keasley45
Well-known member
Comparisons between the two, or saying for 100% certainty that Brooks is marginal at x , or definitively that he's no good without Bobby is a taking casting judgement without context. Brooks and the rest of the defenders were playing in a flawed scheme. I'm sure through interviews and evaluating specific aspects of their tape. Mike and his staff have a much better feel for what guys like Brooks and the rest are capable of in reality. The last two years have just been far too tainted by a failure of the system.
Brooks has never played with a LB next to him that has the speed and power that Queen has. So it stands to reason he'd be better than he showed certainly with Barton. Better than he was with Bobby? Who knows.
Queen has played with a talented LB next to him and it did wonders for his game. Prior to Smith coming to the Ravens, Queen was OK.
All that to say I think the two of them together have the potential to be great. Regardless of whichever we get, Brooks will be better than he's shown because he'll be paired with someone competent (my assumption). And Queen will as well. I'll leave it to Mike to decide which of the two of them (if not both) fir his system better.
Brooks has never played with a LB next to him that has the speed and power that Queen has. So it stands to reason he'd be better than he showed certainly with Barton. Better than he was with Bobby? Who knows.
Queen has played with a talented LB next to him and it did wonders for his game. Prior to Smith coming to the Ravens, Queen was OK.
All that to say I think the two of them together have the potential to be great. Regardless of whichever we get, Brooks will be better than he's shown because he'll be paired with someone competent (my assumption). And Queen will as well. I'll leave it to Mike to decide which of the two of them (if not both) fir his system better.