Brooks

JKool · 11-27-2004, 10:44 AM

LB,

Ok. I see an argument now. The objection that the \"keep Brooks\" people are making is just this: though we understand you fixation on his poor play, his poor play is still good enough to be a starter in this league; given our poor showings on defense and our o-line, Brooks is at least a tertiary concern. Getting rid of him make cost us the resources to get the players we need to fix our dead defense and ailing o-line (unless BMG is right, of course).

Whodi,

Good argument; nicely done. I cannot agree, but ONLY because I don\'t know how to decide if GB can or cannot win without Farve. There is no such regular season game to appeal to for evidence for as long as I can remember. Point taken either way - I believe we have reached an impasse on this. Still, nicely argued.

SFIAH,

Nicely put. I agree for the most part with what you are selling. Here is an argument for you (I can\'t really remember who gave it, but it sounded somewhat compelling to me): there is a learning period for QBs, a time frame in which they can really learn, after that they sort of settle in to one style or another. Brooks, who has only been taught by the chumps here, has missed his learning period and will never be much better than he is. Other than a few counter examples like Gannon, this view seems more or less plausible to me. What do you think?

As for trading Brooks, there are a lot of teams with the idea that \"WE can turn it around for a guy with skills like that\" (sort of like the girlfiend who stays with you because she thinks SHE is the girl that can whip you into shape). I\'m sure we could get something significant for him, but I\'m sure it is in between the really optimistic and the really pessimistic estimates that have been presented so far - perhaps a second rounder and a backup player (of course, if that was a young, backup QB, this would make many happy).

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by JKool]

JKool · 11-27-2004, 10:45 AM

PS - Nicely done guys. I think this may be the longest, sustained argument that I\'ve ever seen on this board that hasn\'t devolved into name calling. Kudos.

JOESAM2002 · 11-27-2004, 12:28 PM

Amen!!!!!

mutineer10 · 11-27-2004, 10:41 PM

PS - Nicely done guys. I think this may be the longest, sustained argument that I\'ve ever seen on this board that hasn\'t devolved into name calling. Kudos.

Man, what an idiot...

:P

[Edited on 28/11/2004 by mutineer10]

duece4pres · 11-28-2004, 09:05 PM

d4p,

The interception leads to seven points against... who cares who threw it or what their attitude is - the result is the same either way.

Look, I agreed that Farve and Brooks are different players. They play with different styles. My point was this: making bad (read - stupid) plays regularly will not necessarily kill the team\'s chance of winning (Farve makes the same bone head plays that Brooks does and GB can still win, make the playoffs, etc).

In fact, your example just shows that people evaluate players skills on completely irrelevant facts, like whether or not they \"look angry\" after an interception - they both did THE SAME dumb thing.

Yeah, the both did the same thing. Good call JKool. Favre looks angry because he cares that he let his team down by throwing an int. Brooks smiles after he throws an int b/c he doesn\'t care. This is a fact. Not an irrelevant fact, and, if you think it is, open your eyes.

JKool · 11-28-2004, 09:23 PM

d4p,

I agree that it is a fact that either Brooks cares or he doesn\'t. I don\'t see what stength of evidence smiling is. That is, I don\'t see how you know that he cares or not based on the fact that he smiles (if there is other evidence you intend, then I\'d be happy to hear it).

Also, with respect to winning and losing games, I don\'t see how \"caring\" has much to do with it. Back when I played there was a QB who cared a lot about every play, but this just got him tied in a knot - by the end of the game, he was so wound up, he sucked. The other guy I played with mostly took it as a game, but he was just better. He played well whether we were up or down, and he was light hearted whether we were up or down - sure, that bothered some people, but I say that that was there problem not his.

Thus, I conclude that caring can sometimes matter, but it CAN BE completely irrelevant (and sometimes it can be a detriment - though I think this is rare). Thus, I stand by my claim that throwing an INT that is returned for a touchdown has the same basic effect in terms of winning or losing, whether you smile or not.

