|
Don't take MY word for it...
A warning to ANYone drinkin the "08" Kool-Aid. What you are about to read are quotes from an article writte by Dan Pompei...writer for the Sporting News. You've heard it all before, particularly from ME and BILLYC, but here it is again, only now you don't have to take MY word for it...
"The only way they could make big plays is if we missed tackles and blew coverages," Titans safety Lance Schulters said afterward. "Their quarterback stares down their receivers and gets them blown up." -- Schulters on Jake Delhomme "Their strength is their ability to run the football and play-action pass," Titans coach Jeff Fisher says. "If you can get them out of that in a dropback situation, then you have a chance to match up, and that's what we wanted to do." You can trust Delhomme to water the plants, walk the dog and take out the trash. A caretaker is what he is, capable of performing simple tasks. The Panthers don't expect him to be a precision craftsman. In fact, they might not know what to do with him if he were. "We could have John Elway here, and we'd be the same way we are now," Fox says. "The only thing you worry about against them is not getting outmanned," Falcons cornerback Ray Buchanan says. "You know they're not going to be passing like crazy. It is a little bit easier to game-plan them." There are no illusions in the Carolina offense. Muhammad says his team has gone into a game with as few as three or four running plays and four or five passing plays, though the Panthers use them out of many different formations. It's the simplest offense Muhammad has been in since high school. "We don't do a whole lot, but we do it with precision," he says. The Panthers probably run more single-receiver formations than any team in football. Even when they intend to pass, the Panthers use mostly two- and three-man routes, choosing to devote extra men to protecting Delhomme. "They make it so you can't get to him, because he'll make bad decisions with the ball," one NFC head coach says. "If you can get a 14-point lead, you have a chance because they'll have to throw it up." "He's not the best quarterback I've ever seen," Buchanan says. "If you put him in passing situations, I think you can see a lot of signs of weaknesses. But if they're running the ball that well, Delhomme can look like he's one of the better quarterbacks because he doesn't have to do anything. It almost reminds me of Trent Dilfer when he was with Baltimore." Below is a link to the entire article. Some of you will love it, and others won't. Suffice it to say it's nothing new...nothing those of us with open eyes didn't already know! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...=tsn&type=lgns [Edited on 21/10/2003 by saintfan] |
Don't take MY word for it...
I think there are some valid points in that article as to why Delhomme isn\'t the answer here at QB (over Brooks). But I, and many others will point to his positives when arguing if he should have replaced an obviously injured Brooks last year.
True, he won\'t win many shootouts but his conservative style of play may have won a game or two down the stretch last year. He would run a true West coast Offense pretty well. Unfortunately too many people use last years slide to over-hype Delhomme\'s ability. After all, the most popular player on a losing team is the back-up QB. And if he\'s a beloved local boy, hatred for the starter is inevitable. Yes, Jake could run this team fairly well considering the weapons we have on offense, but a comparison to Brooks\' talent is pretty weak. I think the Jake lovers will slowly fade out over time. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Hey man, this is nothing new. I\'ve said this in the past. I\'ve compared Delhomme to Dilfer. He is Dilfer - he\'s a good game manager. Say what you will, but the Ravens won a Super Bowl with Dilfer. Tampa went to the Bowl with Johnson (same idea - manage the game and don\'t make mistakes).
My argument has never been that Delhomme is more talented. I\'m not sure anyone\'s has been. My argument is twofold - 1) QBs like Delhomme have had more success than QBs like McNabb and Vick since... well, forever, and 2) Our system is built for a drop back pocket passer who can make quick reads, get the ball out, and limit the mistakes. Brooks is becoming that kind of a guy, and I think he is showing more and more that he can be successful in this type of system - but that\'s not his natural style of play and you all know it. |
Don't take MY word for it...
This was meant more for Saintz08 than anyone Whodat. But I think what it really shows it that at this particular time Jake is neither Dilfer nor is he Brooks. He very raw and inexperienced. He threw a five yard slant on the mark against Tampa Bay last year and 08 thinks he\'s God. I\'m only trying to show that Jake Delhomme isn\'t the end all for QB\'s the way 08 has attempted to indicate he was. Now the league has something to measure Jake by and his grade is avearge...at best!
|
Don't take MY word for it...
Maybe, but I see potential in the guy, same as I did when some no-name that looked like gumby came sauntering into the game in Week 10 of the 2000 season. They have different styles and different skillsets, but to think Jake doesn\'t have a shot b/c he isn\'t playing great right now, well... that\'s kind of myopic for a guy who has been preaching patience.
[Edited on 21/10/2003 by WhoDat] |
Don't take MY word for it...
I didn\'t say that Whodat. I\'ve always said I like Jake and I still do, but posts like Gatorman\'s are what get me. Jake has had very very little to do with their record. The number of carries for Stephen Davis tells the story.
Don\'t take my word for it Gator...that\'s what this thread is all about. [Edited on 21/10/2003 by saintfan] |
Don't take MY word for it...
OK. Point taken. Stephen Davis is the engine that drives the Panthers. No question. One might say the same about Deuce. Sure, he\'s not doing it to the extent that Davis is, and yes Brooks is much more a part of the offense than Delhomme. Again, part of that has to be chalked up to Fox\'s scheme. He wants to win with running and defense.
\"We could have John Elway here, and we\'d be the same way we are now,\" Fox says. Delhomme isn\'t in a wide open offense where he\'s encouraged to make reads, use his arm, etc. And despite what Billy may think, Smith and Muhammed are NOT Horn, Stallworth, Pathon, and Conwell... oh and Deuce out of the backfield. I won\'t try to tell you that Delhomme is as good a QB right now as Brooks. However, Delhomme is doing what is asked of him, and he\'s doing it really well. The team\'s record shows that. Brooks on the other hand, has been asked to be a significant part of the Saints offense this season. I will be the first to admit that Brooks\' play has been surprisingly good this season, but one has to wonder when we have a losing record... wouldn\'t you agree? |
Don't take MY word for it...
Quote:
Right now you are attempting to credit Jake Delhomme for the Panthers 5-1 record by saying: \"5-1 -- Jake is the QB -- Thats all I need to know.\" Well, I agree, that is all you need to know if you don\'t want to see the truth. Which you obviously don\'t. I\'ve said it before and I\'ll say it again -- Jake has done NOTHING in this league to warrant all the praise he has received by some members on here. Since I have been a member on here, I have spent most of my time defending Aaron Brooks. You can say I am a Brooks\' supporter. I freely admit that. I\'ve never claimed he is perfect or doesn\'t need to improve. What I have been trying to tell you guy is that most to the critcism is UNJUST. Now that Delhomme is a starter and myself and saintfan point out some flaws with ole\' Jake ( and not nearly to the degree that Brooks has been placed under the microscope) some of the Brooks bashers and Jake supporters don\'t like it. Mainly because they can\'t justify the criticism they have placed on Brooks and not say the samething about Delhomme. All of you guys that are defending Delhomme -- Where were you at when post after post, article after article, was being written about \"Brooks Sucks\" ?? I learned a long time ago that QB\'s take time to develop and that just because they are making a tremendous amount of money, that it does not speed up the maturation process. But yet all I hear on here is \" You are making top 5 money -- I demand top 5 play. This is FOOLISH. Some of you right now are waiting on Brooks to have a bad game so you can say \" See, I told you so.\" But that\'s OK -- I\'ll be right here telling you the samethings I\'ve been telling ya !~! [Edited on 22/10/2003 by BillyCarpenter1] |
Don't take MY word for it...
Well Billy, I don\'t know if I totally agree with that.
Here\'s the thing. Carolina does not expect Jake Delhomme to be a top five quarterback. They ask him to be a game manager. They ask him to throw when he has to, mostly in order to keep the D honest enough to allow Davis some running room. They pay him accordingly and they most get what they expect. Limited performance and limited mistakes. On the other hand, Haslett and Co. have been promising that Aaron Brooks will be a star in this league for three years now. The expectation is that he will play like one of the tops in the league at his position. He is getting paid to do so and we as fans are expecting to see that. What we have gotten throughout most of the man\'s career is inconsistency. The ability to play like a star one week and a bum the next. In fact, games like AB had last week can serve to further exagerate the problem, b/c we see what he is capable of. Next week, if he doesn\'t deliver - if he has a 150 yard 3 INT day - then it makes us more mad b/c we know how he can play and we know what we\'re paying for... and we know when we\'re getting screwed. Say what you will about Jake\'s ability. Say what you will about his role in Carolina\'s offense. Bottom line is, the man is doing exactly what is asked of him and that has helped his team to a 5-1 record. I\'m not saying that I would rather have Delhomme than Brooks. I am not saying that Delhomme is better than Brooks. What I am saying is that Delhomme may be the lowest paid starting QB in the league and he is certainly not the worst in the league right now. Brooks is one of the highest paid in the league, and can you tell me that so far this year he has been playing like one of the best QBs in the league? I will admit he is getting much better. More consistent, smarter plays, less mistakes, he\'s molding himself to better fit our system... but he\'s still not there yet. I can understand the people who think that he\'ll never be the leader or have the ability to make the right reads he needs to make it in the NFL, or in our system. I\'ll say that his play is starting to change my mind about that, but he ain\'t there yet. Carolina is getting everything they expect and pay for out of Jake. |
Don't take MY word for it...
WhoDat --
Some QB\'s develop faster for different reasons. Maybe some QB\'s were in a college system that better prepared them for the NFL. Maybe some QB\'s had a dad that played in the NFL and that gave them an advantage. Point is that Brooks is a young QB that has been no more inconsistant than some great QB\'s of all time. I\'ve showed you before the stats of other QB\'s like Aikman, Elway, etc, etc.. MOST of the criticism on Brooks has been unjust and if you are honest you will admit that. I have to admit that debating Aaron Brooks is fun. More so with some members than others, but I really wonder if some memebers believe what they are writing on here or if they just like to prove a point because they don\'t like the guy... |
Don't take MY word for it...
Herein lies the problem Billy. To 08, his approximation of Brooks is just as valid as yours is to you. And because Brooks has not proved undoubtedly that he is great or terrible, no one is more or less right.
Everyone watched the same plays, reads the same articles, and see the same stats. We all come to different conclusions about those stats and plays and articles ourselves. Those conclusions are opinions, and no one is more right than the other. Your problem is simple. You watch the game and think, \"Brooks had a good day.\" Someone else sees the same game and thinks, \"Brooks played poorly.\" Now, unless he had a particularly spectacular or terrible game, it\'s hard to determine either way. Therefore, YOU are NOT right. Neither is 08 or whoever. You simply both have opinions, which seem to differ. Now, you seem to want members of this board to ignore Brooks\' poor play at times b/c he has potential. If Brooks isn\'t playing well and I say he sucks, I\'M RIGHT. Why? B/c I\'m talking about now. If I say he\'s a bum and he\'ll never get it and he will always be terrible, well, then your argument has some merit. Still, you need to learn that two people can watch the same events and look at the same numbers and come to COMPLETELY different conclusions. Yours aren\'t right, they\'re yours. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Very weak WhoDat --
I\'m not talking about someone who judges Brooks on a game by game basis and you KNOW that. I\'m talking about the folks who say cut him, bench him, he\'s a bum, he\'s too stupid, etc, etc.. My point is correct and like I said, if you are honest, you will admit that these critcisms are UNJUST. Including some of yours !! ?? !! ?? |
Don't take MY word for it...
How nice ,
Saintsfan wrote one just for me . At no point that I have read does it say , \" Delhomme could not have filled in for a quarterback requireing surgery to a passing arm \" . Jake Delhomme has in fact proven he was capable to fill in last year , rather then start an injured rather ineffective Brooks . Delhomme is in an unfamiliar offense as in comparison to his study time in New Orleans and should at this point be considered a rookie to the system . If Jake had gone to San Francisco , under Walsh he would be in a much better position . He is in Carolina , running an offense that has less talent then the Saints and has not done bad for his first year . One rather amusing point is that in the loss to the Titans , Delhomme threw the ball 49 times and not one interception . With the running game stopped for the Panthers and the Titans knowing Delhomme was gonna have to air it out , not 1 interception . Took Brooks a couple of years to figure that one out . ;) Jake Delhomme had a great game with 362 yards passing and two touchdowns and no interceptions, but that was mostly as Carolina had to catch up due to the large first-half deficit. The running game was taken out of commission early and only managed 44 total yards. Duece gets only 44 yards in one game and Brooks has usually thrown a couple of picks . [Edited on 22/10/2003 by saintz08] |
Don't take MY word for it...
Enough with the Brooks/Delhomme debate. Jesus it has been 4 weeks of it and it needs to end. I personally love Jake. This is his first year with the Panthers, first year as a starter. I think that if Carolina sticks with him, he will develop into a nice starter. He just works too damn hard not to.
Brooks played very well this week. I hope he keeps on playing this way. Still we played very bad teams 2 weeks in a row and I am not sure if the Saints can do this to some quality opponents. If they pull off wins against Carolina and Tampa then I\'ll be impressed. Back to Brooks, as I have said before I don\'t feel that he has made sufficient progress as a starter. He has had the starting job for 3 years now and he still makes many of the boneheaded plays he did in his first year as a starter. Really I haven\'t seem much in the way of progression from him. He looked truly amazing when he came in after Blake went down to injury but hasn\'t looked that good since that season. Now I wouldn\'t mind it so much if he would be on the sidelines looking over coverage packages with McCarthy or something, but he doesn\'t. When he is on the sideline, he just stands there with his towel around his neck. It\'s almost as if he puts it all in McCarthy\'s hands. I don\'t know maybe that\'s how he wants it so he doesn\'t have to be held accountable. It just seems like he lacks so many of the intangibles that great quarterbacks have. Now to his credit something has stirred a fire under his *$3 the past two weeks cus I saw him actually getting somewhat passionate and audibling. That is an incouraging sign. With that said if Aaron Brooks is finally going to stand up and start walking the walk of a franchise QB (which is what we are paying him as) then by all means step up and we don\'t have to go looking for a replacement; however, if he doesn\'t PROGRESS then I\'m not satisfied with him as our long term answer. I\'m not saying cut him or anything like that. He is certainly better than all the Shulers, Billy Joe\'s, and other flake quarterbacks we have had here. Still if he doesn\'t show overall improvement by the season\'s end . . . then we should start looking for a young QB we can groom behind him for a couple years, similiar to what the JETS did with Pennington. In parting I know someone is going to jump on this post screaming to \"look at Brooks\' numbers from the past two weeks. That\'s not improvement?\" Yes good numbers and good performances as well, but against teams that are a combined 2-11 this season. I\'m sorry but that isn\'t much of a statement for Brooks or the rest of this team. Do this against some quality opponents then we are turning some heads. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Oh, I\'m sorry \"08\". Did you say something about interceptions? Hmmmm.....
Jake 162 Pass attempts -- 96 Completions -- 7 Touchdowns -- 5 Interceptoins Brooks 215 Pass attempts -- 131 Completions -- 10 Touchdowns -- 4 Interceptions Lets see...one fewer INT\'S and 53 more attempts. How you think you can argue those numbers in Jake\'s favor is...well...tell me how you can do that again? Oh, by the way, the ratings are 80.1 and 89.8 respectively. Too bad they don\'t keep a stat for dropped passes...or do they? That\'ll give you something to do today. Lets see which team has dropped more. No tellin\' how much better Brooks\' numbers would be if the Saints receivers had been catching the balls they should catch huh? Put down the Kool-Aid and tell me again what your point was. |
Don't take MY word for it...
I\'m not arguing either side here, but...
Saintfan - 08\'s point was that Delhomme threw 50 passes in one game with the defense knowing it was coming and he didn\'t throw a pick. We\'re not talking season stats. However, if you do want to talk season stats, and again, remember, I think Brooks is playing well, should be the starter, I don\'t want Delhomme in NO, and think Brooks is showing plenty of signs that he can be the real deal, but, how many TURNOVERS does Brooks have versus Jake? AB may have fewer INTS, but I\'d bet he has more fumbles. Didn\'t he have two or three in one game at the beginning of the season? Again, just playing devil\'s advocate here... |
Don't take MY word for it...
Whodat is the devil...
:P |
Don't take MY word for it...
This is amusing. I SHOULD go pull up some old posts to show what was being said by some members here about Jake. But, they don\'t and won\'t admit the truth. It used to be challenging to debate the Brooks/Delhomme issue, but Jake is clearly not in the same league with Brooks. We need to go back to the Brooks/Peyton debate -- It\'s more credible -- :o
|
Don't take MY word for it...
Billy is the Devil...
:P |
Don't take MY word for it...
No Devil here -- I\'m really cuttin\' the Delhommites a lot of slack here. I COULD bring up lots of stuff. I probably SHOULD, because they certainly haven\'t cut Brooks any slack or me for standing up for him. I also know that when Brooks has an average or a bad day, they will be right back to their bashing ways.
[Edited on 22/10/2003 by BillyCarpenter1] |
Don't take MY word for it...
Now a Brooks / Peyton Manning debate is completely laughable. The guy couldn\'t wash Peyton\'s Jock strap. Post all the stats you want, EVERYONE knows Peyton is in the top 3 if not top QB in the league. If I needed a QB for one game and my life depended on it, it would be a toss up between Peyton and Favre.
