PDA

View Full Version : Derrick Brooks vs. Keith Brooking


07-17-2006, 03:01 PM
Shiver and I are having a debate as to who is better/more valuable, Keith Brooking or Derrick Brooks.

You called me a homer, because I didn't think Derrick Brooks is exponentially an upgrade than Keith Brooking is at this point and time.

I think Keith Brooking is a good player, but I also think Derrick Brooks is a great player and is not showing his age yet. Everyone says he is getting older and slower...

Derrick Brooks ranked #2 in the NFL in tackles for Outside Linebackers in 2005. He was 2 combined tackles (125) behind the leader, Demorrio Williams (127).

This is not to mention 3 sacks, 1 INT, a 2006 Pro Bowl MVP, and a partridge in a pear tree. :lol:

Keith Brooking had a very very respectable 115 tackles, 3.5 sacks, and 4 INTs.

The question is, which one is more valuable: Brooks or Brooking (this question isn't a "dynasty" question, as to which one is more valuable over the next 8 years, but just for next season).

draftguru151
07-17-2006, 03:04 PM
Brooking easily. He is the second best OLB (behind Bulluck) and he can play every LB position. He is very important to the Falcons defense. Brooks is very important to the Bucs, but next season I would take Brooking.

Steelcurtain1970
07-17-2006, 03:04 PM
Brooking is awesome but doesnt compare to the leadership and ability of Brooks

Canadian_kid16
07-17-2006, 03:07 PM
I have to go with Brooks...even if I was a Falcon fan i probably would consider him the best OLB in the game...

Shiver
07-17-2006, 03:09 PM
- 5 Straight Pro-Bowls at three different positions. (4-3 WLB, MLB and 3-4 ILB)
- Only 30 Years old, three years younger than Brooks.
- Had 3 more Interceptions than Brooks, and the same ammount of Sacks.


Career Wise; Brooks.
Here and Now; Brooking.


Of note; this started because I felt Chris Hovan would be a bigger upgrade for the Falcons defense, than Derrick Brooks would be. In the "take 2 from your division teams" thread.

scar988
07-17-2006, 03:13 PM
Brooking is awesome but doesnt compare to the leadership and ability of BrooksBrooking is the unquestioned leader of the Falcons defense.

Staubach12
07-17-2006, 03:18 PM
Brooking. He was only 10 tackles behind brooks, but he picked off 5 more passes.

scar988
07-17-2006, 03:18 PM
Shiver and I are having a debate as to who is better/more valuable, Keith Brooking or Derrick Brooks.

You called me a homer, because I didn't think Derrick Brooks is exponentially an upgrade than Keith Brooking is at this point and time.

I think Keith Brooking is a good player, but I also think Derrick Brooks is a great player and is not showing his age yet. Everyone says he is getting older and slower...

Derrick Brooks ranked #2 in the NFL in tackles for Outside Linebackers in 2005. He was 2 combined tackles (125) behind the leader, Demorrio Williams (127).

This is not to mention 3 sacks, 1 INT, a 2006 Pro Bowl MVP, and a partridge in a pear tree. :lol:

Keith Brooking had a very very respectable 115 tackles, 3.5 sacks, and 4 INTs.

The question is, which one is more valuable: Brooks or Brooking (this question isn't a "dynasty" question, as to which one is more valuable over the next 8 years, but just for next season).yeah and you forgot to mention that Brooking was playing out of his natural WLB spot the entire year. you also completely forgot the fact that Brooking had an overall better year considering he was only 10 tackles behind Brooks but had 3 more INT's and .5 more sacks. and no one cares about pro bowl MVP. it's like bragging about company softball MVP.

Shiver
07-17-2006, 03:18 PM
It's stupid to think that

10 Tackles

>

.5 Sack
3 Interceptions


Not even considering age, which Brooking has much more left in the tank.

07-17-2006, 03:28 PM
Brooking is awesome but doesnt compare to the leadership and ability of BrooksBrooking is the unquestioned leader of the Falcons defense.

Brooks is the unquestioned leader of the Buccaneers TEAM, not just defense.

scar988
07-17-2006, 03:29 PM
Brooking is awesome but doesnt compare to the leadership and ability of BrooksBrooking is the unquestioned leader of the Falcons defense.

Brooks is the unquestioned leader of the Buccaneers TEAM, not just defense.well, I'm sorry the Falcons have Vick who leads the entire team. You can't really hold that against Brooking. man sometimes you come off as the biggest ****** I have ever seen post here.

07-17-2006, 03:32 PM
- 5 Straight Pro-Bowls at three different positions. (4-3 WLB, MLB and 3-4 ILB)
- Only 30 Years old, three years younger than Brooks.
- Had 3 more Interceptions than Brooks, and the same ammount of Sacks.

-9 straight Pro bowls, take that
-Brooks doesn't play his age like I said
-Mad props to Brooking for the INTs, not going to lie

portermvp84
07-17-2006, 03:36 PM
I would take Keith Brooking he can play a lot of positons on defense. He has a couple more years more to play then Brooks.

07-17-2006, 03:37 PM
Brooking. He was only 10 tackles behind brooks, but he picked off 5 more passes.

It's 3 more INTs. You subtract, not add. :lol: j/k Staubach

07-17-2006, 03:37 PM
I would take Keith Brooking he can play a lot of positons on defense. He has a couple more years more to play then Brooks.

This wasn't a multiple season question. Read the freaking question (*******)

Moses
07-17-2006, 03:48 PM
I'd probaly go with Derrick Brooks if I had one season to win the Super Bowl. He has the experience and talent to lead a defence both physically and mentally. Also, analyzing stats (especially when they're this similar) won't determine who the better player is.

07-17-2006, 04:04 PM
I'd probaly go with Derrick Brooks if I had one season to win the Super Bowl. He has the experience and talent to lead a defence both physically and mentally. Also, analyzing stats (especially when they're this similar) won't determine who the better player is.

Good point about the stats, I just wanted to prove that Brooks isn't slowing down like people want to claim. And I have to show Brooking's stats to be fair. So there you go.

YoJoeBucsFan
07-17-2006, 04:17 PM
Brooks hands down.

07-17-2006, 04:25 PM
Derrick Brooks and its not even close for me.

bofadabizzles
07-17-2006, 04:28 PM
It's stupid to think that

10 Tackles

>

.5 Sack
3 Interceptions


Not even considering age, which Brooking has much more left in the tank.

If we are talking about last year, Brooks and the Bucs beat Brooking and the Falcons 2x, and Brooks forced Vick to fumble while the Falcons were driving to win the first game.

If we are talking about the length of their careers, it's not even close. Brooks was the Defensive MVP of the NFL the year the Bucs won the the Super Bowl, he was even better in the playoffs that year.

If we are talking about the future, well, ya gotta beat the champ to be the champ.

HawkeyeFan
07-17-2006, 04:35 PM
Derrick Brooks

Shiver
07-17-2006, 04:39 PM
If we are talking about last year, Brooks and the Bucs beat Brooking and the Falcons 2x, and Brooks forced Vick to fumble while the Falcons were driving to win the first game.

Yeah, Brooks and that defense were the reason Tampa Bay won those two games. (27 Points, 443 Net Yards, and 24 Points allowed, 281 Net Yards) :roll: Not to mention, Brooks didn't cause the fumble, Dunn's helmet did. It was the O-Line that let Brooks go untouched, forcing Dunn to jump in front of Vick, thus his helmet and the football collided.

If we are talking about the length of their careers, it's not even close. Brooks was the Defensive MVP of the NFL the year the Bucs won the the Super Bowl, he was even better in the playoffs that year.

No debate from me, over their career, Brooks is much better. But that isn't the question in this thread, nor my point.

TCU
07-17-2006, 04:42 PM
Derrick Brooks by far.

Shiver
07-17-2006, 04:47 PM
I'd probaly go with Derrick Brooks if I had one season to win the Super Bowl. He has the experience and talent to lead a defence both physically and mentally. Also, analyzing stats (especially when they're this similar) won't determine who the better player is.


True, but it proves they are very close, which agrees with my original point.

- Derrick Brooks is a better at;

man coverage
flowing to the ball

- Keith Brooking is better at;

the point of attack
zone pass defense

Shiver
07-17-2006, 04:50 PM
Derrick Brooks by far.


Care to explain to me how Derrick Brooks will be better next year "by far."

07-17-2006, 04:51 PM
What shiver?

Derrick Brooks is in the Cover 2, we rarely go with man coverage. That doesn't make much sense.

I don't even think Atlanta goes zone, but correct me on this because I don't know what kind of defense Atlanta runs besides the fact it is 4-3.

SuperMcGee
07-17-2006, 04:53 PM
If you wanna go by stats, Angelo Crowell had 120 total tackles while playing significantly in only 14 games. He also had as many sacks and forced fumbles and one more interception than Brooks. All in his first year starting. But obviously Brooks is a better player. Of course the stat argument has been made already, but I just love Crowell

Shiver
07-17-2006, 04:59 PM
What shiver?

Derrick Brooks is in the Cover 2, we rarely go with man coverage. That doesn't make much sense.

I don't even think Atlanta goes zone, but correct me on this because I don't know what kind of defense Atlanta runs besides the fact it is 4-3.


Worded wrong on my part. He is better in coverage, not just man-to-man, he is more fluid. But Brooking has outproduced Brooks at being a ball-hawk, than post-prime Brooks.

Boston
07-17-2006, 05:04 PM
Brooks hands down.

If you're going to say "hands down" and happen to be a bucs fan, explain, or don't post that.

bofadabizzles
07-17-2006, 05:05 PM
If we are talking about last year, Brooks and the Bucs beat Brooking and the Falcons 2x, and Brooks forced Vick to fumble while the Falcons were driving to win the first game.

Yeah, Brooks and that defense were the reason Tampa Bay won those two games. (27 Points, 443 Net Yards, and 24 Points allowed, 281 Net Yards) :roll: Not to mention, Brooks didn't cause the fumble, Dunn's helmet did. It was the O-Line that let Brooks go untouched, forcing Dunn to jump in front of Vick, thus his helmet and the football collided.

If we are talking about the length of their careers, it's not even close. Brooks was the Defensive MVP of the NFL the year the Bucs won the the Super Bowl, he was even better in the playoffs that year.

No debate from me, over their career, Brooks is much better. But that isn't the question in this thread, nor my point.

The D was the reason we won those games, the first game we had no offense outside of Caddy, we only had 1 or 2 decent drives all game, the Falcons moved the ball up and down the field until it came time to punch it in. Our D was on the field most of the game and each drive some way they came up with a play to keep us in the game.

cunningham06
07-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Derrick Brooks of course. Stats aren't everything, often times interceptions are a result of just being in the right place at the right time. That being said Keith Brooking is good in coverage, but he is not Derrick Brooks. Brooks is one of the best coverage OLB's in the NFL. He is more experienced and is more of a team leader than Brooking.

07-17-2006, 06:37 PM
lol Falcons fans are kinding themselves if they actually think Brooking is even in the same class as Brooks let alone better or as good. hahaha I love it, they think Vick is actually a good QB too.

Shiver
07-17-2006, 06:46 PM
lol I am kidding myself that I actually think I know everything about the game of football. hahaha I love it, nothing like being a pompous know it all.


*fixed

07-17-2006, 07:10 PM
lol Falcons fans are kinding themselves if they actually think Brooking is even in the same class as Brooks let alone better or as good. hahaha I love it, they think Vick is actually a good QB too.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

NIN1984
07-17-2006, 07:15 PM
Its not even close, Derrick Brooks all the way

A Perfect Score
07-17-2006, 07:55 PM
I'd probaly go with Derrick Brooks if I had one season to win the Super Bowl. He has the experience and talent to lead a defence both physically and mentally. Also, analyzing stats (especially when they're this similar) won't determine who the better player is.

Moses u have to be one of teh smartest posters on here. us canadian boys know our stuff eh? :lol: ur totally right, stats dont mean s**t, especially for defense. INTs can jsut be being in thje right place at the right time, then it becomes a tip drill. Anyone can get some of those INTs. Look at Ty Law. 10 INTs last year, but 8 of them dropped right into his hands. Im not knocking brooking, cause i voted for him. just saying stats dont mean jack. The reason i chose brooking is cause derrick brooks plays in a cover 2 defense, which is so differant from any other defense, especially for LB. Im not sure how well he would do in a prototypical defense. But Brooking can play any LB postion in the more traditional 4-3, and im sure hed do fine in a 3-4 as well. I take brooking, not by much, but by the versatility factor.

scar988
07-17-2006, 07:56 PM
I'd probaly go with Derrick Brooks if I had one season to win the Super Bowl. He has the experience and talent to lead a defence both physically and mentally. Also, analyzing stats (especially when they're this similar) won't determine who the better player is.

