bones]

Also, not only did brooks have superior physical talent but no one worked harder than he did.  So even if David puts in the same amount of work db did in developing his craft he still won't be as good as him.  Talent and hard work beats hard work or talent.

[ryan24]

Re: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks?

i'd settle for Shelton Quarles

...but is Shelton any good without Brooks next to him and Sapp in front of him? I think we need some special players on this team to make guys like Shelton look great. We already have quite a few Sheltons imo.

Shelton played an important role in a important position on that defense. Another question would be..is Brooks as good as he was if a less solid player would have been in the middle causing #55 to overcompensate and be caught out of position? Quarles was a good, relieable, consistent LB. You could combine all of the current abilities of the LBs on the squad and they dont measure up to Quarles...sure there is "potential" with some of the LBs...but they are the weakest unit on the team until proven otherwise.(which I believe they will..as long a Quincy is on the bench)

SAYYYYYY WHAT?? You have absolutely got to be kidding me.

Brooks played next to Nickerson, Jamie Duncan, Webster, Quarles and Ruud and played at an extremely high level with all of them. You mean to tell me that D. Brooks was made to look good by all of these guys?

Get a clue.

[ryan24]

I'd imagine that's it's a decent bet that there isn't a first ballot HOF LBer in the entire draft never mind Lavonte David. The entire premise is just stupid.

Let's hope he's a good player.

.....and the Bucs don't have any Shelton Quarles' on the roster either.

[Skull and Bones]

.....and the Bucs don't have any Shelton Quarles' on the roster either.

l blame the director of pro scouting for that

[BucBalla85]

Also, not only did brooks have superior physical talent but no one worked harder than he did.  So even if David puts in the same amount of work db did in developing his craft he still won't be as good as him.  Talent and hard work beats hard work or talent.

David is talented and is said to have a good work ethic. He just isnt AS talented as Brooks was. At least we from what we know so far.

[Legend]

Discounting Shelton is stupid. He was a great player and if we have several of him on the roster already, then I'm not seeing it.

[chace1986]

Re: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks?

i'd settle for Shelton Quarles

...but is Shelton any good without Brooks next to him and Sapp in front of him? I think we need some special players on this team to make guys like Shelton look great. We already have quite a few Sheltons imo.

Shelton played an important role in a important position on that defense. Another question would be..is Brooks as good as he was if a less solid player would have been in the middle causing #55 to overcompensate and be caught out of position? Quarles was a good, relieable, consistent LB. You could combine all of the current abilities of the LBs on the squad and they dont measure up to Quarles...sure there is "potential" with some of the LBs...but they are the weakest unit on the team until proven otherwise.(which I believe they will..as long a Quincy is on the bench)

SAYYYYYY WHAT?? You have absolutely got to be kidding me.

Brooks played next to Nickerson, Jamie Duncan, Webster, Quarles and Ruud and played at an extremely high level with all of them. You mean to tell me that D. Brooks was made to look good by all of these guys?

Get a clue.

Nothing that I said discredited #55. He is the best LB in Bucs history. No contest. The only thing I was doing was supporting the solidity if Quarles play. Next time ...properly interpret what someone said before spouting "get a clue". 

[NotDeadYet]

    Different linebackers have different skill sets. It's up to the COACH to figure out how best to put players in position to utilize their skillset while keeping them out of situations where their weaknesses get exposed. Brooks, for his skillset, was the BEST OLB I've ever seen. Different that Lawrence Taylor, as Brooks often covered WR's in short zones, and was GOOD at it. As Kiffin hated to blitz, we'll never know how good at it Brooks could've become... Taylor was a superb blitzer, but more limited in coverage skills. Which is "better"? Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder...
    David isn't quite ther yet

[muvlodge]

Re: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks?

i'd settle for Shelton Quarles

Sh*t...I'd settle for Al Singleton...lol

I thought the same thing....but I would hope he be better. Al Singleton was definitely solid.

[JDouble]

Brooks was a 4.4 guy.  Rumored to be the 2nd fastest on the team in his prime.  David has somewhat average measurables.  Ran a 4.65 at combine iirc.

Please don't start with the forty time garbage. But I have to shoot this down. Brooks was on NFL Sirius radio just this week and he said his 40 time wasn't good. If he ran a 4.4 he wouldn't have said that. 40 time means nothing to a LB.

Unrelated but interesting side note, he also said he played at 235lbs his whole career until his last two years. He said he was just 225lbs for his last two seasons.

[dexmonkey]

short answer NO

long answer
No. i only say this because derrick brooks was a special player. hes a once in a lifetime type guy. he set about a change at the outside linebacker position in terms of how it is played. these kinds of guys dont come around often. i think David has the tools to be a very good player, i just dont think i feel comfortable comparing him to derrick brooks.

[JDouble]

Discounting Shelton is stupid. He was a great player and if we have several of him on the roster already, then I'm not seeing it.

Well then call me stupid, but I still don't think Shelton was a great player. People throw around the word great to easily. Great players make their teammates look better. Shelton was a solid, dependable player. He was good. So was Chidi Ahanotu and Dwight Smith. They all looked great at times because they were surrounded by greatness. When I say we already have quite a few Sheltons, I simply mean that we have guys that are solid, dependable football players that could look very good if we could just find 2 or 3 special players on defense. Unfortunately we don't have any elite game changers on defense. We don't have any of those special players that can make their teammates look better.