Brooks
 

Let me make it crystal clear...get rid of AB. A good GM would have already had somebody waiting in the wings...I mean, this situation has been festering for almost three years now.

I don\'t believe defense is the most important thing right now...because I think these guys are capable of playing better. You start the game with a three and out, and they start thinking, \"Oh boy, here we go again.\" Give the defense some hope that the offense is going to at least take care of the ball, and not continuously put them behind the eight ball. I still am amazed at the patience some of you guys have with AB. I wonder if there is some underlying reason why some people are so willing to give him so much slack. He makes plays on a regular basis that would be unbelievable even for a rookie, and he\'s been around long enough to have eliminated these mistakes, but, it appears that he is horrible at handling pressure and making good decisions...he has brain cramps, and I am fed up to my gills with them.

Brooks
 

I totally agree with you and I\'m frankly scared. The ugly truth is that we cannot go one more year without addressing the LB\'s, but we really need a Ted Washington type DT, and I\'d like to have a safety. Looks like we really need 4 starters on defense.

Where it gets really ugly is on offense where I think LT is quickly becoming a critical need. I wouldn\'t be angry with a new RT either. If we deal Brooks and have to find another starter, it looks like we\'ll have plenty of needs before we even address the WR problem.

That\'s partly why I\'d like to emphasize the run. If Joe and/or Pathon won\'t renegotiate, then we may have to just accept a more limited passing game.

I\'m not looking forward to trying to put 8 new starters innto this team. By the way, I\'m watching Derrick Johnson beat up A&M right now and that kid is a must-take in my mind. Keep losing guys.

If nflpa.org is right, I think McMahon is in his last year. The tough part with him is that I wouldn\'t be surprised if Mooch decides to keep him as the starter next year. To my thinking, McMahon is the better, cheaper prospect than Harrington anyway. I\'d really like McMahon, but I\'m not optimistic about our chances. But if we could, I\'d throw something like a 4 year, 10 million dollar sort of offer at him.

Schaub I think is Mora\'s security blanket. I don\'t think it\'s likely that we can deal for him. If we could get great value for Brooks, I might take some of those picks and make a package deal for Atlanta? I really wish we had Pathon for another year and I\'d try to deal him for Schaub.

Garrard might be a pretty good candidate, but I haven\'t seen him much. Again, I\'m thinking some sort of package involving some picks. I\'m not sure that we\'ve got anyone Jax would really want.

After those 3 guys, I\'m not really sure who I\'d want. I think we\'d need Jim Fassel or Charlie Wiess to try and draft a rookie and start him. But I\'m not willing to give a 1st day pick to get a rookie QB, we\'ve got bigger needs right now.

I totally agree with you on the thought of Brooks to Arizona. I think Denny Green could tap Brooks\' potential to the degree that half this board would be up in arms, screaming, \"SEE, I told you so.\" If we could get Karlos Dansby, a 1st rounder and 3rd rounder, then I\'d offer to pay AB\'s moving costs.

Again, I totally agree with you. I want us to get a smart, accurate QB. But whoever we get will require a competent coaching staff to work with him. It just looks more and more like a rebuild. If we could fix the defense this offseason and get a quality LT, then I\'d consider it a success.

If we shop Brooks, then I\'d rather start shopping him soon, so we can take advantage of his value in this draft.

By the way, what would you think about franchising Howard again and trying to get someone to pay through the nose for him? I know it\'s reckless, but it might really work out if there aren\'t many free agent DE\'s out there. If we did get burned I wouldn\'t mind keeping Howard and letting Smith play LB in a 3-4 scheme.

Brooks
 

I\'ve never understood yours. It seems to be \"The guy sucks. Get rid of him.\"

But there are consequences. You have to have a player play that position. You have to pay that player. You have to deal with the cap hit due to Brooks. If you just cut him, the rest of the nearly $11 million signing/option bonus paid comes due right now. That\'s dead money that cannot be paid to anyone else.

If I were the GM I would make a simple observation: Aaron Brooks has had only one offensive coach and played in essentially one system since his introduction into the league. That coach is Mike McCarthy, who was the QB coach at Green Bay, and then the offensive coordinator here. McCarthy in fact is the reason that Brooks is a Saint.

If I were the GM, I\'d fire the coaching staff and get another one in. I\'d go ahead
and pay the $5.5 million next year for Brooks with the understanding that if he can\'t get it straight in the new system he\'ll be released June 1, 2006. I would then build an offensive system with a strong O-line, and a varied offense that revolves around Deuce with Brooks as the complement. I\'d coach the guy up.

Other than a dislike for the guy\'s attitude, you\'ve offered nothing as to why the Saints should flush half of a $36 million contract and have to start over in the QB position with nearly $6 million of dead money on the cap.

The Saints have committed to him. He has shown that he can play in this league. Invest in the investment instead of starting over.

And frankly I wouldn\'t want you to be the GM if you think that Brooks is the #1 priority here. The new GM has 3 priorities:

1. Get a coaching staff that can actually coach.
2. Get a defense that can stop someone.
3. Get Deuce signed. Whatever it takes.

Brooks isn\'t on the list. That\'s why I don\'t understand why we keep talking about Brooks, and talking about Brooks, and talking about Brooks.

SFIAH

Brooks
 

One replacement was JT O\'Sullivan who was traded away because the GM said this was the last year of his contract, many teams were interested in him and the Saints didn\'t want to lose him without getting something in return. I guess the thought never crossed their minds to try and extend his contract in the first place.


Before I pretend to be a GM, how many more years is Brooks under contract? I will say this though: I seriously don\'t believe there will be too many teams interested in a multi-player deal in which the Saints end of the deal is only Aaron Brooks. I just don\'t see that he commands that much value.

Brooks
 

I think we\'re all in agreement here that the Saints are in big trouble in most areas. The defense clearly is awful and needs to be tended to. But this thread started out being about Brooks and that\'s why we\'re talking about him.


I\'ve read just about every post on this thread and there seems to be two camps here: the \"Keep Brooks\" camp and the \"Lose Brooks\" camp. The \"Lose Brooks\" camp-of which I\'m a part-is pretty much in agreement as to why he should go and has stated those reasons fairly consistently. The \"Keep Brooks\" camp is much less defined. Some think he should stay because he\'s really not that bad; some think he should stay cuz he\'s all we\'ve got; some think he should stay cuz he\'s making a boatload of money and they don\'t want to take a loss; some think he should stay cuz he might be really good again some day; some think he should stay cuz it\'s not his fault the team sucks this bad.


The one thing no one in the \"Keep Brooks\" camp has said is probably the most important: We need to keep Brooks because he knows how to win.


Aaron Brooks doesn\'t know how to win and methinks he\'s never gonna learn. This is not just conducive of his attitude, it is the complete essence of his play. We see it game after game. His actions on the field, his statements after the game, the things he says to the media all point to an absence of the competitive spirit. He is clearly a \"take the money and run\" player and the Saints have spent way too much time and money on players like that throughout their history.


We need someone at QB who is a winner, knows how to win and plays, acts and leads like he\'s winner. Brooks meets none of these criteria and that is reason enough to lose him. Try to work a trade but if that doesn\'t work either cut him or, if the cap hit is too hard, park his butt on the bench until he can at least pretend winning means something to him.


When one wants to win, one does the little things necessary to win. Those little things are lacking in Aaron Brooks\' general makeup. There is no competitive spirit, no competitive fire in his belly. To him, good enough is good enough. Gaudy stats are fine but winning is what matters most. How long would Aaron Brooks have lasted under someone like Vince Lombardi? I think we know the answer to that one...

Brooks
 

Other than the financial argument (offered by BMG and still under consideration by several of us in the opposed camp), I\'ve heard no good reason to get rid of Brooks. If you\'re not in agreement that whether or not Brooks stays on the grounds of his value relative to his cap number and the cost of good players on defense, then I don\'t agree.

I don\'t think that the \"lose Brooks\" camp is any more unified than the \"keep Brooks\" camp. The reasons to \"lose Brooks\" include such winning arguments as these: (1) People are laughing at him, (2) he smiles too much, (3) he\'s no Brett Farve, (4) he doesn\'t \"know how to win\", (5) he\'s had plenty of time to be good, and he\'s not, (6) anyone would be better, and (7) blah blah blah.

What is all this \"knowing how to win\" stuff? Look, everyone in the NFL knows how to win - score more points than the other team. No one is confused about that.

What I am confused about is your argument that Brooks is not a winner. Wins and losses are NOT how teams evaluate players, and I don\'t believe that we should either - scouts evaluate players who haven\'t played a single down in the NFL on the basis of their mechanics, football intelligence, physical attributes, and so on! If you have an arugment as to why we should think Brooks (who is NOT in the bottom third of NFL STARTERS) doesn\'t have enough skill to be an adequate QB to take us to the SB, then you haven\'t given said argument.

I\'m getting a bit tired of this meaningless and over used phrase - x is not a winner. What does that mean? If you can answer that, then I\'ll consider the argument - until then, none has been offered.

I\'m not saying there isn\'t an arugment (other than the relatively good financial one) that we should get rid of Brooks, I\'m just saying that I haven\'t heard it yet.

Brooks
 

Obviously the \"keep Brooks\" people are completely oblivious to the mistakes AB makes on a consistent basis. I don\'t have to go back any further than last week to point out some kind of idiotic underhand gift of a TD to a MLB just standing there watching the play...and then late in the game an interception thrown right into the defenders hands, and, because he was not fast enough, he wasn\'t able to score, but had the sideline practically to himself. And that was just last week. I know, QB\'s throw the ball backwards to a lineman all the time, why the fuss? I don\'t like pointing these things out, but the \"keep Btrooks\" people don\'t seem to remember these \"lowlights\".

How can you possibly say that I keep saying that I don\'t want to keep him but yet have not given any reasons why. Is it really necessary for me to go back and point out all of the numerous blunders and instances of bad judgement he has had? We are watching the same games, please don\'t play stupid anymore, it is very unappealing.

BTW, all of you thinking we are going to be able to trade him and come up with a windfall in return...forget it. Maybe before this year started, we might have been able to work out a deal that would have included him to get someone like Big Ben, Eli, or, maybe Brees. But that was then, and this is now. Any value AB had, or, in aonther words, anyone who had still thought he might come around, has now seen the light....at least, people who know football and can tell a loser when they see one. He might get you a third round pick now, but, I would be surprised if he would be worth any more than that. He chokes big time under pressure, and doesn\'t show any signs of getting better. Everybody is going to look at that for exactly what it is, and are not going to be willing to give up the farm for someone who would be considered a project.

Brooks
 

There is nobody else around, so I will take this time to try to explain who I am and where I am coming from, and, finally, to put an end to the statement that I have not given a reason as to why we should have given up on AB a while ago.

As to who I am, I am a middle-aged male who grew up on the Gulf Coast, and now reside in the Chicago area. I was an athlete as a youth, playing football, basketball, and baseball until I graduated, and football and baseball through JC. Being an athlete on the Gulf Coast, it is only natural that you would be thrilled when you found out there would be a professionaly football team in NO. It would also follow that you would become a life-long fan of the Saints, which I did. I would venture to say that I have watched more Saint games than 99.9% of you that post here. AB is not the first QB that I have grown disenchanted with...and it has nothing to do with race. I didn\'t care for Hebert\'s attitude, although I admit that he was an adequate starter. I didn\'t care much for the way he acted when Fourcade beat him out, and he kinda took his football and went home. That decision cost us big-time, because we ended up giving the farm to Dallas for a loser named Walsh.