Moses u have to be one of teh smartest posters on here. us canadian boys know our stuff eh? :lol: ur totally right, stats dont mean s**t, especially for defense. INTs can jsut be being in thje right place at the right time, then it becomes a tip drill. Anyone can get some of those INTs. Look at Ty Law. 10 INTs last year, but 8 of them dropped right into his hands. Im not knocking brooking, cause i voted for him. just saying stats dont mean jack. The reason i chose brooking is cause derrick brooks plays in a cover 2 defense, which is so differant from any other defense, especially for LB. Im not sure how well he would do in a prototypical defense. But Brooking can play any LB postion in the more traditional 4-3, and im sure hed do fine in a 3-4 as well. I take brooking, not by much, but by the versatility factor.Brooking has played all of these in his college and pro career:

4-3 WLB, MLB, SLB
3-4 WILB, SILB

The Unseen
07-17-2006, 08:06 PM
I'm torn on this one, but I voted for Brooking because I know that Jack Del Rio would take him. He's a big fan of versatility.

07-17-2006, 08:07 PM
Just because you are versatile, doesn't mean you are more talented.

Troy Brown can play WR, CB, NB, KR, and PR, but that doesn't mean he is better than T.O.

The Unseen
07-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Yeah, great comparison there. TO and Troy Brown are close in ability. :roll:

He has versatility at the LB position, which Del Rio is a fan of. That's why I voted for him. I don't know why I have to re-explain something as simple as this.

07-18-2006, 06:42 AM
Yeah, great comparison there. TO and Troy Brown are close in ability. :roll:

I was making my point. Troy Brown is the most versatile player in the NFL, but he will never be as good as T.O., which means just because you are versatile doesn't make you as valuable, or more valuable, than another player.

PACKmanN
07-18-2006, 07:18 AM
Next Season- Derrick Brooks
8 years- Keith Brooking

The Unseen
07-18-2006, 08:43 AM
You don't get it then. Troy Brown is a #3 sometimes #2 WR who has played totally different positions. TO is a top-5 #1 receiver. Keith Brooking, even if he is not as good as Derrick, is versatile as a linebacker. Not only that, if he is not as good, it's not by much. Derrick Brooks is the epitome of the WLB in the Tampa 2, and that's probably it.

Jensen
07-18-2006, 08:54 AM
Derrick Brooks is the better linebacker right now, but in a couple years it'd be Brooking.

Jonathan_VIlma
07-18-2006, 11:21 AM
I'll take Derrick Brooks. The defense revolves around him and the WLB position in general. If he doesn't drop deep enough in coverage then it throws the whole cover 2 zone scheme off. He's been amazing at it and is a clear cut Hall of Famer because of it.

Four more passes defended, and ten more tackles is what most forget. Brookings stats looked better on paper, but I'd bet teams are a lot more hesitant to throw towards Brooks weakside because of the underneath coverage and the depth he gets. That's not to say it's a knock on Brooking, but Brooks is a monster at what he does, with incredible football instincts and game skills.

If the basis is on one year, I'll take Derrick Brooks.

Jonathan_VIlma
07-18-2006, 11:22 AM
Next Season- Derrick Brooks
8 years- Keith Brooking
Neither will be playing eight years for now, and I doubt Brooking will stack up against Brooks if you're comparing career accolades.

07-18-2006, 11:24 AM
Four more passes defended, and ten more tackles is what most forget. Brookings stats looked better on paper, but I'd bet teams are a lot more hesitant to throw towards Brooks weakside because of the underneath coverage and the depth he gets. That's not to say it's a knock on Brooking, but Brooks is a monster at what he does, with incredible football instincts and game skills.

If the basis is on one year, I'll take Derrick Brooks.