BTW, I don\'t understand your point. Do you really think that they did different things, even though they both threw and INT for a touchdown just because one cares and the other doesn\'t (even though I don\'t believe that to be the case)? If yes, that sounds crazy to me. If you think they did different things, then what did they do differently? It seems to me that smiling or not does NOT effect whether or not they both did the same dumb thing (namely throw a pick that was returned for a TD).

I\'m sorry that you think this view is stupid (or produced with my \"eyes closed\"). However, I\'m neither stupid nor blind, so I wonder what you could mean? If you think this is a bad view, then I\'ll be happy to change it - if you give me reason to. Making snide comments is not an argument, at least last time I checked.

BrooksMustGo · 11-28-2004, 09:26 PM

So much for an enlightened discussion that doesn\'t dissolve into name calling.

Should we start attacking people at random or do we have assigned victims for this part of the board? If we haven\'t assigned victims yet, I\'m calling WhoDat.

JKool · 11-28-2004, 09:27 PM

PS - For anyone still paying attention to this particular thread, the points I was making were merely made to respond to the argument that Brooks is the biggest problem with this team (I was merely arguing that his making dumb mistakes is not reason to think that he is the biggest problem with the team), nothing more - for the fourth time. I\'m not a huge Brooks fan anymore, but I do honestly believe that he is not our primary problem - the primary problem is the coaching (followed by our lack of linebackers followed by gaps in the interior of our d-line and our o-line in general).

JKool · 11-28-2004, 09:28 PM

BMG,

Who was name calling?

I think we should have a lottery to see who our targets should be; what do you think?

BrooksMustGo · 11-28-2004, 09:34 PM

I think we should have a lottery to see who our targets should be; what do you think?

JKool, I just thought I\'d get my shots in on WhoDat. I\'m frankly tired of him coming in here and thinking he can get by on his good looks alone. :rollinglaugh:

Do you think we could interest Tennessee in a trade for Brooks if McNair retires on them?

11-27-2004, 10:44 AM	#111
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks LB, Ok. I see an argument now. The objection that the \"keep Brooks\" people are making is just this: though we understand you fixation on his poor play, his poor play is still good enough to be a starter in this league; given our poor showings on defense and our o-line, Brooks is at least a tertiary concern. Getting rid of him make cost us the resources to get the players we need to fix our dead defense and ailing o-line (unless BMG is right, of course). Whodi, Good argument; nicely done. I cannot agree, but ONLY because I don\'t know how to decide if GB can or cannot win without Farve. There is no such regular season game to appeal to for evidence for as long as I can remember. Point taken either way - I believe we have reached an impasse on this. Still, nicely argued. SFIAH, Nicely put. I agree for the most part with what you are selling. Here is an argument for you (I can\'t really remember who gave it, but it sounded somewhat compelling to me): there is a learning period for QBs, a time frame in which they can really learn, after that they sort of settle in to one style or another. Brooks, who has only been taught by the chumps here, has missed his learning period and will never be much better than he is. Other than a few counter examples like Gannon, this view seems more or less plausible to me. What do you think? As for trading Brooks, there are a lot of teams with the idea that \"WE can turn it around for a guy with skills like that\" (sort of like the girlfiend who stays with you because she thinks SHE is the girl that can whip you into shape). I\'m sure we could get something significant for him, but I\'m sure it is in between the really optimistic and the really pessimistic estimates that have been presented so far - perhaps a second rounder and a backup player (of course, if that was a young, backup QB, this would make many happy). [Edited on 27/11/2004 by JKool]
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

11-27-2004, 10:45 AM	#112
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks PS - Nicely done guys. I think this may be the longest, sustained argument that I\'ve ever seen on this board that hasn\'t devolved into name calling. Kudos.

11-27-2004, 12:28 PM	#113
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	Brooks Amen!!!!!

