Saints Insiders?

lumm0x · 09-17-2003, 07:29 PM

Billy, you don\'t think Brooks and McNabb is a fair comparison of talent and potential. Then what is......? You start it up then.

BlackandBlue · 09-17-2003, 07:35 PM

I got one- Aaron Brooks vs. God

Who\'s the better QB?

BillyCarpenter1 · 09-17-2003, 07:37 PM

LummOx --

To be honest, I don\'t think it\'s really fair to be comaring anyone QB to another. Different teams, different situations, just different. All I know is I think all QB\'s struggle at certain times and Brooks is no different.

But go ahead and compare Brooks with McNabb, I think they are simular in several ways but in two totally different situations. McNabb has played with a defense that gets him the ball back -time and time again. Brooks on the other hand has to sit on the side line and watch for long periods of time and doesn\'t have as many opportunities as McNabb.

But go ahead and compare the 2. I\'m always interested.

WhoDat · 09-17-2003, 07:53 PM

Interesting. McNabb is definitely the beneficiary of a more talented team in Philly. OBVIOUSLY. Just llok at all those other offensive weapons he\'s got! There\'s... uh... that one guy... and, oh... didn\'t they have that other.... oh... no... that wasn\'t them.

Where McNabb has one of the better defenses in the league, Brooks has one of the most talented and explosive group on the offensive side of the ball. But that doesn\'t matter.

I will agree with one comment though. Brooks and McNabb are not comparable. One will be a hall of famer and the other will just be.

These guys skirt issues all the time Lumm0x, and then they scream about how you\'re skirting the issue when you reply directly to their posts. It\'s rIdiculous. (Side note: to everyone on this board - we\'re all guilty of typos - however ridiculous is spelled r-I... r-I... r-I... diculous. Got that? That\'s r I diculous).

How about this comparison. Go look at Jeff Blake\'s numbers from the first 11 games of 2000. He had Ricky running for him, and Willie Jackson was the team\'s number two receiver. The offense was designed to be geared around Ricky. Less explosive, less spread out. His numbers in that year were almost identical to Brooks\' numbers every year since he began starting. Is THAT a fair comparison? If so, Brooks isn\'t much better than a Jeff Blake caliber quarterback. In fact, with more talent, more time in the system, and - according to some on this board - a redesigned system geared around HIS talents and featuring HIM, he has been unable to perform much better than Blake did...

of course, I\'m just basing these opinions on stats - and as we all know, those are completely worthless. The only thing that really matter is - uh - whatever Billy and Saintfan think. Their opinions are based on... uh... TDs and yards... I guess those don\'t count as stats.

BillyCarpenter1 · 09-17-2003, 07:57 PM

WhoDat --

Off all the things you have predicted for the Saints. Everyone of them has been wrong so far. How ya like dem apples?

WhoDat · 09-17-2003, 08:06 PM

I\'m sorry - what has been WRONG?

Here\'s some more fun with stats:

In 1995 Jeff Blake\'s 3rd year in the league and first as a full time starter he threw for:
3,822 Yards
28 TDs
17 INTS
and a 57.5% completion percentage with???

THE CINCINNATI BENGALS!!! Where were Billy and Saintfan then? Probably predicting that Jeff Blake was the next hall of famer and Pro Bowl fixture!

BillyCarpenter1 · 09-17-2003, 08:09 PM

Jake Delhomme CAR 2 43 21.5 21 48.8 218 104.0 24 3 4 3 10 48.4

Let\'s talk about your boy Delhomme, shall we?

WhoDat · 09-17-2003, 08:14 PM

I hate to step down to Billy\'s level, BUT...

I predicted:

The Saints would finish the season 8-8 (.500)
Through two games they are 1-1 (.500)

I predicted that the offense SHOULD be better, but would probably produce about the same, if not drop off slightly
Through 2 games, offensive production (which to Billy translates solely into TDs and Yards) is down over this period last season. Hell, just about any time last season.

I predicted that the defense would stay about the same. At best it would move up to 20th.
So far they have overperformed statistically. So in this case, yes, I guess I am wrong through all two games of the \'03 season. Of course, that opinion is based on stats, and we all know that those don\'t count for anything.

Uh, oh, and I said that Aaron Brooks (said, not predicted) was average to good, but wrong for the system. Hard to evaluate that statement, but.. so far this season Brooks is:
10th in total yards
18th in total TDs
16th in passer rating

That looks pretty close to average to me. Obviously I was WRONG.

WhoDat · 09-17-2003, 08:16 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

You wanna talk about Jake Delhomme????? After a game and a half? Yet 41 starts is NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR BROOKS?!?!?!?! Are you f--king kidding me? And you want to use Delhomme\'s STATS to judge him?

OK - let\'s use team stats since you seem to like that.

Jake Delhomme - Games played: 2, Games won: 2
Aaron Brooks - Games played 2, Games won: 1

next...

BillyCarpenter1 · 09-17-2003, 08:20 PM

Isn\'t a game and a half all Jake ever played for the Saints? Isn\'t that all you needed to see him play to proclaim he was a franchise QB? What a joke.

09-17-2003, 07:29 PM	#61
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Saints Insiders? Billy, you don\'t think Brooks and McNabb is a fair comparison of talent and potential. Then what is......? You start it up then.

09-17-2003, 07:35 PM	#62
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Saints Insiders? I got one- Aaron Brooks vs. God Who\'s the better QB?

09-17-2003, 07:37 PM	#63
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints Insiders? LummOx -- To be honest, I don\'t think it\'s really fair to be comaring anyone QB to another. Different teams, different situations, just different. All I know is I think all QB\'s struggle at certain times and Brooks is no different. But go ahead and compare Brooks with McNabb, I think they are simular in several ways but in two totally different situations. McNabb has played with a defense that gets him the ball back -time and time again. Brooks on the other hand has to sit on the side line and watch for long periods of time and doesn\'t have as many opportunities as McNabb. But go ahead and compare the 2. I\'m always interested.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

09-17-2003, 07:53 PM	#64
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints Insiders? Interesting. McNabb is definitely the beneficiary of a more talented team in Philly. OBVIOUSLY. Just llok at all those other offensive weapons he\'s got! There\'s... uh... that one guy... and, oh... didn\'t they have that other.... oh... no... that wasn\'t them. Where McNabb has one of the better defenses in the league, Brooks has one of the most talented and explosive group on the offensive side of the ball. But that doesn\'t matter. I will agree with one comment though. Brooks and McNabb are not comparable. One will be a hall of famer and the other will just be. These guys skirt issues all the time Lumm0x, and then they scream about how you\'re skirting the issue when you reply directly to their posts. It\'s rIdiculous. (Side note: to everyone on this board - we\'re all guilty of typos - however ridiculous is spelled r-I... r-I... r-I... diculous. Got that? That\'s r I diculous). How about this comparison. Go look at Jeff Blake\'s numbers from the first 11 games of 2000. He had Ricky running for him, and Willie Jackson was the team\'s number two receiver. The offense was designed to be geared around Ricky. Less explosive, less spread out. His numbers in that year were almost identical to Brooks\' numbers every year since he began starting. Is THAT a fair comparison? If so, Brooks isn\'t much better than a Jeff Blake caliber quarterback. In fact, with more talent, more time in the system, and - according to some on this board - a redesigned system geared around HIS talents and featuring HIM, he has been unable to perform much better than Blake did... of course, I\'m just basing these opinions on stats - and as we all know, those are completely worthless. The only thing that really matter is - uh - whatever Billy and Saintfan think. Their opinions are based on... uh... TDs and yards... I guess those don\'t count as stats.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

09-17-2003, 07:57 PM	#65
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints Insiders? WhoDat -- Off all the things you have predicted for the Saints. Everyone of them has been wrong so far. How ya like dem apples?
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-17-2003, 08:06 PM	#66
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints Insiders? I\'m sorry - what has been WRONG? Here\'s some more fun with stats: In 1995 Jeff Blake\'s 3rd year in the league and first as a full time starter he threw for: 3,822 Yards 28 TDs 17 INTS and a 57.5% completion percentage with??? THE CINCINNATI BENGALS!!! Where were Billy and Saintfan then? Probably predicting that Jeff Blake was the next hall of famer and Pro Bowl fixture!
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

09-17-2003, 08:09 PM	#67
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints Insiders? Jake Delhomme CAR 2 43 21.5 21 48.8 218 104.0 24 3 4 3 10 48.4 Let\'s talk about your boy Delhomme, shall we?
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

09-17-2003, 08:14 PM	#68
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints Insiders? I hate to step down to Billy\'s level, BUT... I predicted: The Saints would finish the season 8-8 (.500) Through two games they are 1-1 (.500) I predicted that the offense SHOULD be better, but would probably produce about the same, if not drop off slightly Through 2 games, offensive production (which to Billy translates solely into TDs and Yards) is down over this period last season. Hell, just about any time last season. I predicted that the defense would stay about the same. At best it would move up to 20th. So far they have overperformed statistically. So in this case, yes, I guess I am wrong through all two games of the \'03 season. Of course, that opinion is based on stats, and we all know that those don\'t count for anything. Uh, oh, and I said that Aaron Brooks (said, not predicted) was average to good, but wrong for the system. Hard to evaluate that statement, but.. so far this season Brooks is: 10th in total yards 18th in total TDs 16th in passer rating That looks pretty close to average to me. Obviously I was WRONG.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

09-17-2003, 08:16 PM	#69
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints Insiders? Whoa, whoa, whoa... You wanna talk about Jake Delhomme????? After a game and a half? Yet 41 starts is NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR BROOKS?!?!?!?! Are you f--king kidding me? And you want to use Delhomme\'s STATS to judge him? OK - let\'s use team stats since you seem to like that. Jake Delhomme - Games played: 2, Games won: 2 Aaron Brooks - Games played 2, Games won: 1 next...
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

09-17-2003, 08:20 PM	#70
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints Insiders? Isn\'t a game and a half all Jake ever played for the Saints? Isn\'t that all you needed to see him play to proclaim he was a franchise QB? What a joke.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209