Brooks

mutineer10 · 12-09-2004, 05:21 AM

Yeah, and plugging AB into our mathematical variables doesn\'t seem to work. He doesn\'t fit the \"vocal\" style of leadership, unless his laughter following a screw up counts. I certainly hope he doesn\'t fit the \"example\" style of leadership, either, or we\'ll have everyone throwing backwards, fumbling all over the place, and subsequently laughing about it.

Then again, after seeing us the other day, it appears more of our players do seem to be following that example. Deuce\'s fumbles and drops, the OL\'s ever-increasing false start and holding penalties, Pathon\'s bobbled interception (whoever\'s fault it was), and Gleason\'s $5,000 money-shot all could be taken as the result of following a screwed up example.

Maybe he\'s an \"example\" leader, after all.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10]

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10]

RDOX · 12-09-2004, 08:55 AM

[quote:40c1599803]Yeah, and plugging AB into our mathematical variables doesn\'t seem to work. He doesn\'t fit the \"vocal\" style of leadership, unless his laughter following a screw up counts. I certainly hope he doesn\'t fit the \"example\" style of leadership, either, or we\'ll have everyone throwing backwards, fumbling all over the place, and subsequently laughing about it.

Then again, after seeing us the other day, it appears more of our players do seem to be following that example. Deuce\'s fumbles and drops, the OL\'s ever-increasing false start and holding penalties, Pathon\'s bobbled interception (whoever\'s fault it was), and Gleason\'s $5,000 money-shot all could be taken as the result of following a screwed up example.

Maybe he\'s an \"example\" leader, after all.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10]

It all comes down from the top. What you are seeing on the field is the product of the Front Office. LoomBoom, Baby Mule, and company are in charge of locating, evaluating, and picking the best available talent that will field a winning football team. In this chaos, LoomBoom doesn\'t want to upset FieldCow because he\'s got his lips stuck on Benson\'s backside with about 300psi of vacuum, and thinks only of how to bilk the citizens of Louisiana out of money and a stadium. LoomBoom is going to protect his rice bowl because he\'s developed an addiction to eating, sleeping, and poopooing indoors. So, what you see is a set of sheep, going along with whatever FieldCow says, because they know wherein the REAL power lies.

Baby Mule and LoomBoom are concerned with only one thing: CAP ROOM. They also know that what ever stumbles out on the field will fill the Superdome, because New Orleans and Louisiana people like football. Therefore, sellouts week in and week out.

I really don\'t think that Jim Hazlett is as bad a coach as he is protrayed to be. I believe that there are other factors beyond his control that he has to live with. Two of them are the fact that Benson, not Big Mule or Hazlett, hired both McCarthy and Venturi. Benson, not Hazlett, caved when Fumbles stomped his feet and sucked his thumb for a new contract, rather than sending Fumbles back to the car wash. Same was true with Turley, Roaf, Naole, Kennison, Poole, Williams, Fontenot, and the list goes on. I believe that LoomBoom has more hiring decisions than does Hazlett and then LoomBoom cut the rug from under Hazlett with his remarks this year. Those remarks, especially during a season, were the most classless thing I\'ve witnessed in a lot of years watching football. And then, surprise, surprise, the team quit. Wow! What a concept? So, the question is raised, who\'s really to blame here? I say FieldCow and LoomBoom. :exclam:

saintswhodi · 12-09-2004, 09:00 AM

Mutey, Brooks is an example leader, the bad ones you pointed out. When you have a goof who doesn\'t care one way or another if you win, who\'s gonna follow that? If you were an o-lineman and your qb threw 20 yards behind the line or under-haned to an opposing lb for a td, would you wanna bust your arse blocking for him? And if it has been going on for years? And if he is not accountable? I sure as hell wouldn\'t. Add to the fact, and I didn\'t even know this, that Brooks was LAUGHING and CLAPPING on the sideline of the Atlanta game when Atlanta took the lead? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? He should have been made deactive like Keyshawn was in Tampa at that point. Put Kingsbury in. I saw him at Texas Tech and at least know he can wing it around.

Kool, we truly have made a breakthrough. We have a consensus. Kudos.

BrooksMustGo · 12-09-2004, 04:16 PM

We\'re also in agreement that the responsibility for \"vocal\" leadership starts with the coaches then seems to naturally move to the QB - so having a \"vocal\" QB is an asset, but not a necessity for a quality team.

Ok Houston, we have a problem.

It seems that the vocal leader issue just muddies up the water. My contention about Brooks has always been his lack of intangibles or football smarts. I also find it maddening that he can\'t make all the throws and continues to back into the rush. Montana may not have been a fire breather or field disciplinarian, but he had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and was able to direct his guys to make it happen. He was master of the field and always recognized what the defense was doing.

Brooks does not seem to have a similar aptitude, regardless of being vocal or not, he doesn\'t seem to have the capacity to direct, grasp or inspire. I\'m not sure I think the vocal part is even part of the equation.

CheramieIII · 12-09-2004, 06:58 PM

We should have kept JT. We need to get rid of Brook\'s and cut Bouman (a waste of air), and Haz needs to leave the state as quickly as possible.

JKool · 12-09-2004, 08:54 PM

Houston! Help BMG! We have a problem!

Boys, you had to know our peaceful co-existence wouldn\'t last.

BMG,

A fine point. We were merely talking about Brooks\' leadership qualities, not the other things you\'ve mentioned. Of course, those are important too. Brooks has many problems (not the least of which you list). However, it is my general view that \"intangibles\" is ambiguous - it is a word that stands in for many things. One of them is \"leadership\". Whodi, Mutineer, and myself have argued that \"leadership\" breaks up into AT LEAST two kinds: vocal - chewing out, being emotive, being firey, and example - playing well, being ballsy on the field, getting things done. I think we all agree that Brooks has little to none of either. However, it is still worth making the distinction, since people make arguments that are incorrect if they don\'t make the distinction: namely, unless you\'re all up in peoples\' faces, you ain\'t no leader. This is false, look at Montana, or RBs - they are example leaders rather than vocal leaders, BUT they are leaders nonetheless. Thus, I argue that vocal is part of the equation, but I agree with you that it is only a small part. And, I argue, that it is not a necessary part of the equation.

So, I don\'t think we have a problem. What do you think?

Cherm,

Buddy, someone needs to make an argument as to why JT is any good (though I agree that he was probably better than Bouman). He looked like carp in the preseason, so I don\'t know why people keep thinking that he\'s all that. This \"Klingsbury\" guy, or whatever the heck his name is, is so far just as good as JT was (since we know relatively little about either).

BrooksMustGo · 12-09-2004, 09:42 PM

why JT is any good (though I agree that he was probably better than Bouman). He looked like carp in the preseason

Sorry, struck me funny, had to be done.

So, I don\'t think we have a problem. What do you think?

OK, I can buy that. In fact, I can agree wholeheartedly that the \"in your face\" style is not necessarily leadership at all.

I see the QB\'s job to direct the offense. Hence, the emphasis we hear all the time about the QB learning the playbook. My big accusation against Brooks for some time now has been that he is a sandlot player. He\'s really pretty good when he\'s improvisational and freelancing. He\'s just the guy you want as QB at the family reunion or the company picnic. He\'s not the guy you want to pay millions of dollars to direct a professional offense.

I have questioned his mechanics, his ability to see what the defense is giving him and his ability to work with the offense to execute a game plan.

However, in this narrow context I think that leadership is directing the offense effectively and making the guys around you better. I think Brooks has a particularly hard time with having the confidence of the guys playing around him. Haslett is partly to blame for this predicament because as an offensive player you never know if you are going to make the media hi-light reel showing how it isn\'t Brooks\' fault. Brooks also bears responsibility as well. Throughout his career, he has been a little too eager to point the finger at the guys around him or to make excuses for himself. I can\'t imagine it might not seem natural to try and trust a guy who will push you in front of the bus if things go badly.

When Brooks first appeared, he was this peppy, eager guy who seemed happy to be playing. He was pretty fast and had a big arm. He didn\'t have to do too much. If he missed his first read, he ran. We all loved that kid.

The problem was that he never seemed to really move past that. He\'s still making rookie mistakes and relying too much on the canon arm to bail him out. Even worse, he now has a canon mouth to go with it. And the bottom line remains that he isn\'t directing the offense on the field. That\'s kind of where my beef with his leadership ability lies. He seems to \"me-first\" to really help the guys he\'s playing with.

JKool · 12-10-2004, 02:11 AM

BMG,

(1) Hilarious. I loved the carp. Damn, that\'s a good sized catch too!

(2) It looks like you agree too now. This thread is just getting better and better.

PS - :dancingmonkey:

GumboBC · 12-10-2004, 02:57 PM

WhoDat blaming Brooks? But he says he\'s not blaming Brooks. That\'s typical WhoDat. At least have the guts to take a stand.

Just kidding WhoDat. :P

Brooks hasn\'t played great, but who has? I could and DO blame Deuce more than Brooks. Deuce has looked awful this year. Our running game and run blocking has forced Brooks to throw the ball more than any other QB in the NFL.

You folks do understand that we have the worst defense in the NFL and absolutely no running game. How many QB\'s do you think would be sucessful in that situation?

Books is in the absolute worst situation a QB could be in. He has to drop back to pass on every play and everyone knows. it. And to top it off, our offensive line sucks.

No one is going to do well if put in the same situation.

Get off Brooks and jump on Deuce. He\'s looked worse than Brooks. Or, blast the defense. Or coaching.

Who started this thread.......??

Oh yeah, Whodat did. Go figure.

BrooksMustGo · 12-10-2004, 05:49 PM

WhoDat blaming Brooks? But he says he\'s not blaming Brooks. That\'s typical WhoDat. At least have the guts to take a stand. Just kidding WhoDat.

Is it just me or does this not read like \"just kidding\"?
Nice to see you back though Billy. I\'ve missed your perspective.

Get off Brooks and jump on Deuce. He\'s looked worse than Brooks. Or, blast the defense. Or coaching.

I\'m not sure I understand this sort of argumentation. Everyone else has looked awful. The coaching has been awful. Brooks has looked awful. Therefore it\'s ok to talk about the coaching and anyone else, but Brooks is verboten? If everything is bad, why not talk about everything?

Who started this thread.......??

Oh yeah, Whodat did. Go figure.

Just a couple of items here.

1. This thread got the JoeSam stamp of approval for thoughtful discussion with respect all around. I think it is right up there with the Tony Dungy thread in the other forum as one of the better discussions I\'ve ever been a part of on this board. If you wish to support Brooks or make an argument that he is being scapegoated here, by all means make the argument and know that your opinion will be respected. But please let\'s not get sidetracked with trying to put verbal thumbs in the other guy\'s eye. You\'re better than that. You\'re a passionate fan with a valuable point of veiw Billy. Castigating each other doesn\'t provide the dialogue with anything constructive.

2. I think that WhoDat\'s initial post was born out of frustration during the Denver game. The int that AB threw might as well have been a handoff to the linebacker. It wasn\'t one of AB\'s better moments. I don\'t think WhoDat was all that far out in being frustrated with the play.

WhoDat also seemed to be contending that AB\'s longtime problem with backing out of the protection may be making the linemen worse than they are. This is a debatable topic since the offensive line has just been abysmal this season, but it\'s not a crazy thing to talk about.

At any rate, as we face an offseason where virtually everyone agrees that major changes need to be made, it is very difficult not to discuss Brooks. His cap number is going to get very large this coming year and it is a good time to evaluate whether AB has more value to us as a tradable commodity, whether we should re-work his deal and whether he is the answer for this franchise at the QB position.

I think that the board would be a much more interesting place with your perspective in answering those questions Billy. Is Brooks worth his cap number? Should we keep him? Is this supporting cast and coaching staff really holding a good player back? Let\'s not lose sight of what could be a pivotal off-season by making the other guy our punching bag.

PS: JOESAM or HALO could we get an olive branch smiley to put in here? I\'d really like to see peace on the board.

12-09-2004, 05:21 AM	#201
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Brooks Yeah, and plugging AB into our mathematical variables doesn\'t seem to work. He doesn\'t fit the \"vocal\" style of leadership, unless his laughter following a screw up counts. I certainly hope he doesn\'t fit the \"example\" style of leadership, either, or we\'ll have everyone throwing backwards, fumbling all over the place, and subsequently laughing about it. Then again, after seeing us the other day, it appears more of our players do seem to be following that example. Deuce\'s fumbles and drops, the OL\'s ever-increasing false start and holding penalties, Pathon\'s bobbled interception (whoever\'s fault it was), and Gleason\'s $5,000 money-shot all could be taken as the result of following a screwed up example. Maybe he\'s an \"example\" leader, after all. [Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10] [Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10]