11-27-2004, 10:41 PM	#114
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Brooks PS - Nicely done guys. I think this may be the longest, sustained argument that I\'ve ever seen on this board that hasn\'t devolved into name calling. Kudos. Man, what an idiot... :P [Edited on 28/11/2004 by mutineer10]

11-28-2004, 09:05 PM	#115
duece4pres Biloxi Bandit Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: biloxi, ms Posts: 293	Brooks d4p, The interception leads to seven points against... who cares who threw it or what their attitude is - the result is the same either way. Look, I agreed that Farve and Brooks are different players. They play with different styles. My point was this: making bad (read - stupid) plays regularly will not necessarily kill the team\'s chance of winning (Farve makes the same bone head plays that Brooks does and GB can still win, make the playoffs, etc). In fact, your example just shows that people evaluate players skills on completely irrelevant facts, like whether or not they \"look angry\" after an interception - they both did THE SAME dumb thing. Yeah, the both did the same thing. Good call JKool. Favre looks angry because he cares that he let his team down by throwing an int. Brooks smiles after he throws an int b/c he doesn\'t care. This is a fact. Not an irrelevant fact, and, if you think it is, open your eyes.

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

11-28-2004, 09:23 PM	#116
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks d4p, I agree that it is a fact that either Brooks cares or he doesn\'t. I don\'t see what stength of evidence smiling is. That is, I don\'t see how you know that he cares or not based on the fact that he smiles (if there is other evidence you intend, then I\'d be happy to hear it). Also, with respect to winning and losing games, I don\'t see how \"caring\" has much to do with it. Back when I played there was a QB who cared a lot about every play, but this just got him tied in a knot - by the end of the game, he was so wound up, he sucked. The other guy I played with mostly took it as a game, but he was just better. He played well whether we were up or down, and he was light hearted whether we were up or down - sure, that bothered some people, but I say that that was there problem not his. Thus, I conclude that caring can sometimes matter, but it CAN BE completely irrelevant (and sometimes it can be a detriment - though I think this is rare). Thus, I stand by my claim that throwing an INT that is returned for a touchdown has the same basic effect in terms of winning or losing, whether you smile or not. BTW, I don\'t understand your point. Do you really think that they did different things, even though they both threw and INT for a touchdown just because one cares and the other doesn\'t (even though I don\'t believe that to be the case)? If yes, that sounds crazy to me. If you think they did different things, then what did they do differently? It seems to me that smiling or not does NOT effect whether or not they both did the same dumb thing (namely throw a pick that was returned for a TD). I\'m sorry that you think this view is stupid (or produced with my \"eyes closed\"). However, I\'m neither stupid nor blind, so I wonder what you could mean? If you think this is a bad view, then I\'ll be happy to change it - if you give me reason to. Making snide comments is not an argument, at least last time I checked.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

11-28-2004, 09:26 PM	#117
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks So much for an enlightened discussion that doesn\'t dissolve into name calling. Should we start attacking people at random or do we have assigned victims for this part of the board? If we haven\'t assigned victims yet, I\'m calling WhoDat.

11-28-2004, 09:27 PM	#118
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks PS - For anyone still paying attention to this particular thread, the points I was making were merely made to respond to the argument that Brooks is the biggest problem with this team (I was merely arguing that his making dumb mistakes is not reason to think that he is the biggest problem with the team), nothing more - for the fourth time. I\'m not a huge Brooks fan anymore, but I do honestly believe that he is not our primary problem - the primary problem is the coaching (followed by our lack of linebackers followed by gaps in the interior of our d-line and our o-line in general).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

11-28-2004, 09:28 PM	#119
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks BMG, Who was name calling? I think we should have a lottery to see who our targets should be; what do you think?

11-28-2004, 09:34 PM	#120
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks I think we should have a lottery to see who our targets should be; what do you think? JKool, I just thought I\'d get my shots in on WhoDat. I\'m frankly tired of him coming in here and thinking he can get by on his good looks alone. :rollinglaugh: Do you think we could interest Tennessee in a trade for Brooks if McNair retires on them?