November 14, 200619 yr IMO, the bottom line in this whole debate is that Woodson is having a great year, and Brohm isn't...This is BY FAR Woodson's best year as a QB for UK, and that deserves some recognition. I can see where the guys are coming from in their arguments that Woodson has greatly improved, and anybody who has looked at the stats can easily see that. I do think its still a stretch to say that Woodson is a better QB than Brohm at this point though. If Brohm had been playing this year like he has the past two, I believe the arguement would be more fair. Again, Im not taking anything away from Woodson, those are just my two cents. My sentiments exactly....
November 14, 200619 yr What can you show me that proves McBroom, Mudd and Riddle were anything more than average HS players with a great QB? The big time scouts were at the games, so did they miss it? Did guys catching balls from Couch maybe have the same story? I disputed a claim that Trinity had the pick of the litter at WR while Brohm was there. It simply isn't true... Guys catching balls from Couch are in the record books...are any of the guys that were catching balls for Brohm in the record books
November 14, 200619 yr he will likely be all conference by season's end. Probably so, but, again, what other decent QBs are there in the Big Easy(East-I mean)...
November 14, 200619 yr Guys catching balls from Couch are in the record books...are any of the guys that were catching balls for Brohm in the record books Ok...McBroom is but Tim has more receivers then Brohm in the record books
November 14, 200619 yr Juuuuuuusssssst a little bit touchy there are we? I never said that they wouldn't win one of the five games in a row that you predicted. I said that they didn't even win one in a row, as in the FIRST one. I never put myself out there predicting something so silly as that a team that was only 4-4 all year would win "at least 5 in a row" I just said that you would be eating a lot of crow. I knew at least THAT much about the NFL. I've never pretended to know what NFL execs were thinking except to say name one first round draft pick (in the last 25 years after bump and run coverage was outlawed) that averaged less than 1 touchdown pass per game. I'm thinking that you're still stinging from making such a silly prediction that even ocho sinco wouldn't have touched it. :thumb: :dancingpa Bollocks, forgot the "" on ocho "sin"co. Either way I see you have no response to that. Perhaps you would like to predict the C-Inmates will run the table to the Super Bowl? First of all I cant believe that I wouldn't respond to this. I had went to bed before you ever responded back to mine, but now here we go..You say it was silly of me to predict a team that was 4 and 4 to win 5 games in a row. So I guess if they were 7 and 1 it would have been a smarter decision of me? Even though if they were 7 and 1 they wouldn't have their back against the wall, and probably wouldn't be playing with everything on the line during this tough stretch. So then most likely they would lose those a couple of games with that record, but with them suppose to be being one of the best teams in the league and having their backs against the wall I think it wasn't silly of me at all to predict that... Quite honestly I still dont think it was silly even after this lost, because if it wasn't for the Chargers making the biggest comeback in team history I would be looking really good right now. The offense seems to be back on track, and we are playing a defense next week in the Saints who play alot of man to man, so our offense should have a field day. And I know the Saints probably was going to score on us to, but I still liked our chances. Then we had a team in the Browns who are improving, but its a game we probably should win. Then we had the Ravens, a primetime game at home, and not to mention the fact that we would be looking to get revenge for the loss earlier in the year. So once again that is a game that would look well for the Bengals, and then finally the Raiders. Who are a team that would make the Bengals defense look great, and with the offense seeming to be back on track we should be able to score. If you actually take a look at all this, and really think about it. You will see that my prediction wasn't so silly at all, because all of those game were game we match up well and have legit shots to winning. Also winning 5 games in a row in not that far of a stretch this year, because I believe there has already been 4 teams in the league that have put together 5 game winning streaks. So once again yeah I ended up being wrong, but I dont think my prediction was silly at all, and if you actually seriously take a look at these games you would see that it probably wasn't so silly at all...
November 14, 200619 yr Ok...McBroom is but Tim has more receivers then Brohm in the record books That can't be. Tim is from Leslie Co and Brian played for the big bad wolf...
November 14, 200619 yr That can't be. Tim is from Leslie Co and Brian played for the big bad wolf... True True but really...Tim has 4 receivers & Brohm has 1 lol
November 14, 200619 yr True True but really...Tim has 4 receivers & Brohm has 1 lol I know. You're helping make my point...
November 14, 200619 yr What is your point BTW... Where did those Leslie Co guys play at the next level???
November 14, 200619 yr Yeah.. hilarious. Its not like Woodson is beating him in almost every statistical category while playing a more difficult schedule behind an inferior offensive line. Oh wait.... I have no problem with people believing Brohm is better, but nobody has come up with ANY evidence to support it. Honestly, the best argument is that he's won more games. Other than that you can only make excuses for why he's not even matching Woodson's numbers. Well lets see here first of all Brohm has missed a few games, Woodson hasn't so that helps Woodson out on Brohm. UL's offense is one of the best in the nation and scores a ton of points every night, but I guess that couldn't be bacause Brohm is leading them down the field now could it? Also maybe when Louisville gets inside the 20 they have the kind of line that could block for their runningback and he could end up getting the tds. So UL is not a team that has to pass the ball to score TD's, UL has the option where they can easily run the ball just as well in the red zone to score td's. So do you all think that maybe that could be the reason why Woodson has so many more td's than Brohm? Yes Woodson has made a great improvement this year, and I love it because it has UK winning and going to a bowl game. But seriously some of my fellow UK fans on here have let it go to their heads in thinking Woodson is now better than Brohm. Woodson is now closer than he was last year, but Brohm is still definitely the better all-around QB....
November 14, 200619 yr There is no doubt T and X get more out of less as their standard operating procedure. That still doesn't make the talent level better... No, but it often means that their players are better at the high school level...
November 14, 200619 yr That's your point ? It was said that Brohm had superior talent when at T. I was pointing out that his WR cast was so talented that they impressed none of the scouts watching Brian enough to get a D1 scholarship...
November 14, 200619 yr It was said that Brohm had superior talent when at T. I was pointing out that his WR cast was so talented that they impressed none of the scouts watching Brian enough to get a D1 scholarship... :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.