New Orleans Saints -

New Orleans Saints - (
-   Saints (
-   -   i will say this about a. brooks.... (

ssmitty 07-14-2003 06:00 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
i 'm sure many others want to see arron produce as i do, this is only fair to say the least. but what no one has pointed out, including myself, is that brooks, despite being hurt, (seriously) , had the balls, (maybe not the brains) to keep playing....... i will give him my golden balls award for that.......there is no doubt in my mind that coaches asked, arron, do you wanna go out there? and he said yes instead of, coach, i don't think i can contribute what is needed of me..........the great ones have this never say die attitude also......i appreciate this being pointed out to me by die hards on this board....smitty

BillyCarpenter1 07-14-2003 07:36 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
Just the fact that Brooks didn\'t want to come out of the games tells me he\'s a player. He never made excuses, he just did the best he could do. It\'s the coaches place to take a player out of the game, not the player. If it were up to the players to take themselfs out, I don\'t think you would see it happen very often because of their competitive nature.

I think you will see Brooks take command of this team right out of the gate this season. I think you will see a more serious vocal Brooks. Another thing is that if Brooks would have taken himself out, you would have people talking about him not being able to play hurt and blah, blah, blah.

If we see this in the pre-season the rest of the NFL had better take notice because we will have a defense this year to go along with our #1 offense.

Oh yeah, our special team was pretty good last year too. Wasn\'t it?

ssmitty 07-14-2003 08:08 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
bc, as my wife puts it, (being a christian) everything works together for the good........i want ab to come out shooting and continue to shoot......if i did\' nt think i could be effective, i would take myself out..........maybe he did\'nt think that.....only ab could answer that.....again, the good ones think they can........i don\'t believe it\'s the coaches decision, unless they have that gut feeling something is really wrong.......they went with what the player told them in this case and i\'ll stick by it unti haslett says it is\'nt true.. in any case, he\'s been shown the me the player......smitty

BillyCarpenter1 07-14-2003 09:49 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
It was obvious to me that Brooks was hurt and obviously it was clear to you too, or we wouldn\'t be having this conversation. Now if the coaches couldn\'t see it they were either blind or stupid.

While a player should tell a coach to what extent he is hurt, we all know it doesn\'t work that way. Players have and always will hide injuries. Which brings us to the question of when a player should take himself out of the game.

First of all players are suppose to be tough and play throgh injuries if possible. That is drilled in their head since childhood. They have watched players like Willis Reed and Michael Jordon overcome tremendous odds to will their teams to a win.

Brooks did nothing that a 1000 players haven\'t done before. Coaches are aware that a player wants to play and doesn\'t want to come out of the game. It\'s just the nature of any good competitor. Thus it is the coaches responsibility to monitor a players effectiveness and make an informed call on whether to keep the player in the game.

Haslett said he thought Brooks gave the team the best chance to win. Was it the correct? Probably not, but we don\'t know if Delhome would have done any better.

There\'s an old saying that says: Dance with the one that brought you.

Brooks is a very young QB that is still finding his game. He was thrown into action his first year and I think last year he wanted to prove too much he was a pocket passer. He knows what he\'s got to do this year and he\'s going to \"tee it high and let it fly\".

Bombs away Smitty. Get ready.,....

[Edited on 15/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

SaintNik 07-14-2003 10:07 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
Aaron Brooks possesses the competitive insticts and nature that all pros have. They believe they can get it done given another chance on the field and are certain that they can\'t sitting on the bench. The coach ultimately should make his decission on what he thinks is best for the team based on what the player and trainers have told him regarding severity of injury, and also on game performance. If a player isn\'t getting the job done, regardless of position, healthy or otherwise, the coach should have confidence in the professional player backing the starter up. If not, why is he even a member of the team? Fifteen minutes of fame on any given sunday, right? Besides, how many times do you think the concussion kings such as Aikman, Chandler, Miller and so on have played portions of games while in la la land?

What makes the QB position so sacred anyway? Are their egos so fragile that they won\'t be able to live to play another day? Why is footbal so different in this regard than baseball? A baseball staff of pitchers has several starters, relievers and closers. Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemmons, to name a few, have all had the ball taken out of their hand as early as the first inning. Some days you just don\'t have it. The next time out may produce a no hitter, or a slew of strikeouts, but most importantly, a win. It used to be more common in football to replace your starter with the backup to give the team a spark at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. This was accepted and embraced as the correct thing to do. The following week the starter was again the starter. George Blanda was the king of qb releivers. In the NFL today, this is rarely done. A QB change now is mostly due to injury, or an ending to a lopsided game.

Controversy doesn\'t have to be the fruit of these seeds planted. A team is made up of all of its players. The players that give a team the best chance to win at that moment should be given a chance to play. When forced into the game due to injury, the coaches and players then have all the confidence and expectations in that player to get the job done and lead the team to victory. What\'s the dif?

BillyCarpenter1 07-14-2003 10:17 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....

While that seems to make sense, the game of football has changed drastically since the days of playing musical chairs at the QB position. In the day QB\'s would draw out plays in the diirt. Now days the play book and game plan is so complex that it takes a couple of years for a QB to fully grasp the offense.

Given the nature of the QB position in todays NFL, with the starting QB getting most of the reps in pratice, it just isn\'t practicle to think a back-up is going to have as much success as 20-years ago. That is the main reason coaches are reluctant to pull the starter.

There are times when the back-up should be in the game, but obviously the starter gives the best chance to win or else he wouldn\'t be the starter.

SaintNik 07-14-2003 10:57 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....
Billy C,
I agree. The game is more complex today than 20 years ago and yes, your starter should give you the best chance to win. I\'m only saying that when he isn\'t getting the job done, coaches in the nfl should worry less about hurting the starters confidence and more about trying to win on that given day. Your starter will still be your starter next week.

As far as the playbook goes, its the playcallers (coordinators) job to call the plays that are within the players mental grasp and physical abilities. A professional player should know enough of the playbook ( Billy Joe Holbert once got axed for admitting/telling the truth about not being prepared) to perform regardless of how long in the system or else he should be inactive. The same expectations of him are present when he is replacing an injured player. Let your corner get beat as often as a 60s tamborine and he\'ll be replaced before games end. I\'m just making the point that coaches are reluctant to pull their starter. This is due probably more than anything to not wanting the media and fans to start the dreaded QB controversy.

As far as Aaron Brooks, I beleive he will be our starter (barring trade or injury) for a long time, will take us to the next level, will rewrite the Saints record books, and see a few pro bowl appearances as well. He will gain respect league wide this year.

BillyCarpenter1 07-14-2003 11:02 PM

i will say this about a. brooks....

As far as Aaron Brooks, I beleive he will be our starter (barring trade or injury) for a long time, will take us to the next level, will rewrite the Saints record books, and see a few pro bowl appearances as well. He will gain respect league wide this year.

Finally a someone that knows what they are talking about.

ssmitty 07-15-2003 05:29 AM

i will say this about a. brooks....
i may be blind and stupid..........although brooks seemed a little shaken up, i had no idea he was injured and especially to what extent......i\'m sure he knew something was wrong but figured maybe he could shake it off or with a little time it would get better...hopefully, it\'s all history and he can rewrite some of the record books....i\'ll remain the doubting thomas until then.....smitty

BillyCarpenter1 07-15-2003 07:30 AM

i will say this about a. brooks....
I didn\'t realize the exact extent of Brooks\' injury either, but I could see that that his passes didn\'t have the same zip on them. I have my doubts too Smitty but I have much better feeling that he will amaze this year.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 -