Brooks and Saints are losers

Saint_LB · 10-30-2004, 07:55 AM

I have not had a chance to watch much college football this year as my job has been keeping me pretty busy, and I would want to reserve my decision until the bowl games are over. Right now, I couldn\'t even tell you the names of many QB\'s who are presently seniors in college. As far as other positions, I would draft Williams in a heart beat if he was still on the board somehow when we drafted, but if a QB emerges that appears to be the real deal, I would go for him, first...due to our need for a solid QB. Horn, Pathon, Stallworth, Henderson, etc. give us a pretty good corp of receivers. What good are they if we can\'t get the ball to them. AB doen\'t have problems getting the ball there sometimes, it\'s his consistency that will drive you nuts, and some sort of mistake at the most inopportune time. I am of the philosophy of drafting the best player available at the time of your draft, regardless of need. If we hadn\'t done that a few years ago, Deuce would be playing for someone else right now.

WhoDat · 10-30-2004, 03:38 PM

Well, I guess I have to finally wade in.

The original statement here was - Brooks and the Saints are losers. Hard to agree with that right now, b/c honestly, they\'re very average. A better statement may be - Brooks and the Saints are Average.

There\'s a lot of talk about whether AB is the problem. In this case, I\'m not sure that the point of the thread is whether AB is the problem, part of the problem, or not the problem at all. Nor does it seem to be a question of who would make a suitable replacement.

To me, the question is - are AB and the Saints losers? No, they\'re inconsistent and mediocre. Both of them. You can point to AB\'s stats or come from behind victories, but that doesn\'t change the W/L column.

Now, many of you will undoubtedly ague that just b/c a QB is on a team that is successful does not mean that he is a good QB or right for the job, etc. You\'re partially right. Talent is no doubt an important factor. However, do not discount the importance of the intangibles - like having done it before and bringing the attitude that you will do it again. That\'s very important also.

I\'m sure many will be quick to rush in with the Jake D argument again, or the Dilfer argument. Those are valid examples. Of course, if talent is king, why haven\'t the Saints been above average over the last 4 years?

spkb25 · 10-30-2004, 05:18 PM

WELL UR RIGHT IN SAYING THAT IF TALENT IS KING WHY AHVENT THE SAINTS DONE WELL. I AGREE WITH U ON INTANGIBLES. TOM BRADY ISNT AS GIFTED PROBALLY AS MANNING. JOE MONTANA PROBALLY WASNT EITHER. BUT THEY R WINNERS. I STILL GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A TEAM GAME AND DOESNT WEIGH ON ONE MAN SHOULDERS. AND COACHING PLAYS A HUGE PART TOO. LOOK AT THE EGALES AND SUCH TEAMS. THEY DONT MAKE THE MISTAKES. I THINK THAT IS WHERE COACHING IS MOST VALUABLE. GETTING THE MOST OUT OF YOUR PLAYTERS. CHRIST LOOK AT PHILLY MAKING THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THREE YEARS N THEY DIDNT HAVE A REAL WO. I THINK THATS BECAUSE OF THEIR COACHING. I THINK WE HAVE HUGE COACHING PROBLEMS. I DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW VENTURI STILL HAS A JOB. BUT THATS ANOTHER DISCUSSION. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU ON A LOT OF WHAT YOU SAID BUT I DONT SEE ARRON BROOKS AS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS TEAM. I DO THINK THAT WITH A DIFFERENT STAFF THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

johnnythesaint · 11-01-2004, 08:08 AM

Brooks and the Saints are standing on the precipice of loserdom right now. They still have a realistic shot at coming out of the season smelling like roses. I think the jury should remain out for at least a few more weeks. If they don\'t succeed this year then we all know there is going to be wholesale changes, however calling them losers with any degree of certainty is about a month premature in my opinion.

WhoDat · 11-01-2004, 08:14 AM

You\'re probably right, but then again looking ahead to the next month doesn\'t paint a real pretty picture. @ SD, KC, Denver, @ Atlanta. Ouch.

RDOX · 11-02-2004, 08:19 AM

Well, I guess I have to finally wade in.

The original statement here was - Brooks and the Saints are losers. Hard to agree with that right now, b/c honestly, they\'re very average. A better statement may be - Brooks and the Saints are Average.

There\'s a lot of talk about whether AB is the problem. In this case, I\'m not sure that the point of the thread is whether AB is the problem, part of the problem, or not the problem at all. Nor does it seem to be a question of who would make a suitable replacement.