Give the Delhomme/ Brooks debate a rest already. Some people like Delhomme and want him to succeed. I am one of those people. If Brooks is going to start being consistent and play up to his potential and pay, then I want him in a Saints uniform. I\'m sure alot of people feel the same way about that. By the end of the season I hope we don\'t even have to question our QB anymore. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Quote:
|
Don't take MY word for it...
And of course you would go for that stat .
Based upon experience and the time frame of the team , the comparison on a limited basis could only be made to the 2000 season for Brooks . Brooks 8 Games 113 completions 194 attempts 9 touchdowns 6 interceptions Jake 162 Pass attempts -- 96 Completions -- 7 Touchdowns -- 5 Interceptoins Based upon this timeline of experience and team position , They are rather close in percentages and interceptions . Not seeing the Superman status you give Brooks ..... ;) Or is Delhomme worthy of it too ...... ;) |
Don't take MY word for it...
Not now nor have I ever attempted to give Brooks \"Superman\" status \"08\". In fact it\'s folks like you that wanna give Delhomme such status, and when the numbers don\'t warrant it (I told you they wouldn\'t) you make an exception here for Delhomme and an exception there for Delhomme. My question to you is now what it has always been. Why don\'t you give credit where credit is due for Brooks in the same manner you do it for Delhomme? Long ago I answered it myself since you never would. The answer points directly at your agenda. You were hollering for Delhomme the day Brooks took over. Nevermind he was unable to win the job prior to Brooks\' arrival. You\'d be just as negative towards whomever the QB is now because you think they stole something from Jake. Face it. Nobody treated Jake unfairly...except you. Calling him the would be Savior is unfair to him. He\'s just not that good.
|
Don't take MY word for it...
Just for the sake of opinions....
Would you rather play Brooks QB the Saint vs Delhomme\'s Panthers.... or play this Carolina team QB\'d by Brooks with Delhomme as our QB?? Hmmm... |
Don't take MY word for it...
Hey Saintfan... uhm, it\'s the devil, and I\'ll bet a fiddle of gold against yer sole... sorry, I\'m back now.
Would you say that AB\'s first 6 games as a starter in this league versus Delhomme\'s first 6 games would be a relatively fair match up if you wanted to compare stats? I mean, nothing is even going to exactly be apples to apples, but... Brooks was younger, but on a more explosive team, Delhomme is older but in a system that doesn\'t really help the QB out in the stats category. Can we look at those numbers? I mean, there has to be some middle ground on which we can compare those numbers, right? So you tell me, what is fair? |
Don't take MY word for it...
Gator -- I\'m guilty as charged. But we all use any ammo we can come up with to prove our points. Really, the only thing I\'m trying to point out to these knuckleheads is that they are WAY premature to be calling Brooks a bum or a bust.
Now, he might end up being a bust(which I don\'t believe) but it\'s too early for ANYONE to be saying that. I hope it does piss people off because it pisses me off to hear their garbage. That\'s a 2 way street there Gator. I\'ll keep things on any kind of level that anyone wants to go. If you want to keep it clean -- I\'m good with that. If someone wants to jump in the mud. I know how to take a shower :mad: |
Don't take MY word for it...
OK, Gator has made reference to poo or turds in like four posts today and nobody jumps on him for a poo fetish. The double standards on this board!! I swear!! LMAO.
|
Don't take MY word for it...
I have never said that Brooks is above criticism. NEVER!! If someone wants to say he\'s not the best at reading defenses. FINE !! Or, if they want to point out some other flaws. I have no problem with that.
The only thing that I have been saying is that some members UNJUSTLY criticize the guy. And they do !! The ONLY folks I have issues with are the one\'s who basically are saying it\'s time to give up on the guy or the one\'s that say he won\'t get it done. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Call it what you will Gator. I have maintained the same stance when Brooks was struggling and when he has played well. Unlike, most members on here that don\'t have any patience and have knee jerk reactions. You just throw stuff out there that I\'ve never said. Show me where I said something unfair Gator?? Can you do that? I don\'t think so. Now, I can show you some of your stuff that was WAY off base...
|
Don't take MY word for it...
Whodat, we could go back to Brooks\' first 8 games...
...but there\'s a problem... Jake, according to the \"08\" Kool-Aid\" Cult was ready to start and win at least a year ago. He didn\'t need to get accustomed to the game. That one 5 yard slant pass in the Tampa Game was all the prove they needed. You\'ll NEVER compare the two fairly because the Delhomme-ites like 08 won\'t level the field much less me honest about the situation. How many times do you see Jake leading his receiver into a defender...TONS...and if you say it\'s not true then you\'re not waching. No one on here is speaking poorly about Jake really. It\'s a matter of stuffing 08 back in his hole. Enough from that old man already. |
Don't take MY word for it...
