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

Let me speak up.
Well first of all lets talk about leadership. Leadership first starts from head coaching period. No if ands about it. Second of all you don't have to be "vocal" to be a leader. That just has to depend on your personality. I believe in leading by example period. You can talk all the talk you want but if you can't walk that talk it's garbage. Aaron proved that he is the leader of this team by improving his statitistics. His completion percentage, qb rating, and TD to INT ratio improved from 2002 to 2003. Leaders step up and improve where improvement is needed. Brooks may need to improve on his fumbling and that's about it. But I don't think that he can help it much when you have your number one receiver (Joe Horn) dropping passes sometimes, your tight end (Ernie Conwell) dropping passes and who may not be able to run after the catch any more like he did when he was with the Rams, and your most dangerous weapon (Donte Stallworth) missing more than half of the seaon with injuries. Should we talk about the defense? Naaa we know this defense has been horrible for the last few years. So when the Saints GM and head coach decides to put together a defense that can actually stop teams from moving the ball up and down the field all game maybe you critics will stop pointing to Aaron Brooks' supposedly lack of leadership as to why the Saints fail every year.

I have a few questions... So who's going to be the leader on defense? Who's going to be the number one cornerback now that they let Dale Carter go? Who's going to start at Middle linebacker? Will Sullivan come up with more than just one sack? And please tell me who really believes that the Saints can win a super bowl with Ashely Ambrose starting at cornerback? Will this team improve it's run defense?

If you ask me this team has too many questions marks on the defensive side of the ball to be questioning Aaron Brooks leadership skills.


[Edited on 7/7/2004 by TonyMax]

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

Now, for the most part I agree with TonyMax. The defense was horrible, our reciever corps aren\'t what they are supposed to be, but there are many other things that lead to people pointing the finger at Brooks.

Don\'t get me wrong, I like Brooks, I think he can become the great quarterback that we want him to be. I think the one thing that has frustrated us all is his \"lack of focus\". First, it was his \"oh well\" smile that he always sports after an INT or fumble. Now its good for a quarterback not to get too down on himself and go on a downward spiral. However, many would like to see him take it a little more seriously when he gives the ball up. Now as for the fumbles he had this season. Now I understand quarterbacks are gunna get hit, and drop the ball. But the cadence fumbles, the center to quarterback fumbles, the drop back to pass and the ball is missing fumbles. That is lack of focus.

And as for throwing the blame everywhere else for our past 2 seasons, a \"leader\" would know that he is at a disadvantage with a sub-par defense and receiving corp and step up the play. Not just shrug it off and say \"who cares, everyone is playing like #$@% anyway\" He should step up, talk to everyone and get everyone to take it a lil more serious. Including himself. Or we might not see him in Black and Gold next year.

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

Just so I get how some folks interpret some things. Let me go over them:

1. Fumbling = lack of concentration.
2. Throwing only 8 Ints. = No concentration required.
3. Smiling = don’t really care.
4. Getting mad = good.
5. Leader = wins
6. Not leader = losses


Now, I’ve got all the answers:

1. Brooks needs to think about not fumbling the ball on every snap.
2. Brooks needs to not smile and get pissed off every time he makes a mistake.
3. Leadership: Brooks needs to inspire his receivers to stop dropping the ball and the rest of the offense to stop making those annoying penalties.


[Edited on 7/7/2004 by GumboBC]

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

Let\'s see....the cavalier \"what, me worry\" Aaron Brooks, 14 fumbles in 16 games in 2003. The highly focused, very emotional Jake Delhomme, 15 fumbles in 16 games.

Hmmmm....no, I guess that\'s not it. LOL

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

Jake just holds the ball too long. Soon as he learns to read defenses, I\'m sure that will change...LOL.

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

AAAHHHH. Haven\'t had one of these in a while. Fun, fun. LMAO.

This is one of my favorite arguments. Holes on defense = AB is a good leader. People need to realize the difference b/w those two ideas.

Get it straight:
1. Saying Aaron Brooks has problems does NOT translate into HE IS THE PROBLEM. There\'s a difference. Horn has problems too, so does Deuce. Anyone here suggesting their perfect? If you aren\'t then I guess that means you think Deuce is THE problem right?

2. Problems with the defense does not make AB a good quarterback. It makes him better or good in comparison to our terrible defense. If I say that a mushroom smells better than dog crap that doesn\'t mean a mushroom smells good.

[Edited on 7/7/2004 by WhoDat]

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

I know better than to get too deep in this discussion ... so I won\'t. ;)

But, let me just say this.

What this team needs is a defense. Once we get that, Brooks is good enough to get us to the Promised Land. Smiling and all. :D :D :D :D

I know when the game is on the line that Brooks comes through as well as anyone. I know this \'cause I\'ve seen him do it SO many times.

Brooks not only has the ability to \"manage\" the game but Brooks has the ability to \"take over\" the game. But, just because he can doesn\'t mean he\'s suppose to win every game for us.



Brooks = Perfect? Nope.



[Edited on 7/7/2004 by GumboBC]

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

If you say a mushroom smells better than dog crap......





.....I\'m asking what you\'re doing sniffing dog crap????? LOL

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

I was talking to Billy! :) KIDDING! He\'s the only guy I can sling one of those at and know he won\'t take it personally.

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

Let me say this.....

In 2001, Brooks\' first full season as a starter, he threw 26 TDs and 22 INTs. Everyone said \"That\'s pretty good for a first year starter...but he really has to cut down on the interceptions and raise that 76.4 QB Rating to be considered a really good NFL starter.\"

The following year, 2002, Brooks threw 27 TDs (setting a single season team record) and 15 INTs...cutting his INT total by a third. He raised his QB Rating to 80.1. Everyone said \"That\'s not bad...but to REALLY be considered a good NFL QB he has to do something about getting that 53.6 Comp. Pct. up somewhere near 60%...and above all, stop smiling.\"

In 2003, Brooks throws 24 TDs and only 8 INTs, cutting the previous year\'s INT total by almost half and marking a whopping 63% drop from 2001, and registers a 59.1 Comp. Pct. Now everyone says \"I don\'t care about the INTs and Pct....he kills way too many drives with his fumbles, and it\'s obvious he\'s not a leader because he\'s constantly laughing on the sidelines after something goes wrong!\" Of course, I watched every away game on TV and every home game in person from my seats on the visitor\'s sideline, facing the Saints\' bench across the field, and I didn\'t see the laughing and cutting up that occured a couple of times in years past...but maybe I don\'t pay close enough attention.

More likely, I think, is that Aaron Brooks has, for whatever reason, become the favorite \"whipping boy\" for many Saints fans, fitting the role usually held by a cornerback in the past, like Johnnie Poe or Dave Waymer. Some folks need one particular player to focus their ire on when things go wrong, and seem almost unwilling to entertain the idea that the same group that might \"win as a team\" can also \"lose as a team\".

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

Puddinhead -- Very well said!!

I think Brooks is starting to win over a lot of his critics. Oh, they still have their doubts, but they are starting to be more fair with him.

It\'s much different on this board right now than what it was last year. Which is saying a lot. I pretty much find that to be true on most Saints boards. You\'ve still got your extremists, but Jesus Christ isn\'t going to change their minds... ;)

Brooks is not without his faults. Nothing wrong with saying he needs to cut out the fumbling. Hell, I would even like to see Aaron become more of a vocal leader. But, I think folks follow success more than anything and as long as Aaron is being successful, I suspect the rest of the team will do just fine. Winning is the cure all.... :exclam:

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

Without those rediculous fake-pass-fumbles last year, his season would have been considered a great one here in New Orleans. Of course without those fumbles, we win 2 more games and make it to the playoffs as well. Brooks in my opinion has the ability to become the best quarterback this team has ever had...sorry archie fans. I don\'t think brooks has the intelligence to ever get there, but he should come close. I doubt those freakish fumbles and contagious reciever drops reoccurr this year, so AB is poised to have his best year ever now that we apparently have the best recieving corps ever on the field as well. Anything less than a playoff push will be a disappointment to this city and cost Haslett his job. but anything less than a ring will lead critics to say that AB just can\'t win the big one like Peyton.

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

I\'ve often wondered how much intelligence it takes to be a great QB. I mean, you ain\'t exactly performing brain surgery out there. It is only football.

