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

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Brooks problem is a lack of maturity and mental toughness. In the clutch, Brooks folds. He pulls a Jeff George where he figures that his big arm will get him out of a jam and makes dumb decisions as a ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-09-2004, 08:41 AM   #41
100th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 102
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

Brooks problem is a lack of maturity and mental toughness. In the clutch, Brooks folds. He pulls a Jeff George where he figures that his big arm will get him out of a jam and makes dumb decisions as a result.

He may have all the potential in the world, but Brooks major problem is that you can\'t count on him.
That seems to be the prevailing opinion on Brooks from a lot of people...that he\'s fine early in games when it really doesn\'t matter, but that at the end of the game, especially when it\'s tight, and particularly when the Saints are trailing, that he performs horribly because \"he doesn\'t have what it takes to finish a game\".

But is that opinion backed up by fact, or is it just sort of a fuzzy \"feeling\" that these folks have?

First, a general look at the comparison to Jeff George. A guy who \"figures his big arm will get him out of a jam and makes dumb decisions\" generally is guilty of trying to force the ball into tight spots where it shouldn\'t be thrown, and as a result throws a lot of interceptions. I probably don\'t have to point out that in Brooks\' case his TD/INT ratio (24/8) and INT Percentage (1.5%) as a whole pretty much point to just the opposite--that in fact he DOESN\'T try to force the ball into the teeth of the defense because he thinks his strong arm will get the ball there.

As for \"folding in the clutch\"....Brooks\' overall numbers for the season:
518 att, 306 com, 59.1%, 3546 yds, 6.85 ypa, 24 TD, 8 INT, 88.8 Rating

Now for some breakdowns:
First Quarter-115 att, 65 com, 56.5%, 778 yds, 6.77 ypa, 4 TD, 2 INT, 81.7 Rating
Fourth Quarter-139 att, 80 com, 57.6%, 867 yds, 6.24 ypa, 7 TD, 0 INT, 92.8 Rating

Hmmmm.....seven fourth quarter touchdowns and no fourth quarter interceptions last year, huh? OK...but what about when the team\'\'s losing and needs him to perform?

When Ahead-142 att, 84 com, 59.2%, 929 yds, 6.54 ypa, 8 TD, 2 INT, 91.5 Rating
When Behind-265 att, 159 com, 60.0%, 1903 yds, 7.18 ypa, 12 TD, 4 INT, 90.8 Rating

Not a big difference, really. How about when the game\'s on the line, though?

Fourth Quarter Within 7-124 att, 72 com, 58.1%, 800 yds, 6.45 ypa, 6TD, 0 INT, 93.5 Rating

That\'s really not too bad...and doesn\'t really support the idea of a guy who \"folds\" when the pressure is on...nor lead one to believe that the team \"can\'t count on him\".
Puddinhead is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 09:02 AM   #42
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

As a matter of fact, I believe he actually overthinks what he is going to do.
Well, I wouldn\'t go that far. I don;t think Brooks can overthink anything, but I do know exactly what you mean. I think that the coaches have tried to teach Brooks to play outside of what is instinctual for him (i.e. sandlot ball). Thus, Brooks drops back and has to think, what am I supposed to do in this situation? Oh, right, roll right look for... oops, what happened to the ball?


Someone\'s biggest strength is sometimes their biggest weakness. In your case, you think you\'re so smart that you have this thing figured out and you\'ve closed your mind.

See, you\'re under the impression I said Brooks was smart. That\'s probably because you are obsessed to prove that Brooks is dumb. I think your obsession is clouding your judgement and your ability to comprehend what I\'m saying.
What\'s funny to me Billy, is how hard you will argue to defend Brooks (pretty much at any cost), and further how completely inconsistent your claims are.

First I was a Brooks hater with a vendetta. Then you criticized me for \"being on the fence\" about the guy. Now you\'re attacking when I make a statement about the guy. How come you don\'t attack me when I make strong positive statements about Brooks? Only when I make negative statements - it\'s crystal clear here Billy.

Then, you attack my rationale for why Brooks is intelligent or not - let\'s flip that around Billy. If I asked you to prove that Brooks is worthy of being a starting NFL QB, how would you do it?

- You probably start with stats - yards, TDs, INTs, Completion Percentage. Those are OBJECTIVE measures. Of course, when I bring up the Wonderlic, and OBJECTIVE measure of intelligence you dismiss it outright and compare Aaron Brooks to Albert Einstein!!! OK, Kerry Collins had more yards and TDs in the season that the Giants last went to the Super Bowl than Brooks has ever had as a starter. Collins probably won\'t start this season - therefore Brooks should probably not be starting. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You use stats and objective measures to prove your points EVERY DAY on this board. You dismiss the same action when I use it in a negative fashion about AB. Agenda much?

- You would also probably say that coaches, analysts, scouts, and players all say Brooks is capable of starting. When I show the same it is meaningless. What do scouts and coaches know? They all liked Ryan Leaf for God\'s Sake. By your own statements those coaches and scouts are so dumb as to think Leaf is a starter, what is to say that they aren\'t just as wrong about Brooks? Again, you use what the coaches and scouts say to prove your own points, but discredit them when they disagree with you.

- Finally, you would most certainly say that you know AB can play b/c YOU\'VE SEEN HIM DO IT. You watch his play with your own eyes and formed some opinion about that. Well I\'ve seen AB speak and when he does he sure as hell sounds like an idiot to me. But that\'s not relevant right? SO neither is your first-hand observation.