Anyway, to adress the issue as to why, IMHO, we should get rid of AB...and, keep in mind, that I realize that this is just my feelings, as I can not speak for anyone else. I have been a die-hard Saint fan all this time, and it is only now, after 37 years or so, that I have finally stopped tuning in on the Saints, and have lost some of the fire as a fan that I once had. My reason for doing this is due to my total frustration over the fact that they have stuck with AB throughout the last four years, and we have not had hardly more than a glimpse of anyone else during this time. And, don\'t get confused. It is not his attitude that has me feeling this way, even though I don\'t care for it at all. IT IS HIS INCONSISTENT, CHOKING, STYLE OF PLAY. I am sure you all remember an occasion or two when going with someone else might have been the right thing to do, and, possibly have gotten us into a playoff or two, but, we didn\'t. I blame Haz for this, and, have stated earlier in another thread, that I do think he should lose his job, if, for no other reason, for his total refusal to try anyone else at that position. This logic has cost us at least three quality QB prospects, that have now gone on to other teams. If I were a GM, or even the owner, and thought there were a lot of people out there that have decided they will stop watching until they make a change, I might at some point in time decide to try something different, in an effort to save my job, the head coaches job, and to bring back the fans that are starting to fall off the bandwagon.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but there should be no more speculation as to why I feel a change is needed at the QB position.

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by Saint_LB]

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by Saint_LB]

Brooks
 

JKool,

Well, how do I say this? I\'ve agreed that Favre has his dog days, but when it comes to the Pack winning in spite of boneheaded QB play, I think Favre still remains the difference in the end.

When you really think about it, talent-wise the two teams aren\'t all that different at the skill positions (I hope this doesn\'t open another can of worms), so why is the Pack successful? I can\'t say Ahman Green is any better than Deuce McAllister, so we can\'t blame our running game. I guess Javon Walker and Donald Driver are a slightly better tandem (again talent here folks, don\'t go stat crazy on me) than Joe Horn and Donte Stallworth, but not significantly better. I don\'t think Bubba Franks is more physically talented than Boo Williams, though mentally he\'s light years ahead. We\'ve all agreed neither team has a dominating defense. So what\'s the difference?

Sure, the most glaring reply is COACHING, but some Packers fans were calling for Sherman\'s head earlier in the season (notice how much better they\'ve been since Sherman himself started calling the plays?). The other response unfortunately brings us back to the Brooks/Favre comparison.

Maybe it\'s best put this way:

The Packers can win in spite of Brett Favre\'s mistakes, but the Packers cannot win without Brett Favre.

Do you agree with that statement? Now try it with AB:

The Saints can win in spite of Aaron Brooks\' mistakes, but the Saints cannot win without Aaron Brooks.

Doesn\'t work, does it? First of all, the Saints can\'t win PERIOD, at least not regularly. And while it\'s true that when we do get a win it\'s largely on AB\'s back (49ers, Rams, Chiefs), alot of our failures can be placed on those same shoulders.

Brett Favre brings alot of the so-called \"intangibles\" to the Pack that AB simply doesn\'t bring to us. Words such as Leader, Competitor, Legend and phrases such as Future Hall of Famer are easily applied to Favre, but a quiet few would apply them to Brooks. In the end, Favre is the heart and soul of the Green Bay Packers, and lately it\'s tough to tell if the Saints even have heart or soul...

Brooks
 

I\'m going to snip to the chase...

I posit that we don\'t know if Brooks knows how to win. There are simply too many variables to make that determination. I think we can all agree that one person cannot win football games. It\'s the ultimate team sport. Teams win an lose games on the collective individual efforts of their players, coaches, scouts, front office, owner, and even fans.

Brooks hasn\'t been put in a situation where everything else is clicking and he\'s the only one screwing up. Everything from bad play calling, to penalties, to drops, add to his problems of defensive misreads and happy feet.

The Altanta paper has an article on the Saints. It mirrors what is said about Brooks: talented, inconsistent, can\'t rise above mediocre.

The way I see it Brooks has only been taught at the NFL level be exactly one coach: Mike McCarthy. Maybe he just needs another coach to show him the way.

But I think the get rid of Brooks campaign is hasty. Everyone has these expectations that Brooks is going to develop into a premier QB. But I believe that takes both internal fortitude and the proper external influence. I don\'t believe that Brooks has ever had that proper external influence. I don\'t know if he\'ll become that Peyton Manning type QB if properly coached.

But I guess I\'ll laugh bitterly when you Lose Brooks folks gets your wish. When the guy goes to Denny\'s QB University in Arizona and becomes the next McNabb.

Then you\'ll be asking \"Why couldn\'t he do that when he was here in New Orleans?\"

Some elements to the answer to that question are here.

SFIAH