To me, the question is - are AB and the Saints losers? No, they\'re inconsistent and mediocre. Both of them. You can point to AB\'s stats or come from behind victories, but that doesn\'t change the W/L column.

Now, many of you will undoubtedly ague that just b/c a QB is on a team that is successful does not mean that he is a good QB or right for the job, etc. You\'re partially right. Talent is no doubt an important factor. However, do not discount the importance of the intangibles - like having done it before and bringing the attitude that you will do it again. That\'s very important also.

I\'m sure many will be quick to rush in with the Jake D argument again, or the Dilfer argument. Those are valid examples. Of course, if talent is king, why haven\'t the Saints been above average over the last 4 years?

What most of us fail to realize is that Brooks is the LIGHTNING ROD for the problems of the Saints. He has said and done some things that make him the subject of controversy. The REAL problem lies deeper than whether Jake Delhomme/ J.T. O\'Sullivan/Drew Brees/Aaron Brooks is the answer to this team\'s problems.

The REAL problem starts, not on the field, but in the Front Office and trickles down to the Coaching Staff. Many of the writers that I have read, both local and national, seem to agree that the Saints lack a \"Football IQ.\" I tend to agree with that assessment. I believe that Brooks is poorly coached by Mike Sheppard. He has some seriously flawed fundamental skills, his decision making is slow (at times), and his \"touch\" on short passes is poor. The play calling is abominable. McCarthy is Carl Smith reincarnated. He is predictable, short sighted, and married to that sheet of paper in his hand on game day. He does not make \"adjustments\" to fit the situation. And what can anyone say positive about Venturi, other than he is one of God\'s children.

Aaron Brooks is blessed with tremendous athletic ability, but few, if any, leadership skills. Leaders are made, not born. Brooks has no leadership from either the Front Office or the Coaching staff, so how is he expected to lead? If you watch the Saints on any given Sunday they tend to mill around. You never know who will show up. They are totally leaderless on both sides of the ball. They are not a Mob. A Mob has a leader, these guys are a Herd.

What needs to happen is for Benson to clean house from Front Office to Water Boy, find a FOOTBALL minded GM (like Rich McKay) allow him to hire a coaching staff with skills in leadership and discipline and see what transpires. Brooks will then either shine or go.

Mainly, Brooks ain\'t the problem. He\'s the symptom.

WhoDat · 11-02-2004, 02:22 PM

Wow. Now that\'s a really well written post.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the argument of AB supporters has been that AB is not THE problem. I agree, but that does not mean that he is not A problem. Quarterbacks are often in the lime light and attract more attention than other positions. AB may get unfairly criticized at times, but I won\'t feel sorry for a guy who proclaimed himself a top 5 QB in the league after 20 starts. Especially when the guy lacks a lot of important tangible and intangible assets a top 5 QB should have.

More than anything, AB\'s play has been typical of the team\'s. AB is often categorized by his inconsistency, lackidasical attitude (maybe even apathetic at times), poor leadership and direction, slow development, and raw talent that just never seems to materialize into the greatness that it could. Take a look at that last sentence - now insert \"this team\" where \"AB\" is and see if the statement still holds true. That may be why AB is trashed more than others. Some may same that its coincidental, but it seems awfully hard for me to simply dismiss one as being totally unrelated to the other.

All that said, I agree completely your assessment of the front office and this organization\'s needs. I have been criticized on this board for choosing to use Kyle Turley\'s words, \"Mickey Mouse.\" Say what you will, but the problems all stem from Loomis and Haslett. The problems are first and foremost \"institutional\" or \"enterprise\" issues. The internal culture of the organization needs to change top to bottom, and that will only come with a house cleaning.

4saintspirit · 11-02-2004, 02:53 PM

1st of all most people on this forum want the Saints to stay -- a lot (including myself) do not see Benson as the root of the problem - case in point - since he took over our record has improved dramatically over previous years. Don\'t know the exact stat but I bet its close to .500. I do know that since he took over we have a better combined winning % than about 1/2 the teams. As for Brooks -- I am not a Brooks fan but I will say this -- he is not the biggest problem we should be dealing with. So do this forum a favor and go home to your mom :exclam:

[Edited on 11/3/2004 by Halo]

johnnythesaint · 11-12-2004, 10:56 AM

Still the question persists, are Brooks and the Saints losers?

WhoDat · 11-12-2004, 11:00 AM

Looks like it.

10-30-2004, 07:55 AM	#31
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks and Saints are losers I have not had a chance to watch much college football this year as my job has been keeping me pretty busy, and I would want to reserve my decision until the bowl games are over. Right now, I couldn\'t even tell you the names of many QB\'s who are presently seniors in college. As far as other positions, I would draft Williams in a heart beat if he was still on the board somehow when we drafted, but if a QB emerges that appears to be the real deal, I would go for him, first...due to our need for a solid QB. Horn, Pathon, Stallworth, Henderson, etc. give us a pretty good corp of receivers. What good are they if we can\'t get the ball to them. AB doen\'t have problems getting the ball there sometimes, it\'s his consistency that will drive you nuts, and some sort of mistake at the most inopportune time. I am of the philosophy of drafting the best player available at the time of your draft, regardless of need. If we hadn\'t done that a few years ago, Deuce would be playing for someone else right now.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

10-30-2004, 03:38 PM	#32
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brooks and Saints are losers Well, I guess I have to finally wade in. The original statement here was - Brooks and the Saints are losers. Hard to agree with that right now, b/c honestly, they\'re very average. A better statement may be - Brooks and the Saints are Average. There\'s a lot of talk about whether AB is the problem. In this case, I\'m not sure that the point of the thread is whether AB is the problem, part of the problem, or not the problem at all. Nor does it seem to be a question of who would make a suitable replacement. To me, the question is - are AB and the Saints losers? No, they\'re inconsistent and mediocre. Both of them. You can point to AB\'s stats or come from behind victories, but that doesn\'t change the W/L column. Now, many of you will undoubtedly ague that just b/c a QB is on a team that is successful does not mean that he is a good QB or right for the job, etc. You\'re partially right. Talent is no doubt an important factor. However, do not discount the importance of the intangibles - like having done it before and bringing the attitude that you will do it again. That\'s very important also. I\'m sure many will be quick to rush in with the Jake D argument again, or the Dilfer argument. Those are valid examples. Of course, if talent is king, why haven\'t the Saints been above average over the last 4 years?
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.\"

10-30-2004, 05:18 PM	#33
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Brooks and Saints are losers WELL UR RIGHT IN SAYING THAT IF TALENT IS KING WHY AHVENT THE SAINTS DONE WELL. I AGREE WITH U ON INTANGIBLES. TOM BRADY ISNT AS GIFTED PROBALLY AS MANNING. JOE MONTANA PROBALLY WASNT EITHER. BUT THEY R WINNERS. I STILL GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A TEAM GAME AND DOESNT WEIGH ON ONE MAN SHOULDERS. AND COACHING PLAYS A HUGE PART TOO. LOOK AT THE EGALES AND SUCH TEAMS. THEY DONT MAKE THE MISTAKES. I THINK THAT IS WHERE COACHING IS MOST VALUABLE. GETTING THE MOST OUT OF YOUR PLAYTERS. CHRIST LOOK AT PHILLY MAKING THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THREE YEARS N THEY DIDNT HAVE A REAL WO. I THINK THATS BECAUSE OF THEIR COACHING. I THINK WE HAVE HUGE COACHING PROBLEMS. I DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW VENTURI STILL HAS A JOB. BUT THATS ANOTHER DISCUSSION. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU ON A LOT OF WHAT YOU SAID BUT I DONT SEE ARRON BROOKS AS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS TEAM. I DO THINK THAT WITH A DIFFERENT STAFF THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
	Your team stinks

11-01-2004, 08:08 AM	#34
johnnythesaint 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 125	Brooks and Saints are losers Brooks and the Saints are standing on the precipice of loserdom right now. They still have a realistic shot at coming out of the season smelling like roses. I think the jury should remain out for at least a few more weeks. If they don\'t succeed this year then we all know there is going to be wholesale changes, however calling them losers with any degree of certainty is about a month premature in my opinion.
johnnythesaint 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 125

11-01-2004, 08:14 AM	#35
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brooks and Saints are losers You\'re probably right, but then again looking ahead to the next month doesn\'t paint a real pretty picture. @ SD, KC, Denver, @ Atlanta. Ouch.
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

11-02-2004, 08:19 AM	#36
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	Brooks and Saints are losers Well, I guess I have to finally wade in. The original statement here was - Brooks and the Saints are losers. Hard to agree with that right now, b/c honestly, they\'re very average. A better statement may be - Brooks and the Saints are Average. There\'s a lot of talk about whether AB is the problem. In this case, I\'m not sure that the point of the thread is whether AB is the problem, part of the problem, or not the problem at all. Nor does it seem to be a question of who would make a suitable replacement. To me, the question is - are AB and the Saints losers? No, they\'re inconsistent and mediocre. Both of them. You can point to AB\'s stats or come from behind victories, but that doesn\'t change the W/L column. Now, many of you will undoubtedly ague that just b/c a QB is on a team that is successful does not mean that he is a good QB or right for the job, etc. You\'re partially right. Talent is no doubt an important factor. However, do not discount the importance of the intangibles - like having done it before and bringing the attitude that you will do it again. That\'s very important also. I\'m sure many will be quick to rush in with the Jake D argument again, or the Dilfer argument. Those are valid examples. Of course, if talent is king, why haven\'t the Saints been above average over the last 4 years? What most of us fail to realize is that Brooks is the LIGHTNING ROD for the problems of the Saints. He has said and done some things that make him the subject of controversy. The REAL problem lies deeper than whether Jake Delhomme/ J.T. O\'Sullivan/Drew Brees/Aaron Brooks is the answer to this team\'s problems. The REAL problem starts, not on the field, but in the Front Office and trickles down to the Coaching Staff. Many of the writers that I have read, both local and national, seem to agree that the Saints lack a \"Football IQ.\" I tend to agree with that assessment. I believe that Brooks is poorly coached by Mike Sheppard. He has some seriously flawed fundamental skills, his decision making is slow (at times), and his \"touch\" on short passes is poor. The play calling is abominable. McCarthy is Carl Smith reincarnated. He is predictable, short sighted, and married to that sheet of paper in his hand on game day. He does not make \"adjustments\" to fit the situation. And what can anyone say positive about Venturi, other than he is one of God\'s children. Aaron Brooks is blessed with tremendous athletic ability, but few, if any, leadership skills. Leaders are made, not born. Brooks has no leadership from either the Front Office or the Coaching staff, so how is he expected to lead? If you watch the Saints on any given Sunday they tend to mill around. You never know who will show up. They are totally leaderless on both sides of the ball. They are not a Mob. A Mob has a leader, these guys are a Herd. What needs to happen is for Benson to clean house from Front Office to Water Boy, find a FOOTBALL minded GM (like Rich McKay) allow him to hire a coaching staff with skills in leadership and discipline and see what transpires. Brooks will then either shine or go. Mainly, Brooks ain\'t the problem. He\'s the symptom.
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

11-02-2004, 02:22 PM	#37
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brooks and Saints are losers Wow. Now that\'s a really well written post. I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the argument of AB supporters has been that AB is not THE problem. I agree, but that does not mean that he is not A problem. Quarterbacks are often in the lime light and attract more attention than other positions. AB may get unfairly criticized at times, but I won\'t feel sorry for a guy who proclaimed himself a top 5 QB in the league after 20 starts. Especially when the guy lacks a lot of important tangible and intangible assets a top 5 QB should have. More than anything, AB\'s play has been typical of the team\'s. AB is often categorized by his inconsistency, lackidasical attitude (maybe even apathetic at times), poor leadership and direction, slow development, and raw talent that just never seems to materialize into the greatness that it could. Take a look at that last sentence - now insert \"this team\" where \"AB\" is and see if the statement still holds true. That may be why AB is trashed more than others. Some may same that its coincidental, but it seems awfully hard for me to simply dismiss one as being totally unrelated to the other. All that said, I agree completely your assessment of the front office and this organization\'s needs. I have been criticized on this board for choosing to use Kyle Turley\'s words, \"Mickey Mouse.\" Say what you will, but the problems all stem from Loomis and Haslett. The problems are first and foremost \"institutional\" or \"enterprise\" issues. The internal culture of the organization needs to change top to bottom, and that will only come with a house cleaning.
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.\"

11-02-2004, 02:53 PM	#38
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	Brooks and Saints are losers 1st of all most people on this forum want the Saints to stay -- a lot (including myself) do not see Benson as the root of the problem - case in point - since he took over our record has improved dramatically over previous years. Don\'t know the exact stat but I bet its close to .500. I do know that since he took over we have a better combined winning % than about 1/2 the teams. As for Brooks -- I am not a Brooks fan but I will say this -- he is not the biggest problem we should be dealing with. So do this forum a favor and go home to your mom :exclam: [Edited on 11/3/2004 by Halo]
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	\"I have a photographic memory -- I just don\'t have any film.\"

11-12-2004, 10:56 AM	#39
johnnythesaint 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 125	Brooks and Saints are losers Still the question persists, are Brooks and the Saints losers?
johnnythesaint 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 125

11-12-2004, 11:00 AM	#40
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brooks and Saints are losers Looks like it.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631