And how does anyone have ANY idea how intelligent Brooks is??

Terry Bradshaw was labled a \"stupid\" QB by Steelers fans for years. They based it on how he carried himself and how stupid he sounded when he spoke. That and all the trouble he had adjusting to life as an NFL QB.

They were wrong, though. And they never really had any reason to think Bradshaw was stupid anyway. Bradshaw might never had been smart enough to perform surgery, but, then again, he never wanted to.

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

Reading threads like this one makes me want to beat people with my eyes! :cool: :cool:

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

This is far too cordial for an Aaron Brooks debate.

Brooks sucks. The guy finds a new way to screw up every year. He shows just enough ability to make you think he can do anything and just enough stupidity to know that anything means anything. Every year he finds a new way - backpeddling, throwing at guys\' feet, locking onto a receiver (usually Horn), rolling into the rush, being slow in his decision making, INTs, fumbles, bad reads... it\'s always something.

Gone are the days of him as a running threat. He hasn\'t won one \"on his own\" in over a year at least. He isn\'t a leader and can\'t manage the game. You guys give him far too much credit.

:D :D :D :D

BRING IT ON!!!! :)

[Edited on 8/7/2004 by WhoDat]

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

The only difference in the fumble category between Brooks and Delhomme is the timing of the fumble itself. Brooks fumbled at the worst possible times and Delhomme got lucky
with his.

So my question is, if the situations were reversed would the Saints have gone on to the Superbowl instead of the Panthers?

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

Let\'s just remember...the guy was an Anthropology major at one of the more respected academic schools in the ACC, Thomas Jefferson\'s University of Virginia.....not a PE major from USL. And no, that\'s not some kind of slap at Jake Delhomme--I have no idea what he majored in.

You can\'t be a half-wit and fully grasp all you need to run an NFL offense, true...but nowadays it\'s almost impossible to be a half-wit and stay eligible at a major Division I school. There\'s just too many eyes watching to make sure you play by the rules.

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

Now that\'s just flat naieve. Seriously. Take it from a former collegiate athlete - those playing the major sports (football and basketball mainly) have basically no requirements. I went to a PRIVATE university and the basketball team was made up almost entirely of guys that would have had a hard time passing basic math.

Anyway, according to the Wonderlic Brooks is below the AVERAGE level of intelligence for ALL NFL players. You think it takes more intelligence to be a QB or a DT? Guys, the fact that he isn\'t bright won\'t stop him from being a good QB - but you really need to stop arguing that he is intelliegent, b/c it just isn\'t true. Tests have shown it, scouts have said it, and I\'ve seen it in his interviews and even in his play at times.

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

You want to talk about being naieve? I\'ve met people that sounded and looked like a bumbling idiot but later found out they were FAR from it. But, you want to tell me you can tell how intelligent Brooks is from his interviews?

And that wonderlic test that you put all your faith in don\'t mean too much either. I seem to recall Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school. As a matter of fact I believe Einstein did poorly in school growing up. I wonder what Einstein would score on the wonderlic exam?

And as far as Brooks play on the field. I\'ve seen all kinds of athletes make some of the most bone headed plays in the world. Did you ever see Chris Webber call the timeout in the national championship game?

There is no way you can know how intelligent Brooks is or isn\'t!!

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

Oh my LORD. Now we\'re comparing Aaron Brooks to Einstein? Give me a freaking break Billy. That\'s way over the top even for you.

Now, let\'s look at this from another light. To support my belief that Aaron Brooks is probably not very intelligent I submit a standardized test on which he scored below average for all NFL entrants, scouting reports saying that he was not intelligent, and my own review of his statements and actions.

In support of your belief that Aaron Brooks is an intelligent person you enter? Anything? At all?

No. None, except maybe evidence that is completely circumstantial at best showing that one of the greatest thinkers of all time didn\'t do well in school early on. That\'s not a defense Billy.

Please give me some evidence that is DIRECTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF AARON BROOKS, not Terry Bradshaw, Albert Einstein, or any one else. Aaron Brooks. If you can\'t do that I will Move for Summary Judgment and I\'m guessing that Judge Gator will rule in my favor.

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

Hehehehe.........

OK, this should be fun. Maybe we can even get our own show. Like John Clayton and Sean Salisbury.. :P

First of all I intend to show that council (WhoDat) has a personel vendetta against my client (Aaron Brooks) and I will show that Mr. WhoDat\'s evidence is CLEARY without merit or substance.

Your horor, if I may please proceed!!

Mr. WhoDat contends:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I\'d like everyone in the courtroom to raise their hand if they have NEVER failed a test? I\'d also like to submit into evidence an entrance exam taken by one of our country\'s greatest \"thinkers\", Mr. Albert Einstein.

This test shows that Mr. Einstein failed a simple entrance exam and in no way is a reflection of Mr. Einstien\'s intelligence. Your honor, I ask you, if Mr. Einstein failure to pass a simple entrance exam doesn\'t reflect poorly on his intelligence ... How can Mr. Brooks wonderlic score be held against him??

Judge rules jury to ignore Aaron Brooks wonderlic score!!

Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. WhoDat also contends my client (Mr. Aaron Brooks) is not an intelligent person based on:

I have to bring into question Mr. WhoDat\'s credentials to evaluate my clients intelligence. Furthermore, how much insight can be gained by a few interviews when my client is in front of microphones and national TV cameras. Is there no one in the courtroom who does not do well when speaking in front of audiences? I\'d like to ask the members of the jury to raise their hand if they don\'t perform well speaking in front of large groups.

Mr. WhoDat, would you like to tell the 3 people of the jury, who have their hand raised, that THEY aren\'t intelligent??!!

Then Mr. WhoDat would like us to believe a couple of NFL scouts who say Mr. Brooks isn\'t intelligent. I submit into evidence a scouting report on one Mr. Ryan Leaf!!

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you know where Mr. Leaf is today? He\'s out of the NFL and the last we heard he was washing cars down at the \"Soap and Suds.\"

I rest my case, Your Honor.

Judge: Case dismissed!!! :P :P

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

Billy, Billy, Billy.

It\'s a good thing you\'re not prusuing Law as a career.

You did exactly what I thought you would do.

1. You cannot deny that Aaron Brooks DID take the Wonderlic test, DID score a 17, and that a 17 is BELOW the average score of 21 among all NFL players. You cannot \"fail\" the wonderlic test, just as you cannot fail an IQ test. It tests your intelligence objectively.

\"Used by a variety of employers, the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) is a general test of problem solving ability that many consider to be the best measure of intelligence. The WPT provides indicators of an individual\'s ability to cope with the complexities of any particular occupation. The general consensus among psychologists is that cognitive ability--as tested on the Wonderlic--is the most reliable predictor of an individual\'s professional performance.

Teams in the NFL have been using the Wonderlic as a tool to assess players for about 30 years, and it is a prominent and controversial test featured every year during the combine before the NFL draft.

The test itself consists of 50 questions that the participant is allowed 12 minutes to answer. The resulting number of correct answers corresponds to an intelligence quotient. Specifically, 21, considered an average score, is equivalent to the average IQ of 100. Higher scoring applicants are supposed to learn more rapidly, master more complex material, and exercise better judgment while lower scoring applicants tend to require more time, detailed task instruction, and less challenging job routines. 25 is the average score for quarterbacks and offensive linemen. Other positions average about a 20.\"

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/existence/wonderlic.html

Thus, AB\'s intelligence is WELL BELOW the average for his position, and below the average for the NFL. Not only that, a score of 17 indicates that his IQ - a universally accepted measure of intelligence - is below the equivalent of a score of 100, making him less intelligent than the AVERAGE American.

At least you made one good argument - my opinion here is of no value. However the opinions of scouts are, as they would be considered \"experts\" at trial.

Now, experts don\'t always agree. I\'m sure that you can enter the comments of some of your own experts that have said that AB is smart, right? And I\'m sure that you can show test scores that show AB is intelligent.

You see Billy, in order to disprove my evidence you have to show evidence of your own to contradict that. Saying that Einstein didn\'t do well in school but was obviously smart is like me auggesting that Aaron Brooks must be on drugs b/c Dale Carter used them. Obviously, information regarding someone else is irrelevant.

It was a nice try Billy, but you\'re REAL lucky that there isn\'t anyone actually judging this b/c you definitely lost. Not your fault, your client is guilty as charged.

Finally Billy, on a personal note - you can continue to suggest that I have an agenda or vendetta against Brooks. However, I have conceded in his favor on numerous ocassions. You are still to admit he has ANY faults that you do not see to be immediately fixable. Your insistance that Aaron Brooks has NO FAULTS whatsoever (that cannot be repaired through time) show that if anyone\'s view here is skewed, it is yours. I have never seen a QB in my life, or any player for that matter, that had it all. No one is intelligent, strong armed but has touch, quick release and good footwork, the ability to scramble, read defenses, efficient, can throw the timing route, is a student of the game, a leader, etc. etc. etc. No one has it all... unless of course you ask Billy.

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

I don\'t see Brooks taking time off from curing cancer to play football. He hasn\'t shown much in the way of intelligence.

But all that being said; I agree with Detiller. 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. Oftentimes Haz has gotten so enamored with Brooks potential that he puts the team down a cliff and then looks to Brooks to be the rope that pulls him to safety. The problem is that Brooks is a cut and frayed rope and you never know from minute to minute whether he will stay together long enough to get you to safety.

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

WhoDat -

Here\'s the problem, WhoDat. Read this quote by yourself:

You stated as a FACT that Brooks isn\'t intelligent. Then you told us that it was pointless to argue that Brooks wasn\'t intelligent, \'cause somehow you have this overwhelming evidence.

You can follow that logic, Right??

Now, you have the nerve ;) for me to question the evidence that YOU laid out on the table??

There\'s NO doubt at ALL that your evidence DOES NOT prove Brooks isn\'t intelligent. That\'s just your OPINION based on what you chose to believe. Keeping up with me so far?? :P

Now as far as my evidence!!

1. Brooks graduated from a major university.
2. Brooks plays and excels at the most difficult position in the NFL.
3. Brooks was smart enough to capitalize on his early sucess in the NFL by holding out for more money and is now a multi-millionaire. Not bad. Not bad at all...
4. Brooks coaches and teammates have said folks really doesn\'t understand how smart Brooks really is.

What does my evidence prove? No more than yours. But, I ain\'t walking around here telling folks to stop arguing that Brooks isn\'t smart.

What you say, WhoDat??? :exclam: ;)

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

What say I? You can suggest that my opinion or those of scouts are subjective. But you cannot say that about the Wonderlic.

Further, let\'s take a look at your evidence shall we.

1. Brooks graduated from UVA. Well, to get into UVA, all he needed to do was graduate high school since he was a resident of that state. In order to play he had to be cleared by the NCAA. Billy, have you ever applied for eligibility under the NCAA clearing house? I have, and I can tell you it isn\'t hard to get.

At a state school, as a football player, do you honestly believe that Brooks was held to the same standard as an \"average\" student? I cannot comment either way, but I can tell you that I was not held to the same standard and I ran track at a private school much more concerned about its academic reputation than UVA. Further, the major sport athletes were basically free to do what they wanted. Not just at my school, but at others as well.

Finally, graduating college DOES NOT make a person intelligent, it makes him educated. There IS a difference. I know 12 year olds that could graduate from state universities.


2. He does - but does that make him intelligent? Are you suggesting that intelligence is a REQUIREMENT for success at the QB position? Dan Marino scored a 16 on the Wonderlic. I have said in the past that Brooks does not have to be intelligent to play good ball. So why argue? But I\'d like to know, does a QB HAVE to be intelligent to excel at QB?


3. That\'s an agent and it\'s greed. That doesn\'t make him smart, it makes him not as dumb as the Saints - which ain\'t saying much in my mind.


4. For starters, what do you expect a team\'s players and coaches to say about their starting QB? This is totally irrelevant. Show me one quote EVER where any player of a team said that their starting QB was not smart WHILE THE QB WAS ON THE TEAM.


Again - I have shown expert opinions and objective tests. You\'ve shown no good evidence. Not one quote, not one test score, nothing.

But answer me this Billy, if Aaron Brooks is intelligent, then what\'s his weakness as a QB?

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

WhoDat --

We can rehash this all day, but here\'s what it all boils down to.

1. You stated as a fact that Books insn\'t intelligent. ( It\'s not a fact. Simple as that.)

2. The Wonderlic test is not the \"end all\" for intelligence. I\'ve taken all kinds of IQ test and they vary wildly. So, don\'t be telling me this PROVES ANYTHING.

3. You like to point out that scouts said Brooks wasn\'t intelligent. Well, they said he couldn\'t play QB in the NFL too. We ALL know scouts are wrong many, many, times.

And.......... 4. I have no idea how intelligent Brooks is or isn\'t. And you don\'t either. Now, there\'s a FACT for you.

But, keep on telling us how you KNOW. ;)

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

Can you please name them? The IQ tests I\'ve taken have never varied by more than the equivalent of a few points.


You\'re skirting some important questions Billy?

1. Does a QB HAVE to be intelligent to succeed at the position?

2. If AB\'s weakness isn\'t intelligence, what is it? Does he have one?

It sure seems like you\'re running for the hills. That\'s OK, it\'s not a first.

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

I never skirt anything. That would be you. I\'ll answer your questions and be sure you answer the questions that follow. Simple yes or no answers please.

Answers:
1. No.
2. Brooks has problems, sure. He doesn\'t have the best \"touch\" on the ball. His pocket presence isn\'t the best.

Questions:

1. Did you state as a FACT that Brooks wasn\'t intelligent and told us to not argue the point because it wasn\'t true?

2. Is it a FACT that Brooks isn\'t intelligent?

3. Is it possible that you don\'t know the man well enough and you might be wrong?

[Edited on 8/7/2004 by GumboBC]

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

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Weak.

1. No. I never suggested my post to be a statement of fact, opinion, or anything else. I strongly stated a belief.

2. Is it a fact? Hhhmm. Is it a fact as in the sky is blue, no, but then the sky isn\'t really blue now is it? Is there a perponderence of evidence to suggest that conclusion? Absolutely. In other words, yes, I think after hearing our arguments here today a \"reasonable person\" is likely to believe Brooks is not intelligent.

3. Sure that\'s possible. Just as possible as it is for you. Is it POSSIBLE that you don\'t know Einstein and that the man may well have been a moron? We\'re not talking about possibilities here Billy - as with everything we\'re talking about probability.


It is reasonable to characterize Aaron Brooks as a talented young QB who has taken strides to improve his game over the last few years. It is reasonable to characterize him as a player capable of excelling at the position. It is also reasonable to characterize him as of less than average intelligence and leadership ability.

You take issue with that final statement. You do so b/c your view is skewed. If you feel that the ONLY draw backs to AB as a QB are that he has poor pocket pressence and can\'t throw the touch, well, let me ask this: what are Manning\'s weaknesses? How about Delhomme\'s?

This will be interesting.

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

Weak.

That\'s why there is never any winning with you, WhoDat.

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

\"It depends on what your definition of IS, IS.\" A quote by Bill Clinton before congress in the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. Hmmmm.

\"I strongly stated a belief\" - A quote by WhoDat to define the difference between a fact and a belief. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm.

Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmm.

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

You know when you\'ve lost Billy? When you stop debating the issue and start trying to split hairs about the meaning of a statement all while attacking the person making the statements.

You cannot argue the merits, so you attack me. Go ahead, call me a big fat liar - that doesn\'t change anything. Brooks still scored a 17 on the Wonderlic, less than average. The scouts still said he wasn\'t intelligent. No matter how much you come after me you cannot change the FACTS of the issue. Those things happened, and they are evidence that Brooks is not intelligent. You still cannot enter anything of merit, nor can you admit to any real fault on Brooks\' part.

Want me to dig up quotes where in the past you said that Brooks could throw the touch pass? I can and you know I will. I don\'t know why you won\'t admit that you question Brooks\' intelligence. I know you do - you know the game of football. Generally, after watching a guy play and reading all of the literature you come to a reasonable conclusion - it may take longer sometimes than with others, but...