Finally Billy, you simply don\'t get it. Try it this way.

Person A: The Sky is blue. To support my claim that the sky is blue I offer these photographs of blue sky, I enter these scientific studies to show why it is blue (b/c it reflects the ocean), and lastly, I know it\'s blue b/c I can see that it\'s blue. Look up, it\'s blue!

Person B: I disagree with that statement.

Person A: Why?

Person B: On Mars the atmosphere makes the air look red. That clearly applies here.

Person A: no we\'re talking about earth.

Person B: Well, fact is, all those observations, all that objective evidence, and especially your opinion is worthless.

Person A: Can you enter anything to show that the sky is not blue? Can you show that the sky is some other color?

Person B: No. I am smart enough to know that I cannot form an opinion on whether or not the sky is blue. You clearly want to think that the sky is blue and are skewing things to show that.


Not tell me Billy, who won that argument? When a person has evidence to prove something as true, and another cannot disprove those claims nor can he prove that something else is A) also or B) otherwise true, then any reasonable person hasa to accept the first person\'s claims as true until such a time as some other evidence may be made clear. It\'s very simple, but considering we\'re talking about Aaron Brooks it doe not surprise me in the least that you don\'t get it.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 09:23 AM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

Good morning to you too, WhoDat. :P

You could be right, WhoDat. There have certainly been plenty of idiots to play every position in football. Some of the \"idiots\" have had great football careers and are in the hall of fame. And some of the \"brilliant\" players failed miserably. Which proves the wonderlic isn\'t worth the paper it\'s written on when it comes to football.

Brooks scored a 17 on the wonderlic, but what does it prove when it comes to football? Does it prove he can\'t read defenses? Does it prove he can\'t make quick decisions? Does it prove he\'s not a leader?

Well, Dan Marino scored lower than Brooks, so the wonderlic can\'t tell us any of that. So, what\'s the use of the wonderlic?

If I follow your logic that the wonderlic is a TRUE measure of intelligence then I have to come to one of the following conclusions:

A. Intelligence isn\'t important when it comes to playing QB because Dan Marino is one of the greats of all time.
B. The wonderlic is flawed.

Whatever the case, I just can\'t put as much faith in the wonderlic as you.





[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 09:31 AM   #44
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 575
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

Jake Delhomme scored 188 on the Wonderlic, earned a PhD in Meteorological Sciences (writing his dissertation on the study of the ocean\'s reflection on the lower atmosphere), won multiple oratorical contests across the Southeast, and saved a little baby kitten from house fire in suburban Charlotte.


**Great post, btw, Puddinhead.

***BnB, I didn\'t know you worked for Canadian Airlines (?).
whowatches is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 09:56 AM   #45
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

WhoDat --

Let me give you a little crash course on why the sky looks blue and how color works when it comes to how the human eye sees color. I studied this at great lengths in my electronics course years ago...

- All colors of light have different wave lengths.
-The human eye can only see a finite range of wave lengths.
- Sun light contains every color in the color spectrum and when sunlight is shined through a prizm you can see every color in the rainbow.

So, the sky might appear to be blue to you and I, but different animals can see a larger portion of the color spectrum and it probably doesn\'t appear blue to them. :P

Also, everything we see is actually a reflection of what we are looking at. Since light waves take a certain amout of time to bouce off the objects that we\'re looking at... if we could build a machine to outrun the light we could travel back in time. And if we can travel back in time, then we could correct all of Brooks faults before they happen. Oh, and we could get the winning lotto numbers too... :P :P




[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 10:14 AM   #46
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 575
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

OH MY GOD!!!!!

I knew if I lived long enough, I\'d see it....

BILLY JUST PROVED THAT THE SKY ISN\"T BLUE!!!

Now, BC, if you\'d just move on to a couple of my other psuedo-realities like the grass being green, Britney Spears being talented, aligators in the sewers, Elvis being dead, my wife always being right....
whowatches is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 10:21 AM   #47
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

whowatches --

Are those some of your topics we can look foward to on the EE board. :P

Hey, WhoDat seemed obsessed with the sky being blue. I ingored it as long as I could :exclam: :P
GumboBC is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 11:10 AM   #48
Kinder, gentler
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,889
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

***BnB, I didn\'t know you worked for Canadian Airlines
Wasn\'t sure the motive behind the picture, and wasn\'t sure if it was some fascination of phallic symbols by BC, so I was going to distance.

my wife always being right....
After hearing about some of your ex-girlfriends, she probably is.

FYI- I\'ll be around this weekend, and I want a rematch, dammit. I didn\'t realize how accurate Stewart sucking was in that game.
BlackandBlue is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 12:58 PM   #49
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

Wasn\'t sure the motive behind the picture, and wasn\'t sure if it was some fascination of phallic symbols by BC, so I was going to distance.
That was my attempt to attack you with a fighter jet. Didn\'t work, huh?

I didn\'t want to start too much trouble with you. I already was dealing with WhoDat and you use words like \"phallic\" and I have to get on a whole new level to combat you, B&B... :P
GumboBC is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 01:15 PM   #50
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 575
In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...

Mods!! Mods!!!

BnB used the words \"phallic\" and \"sucking\" in the same post!!!

I got you this weekend. Nine-ish or so I should be finished with all the dadgummed painting the boss...er... I mean... missus is having me do.

After hearing about some of your ex-girlfriends, she probably is.
My infamously horrible luck with the feistier sex has made it all the way to Dallas?!!? Doh!! No where to escape!
whowatches is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts