Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

NotDeadYet

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6797
Offline
#30 : June 08, 2012, 09:51:40 PM

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.
  Makes sense, as he was obviously losing speed/reaction time later in his career and no doubt tried to compensate by dropping weight.

Condor Bastadon

****
Starter

Posts : 606
Offline
#31 : June 08, 2012, 10:12:29 PM

This thread should have only one reply in it, and it should read simply....

"No."

Lavonte David can possibly be an effective WLB if he can overcome his lack of size with his athleticism(which is questionable) and instincts....but even mentioning him in the same sentence as Derrick Brooks is dumb at this point.

ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#32 : June 08, 2012, 10:33:33 PM



.....and the Bucs don't have any Shelton Quarles' on the roster either.
l blame the director of pro scouting for that

Look in the mirror man :D

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#33 : June 08, 2012, 10:35:26 PM

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".  ::)

Next time don't ask idiotic questions about Derrick Brooks. Get a clue.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#34 : June 08, 2012, 10:39:56 PM

    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 ;)

As one who was a Giant fan during Taylor's career with the Giants and, after moving here, a Bucs fan for Brooks career with the Bucs I think you sell Taylor's coverage skills a little short. He was obviously a much greater force chasing people around the backfield until he found the one with the ball but when asked to cover he was very good at it. He was the Giants best coverage LBer aside from Pepper Johnson during his career which spanned a couple of different sets of LBers and schemes. You're right about never knowing about Brooks and blitzing ability because he never really was asked to.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#35 : June 08, 2012, 10:48:16 PM

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.

I agree with the take on Shelton Quarles who was a good to very good player. The Bucs don't have anyone on the roster currently at that level.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#36 : June 08, 2012, 11:42:45 PM

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".  ::)

Next time don't ask idiotic questions about Derrick Brooks. Get a clue.

I would ask you to help me to "get a clue"...but for someone that seems to be good for just that one liner as their closing statement....that person probably doesnt have much to offer. If you would not be such a d!ck and put your ego aside for a sec and have a civil/rational convo..you would see that I wasnt discounting (or trying to) discount #55 in anyway..No Derrick was good by himself....I was saying Shelton being there helped Brooks out..in that he would not have to worry about someone not doing their job. So in the future..no need to be a dooche...or maybe you do need to, so that you can sleep at night. Who knows.


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#37 : June 09, 2012, 12:54:21 AM



I would ask you to help me to "get a clue"...but for someone that seems to be good for just that one liner as their closing statement....that person probably doesnt have much to offer. If you would not be such a d!ck and put your ego aside for a sec and have a civil/rational convo..you would see that I wasnt discounting (or trying to) discount #55 in anyway..No Derrick was good by himself....I was saying Shelton being there helped Brooks out..in that he would not have to worry about someone not doing their job. So in the future..no need to be a dooche...or maybe you do need to, so that you can sleep at night. Who knows.

Shelton being there helped Brooks, Ruud being there helped Brooks, Duncan being there helped Brooks, Hardy being there helped Brooks (likely the only real true statement early in his career).


Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17088
Online
#38 : June 09, 2012, 08:47:42 AM

Brooks didn't need much help. His gap was always filled , and sometimes other people's gaps also.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#39 : June 09, 2012, 09:10:46 AM

Long story short on Shelton Quarles imo....he was in the same category as Dwight Smith, Dexter Jackson, Greg Spires, and Brian Kelly. All good solid football players, but not great. The great players were Simeon RIce, Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, John Lynch, and Ronde Barber. There is a difference between good dependable players and great players.

Problem is, we really don't know if we have any players that fit into that first category and we certainly don't have any from the second category. We might just be full of John Howells, Al Singletons, Corey Ivys, and Ryan Neces....guess we'll see in about 85 days!


ryan24

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 10726
Online
#40 : June 09, 2012, 11:32:26 AM

Brooks didn't need much help. His gap was always filled , and sometimes other people's gaps also.

It's no strange coincidence that the Bucs defense came apart when he was injured and eventually let go in and after 2008.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

bucfan33

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1075
Offline
#41 : June 09, 2012, 12:43:44 PM

Let's be Real. The first step is to be better then Geno Hayes! I'm excited about his potential, but let's see him play first before we guess how good he can be.

BucBalla85

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 18442
Offline
#42 : June 09, 2012, 12:56:23 PM

Let's be Real. The first step is to be better then Geno Hayes! I'm excited about his potential, but let's see him play first before we guess how good he can be.

Oh the waiting...

Naismith

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4121
Online
#43 : June 09, 2012, 01:40:40 PM

Geno Hayes was so frustrating. If he just made any plays at all between his infrequent big time splash plays, he could've had a bright future here.

There\'s a very real chance the Bucs waive [Revis] before next season. At the very least, it will be a discussion worth having.

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 23027
Offline
#44 : June 09, 2012, 02:08:01 PM

brooks was a special athlete with outstanding speed.  When he came into the league be was around 220.  Today he would probably be made a SS.  I remember reading he ran a 4.3 at a FSU at that weight.  Take it with a grain of salt for sure but David isn't as fast.  For a 230 LB, a 4.65 isn't anything special.  I do like his 36 inch vertical however.  Probably has good explosion.  Kuechly on the other hand you could make the argument he is a special athlete as well as a hard worker and instinctive.  The potential for being a HOF if he puts it all together in the pros.  David doesn't have that kind of upside.  I expect him to be a solid pro but don't think he will be playing in Honolulu every Jan.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Do you think Lavonte David can be as good as Derrick Brooks? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools