Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Why not Delhomme??

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Yeah, it's a dead horse issue, but I have one question for some people on this board. I AM NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING. I just have one question. Throughout the season many people on this board have claimed that AB is ...

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2004, 09:07 PM   #1
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Why not Delhomme??

Yeah, it's a dead horse issue, but I have one question for some people on this board. I AM NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING. I just have one question.

Throughout the season many people on this board have claimed that AB is a better option than Delhomme at QB. From my understanding there have been a couple reasons. Obviously, Brooks is a much better athlete. No question. Many people have said that they prefer to have a guy with the physical attributes and hope that he develops in other areas. It's hard to argue with Brooks' stats in some categories this year. He had a good completion percentage and the best efficiency numbers of his career. His 3500 yards, 20+ TDs, and only 8 INTs are impressive, no doubt.

Still, some people on this board, myself included as one of the loudest, have argued that Brooks lacks some intangibles. He doesn't seem like a smart QB, he is inconsistent, and is not a good leader. He is also expensive and not delivering at his pay rate. Many people here argued that despite that, with Brooks you have a guy that can make plays by himself and give you a chance to win when it matters. Delhomme may be smarter, more consistent, even a better leader, but his "it" factor doesn't translate into play-making. His running game and defense carried him. He is a game manager that you rely on not to lose the game rather than win it.

Is this a fairly accurate portrait of the argument? I am trying my best not to skew anything, so if you feel I misrepresented something, please correct it.

Now, all that being the case, I can't see how that holds water. I will not argue for a second that Jake's defense and running game did not help him a lot this season, especially in the early going. However, if AB's physical gifts are supposed to translate into playmaking and wins... well, it just doesn't add up.

Jake engineered 8 game winning drives this year (that obviously excludes his two come-from behind drives in the Super Bowl and possibly others in the regular season that they lost). That's 8 games decided on Delhomme's arm. The Saints only won 8 total!!! Brooks only has 10 or 11 comebacks to his credit in his CAREER. So what I don't get is how you figure Brooks gives you more of a chance to win. The Panthers were 3-1 in OT this year and won something like 7 or 8 games decided by 3 points or less.

Now, during the season I thought Jake had the ability to make plays if he had to, or as he developed, that would come out. After watching what he did in the Super Bowl against the league's best defense, there's no doubt the kid can make plays and carry a team on his arm if need be. At a cost, even assuming the Panthers increase his salary 5-fold this offseason, of about HALF of AB, how is this kid not the better option????

I know he's gone. This is all hypothetical, and I'm just looking for some civil discussion. I honestly don't understand how at this point, today, you can say AB is the better option. In the beginning of the season, fine. But today, when we see a QB in Delhomme whose game has improved as much in a season as AB's has in 3, who has shown in one season he has the comeback ability that AB has taken 3 years to show, and who has the X factor that Brooks lacks, how can you favor AB? Is it sheer stubbornness at this point? Have you not stopped to think about it? Do you really feel that AB can or is that much better than Delhomme? Honestly, I just don't get it.

[Edited on 4/2/2004 by WhoDat]
WhoDat is offline  
Old 02-03-2004, 09:39 PM   #2
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
Why not Delhomme??

It certainly is a much tougher question now than a year ago. I think an anology might help: Brooks seems to be the sports car of the two, while Jake is more the old dependable, but unremarkable, pickup.

That truck gets you where you want to go, but it\'s nothing fancy. On the other hand, that sports car sure would make you look like a winner. Sure it\'s not nearly as dependable, but the chicks dig it.

So, just as two people could disagree on which vehicle is better, people can disagree on which QB is better.

The first thing I would take out of your argument is the question about money. I want the better QB and don\'t really care if I have to pay for it. But when you get right down to it, I can\'t say that I truly believe the Saints would have been better than 8-8 last year even with Delhomme.

It seems to me that the Jake/Carolina pairing was really a Cinderella type pairing. It just fit perfectly. He began to thrive as he got more confident and things just really worked well for him. However, you can\'t count on that continuing in \'04. Whether they can help it or not, every O coordinator in the league spends the offseason making his playbook more complicated than the year before. It\'s just the nature of trying to stay ahead of the competition.

If Jake were Qb in NO in \'03 would there have been less drops? That was such a huge problem early on. Add to that that half the starting D was out and you have the makings for a tough stretch of games. Once the receivers seemed to get over those problems and the D was getting healthy again, AB led the Saints to a 7-3 record in the last 10. That\'s not bad. They weren\'t all pretty and the some were downright ugly, but you can consider that if Jake was having to come from behind so often with the D he had - his games must not have been so pretty either.

I would have liked to get a good look a Bouman. AB has the potential, obviously, but it isn\'t translating into dominance, consistency, or adoration by fans.

I\'m sorry, but it is just too easy to ramble on a topic like this. I was about to delete without posting my remarks, but heck, I wrote it, you may as well have to read it!
ScottyRo is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 12:57 AM   #3
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 95
Why not Delhomme??

Well hindsight is 20/20.....nevermind, no it\'s not, I also wanted Jake to be our sarter following the end of the 2000 season...but Haslett came in and signed Blake and Brooks and we are where we are now. I would love to see what Jake could have done with our team this past year. The systems aren\'t terribly different you know. I think both Aaron and Jake are great QBs...the numbers speak for themselves. Right now Jake looks like the better general (not seargent Jimbo!!) because of how far he got and what he did this past Sunday.

