New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   How many times before Carney goes? (http://blackandgold.com/saints/10259-how-many-times-before-carney-goes.html)

spkb25 10-02-2005 07:31 PM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
he made 4 of 5 i will take that

jnormand 10-02-2005 08:31 PM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
Hey, 4 of 5 is pretty good to me. That's 80%. And he's 9-11 for the year. Thats almost 82%.

jnormand 10-02-2005 08:35 PM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
Dude the guy is 9-11 for the year. That really pretty decent. Plus, it wasn't a game breaking kick. He made that one against the Panther's in week one.

SaintStoneyMount 10-03-2005 04:11 AM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
He made some key field goals today. Besides who would you want in his place. The guy is solid.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 09:09 AM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
Solid? 9-11 is OK, IMO, when the two you've missed are 45 yarders outside off grass. When you're missing 30 yard kicks in a Dome with zero pressure, that's a problem.

Euphoria 10-03-2005 09:20 AM

RE: How many times before Carney goes?
 
NO NO... the key field goal he missed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I actually flet the bullet go throw my foot on that one.

TheGambler 10-03-2005 09:22 AM

10 seconds left and I need a 40 yard FG to win?

I'll take my chances on Carney.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 09:40 AM

I agree. I think Carney will come through in the clutch most times. What I'm concerned about is the case when we're down by 4 with 30 seconds left, instead of being down by 1 b/c he missed a 27 yarder in the 2nd quarter.

maximkat 10-03-2005 09:52 AM

this offense should be scoring touchdowns instead of field goals anyway, especially if they are on the 27 yard line.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 09:55 AM

Is the kicker seriously more of a problem than the QB who gives points and extra possessions to the other team? Really? I'll take 9-11. It's better than 3 TDs and 7 turnovers with a 68.9 rating.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 10:15 AM

How is that relevant to the discussion?

Brooks is a problem. Thanks. That's a revolutionary idea by which we're all amazed, I'm sure. The concept has no relevance whatsoever as to whether Carney has become a liability or not though.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 10:26 AM

Relevant to the discussion? We are discussing a problem of the team are we not? I think there is a bigger liability than a kicker, I said so. Oh, I guess you are just looking for, gee WhoDat, you're right, a FG missed in the third quarter is much worse than a turnover in the red zone or in the opposing team's end of the field. Everytime someone discusses a problem there is BLAME ASSIGNMENT, we have bigger problems than a kicker who is 9/11. When people blame Brooks, others blame the defense and o-line and receivers. Or did you just miss those on the discuss only one problem a a time train?

WhoDat 10-03-2005 10:33 AM

Why does everything have to become a debate as to what the "biggest problem on the team is" with you? We were discussing the KICKER. Period. Find a post before yours in this thread, titled "How many times before Carney goes," that talks about anything but the damn kicker.

You really need to give the AB hating a rest. I've been on the guy's back maybe more than anyone else on this board over the last three years, so this means something coming from me. Your logic just doesn't make sense anyway.

Carney is a problem.

Oh yeah, well Brooks is a bigger problem! (Great, relevant only to comparative blame and nothing else).

Fine, well what about the defense, sloppy play, coaching, etc.

Everytime you say Brooks is a problem someone brings up the defense. Why can't you guys just admit Brooks is a problem...

You see how damn circular that is. Why does everything have to be a question of how much of a problem something is compared to AB? And if you come sweeping in to discuss the biggest problems on this team, where are your 200 threads about the LBs and run defense, and special teams, and coaching... which are all bigger problems than Brooks...??

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 10:44 AM

I don't think there is a bigger problem than Brooks. Case in point, he played well this game, I am looking for a show of hands of anyone, outside those Brooks lovers who thinks he never has a bad game, who is not holding their breath HOPING, not expecting, he has another one next week. That's a problem. Haslett is a problem. The LBs are a problem. Agreed. I have discussed those, but they aren't the problem this season IMO. Against the Giants and Vikings, we lost mainly cause of turnovers. Guess who committed the most? Shouldn't take too long for you to answer.

Quote:

Why does everything have to become a debate as to what the "biggest problem on the team is" with you? We were discussing the KICKER. Period
Again, guess you missed those threads that do the exact same thing. Or you just ignored them. Or you just decided to get on your high horse in this one thread. Maybe this begins you keeping discussions focused on one issue run? I'll be looking forward to that.

