GCn20 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 I guess the coaches think Brohm gives us the best chance to win after Drew Willy. We'll find out soon enough. That's the scary part. Either the coaches are completely out to lunch or Marve is that far behind in his development that we are stuck with Brohm. I'm not liking either scenario because it means that we are stuck with Brohm, and he can't play the game at this level. bearpants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue4ever Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Marve is one of the best "sandlot" QBs I've seen in awhile. When the play breaks down he would be the guy I choose to be at QB. However, broken plays are not something any team should ever want, and the play breaks down waaaay to often when Marve is behind centre. Marve has a skill that when he learns to run an offence with efficiency will serve him well. Until he learns to execute the playbook as it is written he will not make the next step in his career. That being said, I would like to see where he is at developmentally. I get the feeling that I will not be enthused with the answer when he does play, because he has been unable to surpass a scrub like Brohm. However, give him a chance to show he can run an offence. He really can't do any worse than Brohm. Maybe we ruin his development that way...I don't know. What I do know is he's been here long enough. It's time for Marve to show that he can be a professional QB and not just a one trick pony, and it's definitely time we move on from Brohm. Two very good back-to-back posts gcn. I think you are bang on on both. This smacks of the Alex Brink/Joey Elliot situation three years ago (how soon we forget). Everyone hated Brink (with reason - he couldn't perform) and clamored for Elliot, then all the fan boys got their wish and Elliot started - and was competent for one game, sub-par by 2 once defences had tape on him, and had us begging for option #4 (or Buck's return) shortly thereafter. The Brohm situation needs to be separated from the Marve equation. Brohm is struggling mightily on the most basic stuff, namely getting the ball to the receiver on less than one hop. Mechanics? Confidence? The simple inability to throw a pass? I find it impossible to believe that he never had the skill in the first place, he's been around pro football for a decade, including the NFL. I saw him between plays in Edmonton actually pantomime the drop back and release motion before getting into the huddle, which I've never seen in a game before by a QB. Something is off in his head, and it was like he was trying to re-gain his muscle memory, much like a golfer after an errant swing or in his pre-shot routine. Got to think a lot of this is mental, and the constant chirping about Marve being better from the media and the chattering masses on this board, as well as being booed after one series at home has got to get to him, no matter how thick-skinned he is. Not sure he can re-gain that confidence again, or if the fan base will even give him that chance. Anyone want to give me odds on a bet that he will get booed in the first offensive drive BEFORE the first down pass - that is when he takes the field to start the first drive? 3:1? 2:1? Even money? I won't disagree that right now Marve couldn't be worse, but those who are waiting for a savior in him are most likely in for a rude awakening a la Elliot. The message from the team has been consistent (no need for conspiracy theories) - he doesn't follow the system (spare me the "it's because the system sucks" line - Willy seems to be doing more than well enough in it when he's not getting knocked out of games), and free lances way too much, doesn't go through progressions, and is so run-first mentality that he will be too easy to defend once teams figure that out and spy him with a linebacker and force him to beat them with his arm. The coaches clearly believe he is not ready yet, and Elliot is a great example on this very team how rushing a player into action because he "looks" better than option number 2 to the fans can be a recipe for disaster. I can hear people saying "Who is to say that Marve is bound to fail anyway? He's shown more and just needs that chance." OK, but clearly the coaches don't see it that way (and I'll still trust their judgment over a bunch of internet armchair QBs who have seen nothing but scrub-time action against prevent defences in Marve's case), and history has seen more examples of one-game wonders who flame out when pushed too quickly than those who instantly rise up and become stars out of nowhere. Patience among the fans has been exhausted by the 25 years of losing, and we are all praying for the next Ricky Ray/Rakeem Cato/Bo Levi Mitchell diamond in the rough, but sorry folks more patience is required. If you are out of patience right now, then you might as well turn in your tickets and stop visiting this board until the team is a solid contender again. See you in a couple of years if that is the case. I suspect the coaches are hoping that Brohm can get his head back into it and find that confidence again, at least enough to tread water, and that Marve and his skill set of stronger arm and better feet can pick up the mental stuff sooner than later. Actually I'm sure they are praying that Willy can play, and then the other stuff can be put off until it fixes itself over time, or adequate replacements can be made. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. Logan007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue4ever Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 I guess the coaches think Brohm gives us the best chance to win after Drew Willy. We'll find out soon enough. And/or the coaches think Brohm gives us the best chance in managing the game so other players (receivers/rb's) can step up and collectively win the game. Sort of like play not to lose QB. Yech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. Let's try and get this straight. Hardly anyone is saying Marve is going to come in and light it up. They are saying "give him a chance when possible" because Brohm is certainly not the answer based on what he has shown. You have a short memory when it comes to Elliot. The only place he seemed to have trouble was in the red zone, and that was because he was trying too hard. That could have been fixed with proper coaching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Share Posted July 29, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Elliot had the tools but he was playing against a stacked deck. He was on a horribly inept team with dreadful coaching. He may have been trying to win games all by himself and forcing the ball because it was the only chance his team had. Yes, he likely ignored the coaches but I really can't fault him for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us.. TrueBlue4ever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us.. Football is a harsh game, opportunities don't come around often and a lot of players have missed there's never to get another one. BC and Ottawa he was never going to get the opportunity. His opportunity was in Winnipeg but a few mistakes and a terrible coach and his window of opportunity slammed shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us.. Football is a harsh game, opportunities don't come around often and a lot of players have missed there's never to get another one. BC and Ottawa he was never going to get the opportunity. His opportunity was in Winnipeg but a few mistakes and a terrible coach and his window of opportunity slammed shut. No.. No it didn't tho. Here? Yes.. But in BC and in Ottawa he had 2 more opportunities to prove himself.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us.. Football is a harsh game, opportunities don't come around often and a lot of players have missed there's never to get another one. BC and Ottawa he was never going to get the opportunity. His opportunity was in Winnipeg but a few mistakes and a terrible coach and his window of opportunity slammed shut. No.. No it didn't tho. Here? Yes.. But in BC and in Ottawa he had 2 more opportunities to prove himself.. Spuds...so tell us who was in front of him when he went to BC and Ottawa...perhaps he got as much of a chance as Marve has gotten here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus.That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now.My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him.Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us..Football is a harsh game, opportunities don't come around often and a lot of players have missed there's never to get another one. BC and Ottawa he was never going to get the opportunity. His opportunity was in Winnipeg but a few mistakes and a terrible coach and his window of opportunity slammed shut.No.. No it didn't tho. Here? Yes.. But in BC and in Ottawa he had 2 more opportunities to prove himself.. Spuds...so tell us who was in front of him when he went to BC and Ottawa...perhaps he got as much of a chance as Marve has gotten here.Well Marves been here 2 years.. Did Elliott last that long? And sure. He was stuck behind Lulay for sure but then buck pierce and demarco? Not exactly a glowing endorsement. In Ottawa, Burris and O'Brien.. Again, not exactly the world beaters of backup QBS.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebusrankin Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Elliott lasted 3 years in Winnipeg. Better completion % and QB rating than Brohm too. Actually passed for TDs and oh yeah won a game. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us.. Football is a harsh game, opportunities don't come around often and a lot of players have missed there's never to get another one. BC and Ottawa he was never going to get the opportunity. His opportunity was in Winnipeg but a few mistakes and a terrible coach and his window of opportunity slammed shut. No.. No it didn't tho. Here? Yes.. But in BC and in Ottawa he had 2 more opportunities to prove himself.. Those weren't real opportunities though. He went in there behind veteran starters and being as old as he was he was not viewed as a development player. He was a uniform filler in those stops nothing more. His opportunity came in Winnipeg and that's the only real one he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold_Palmer Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. No Joey Elliot stunk it up... 7 TD's, 15 INT for his career. You wont win too many football games when you throw twice as many Interceptions as Touchdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh please, Elliott was so much better than Brink it wasn't even funny. Elliotts problem was that he took too many risks in the red zone and rather than working with him to improve that he got tossed under the bus. That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now. My point is that Elliott hardly stunk it up, he moved the ball effectively but threw some ints in the red zone. Rather than working to correct that as a normal coach might do, he got the under the bus treatment cause the coach was pissed off as he often was and he liked to bury players who displeased him. No Joey Elliot stunk it up... 7 TD's, 15 INT for his career. You wont win too many football games when you throw twice as many Interceptions as Touchdowns. He didn't have a QB Coach, and Lapo was kicked out halfway through the season when Buck was hurt and Elliott was starting and we had just lost a huge amount of players to injury. He was actually showing promise on the game right before Mack fired Lapo and then went a bit downhill from there, especially in the red zone. But he was able to take the ball all the way down the field. If they had been able to actually work with him and correct his red zone play, he'd have been a decent QB in this league. But no one ever did. And who knows what Lapo could have done with him had he not been thrown under the bus by Mack. Also, in BC, wasn't he brought in behind Lulay and Glenn? blitzmore and Mr Dee 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Elliott, coming out of a Purdue offense which is ideally suited for the CFL, was made to be a CFL star. A lot of unfortunate circumstances prevented that, and it's a real shame. If that guy had been brought along properly, in a professional environment, the ceiling was very high for him... Logan007, blitzmore and MOBomberFan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Long story short... Cato came in and instantly could play. Brohm has had 7 years and 3 with the cfl and has stunk up the joint. Time to mooove on! Give Marve a shot, if not him them Davis. The fact that Brohm can't make the throws is enough reason for me wanting him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Long story short... Cato came in and instantly could play. Brohm has had 7 years and 3 with the cfl and has stunk up the joint. Time to mooove on! Give Marve a shot, if not him them Davis. The fact that Brohm can't make the throws is enough reason for me wanting him out. Replace Cato with Troy Smith... Let's give it some time before we annoint Cato. Lots of guys have looked good initially but not been able to sustain it. I'll throw Casey Printers in as another guy who had early success and wasn't able to keep it going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueandgold Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 How can the same guys who to this day defend Elliot say that it's too early to judge Cato? He's already done more in his career than Elliot. TBURGESS and rebusrankin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue4ever Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Long story short... Cato came in and instantly could play. Brohm has had 7 years and 3 with the cfl and has stunk up the joint. Time to mooove on! Give Marve a shot, if not him them Davis. The fact that Brohm can't make the throws is enough reason for me wanting him out. Replace Cato with Troy Smith... Let's give it some time before we annoint Cato. Lots of guys have looked good initially but not been able to sustain it. I'll throw Casey Printers Joey Elliott in as another guy who had early success and wasn't able to keep it going. FIFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 How can the same guys who to this day defend Elliot say that it's too early to judge Cato? He's already done more in his career than Elliot. Well quite simple really, Elliott was at the time the best qb the Bombers had that was able to play and he should have been playing. Cato is far from proven as a CFL starter though and part of actually being a good CFL starter is being able to adapt once defences adapt to you. Cato is getting his opportunity to prove if he can or can't, Elliott never got that opportunity because he for Burked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 How can the same guys who to this day defend Elliot say that it's too early to judge Cato? He's already done more in his career than Elliot. Well quite simple really, Elliott was at the time the best qb the Bombers had that was able to play and he should have been playing. Cato is far from proven as a CFL starter though and part of actually being a good CFL starter is being able to adapt once defences adapt to you. Cato is getting his opportunity to prove if he can or can't, Elliott never got that opportunity because he for Burked. He was also buenod and campbelld too then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Troy Smith did more then Brohm... Aside from Boltus I think nearly every qb we played has shown more then Brohm. My point which is piggy backing off of DoOrDie is that Brohm has shown nothing, he has had years to develop, he's had several chances to at least show something and yet he has produced nothing! Cato even if he ends up tanking has at least showed that he *can* play well in this league. And he did this on two weeks notice. Brohm is on year three and can't even put together a single TD drive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now