New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Brooks Vs. Culpepper or Delhomme (http://blackandgold.com/saints/10186-brooks-vs-culpepper-delhomme.html)

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 03:51 PM

Brooks Vs. Culpepper or Delhomme
 
Anyone want to revisit this? At one point in the game, Brooks had a 1.9 QB rating. INT when we are down by 10, INT when we are down by 8. Less than 50% completions. Can anyone from the "other side" tell me what Delhomme and Culpepper did today? :wink:

Rsanders24 09-25-2005 04:19 PM

RE: Brooks Vs. Culpepper or Delhomme
 
Okay, last week brooks padded his stat sheet in a losing effort. This week Delhomme did the same thing. He lost, plain and simple! Both Brooks and Delhomme had two turnovers and they hurt the team. As far as I'm concerned they both sucked!

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 04:24 PM

Yeah, cause 3 TDs 1 INT is worse than 1TD, 2 INTs. And how exactly do you "pad stats" in a tied game? Dolphins won by three. They scored 27 points on the Panthers D. If you are gonna give Brooks excuses, they have to be better than that.

Rsanders24 09-25-2005 04:28 PM

I am not giving Brooks an excuse. THe point is they both had the same amount of turnovers if you saw the game! Delhomme fumbled and threw a int. Brooks threw 2 ints. 1+1=2 The big point is that they both lost and both have a 1-2 record so I don't see your reasoning on Delhomme being better than Brooks right now!

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 04:32 PM

Well, my reasoning is Delhomme has been better than Brooks for longer than just NOW, but we can look to season stats. Brooks has now 7 turnovers to 2 TDs, Jake has 7 I believe to 4 TDs. And I DID watch the game, at the same sports bar I watched the Saints game, if not for Jake, the Panthers aren't in that game. Same can't be said for Brooks. If not for Aaron, we MAY have BEEN in our game.

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 04:37 PM

Try this, Jake has only been a starter since 2003. He has had two less years at it. Try Brooks and Culpepper have had the most fumbles the past few years, but Culpepper has WAY more overall TDs and yards. Or try Delhomme has been to the Superbowl in 2 years as a starter, and Brooks hasn't in 5, and piggy backed a playoff trip. Or try....never mind. The last two games say all that need to be said.

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackonBlack
Quote:

Well, my reasoning is Delhomme has been better than Brooks for longer than just NOW, but we can look to season stats. Brooks has now 7 turnovers to 2 TDs, Jake has 7 I believe to 4 TDs. And I DID watch the game, at the same sports bar I watched the Saints game, if not for Jake, the Panthers aren't in that game. Same can't be said for Brooks. If not for Aaron, we MAY have BEEN in our game.

Panthers at Dolphins
QB Jake Delhomme has not played well yet for the Panthers this season. Delhomme completed 11-of 26 passes for 154 yards, and a quarterback rating of 46.0, despite facing a New England team that was without three of its four cornerbacks for most of the game. One of Delhomme's biggest problems has been his decision-making in critical situations. However, ithe Panthers are now 3-1 in games in which he has thrown 11 or fewer completions.
• Take 2:Special teams will make difference
•

I am sorry, is that supposed to prove your point? Okay:

6. The feel-good New Orleans Saints will fade quickly because Aaron Brooks is the most fraudulent QB in the NFL.

Saints fans better enjoy the Week 1 miracle because Brooks will continue to get in the way of the Saints' enjoying consistent success. The Saints have the necessary personnel to field a potent offense -- a decent line, top-flight receivers and a big-play running back.

However, Brooks is the anti-Tom Brady. Brooks makes stupid decisions, has zero leadership ability and isn't particularly tough or poised in the pocket.

Jason Whitlock. ESPN.

saintfan 09-25-2005 05:01 PM

dumb, dumb dumb dumb thread.

Brooks didn't play well today to be certain; however, he had plenty of help. No defense the first half, and don't gimmie any crap about it being the fault of the offense. The Vikings first drive was ONE play. The second was 12 plays. The next two were 5 plays a piece. The o-line was predictably bad...again...Deuce had no where to run and Brooks ran for his life from the first snap to the last.

As for our WR's, they plain stink...still. Am I the only one that see's this? The QB is running for his life and they're just standing there. Yeah, Brooks wasn't that good today, but damn he had a lot of help didn't he?

On the other hand, Jake "led" his team to a tie, and then "led" 'em right out the tunnel with a 1-2 record. I think the entire Carolina TEAM played a pretty good game, and if I were a memeber I'd probably be a bit pissed at 'ol Jake for making all my effort officially wasted.

Rsanders24 09-25-2005 05:05 PM

Great Post! :drink:

saintswhodi 09-25-2005 05:09 PM

LMAO!!. SO the fact our QB killed us twice when we could have made this a close game is somehow better than a QB who keeps his team in the game all day then makes a mistake? Which would you rather, 3 TDs 2 TOs, or 1 TD 2 TOs? Yeah, I guess it would be dumb to take the guy who has one TD. We're down by 8, Brooks throws another INT, this is after 4 killer turnovers last week. Boy, some guys know how to back a winner.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com