Dan Marino is a nimrod, but the guy was a great QB. BnB is pretty smart but I guarantee he\'s a terrible QB. Why do you continue to cling to the idea that AB is basically flawless? Will admitting that he has faults crack the defense you\'ve so strongly supported for years? Even Saintfan has made concessions about the guy. C\'mon Billy, I know that you can do it.

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

Too funny.. :P

I know when I lose because I start to attack you? And how exactly did I do that?

There was no name calling on my part. There was someone who called someone naive. But, that wasn\'t me. I understand you weren\'t talking to me, but, still... Pot/Kettle.

Let\'s see...... Who was it that started this \"special\" thread to point out that there are NO facts? But, yet, you don\'t like hearing it when you CLEARLY are stating Brooks is dumb as a FACT. Then you split hairs \'cause you don\'t want to admit it. Pot/Kettle.

My point has always been a simple one. And the point being, Brooks scored a 17 on the wonderlic test which is an average score. Did you know that, because obivously you didn\'t or you wouldn\'t keep saying he scored below average. Now, that\'s a fact.

Further, my point is I prefer not to jump to conclusions when I don\'t have nearly enough evidence to say one way or the other how intelligent Brooks is.

No one is attacking you. I\'m sure it must feel that way, though, when you are losing an arguement. But, please, show me where I attacked you?

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

You can\'t even get the facts straight now.

20 or 21 is average on the test.

From my earlier post complete with link. 17 isn\'t average, it\'s below average. That has long been established on this board.


Billy, this started out in a joking manner as if it were a trial. You would have lost, and no I\'m not just playing. Ask Gator.

When one party in a suit makes a claim in a complaint and backs it up with evidence, as I did, and the opposing party questions that, but provides no evidence and says that he has insufficient knowledge to form a belief, the second party loses. In fact, it doesn\'t even require trial. A simple motion for summary judgment is all it takes.

Don\'t believe me, ask Gator or look it up. In fact, here, I\'ll give you the definition myself:

\"summary judgment
n. a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party...\"

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Point is Billy, you may think you won this argument, but should it be judged, as in a civil action in court for example, you would have lost before trial. Go ahead, ask a lawyer. Sorry Bill, the gavel has dropped and AB was ruled unintelligent by summary judgment.

Maybe next time. ;)

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

WhoDat --

You know, the funny thing is, everyone always thinks they win the arguement.

See, IMO, I\'ve clearly won the arguement. You know why? Simple. Because my arguement wasn\'t that Brooks is dumb or intelligent.

My arguement is that we don\'t know. Now, you think you know based on a wonderlic test, interviews, etc., ect..

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.

You\'ll have to excuse me from sharing your opinion which you stated as a fact. You\'ll have to excuse me from not taking your advise by NOT arguing with you because you are right.

Brooks could be dumb as a rock. He could be very smart. I don\'t know. Obviously you do!!

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

How do we know anything about any of these players and how can we base judgements on things that we aren\'t sure are 100% fact??? Cause we\'re fans, that\'s why. We pay the money and buy the merchandise, and that, in this fine country of ours, is our right. So I will no longer sit around and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!!!!

[/quote:a4bcad31f5]Let\'s just remember...the guy was an Anthropology major at one of the more respected academic schools in the ACC[/quote:a4bcad31f5]

Dude, it\'s the study of human cultures, which is not far off from Sociology, which I know for a fact is not that friggin hard. Just because it may sound difficult, doesn\'t mean it is. And it\'s no longer what college you go to, so much as what you plan on studying at that school, outside of ivy league.

But I\'ll let you guys get back to this \"hot new\" topic you are discussing, even though I think you\'re looking in the wrong place. I don\'t think it has to do with his intelligence. As a matter of fact, I believe he actually overthinks what he is going to do. After watching some footage from last year, that is the only thing I can come up with because

1. When he drops back to pass, count how many times he stops himself from throwing, I\'m not talking about his fake pump, you can tell the difference.
2. This could also explain why his interceptions last year were rediculously low compared to his TD\'s. Don\'t care who you are, 24/8 aren\'t bad numbers at all.

Oh yeah, Advantage WhoDat, based solely on the following statement :D

You think AB\'s indecisive? Throw me out there and see what happens.



[Edited on 8/7/2004 by BlackandBlue]

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

[Edited on 8/7/2004 by GumboBC]

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

Spit it out, son.

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

BlackandBlue <marquee> http://www.forceaerienne.mdn.ca/grfx...aper/arrow.jpg <marquee>

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

I love this kind of discussion. First of all, I do not think Brooks is a good leader, but nor do I think he needs to be for this team to be successful. Look at the Ravens championship team from a few years ago. Who was their leader, Trent Dilfer? No, I would venture to say it was Ray Lewis a MLB. My point is the Saints need somebody to step up, and claim this team as their own, and obviously that person is not Aaron Brooks. That does not mean that he is not good enough to be in the top ten QBs in the league, which I think he definitely is. Bottom line is we need to improve our defense 180 degrees to take some pressure off of Brooks to have to score every time we have the ball. If this does not happen I do not think that Brooks should have to shoulder the blame. It should be put on Venturi. In football the best offense is a good defense.

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

This is not intended to be any kind of shot whatsoever at you, 26DEUCE26...but you know what one of the greatest things of all about the whole concept of a \"team\" is? It\'s that it doesn\'t matter one whit what you, me, or any of the rest of us here think as far as \"leadership\" goes. It only matter what the actual members of the team think. If they consider Brooks, or anyone else, their leader and follow his example, then by default that guy is a \"team leader\". We spend so much time as fans trying to break everything down as far as \"who\'s the team leaders\" and \"who\'s the disruptive influences\" and so on because...well, because we\'re fans, and that\'s what we do. In the case of quarterbacks generally and Brooks specifically we have a \"need\" to pick out the minutely detailed reasons for any lack of success. And frankly, even though we (ultimately) pay the salaries, the vast majority of us just aren\'t qualified to pick it apart to that extent. How many of us complain that Brooks \"isn\'t intelligent or decisive enough\" and use as our evidence the \"fact\" that we see him preparing to throw to one spot and then changing his mind and ending up holding the ball longer than we think he should. (As an aside, I would point out that the ultimate success or failure of individual plays determines if the QB \"holds the ball too long\" or \"is patient and methodical in picking apart the defense\") I, for one, am not afraid to admit that in spite of my 30+ years as an NFL fan I don\'t know the progression of reads on each particular play in the Saints passing game well enough to know if Brooks follows it well or not. I\'m sure the pre-snap alignment of the strong safety is likely a determining factor on which receiver to check first on many plays, for example....but I don\'t know which receiver that is, and I don\'t know for which plays the safety may be the first \"key\" and for which plays another defender is the \"first read\". And frankly, after the first receiver in the progression is covered, I don\'t know who the second \"look\" is to know if Brooks turns to the right receiver or not. My guess is that most of the fans who aren\'t actually in the football business probably are in the same boat as me. But that doesn\'t stop us from giving our opinions.

In the first Tampa game last year, for three quarters the Saints defense made Brad Johnson look like an idiot. He looked completely befuddled every time he dropped back to pass, like he hadn\'t the slightest idea where he was supposed to go with the ball given what he was seeing. This, from a quarterback whose reputation is as one of the league\'s more cerebral, if not more physically gifted, play-callers. Finally in the fourth quarter he seemed to catch fire, and suddenly the Bucs passing game was clicking to the point that they came back to tie the game. Seems that Johnson finally figured out the right way to read the defense, right? Except that the network crew (I know, sometimes they sound like morons....but they DO put in a lot more \"study\" than we do, and usually have more of a football background as former NFL players or coaches than we do, too) point out that the reason Johnson is suddenly completing passes is that he\'s completely stopped trying to read the defense--he\'s just forcing the ball in to his primary receiver right off the snap, whether he\'s \"covered\" or not, and relying on his receiver to make a better play on the ball than the defender. And for that stretch, his receivers were doing just that. Was Johnson \"more intelligent\" in the fourth quarter than in the first three quarters? If I were just watching the game by myself I might be persuaded to come to that conclusion....but I\'m listening to a guy who has at least some background to have some knowledge about the game telling me that essentially, just the opposite is what\'s happening. Johnson has \"stopped thinking\" and is basically doing a touch football offense--\"You run a short post, and I\'ll throw it to you this time.\"