Quote:

You really need to give the AB hating a rest
AB hating? LMAO. You can't be serious. I made a thread saying he had a good game, does that mean he is no longer a problem? You need to give your Carney hating a rest then. He was 4/5 on field goals. Ask the Raiders if they would trade that for what Janikowski did last week for them.

Quote:

I've been on the guy's back maybe more than anyone else on this board over the last three years, so this means something coming from me.
Does it really? I think you just got tired of being called the most negative poster some people have ever seen, and decided to go for a new image. Whatever works for you.

Quote:

where are your 200 threads about the LBs and run defense, and special teams, and coaching... which are all bigger problems than Brooks...??
I guess that then is a matter of opinion is it not?

TheGambler 10-03-2005 10:56 AM

Remember my post from last night, when I told BlackOnBlack that it wasn't necessary to see Jake's name come up in every one of his posts?

Well..

Go back to that post, and replace "BlackonBlack" with "SaintsWhodi"............and replace "Jake" with "Brooks".

I think the point WhoDat was trying to make is.........it's one thing to bash Brooks and dislike him..........it's another thing to do it in seemingly every single thread.

stockman311 10-03-2005 11:04 AM

Don't worry WhoDat
 
SaintsWhodi is just a tool. He just hasn't figured it out yet.
He can't make a comment about this team with out Aaron Brooks entering into the conversation. The best tactic with him is ignore, ignore, ignore.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:04 AM

I am sorry, but when WhoDat gains more consistency in when he chooses to address such issues, I will take it seriously. Until he takes the time to go into every thread and push the topic back on hand, choosing to fight some little battle here is not impressing me.

And bash him? I made a good game thread for him. That doesn't mean I don't still think he has a problem. I wonder when I do make good game threads for Brooks, where are you guys who say I am bashing? I didn;t see one post from any of you in there. I guess that keeps your eyes blind to the fact I give the guy credit when he plays at a decent level. Hard to take you seriously too.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:05 AM

Re: Don't worry WhoDat
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stockman311
SaintsWhodi is just a tool. He just hasn't figured it out yet.
He can't make a comment about this team with out Aaron Brooks entering into the conversation. The best tactic with him is ignore, ignore, ignore.

LMAO!! Like you just did here by mentioning my name. Good one.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 11:21 AM

Wow. Whodi thinks AB is the biggest problem on the team. Shocker. I'll remember that statement, by the way.

Well do me a favor, if you want to change the topic in a thread, that's fine, so long as it doesn't relate to why AB is a bigger problem than whatever is being discussed. This is a SAINTS board, in case you hadn't noticed. It is not an Aaron Brooks board. So go ahead and pound your chest in the AB threads and keep it out of the others, OK?

TheGambler 10-03-2005 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Hard to take you seriously too.

Hey, whether you take me seriously or not is immaterial to me..

I understand that you gave Brooks credit for a good game, but you also find ways to bring his name up out of nowhere in other threads (this one is an example). And given that you're pretty much saying the same thing in every thread, I just think it's a bit of overkill. Sometimes less is truly more.

I said the same thing to BlackOnBlack yesterday because I got sick of seeing the Jake insults. Not because I care at all for Jake, but because it's a case of the same insults, just a new thread. If Jake's name were never mentioned again, with the exception of our Carolina games, I'd be completely content. He is irrelevant to anything our Saints team is trying to accomplish at this moment.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:26 AM

Then go check the Stallworth thread and see if I ever mentioned AB's name. I didn't. If you guys are gonna have criteria, at least make it honest, as hard as that may be.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 11:29 AM

Quote:

am sorry, but when WhoDat gains more consistency in when he chooses to address such issues, I will take it seriously.
Let's put it like this, shall we? I am still a moderator of this board. I don't give a sh!t what you think of me personally or the way in which I administer the rules of this board. Your participation here is a privelege for you and it can easily be withdrawn at any time. Go ahead and test me Whodi. You don't have to like me but you will respect me.

I am in no way trying to say that any thread of this board has to address one topic and one topic only. I am saying that the Brooks sucks theme will not continue to permiate every single thread on the board. Are we clear?

TheGambler 10-03-2005 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Then go check the Stallworth thread and see if I ever mentioned AB's name. I didn't. If you guys are gonna have criteria, at least make it honest, as hard as that may be.

Ok since you seem to be hung up on absolute specifics, I'll see if I can help out:


Since you make at least 1 derrogatory comment re: Aaron Brooks in at least 91.435% of the threads you post in............would it be ok if you reduced that percentage to at least 67.932%, given that normally it's the same exact insults we see over, and over, and over, and over..

Thanks pal.

WhoDat 10-03-2005 11:35 AM

Someone gets it.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:36 AM

Quote:

Let's put it like this, shall we? I am still a moderator of this board. I don't give a sh!t what you think of me personally or the way in which I administer the rules of this board. Your participation here is a privelege for you and it can easily be withdrawn at any time. Go ahead and test me Whodi. You don't have to like me but you will respect me.

I am in no way trying to say that any thread of this board has to address one topic and one topic only. I am saying that the Brooks sucks theme will not continue to permiate every single thread on the board. Are we clear?
Does that go the same for the Brooks walks on water theme?

Quote:

I am saying that the Brooks sucks theme will not continue to permiate every single thread on the board
Not even remotely true. Like I said, be honest and it really wouldn't be a problem with me. That seems to get harder as these accusations go on.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGambler
Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Then go check the Stallworth thread and see if I ever mentioned AB's name. I didn't. If you guys are gonna have criteria, at least make it honest, as hard as that may be.

Ok since you seem to be hung up on absolute specifics, I'll see if I can help out:


Since you make at least 1 derrogatory comment re: Aaron Brooks in at least 91.435% of the threads you post in............would it be ok if you reduced that percentage to at least 67.932%, given that normally it's the same exact insults we see over, and over, and over, and over..

Thanks pal.

And since individuals make the same amount kissing his ass, do you have a problem with that? If not, that's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You will gladly not comment on someone posting what you wanna see over and over, but if it's not what you wanna see, it's a problem. Gotcha.

BlackandBlue 10-03-2005 11:43 AM

Quote:

am sorry, but when WhoDat gains more consistency in when he chooses to address such issues, I will take it seriously.
What about me? I've been pretty consistent with my hatred of the "AB sux" threads.

TheGambler 10-03-2005 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
And since individuals make the same amount kissing his ass, do you have a problem with that? If not, that's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You will gladly not comment on someone posting what you wanna see over and over, but if it's not what you wanna see, it's a problem. Gotcha.

If there's one thing I can safely say..........it's that I haven't seen any overabundance of Brooks praise on this forum in quite some time..particularly in the last 2 weeks.

Therefore, I respectfully call "B.S." on your theory that pro-brooks threads are equal in percentage to yours.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackandBlue
Quote:

am sorry, but when WhoDat gains more consistency in when he chooses to address such issues, I will take it seriously.
What about me? I've been pretty consistent with my hatred of the "AB sux" threads.

You're about the most consistent guy I know on this board BandB. Even in the face of using your avatar to "come out" to everyone. :wink:

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGambler
Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
And since individuals make the same amount kissing his ass, do you have a problem with that? If not, that's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You will gladly not comment on someone posting what you wanna see over and over, but if it's not what you wanna see, it's a problem. Gotcha.

If there's one thing I can safely say..........it's that I haven't seen any overabundance of Brooks praise on this forum in quite some time..particularly in the last 2 weeks.

Therefore, I respectfully call "B.S." on your theory that pro-brooks threads are equal in percentage to yours.

Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though. :wink:

TheGambler 10-03-2005 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though. :wink:

The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!!

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGambler
Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though. :wink:

The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!!

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.

And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.

TheGambler 10-03-2005 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.


So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well?

Theory....denied.

jnormand 10-03-2005 12:46 PM

OK.......Anyway, I think Carney is doing decent. He's still reliable. (Getting back to the original point of this thread. Sigh)

WhoDat 10-03-2005 01:29 PM

Quote:

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.
This is exactly right. Whodi, the argument you're trying to make in this thread is one of the worst I've heard. It sounds like a defendant on trial for murder making a "yeah, but he deserved it" defense.

There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!!

You say now that my trying to limit that is an unequal application of the rules if I don't apply the same thing to the "Brooks lover threads." OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!"

That simply doesn't happen.

I am in no way saying that people don't start "Brooks Rules" threads. But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter.

Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks. Again, I don't argue that people use the o-line, WRs, and whatever else under the sun as rationale for why things aren't AB's fault, but that is not akin to what you are doing. The opposite but equal of that behavior is where someone says, "AB played great," and you go rushing in saying, "but the o-line played great, and so did Deuce and the WRs caught everything in sight!"

So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGambler
Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.


So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well?

Theory....denied.

Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please.

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 01:57 PM

Quote:

There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!!
Yes, SOMEONE does, but you wanna make it seem as if it's only me. Who was it in the Stallowrth thread? It's you. Wow. And where were you in the thread I gave AB credit after week one, and the thread after this week? Still incognito huh? I guess you would be the prosecution that ignores all evidence just to get a judgment hey Darden?

Quote:

OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!"
You must be turning a blind eye to blackonblack's posts, but why should I expect anything less? They praise Brooks, imagine that.

Quote:

But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter.
Again, obviously only reading the threads you want to, and when is that something new here? Is this a new rule you just decided to make today?

Quote:

Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks.
Yeah, cause when someone says our defense sucks and what they did means nothing after one of their best performances ever really isn't trying to give one player more credit over others. Are we adding nievety as a means to push this argument through?

Quote:

So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it.
This should be easy once blackonblack gets here. But does this rule apply only to me, or will you apply it equilaterally across the board to all members? Otherwise, it seems kinda biased one person would have a rule and all others not. But then again, should I be surprised?

TheGambler 10-03-2005 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please.

That line of thinking, right there, is why WhoDat is now having to "ration" your posting (which is pretty pathetic that it has to come to that). You are under the mistaken impression that you are 2 or 3 steps ahead of everyone's thought process, and that you're outsmarting everyone. A thread about Carney is a hidden Brooks defense. A thread about the play of our Defense a few weeks ago is a hidden Brooks defense. Sunshine, this might come as a complete shock to you......but maybe THEY ACTUALLY THINK OUR DEFENSE SUCKS AND CARNEY IS A BUM! Are they any less entitled to their opinion, than you are to yours? The fact that you are trying to create "AB Protection" conspiracy theories is both sad and funny at the same time. I'll bet you're one of those guys who always think the government has a spy camera on everyone as well, aren't you? You know what....don't even answer that, I don't care.

Also, you're argument that I quote above is pretty much comparing apples to oranges. Aaron Brooks, in my opinion, was unjustly criticized after the NYG game, and I let people know about it. Aaron had a good game, with some mistakes.......but, in your opinion, my being impressed with his overall play (outside of the turnovers) and not cursing him in every other post obviously means I think he walks on water and that I want to deflect blame.

Then you suggest that because I didn't defend him after the Minny game (and in fact, I made a few posts saying he played like crap, which he did).....that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon called me "Ms. Brooks". If you think I'm intellectually and socially backwards to the extent that an insult of "Ms. Brooks" is enough to completely sway my opinions and actions.......well, then you obviously don't know me very well at all.

Do you not see a difference at all???? Brooks, vs. the Giants, threw for over 300 yards and had a nice completion percentage. Therefore, I defended THAT GAME. When he had absolutely nothing to brag about against Minnesota, there was NO NEED to defend his game...because his game stunk. CAN YOU NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE? I can use large font and construction paper if I need to..

saintswhodi 10-03-2005 02:25 PM

Sorry sweetie, but you obviously haven't been around here enough to know this board is all about conspiracy theories. That's what it's based on. WhoDat knows this as well as I do, as well as any longtime poster on this board. Why do you think people are so confused by WhoDat's sudden switch to being so accepting of Brooks? Why do you think anytime a consiracy is mentioned, 08 is brought up? If you'd get your head out your ass, and stop trying to play this innocent card like you don't see anything, you'd know that. But again, you're above all that right, oh, I mean for the last two weeks. Right? Pitch that somewhere else. That's all BS.

Quote:

that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon
Mindless peon? Think much of yourself? Your ridiculous behavior was noticed, and you are obviously still upset about it by the fact you have to namecall someone cause they called you out 2 weeks ago. Mindless peon? I guess you would know a relative when you heard one.

Quote:

Do you not see a difference at all????
Yes, three costly turnovers as opposed to two. Good call zippy. Have a nice day.

Tobias-Reiper 10-03-2005 02:33 PM

.. I just wanna see the drunk white guy kick for the Saints..
is he from the South?!? :beer:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com