OK Saintfan, but I\'m not talking to 08, I\'m talking to you. So, can you and I compare stats from their first 6 starts as the regular starter? Is that fair?
\"How many times do you see Jake leading his receiver into a defender...TONS...and if you say it\'s not true then you\'re not waching.\" How different is that then Brooks throwing high into double coverage and having Stallworth get crushed. I can count three times that\'s happened this season off the top of my head. What about throwing a bullet two yards behind a receiver 5 yards down the field? Look, let\'s not get into this too much right now. I just want to agree on a period of time that you feel translates into a fair comparison. OK? |
Don't take MY word for it...
PS - Saintfan - just to be crystal clear, we\'re talking about Brooks\' first 6 games in 2000 after Blake went down versus Delhomme\'s first 6 this season. Is that acceptible?
For the record, I haven\'t looked at the stats so they very well may show Brooks light years ahead of Delhomme, I really have no idea. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Actually Saintsfan ,
I believe I was screaming for Delhomme the moment Mc Carthy took over and called for the offense to be changed to the west coast system . Blake was not the west coast prototype in my thoughts , nor was Brooks . The West Coast QB-the West Coast QB is defined by a player with some mobility, even to the point of being called a scrambler. His arm strength is not a main issue. He survives on making quick decisions and marching his team down the field with precise passes. Vintage examples of the West Coast QB are Joe Montana and Steve Young. |
Don't take MY word for it...
08--
If you think the Saints are running the West Coast Offense, then I\'ve got some swamp land out in Arizon I\'ll let you have real cheap... ...and you\'re biased towards Jake Delhomme man...admit it already. Whodat -- We can compare \'em if you\'d like. I doubt they\'d be much different, but you must remembre Jake had more experience in the league by the time he started for Carolina than Brooks did. I think we should figure out how to factor that in to things too. |
Don't take MY word for it...
Sure Saintfan. I mentioned that earlier. I\'d say that is cancelled out by the surrounding talent factor, in which Brooks has the advantage. Then there\'s the system argument, the opponent argument, etc. etc. etc.
We can him-haw about this all we want, but like I said earlier, unless we can watch these guys play the exact same games in two parallel universes we\'ll never have exact apples to apples. So, if we can both agree that there will undoubtedly be some discrepency here, I\'ll be happy to pull the numbers. Agreed? |
Don't take MY word for it...
You think the Saints receivers in 2000 stack up to what Carolina has now? Just askin\'?
|
Don't take MY word for it...
Uh, I\'d say so. Horn was a Pro Bowler and Willie Jackson had a thousand yards receiving that year, didn\'t he? Or was that \'01? Anyway, irrelevant. We know that it\'s not apples to apples. Right?
|
Don't take MY word for it...
McCarthy has led an offensive revival in New Orleans by relying on an uncompromising attention to detail, skilled game-planning and a dedication to the principles of the West Coast offensive system.
08-- If you think the Saints are running the West Coast Offense, then I\'ve got some swamp land out in Arizon I\'ll let you have real cheap... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it that the Saints are not running the west coast offense or that Brooks is not an effective west coast style quarterback ???? The West Coast QB-the West Coast QB is defined by a player with some mobility, even to the point of being called a scrambler. His arm strength is not a main issue. He survives on making quick decisions and marching his team down the field with precise passes. Vintage examples of the West Coast QB are Joe Montana and Steve Young. Note on the Falcons game : Brooks argueably had his best game ever in a Saints uniform . It was also the first time the Saints have used the no huddle offense allowing Brooks to call the plays at the line or call them in a huddle . Brooks felt more comfotable and completed more passes , because he could eliminate those quick read plays . Note less time delay and fewer dump off passes to deuce . |
Don't take MY word for it...
You\'re a spin doctor 08, plain and simple, and as I\'ve said before your agenda is old and tired.
Dude, if you put 1/8 the positive spin on Brooks that you attempt to put on Jake you\'d be a sure enough Brooks Fan. Admit you\'re pizzed cause Good \'Ol Breaux Bridge Boy Jake Delhomme couldn\'t crack the starting lineup in New Orleans. Admit that, and admit that you\'d be squarely against ANYBODY Brooks or not and I might give something you type some level of credibility. And again, if you think the offense the Saints run is a \"West Coast\" offense you\'re drinkin\' too much of your own Kool-Aid. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 PM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com