I'm not totally convinced that Brooks is any better than Baker. His PFF scores are actually worse.
Baker got a bad rap here mostly because he was overpaid, so the fire-breathers would focus on a bad play or two and completely ignore his good ones... it's the nature of finding facts to fit one's narrative.
Brooks, like Baker, has very few big plays on his resume. 6.5 sacks and 1 Int in four years is not especially enticing. ...Baker had more, a lot more. So the anti-Baker people will pivot to... but but but... Brooks is better against the run! ...and they'll say that without having actually seen him play but once or twice. PFF certainly doesn't agree. Hell... Seattle let him walk.
But yes, Brooks is a bit younger, and a bit cheaper than Baker was, but then again... Baker only signed a one year deal with Seattle and for less than he used to make.
I think we'll be happy with Brooks, but I still think that a lot of fanboys just see what they want to see here.
Ya know?
Brooks is better than Baker, though. All you have to do is watch them play. One has good instincts & is assignment sound with fantastic play speed, which makes sense given his pedigree as a 1st rd pick. The other is all over the damn place, picking the wrong hole on repeat, with variable play speed depending on if he knew where the hell he was running. This also makes sense as it's exactly what many of us said leading up to that draft, and is why we didn't want to draft him, even in the 3rd round.
Dude almost proved me wrong with that great season a few years ago ... until we changed the defense and moved him inside. Which was stupid.
At the end of the day he did better than most 3rd picks and he made a surprising amount of splash plays but he didn't have the instincts or ability to get off blocks on the inside so he was a consistent liability, run or pass. Kept outside in that funky defense, he probably would've lived up to that contract, which is why he got it in the first place. Can't really blame him too much but we will be better without him.