However, I do think Brooks has an extremely bigger bright side. I really think luck has not been on Brooks side (except in 2001). It just seems like the timing, and field position, has been horrible on his fumbles and INTs. You can\'t hold that against him. Maybe he gets nervous....only he knows. The thing is he is a very good QB and we should be happy to have him....we could still be rotating the Billy Joes. Some people are a bit more natural in thier leadership (and growth) like Jake...but Aaron has taken huge strides since his first year....the guy tries...even though he smiles and gives the impression he doesnt care...he does. I really think he\'ll be fired up by the Jake debate and will come out with something to prove next year. It may be just the thing he needed. I may be unfair in my judgements....I will always unfalteringly support anyone that wears the fleur de lis on their helmet. I would rather grow slow and last longer (NATURAL) versus grow fast and die out just as fast (VIAGRA/LEVITRA!).

Don\'t give up Saints fans, we\'ll get there...we waited 35 years whats one or two more. And that is all it will take by the way. Four years max and we have a Lombardi..guaranteed. Gotta stick to the guns I loaded in \'97 with that prediction! Seriously folks, I\'m not satisfied with mediocrity but we are closer now than we ever were....regardless of our record the last 3 years...we\'re young and we will elarn and we will get there.

OK, I await WhoDat or saintz08 to whip out old quotes of mine and criticize me....Bring it on!!
alsaints113 is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 08:30 AM   #4
100th Post
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Why not Delhomme??

What people fail to realize is that Jake had a better supporting cast overall... There were times when Jake just threw the ball up in the air and the WR came down with it, where Brooks eludes the rush with mobility. Football gods obviously looked down upon the Panthers and Jake. Whats funny is Jake got lots of credit for the success but in the SB people actually \"felt sorry for him\", because of the offensive line and Defense... Please, that was there success and doom. No one put the 1-9 over-thrown passes ect on Jakes fault. Next year will be interesting when they don\'t make it to the play-offs
Don\'t get me wrong I like Jake... like the fact he is a cajun from La like myself but come on reality... hello people. Brooks major problems were fumbles this year. Lets correct that and move on... build him the supporting cast.
deadflatbird is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 08:50 AM   #5
Site Donor
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 14,779
Blog Entries: 5
Why not Delhomme??

There are so many valid points...on either side really. Whodat\'s logic isn\'t necessarilly flawed if his argument is that, at this point in time, Jake is a better value for the dollar than Brooks. The fact that he was the starting QB in the superbowl validates that argument.

On the other hand, Brooks is a guy who\'s numbers climb year after year. I\'m not saying Jake\'s won\'t. The timing is different for each guy. Had Jake come in for Blake and had success similar to Brooks\' that year is this argument totally flip flopped? Do we forget that Brooks\' issues with his contract centered around the fact that as a starter he was making considerably less than most backups...including Jake? Do we fault the Saints for locking in a guy who obviously has the talent to take a team to the Superbowl and win it?

Ultimately, while I\'ve heard statements that the team would like Brooks to take a bigger leadership role, I\'ve also heard statements that he\'s done just that. I still haven\'t heard anyone on the Saints say Brooks wasn\'t adequate in that department. Regardless of what players like Joe Horn say for reporters, it said a lot to me when he scored that touchdown against the Giants and ran out to give the ball to Brooks. That shows ultimate respect if you ask me.

We\'re really judging all this on ONE YEAR. Jake did fabulously this year, and credit is due him. He\'s earned it. Let\'s not forget that running game in those comebacks folks attach Jakes name to. I saw Davis make some key scampers along the way. That\'s not an attack on Jake...just a fact. I don\'t think any of us disagree about the apparant good fortune the Panthers lived by this year. Next year we\'ll be able to see if that good fortune had as much to do with Jake Delhomme as some would like to think. Maybe so, maybe not, but only time will tell.

Whodat already knows my stance, but for those that don\'t -- I don\'t think the Saints make a mistake to start Brooks and I don\'t think the contract is a mistake. In fact I see the contract as just the oppostie. I view it as the Saints having finally done something right!

[Edited on 4/2/2004 by saintfan]

How many dancing bananas will Saintfan award YOU????
saintfan is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 09:24 AM   #6
Kinder, gentler
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,889
Why not Delhomme??

If you\'re talking about comparing performance to what they are being paid, the obvious answer is \"no\". If it were not for the fumbles, would we be as critical of Brooks as we are today? Some of you think that he is about as smart as a box of condoms, but as far as his performance is concerned, he put up some of the best numbers I have ever seen out of a Saints QB. We can question his leadership, but really, all we need is for him to move the ball up and down the field. You cannot blame him for not being a team leader, blame the team for not having a team leader. A team leader can play any position on the field, it helps if it is a skill position, helps even more when they have some type of psychology background. The Packers are obviously Favre\'s team and he is the QB. But what about Baltimore? The Ravens are Ray Lewis\' team. Chicago? Everyone knows that\'s Urlacher\'s team. There are some other leaders that can\'t be pointed out as easily. The Cowboys have a good leader, by the name of Richie Anderson, and he\'s the friggin FB. The only reason I know this is because I live in Dallas. I was hoping that Howard would have stepped up this past season, but he was injured. I still hold out for either him or Deuce, like I said above, it helps when the leader plays a skill position.

The waiting drove me mad....
I don't want to hear from those that know...
Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed

Eddie is a....draftnik?
BlackandBlue is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 10:56 AM   #7
The Dark Overlord
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
Why not Delhomme??

nice post bnb, i agree, i hope duece takes charge and not brooks, not that i dont like brooks but i think that duece is just the heart n soul of our team
pakowitz is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 03:53 PM   #8
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Why not Delhomme??

Great points. Let\'s just hope that AB can be the player we all want him to be in \'04. If so, and the Saints don\'t make moves this offseason that make me think that Haslett is as dumb as a box of condoms, than they should be competitive next season.
WhoDat is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts