A theory on Brooks

WhoDat · 05-20-2004, 09:07 AM

Saintfan - I wouldn\'t have expected anything less from you. Someone in the media questioned Brooks - of course they\'re all clueless.

I agree with the premise that Brooks seemed more exciting and more of a game-breaker during the season when he replaced Blake. AB was scrappy, and his play looked more off-the-cuff, if you will. Watching him play that year was nothing short of awesome.

The more I think about it, the more I blame coaching and gameplanning for the two years after that one. Like Danno, I also think the failings of the WR corp hurt AB last year.

While I agree that AB was more fun to watch when he was playing only with instinct, I don\'t think his success was entirely due to that. I think that his success in 2000 was due in large part to the fact that opposing defenses knew NOTHING about him. They couldn\'t game plan for the guy.

Of course, he was more of a sandlot player and that affected his escapability and capacity to make plays out of nothing. The main problem did start in 01 when the coaches asked Brooks to think and to stand in the pocket and beat teams with his arm and mind. Still, defenses would have caught up with the sandlot Brooks quickly and it would have been ugly.

He has progressed, all be it slowly, and he\'s not far. IF the guy can eliminate the mistakes that have plagued him to this point in his career, he can go to the Pro Bowl. Of course, every year since he was named the starter the guy has found new and exciting ways to F-up. He SHOULD have it all together by now. It\'s time he stands up and becomes the top 5 guy he claimed he was years ago.

saintz08 · 05-20-2004, 09:09 AM

Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook.

Heard that the feature was the whole NFC South and the sportcasters did a pretty good analysis on the other teams and then came to the Saints and did the Hatchet job on Brooks .

They did pretty much blame the whole thing on Brooks, which tells me they\'re clueless.

NFL has it\'s own network , and the sportcasters are the ones that are clueless ???...

GumboBC · 05-20-2004, 09:14 AM

The guys on that show basically blamed EVERYTHING on Brooks. They proclaimed Mike Vick to be the second-coming. Look, I have no idea where Brooks is supposed to be throwing the ball. I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything.

Besides, if we\'re going to take the guys in the media\'s word for ANYTHING -- Last night Pete Prisco said Aaron would emerge as a top 5 QB this year. He said Brooks has improved every year and made great strides last year. Who ya gonna believe? Me, I don\'t believe any of \'em.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

saintfan · 05-20-2004, 09:21 AM

Whodat and 08 --

If either of you had watched that show you\'d know what I\'m saying. Those guys were completely clueless...NFL Network or not. And they were, in my opinion, clueless about far more than just their assessment of Brooks. Like everything else on that Network, I\'m sure they\'ll re-run it at least a dozen times. Maybe you guys will catch it...you\'ll be as disgusted as I was I guarantee.

WhoDat · 05-20-2004, 09:25 AM

I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything.

Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook. It\'s a show where they take game footage and break down plays. They did a few on AB and how he can\'t read defenses.

You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise. But I agree with Prisco that Brooks made strides last year and should emerge as a top 10 (probably top 7 but not top 5). He could be a Pro Bowler.

GumboBC · 05-20-2004, 09:31 AM

You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise.

WhoDat -- FUNNY,FUNNY,FUNNY!! Have you EVER watched that show? Maybe you THINK that\'s what they do, but I HIGHLY doubt they spend too much time breaking down anything. Do you think every NFL expert that\'s on TV really breaks down a QB\'s game and gives a TRUE analysis? If you do think that, it would not be wise!!

BlackandBlue · 05-20-2004, 09:41 AM

Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake.

I watched that show last night too...and I found it interesting that they didn\'t have much good to say at all...about anybody really other than Howard and Grant.

I didn\'t understand that either, Grant was as guilty, if not more, of incosistent play as Brooks was last year. Howard, I could understand, upon his return, he made the defense better.
So Saintfan, I guess you really liked that stat comparing Brooks\' output against winning teams vs. losing teams. I\'ll need to pull that off the show and post it here, just to stir the muck.

GumboBC · 05-20-2004, 09:48 AM

Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake.

Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point. I Guarantee you that I can go pick out as many plays as they broke down and make Brooks look like Joe Montana.

Anyway, I could care less what those guys say.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

saintfan · 05-20-2004, 09:50 AM

That stat is about the only thing they got right. They just didn\'t go very deep man. I thought it was telling too that they always managed to get Vick into the conversation regardless of WHICH team they were talkin about.

Buncha clowns if you ask me, and I know you didn\'t, but there still a buncha clowns.

WhoDat · 05-20-2004, 10:04 AM

Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point.

Billy - are you suggesting that these analysts have some preconceived idea of players and/or teams and simply use their show to further that opinion. In other words, they simply don\'t like AB and they use their show to find and play clips of his mistakes to make fans and the public dislike him too. And why would they dislike AB? Wow, what an agenda those guys have. They must be miserable people who just want to pick on AB for no good reason. Thank God they\'re not Saints fans.

05-20-2004, 09:07 AM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	A theory on Brooks Saintfan - I wouldn\'t have expected anything less from you. Someone in the media questioned Brooks - of course they\'re all clueless. I agree with the premise that Brooks seemed more exciting and more of a game-breaker during the season when he replaced Blake. AB was scrappy, and his play looked more off-the-cuff, if you will. Watching him play that year was nothing short of awesome. The more I think about it, the more I blame coaching and gameplanning for the two years after that one. Like Danno, I also think the failings of the WR corp hurt AB last year. While I agree that AB was more fun to watch when he was playing only with instinct, I don\'t think his success was entirely due to that. I think that his success in 2000 was due in large part to the fact that opposing defenses knew NOTHING about him. They couldn\'t game plan for the guy. Of course, he was more of a sandlot player and that affected his escapability and capacity to make plays out of nothing. The main problem did start in 01 when the coaches asked Brooks to think and to stand in the pocket and beat teams with his arm and mind. Still, defenses would have caught up with the sandlot Brooks quickly and it would have been ugly. He has progressed, all be it slowly, and he\'s not far. IF the guy can eliminate the mistakes that have plagued him to this point in his career, he can go to the Pro Bowl. Of course, every year since he was named the starter the guy has found new and exciting ways to F-up. He SHOULD have it all together by now. It\'s time he stands up and becomes the top 5 guy he claimed he was years ago.
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.\"

05-20-2004, 09:09 AM	#12
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	A theory on Brooks Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook. Heard that the feature was the whole NFC South and the sportcasters did a pretty good analysis on the other teams and then came to the Saints and did the Hatchet job on Brooks . They did pretty much blame the whole thing on Brooks, which tells me they\'re clueless. NFL has it\'s own network , and the sportcasters are the ones that are clueless ???...
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

05-20-2004, 09:14 AM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	A theory on Brooks The guys on that show basically blamed EVERYTHING on Brooks. They proclaimed Mike Vick to be the second-coming. Look, I have no idea where Brooks is supposed to be throwing the ball. I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything. Besides, if we\'re going to take the guys in the media\'s word for ANYTHING -- Last night Pete Prisco said Aaron would emerge as a top 5 QB this year. He said Brooks has improved every year and made great strides last year. Who ya gonna believe? Me, I don\'t believe any of \'em. [Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

05-20-2004, 09:21 AM	#14
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	A theory on Brooks Whodat and 08 -- If either of you had watched that show you\'d know what I\'m saying. Those guys were completely clueless...NFL Network or not. And they were, in my opinion, clueless about far more than just their assessment of Brooks. Like everything else on that Network, I\'m sure they\'ll re-run it at least a dozen times. Maybe you guys will catch it...you\'ll be as disgusted as I was I guarantee.

05-20-2004, 09:25 AM	#15
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	A theory on Brooks I doubt very seriously those guys broke Brooks\' game down enough to truly evaluate anything. Watched an interesting show last night on the NFL network, called Playbook. It\'s a show where they take game footage and break down plays. They did a few on AB and how he can\'t read defenses. You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise. But I agree with Prisco that Brooks made strides last year and should emerge as a top 10 (probably top 7 but not top 5). He could be a Pro Bowler.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

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

05-20-2004, 09:31 AM	#16
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	A theory on Brooks You\'re right - the guys on a show that only has one purpose (BREAKING DOWN GAME FILM AND GIVING ANALYSIS) probably didn\'t spend enough time to \"truly evaluate anything.\" C\'mon Billy, that\'s not wise. WhoDat -- FUNNY,FUNNY,FUNNY!! Have you EVER watched that show? Maybe you THINK that\'s what they do, but I HIGHLY doubt they spend too much time breaking down anything. Do you think every NFL expert that\'s on TV really breaks down a QB\'s game and gives a TRUE analysis? If you do think that, it would not be wise!!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

05-20-2004, 09:41 AM	#17
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	A theory on Brooks Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake. I watched that show last night too...and I found it interesting that they didn\'t have much good to say at all...about anybody really other than Howard and Grant. I didn\'t understand that either, Grant was as guilty, if not more, of incosistent play as Brooks was last year. Howard, I could understand, upon his return, he made the defense better. So Saintfan, I guess you really liked that stat comparing Brooks\' output against winning teams vs. losing teams. I\'ll need to pull that off the show and post it here, just to stir the muck.
	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?

05-20-2004, 09:48 AM	#18
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	A theory on Brooks Yes, they show clips from actual games, and even slow them down, rewind, and pull out the white sharpie and break the plays down and describe to you what is going on. This is not that hard to figure out, guys, this isn\'t chaos math, for pete\'s sake. Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point. I Guarantee you that I can go pick out as many plays as they broke down and make Brooks look like Joe Montana. Anyway, I could care less what those guys say. [Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

05-20-2004, 09:50 AM	#19
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	A theory on Brooks That stat is about the only thing they got right. They just didn\'t go very deep man. I thought it was telling too that they always managed to get Vick into the conversation regardless of WHICH team they were talkin about. Buncha clowns if you ask me, and I know you didn\'t, but there still a buncha clowns.

05-20-2004, 10:04 AM	#20
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	A theory on Brooks Here\'s the thing. How MANY plays do they ACTUALLY WATCH. Do they go back and look at the WHOLE season? Or, do they just pick out the plays they want that proves their point. Billy - are you suggesting that these analysts have some preconceived idea of players and/or teams and simply use their show to further that opinion. In other words, they simply don\'t like AB and they use their show to find and play clips of his mistakes to make fans and the public dislike him too. And why would they dislike AB? Wow, what an agenda those guys have. They must be miserable people who just want to pick on AB for no good reason. Thank God they\'re not Saints fans.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631