I love this point you make. It is like elite CBs, teams never threw at Deion Sanders for this same reason.

Brooks had a few years where he intercepted 3, 4, 5 balls, but after our Super Bowl year, he had only 1 or 2 because teams finally realized how good he was against the pass.

07-18-2006, 11:26 AM
Derrick Brooks is the better linebacker right now, but in a couple years it'd be Brooking.

Of course, because DB might be retired. :lol:

07-18-2006, 11:29 AM
Derrick Brooks is the epitome of the WLB in the Tampa 2, and that's probably it.

That's probably it? Like saying Anthony Munoz is the best LT of all time, "but that's probably it." :lol:

Brooking is more versatile, but he will never be as good as Derrick Brooks because Brooks' athleticism is unreal.

07-18-2006, 11:33 AM
Keith Brooking isnt even a top 5 OLB

Brooks is

Buchorn
07-18-2006, 11:48 AM
You can't JUST look at what they did last season....

Brooks has 1 Super Bowl and one defensive MVP is is a potential HOFer.

Keith Brooking does not have a resume like that.

But if I were a Falcon fan, I would probably take Hovan over Brooks too. Demorrio Williams is a badass. In fact, I would call the Falcon LB's better than the Bucs unit.

07-18-2006, 11:55 AM
You can't JUST look at what they did last season....

Brooks has 1 Super Bowl and one defensive MVP is is a potential HOFer.

Keith Brooking does not have a resume like that.

But if I were a Falcon fan, I would probably take Hovan over Brooks too. Demorrio Williams is a badass. In fact, I would call the Falcon LB's better than the Bucs unit.

I would take the ATL's LBers over ours too (right now, until Ruud develops). They are fast and underrated.

But I would rather have our DL and DBs (works better than ATLs for Cover 2, conversely theirs works much better for man-man coverage)

The Unseen
07-18-2006, 12:20 PM
That's probably it? Like saying Anthony Munoz is the best LT of all time, "but that's probably it."

You have really bad context issues. I'm talking about what he can do, not how good he is.

07-18-2006, 02:18 PM
That's probably it? Like saying Anthony Munoz is the best LT of all time, "but that's probably it."

You have really bad context issues. I'm talking about what he can do, not how good he is.

I took that in context as saying, "that is all he can do, he can't do anything else." It just seems a little demeaning.

P-L
07-18-2006, 02:28 PM
You three (S2C, Scar, and Shiver) need to be able to have a civilized debate. The three of you need to calm down, the two Falcons fans more-so than S2C. You do realized that people are entitled to their opinions, and yours isn't necessarily right, just because you say it is.

The Unseen
07-18-2006, 03:26 PM
I took that in context as saying, "that is all he can do, he can't do anything else." It just seems a little demeaning.

Exactly. And he's been great at it. That does NOT mean he's bad by saying he fits only as a WLB in a Tampa 2. It's not demeaning to say he can't play MLB or SLB, which is what I'm saying.

Shiver
07-18-2006, 04:44 PM
You three (S2C, Scar, and Shiver) need to be able to have a civilized debate. The three of you need to calm down, the two Falcons fans more-so than S2C. You do realized that people are entitled to their opinions, and yours isn't necessarily right, just because you say it is.

:?

Go ahead and find one post where I treated S2C in a "un-civilized" fashion.

Shiver
07-18-2006, 04:53 PM
You can't JUST look at what they did last season....

Brooks has 1 Super Bowl and one defensive MVP is is a potential HOFer.

Keith Brooking does not have a resume like that.


That's not the point. I said, the difference between the two isn't that big, for next year. Which is why Chris Hovan would be vastly a larger addition to the Falcons defense, in this (albeit stupid) hypothetical thread. Never did I ever say Brooking had a resume like Brooks does, that would be ignorant.

President
07-18-2006, 05:01 PM
Derrick Brooks by far.


Care to explain to me how Derrick Brooks will be better next year "by far."
Does not matter next year, because Brooks will be old. Derrick Brooks was WAY better then Brooking in his prime.

slightlyaraiderfan
07-18-2006, 05:01 PM
You three (S2C, Scar, and Shiver) need to be able to have a civilized debate. The three of you need to calm down, the two Falcons fans more-so than S2C. You do realized that people are entitled to their opinions, and yours isn't necessarily right, just because you say it is.
I see nothing wrong in this thread, and I also see nothing wrong with a heated discussion.

Buchorn
07-18-2006, 05:15 PM
Brooks could lengthen his career if he switched inside. I think he has the ability to play mike.

07-18-2006, 06:32 PM
Brooks could lengthen his career if he switched inside. I think he has the ability to play mike.

Not when we drafted Barrett Ruud as the first ILB in the 2005 draft. Remember, Ruud was ahead of Thurmond and Tatupu in terms of ranking. Some think he was the best because there were concerns with Channing Crowder's character issues.

The kid has skill, he just hasn't been able to showcase it like the rest of the 2005 ILBs that had success as rookies. He has had to play behind Quarles who had a career year. A lot of people think he could be the starter coming out of training camp.

scar988
07-18-2006, 07:20 PM
Thurmond? his name is Odell Thurman

cunningham06
07-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Thurmond? his name is Odell Thurman

Wow you caught that he misspelled Odell Thurman's name, that proves your correct in your argument that Keith Brooking is better than Derrick Brooks. Seriously what is the point of correcting people on such trivial matters, I'm sure not everything you type is correct.

njx9
07-18-2006, 07:42 PM
Thurmond? his name is Odell Thurman

Wow you caught that he misspelled Odell Thurman's name, that proves your correct in your argument that Keith Brooking is better than Derrick Brooks. Seriously what is the point of correcting people on such trivial matters, I'm sure not everything you type is correct.

nope, i'm sick of this.

if you can't spell a guy's name right, you're clearly not qualified to talk about him. there's a vast difference between the 1,001 people who don't know the difference between lienhardt and leinart and the people who make an occasional typo.

the moral of the story is, if you don't even know his name, you probably shouldn't be talking about him in the first place.

scar988
07-18-2006, 07:56 PM
Thurmond? his name is Odell Thurman

Wow you caught that he misspelled Odell Thurman's name, that proves your correct in your argument that Keith Brooking is better than Derrick Brooks. Seriously what is the point of correcting people on such trivial matters, I'm sure not everything you type is correct.it's the fifth time I have seen him call him Thurmond. There is no one in the NFL with the last name Thurmond and like njx said at least get the name right. it's like when people say Brookings, Kearney or Finnerman.

07-18-2006, 08:26 PM
Maybe if they were better players their names would be more recognizable...everyone knows how to spell Roethlisberger. :lol:

07-18-2006, 08:28 PM
90% of the people on here don't know how to spell Joe Jurevicius or Jeff Samardzija. My bad on the Thurman.

This is just Scar being nitpicky. "IF YOU SPELL ODELL THURMAN'S NAME WRONG AGAIN, YOU WILL BE CAST OUT INTO THE DAMNATIONS OF HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

07-18-2006, 08:31 PM
it's like when people say Brookings, Kearney or Finnerman.

Three ATL players, that's funny.

All Bucs players are easy to spell: RON-DE BAR-BER, DER-RICK BROOKS, SIM-E-ON RICE, CHRIS SIMMS, MICH-AEL CLAY-TON, CAD-IL-LAC WILL-IAMS...lol Hooked on Phonics NFL style. :lol:

njx9
07-18-2006, 08:46 PM
it's not like thurman is difficult. :roll:

additionally, samardzija's name comes up on google as a "did you mean" on the most common misspellings. as does jurevicius's.

scar988
07-18-2006, 08:52 PM
it's like when people say Brookings, Kearney or Finnerman.

Three ATL players, that's funny.

All Bucs players are easy to spell: RON-DE BAR-BER, DER-RICK BROOKS, SIM-E-ON RICE, CHRIS SIMMS, MICH-AEL CLAY-TON, CAD-IL-LAC WILL-IAMS...lol Hooked on Phonics NFL style. :lol:3 ATL players that people can't get right yet the Buccs make it easy. their hardest name is Zemaitis.

Caddy
07-19-2006, 07:45 AM
Brooks all the way, and its not just homerism.

When you have a guy who has not missed a game ever and started every game since his rookie season and does not look like slowing down porduction, how can you not pick him.