12-09-2004, 08:55 AM	#202
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	Brooks [quote:40c1599803]Yeah, and plugging AB into our mathematical variables doesn\'t seem to work. He doesn\'t fit the \"vocal\" style of leadership, unless his laughter following a screw up counts. I certainly hope he doesn\'t fit the \"example\" style of leadership, either, or we\'ll have everyone throwing backwards, fumbling all over the place, and subsequently laughing about it. Then again, after seeing us the other day, it appears more of our players do seem to be following that example. Deuce\'s fumbles and drops, the OL\'s ever-increasing false start and holding penalties, Pathon\'s bobbled interception (whoever\'s fault it was), and Gleason\'s $5,000 money-shot all could be taken as the result of following a screwed up example. Maybe he\'s an \"example\" leader, after all. [Edited on 9/12/2004 by mutineer10] It all comes down from the top. What you are seeing on the field is the product of the Front Office. LoomBoom, Baby Mule, and company are in charge of locating, evaluating, and picking the best available talent that will field a winning football team. In this chaos, LoomBoom doesn\'t want to upset FieldCow because he\'s got his lips stuck on Benson\'s backside with about 300psi of vacuum, and thinks only of how to bilk the citizens of Louisiana out of money and a stadium. LoomBoom is going to protect his rice bowl because he\'s developed an addiction to eating, sleeping, and poopooing indoors. So, what you see is a set of sheep, going along with whatever FieldCow says, because they know wherein the REAL power lies. Baby Mule and LoomBoom are concerned with only one thing: CAP ROOM. They also know that what ever stumbles out on the field will fill the Superdome, because New Orleans and Louisiana people like football. Therefore, sellouts week in and week out. I really don\'t think that Jim Hazlett is as bad a coach as he is protrayed to be. I believe that there are other factors beyond his control that he has to live with. Two of them are the fact that Benson, not Big Mule or Hazlett, hired both McCarthy and Venturi. Benson, not Hazlett, caved when Fumbles stomped his feet and sucked his thumb for a new contract, rather than sending Fumbles back to the car wash. Same was true with Turley, Roaf, Naole, Kennison, Poole, Williams, Fontenot, and the list goes on. I believe that LoomBoom has more hiring decisions than does Hazlett and then LoomBoom cut the rug from under Hazlett with his remarks this year. Those remarks, especially during a season, were the most classless thing I\'ve witnessed in a lot of years watching football. And then, surprise, surprise, the team quit. Wow! What a concept? So, the question is raised, who\'s really to blame here? I say FieldCow and LoomBoom. :exclam:
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

12-09-2004, 09:00 AM	#203
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Brooks Mutey, Brooks is an example leader, the bad ones you pointed out. When you have a goof who doesn\'t care one way or another if you win, who\'s gonna follow that? If you were an o-lineman and your qb threw 20 yards behind the line or under-haned to an opposing lb for a td, would you wanna bust your arse blocking for him? And if it has been going on for years? And if he is not accountable? I sure as hell wouldn\'t. Add to the fact, and I didn\'t even know this, that Brooks was LAUGHING and CLAPPING on the sideline of the Atlanta game when Atlanta took the lead? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? He should have been made deactive like Keyshawn was in Tampa at that point. Put Kingsbury in. I saw him at Texas Tech and at least know he can wing it around. Kool, we truly have made a breakthrough. We have a consensus. Kudos.

12-09-2004, 04:16 PM	#204
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks We\'re also in agreement that the responsibility for \"vocal\" leadership starts with the coaches then seems to naturally move to the QB - so having a \"vocal\" QB is an asset, but not a necessity for a quality team. Ok Houston, we have a problem. It seems that the vocal leader issue just muddies up the water. My contention about Brooks has always been his lack of intangibles or football smarts. I also find it maddening that he can\'t make all the throws and continues to back into the rush. Montana may not have been a fire breather or field disciplinarian, but he had a clear idea of what he wanted to accomplish and was able to direct his guys to make it happen. He was master of the field and always recognized what the defense was doing. Brooks does not seem to have a similar aptitude, regardless of being vocal or not, he doesn\'t seem to have the capacity to direct, grasp or inspire. I\'m not sure I think the vocal part is even part of the equation.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

12-09-2004, 06:58 PM	#205
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,457 Blog Entries: 3	Brooks We should have kept JT. We need to get rid of Brook\'s and cut Bouman (a waste of air), and Haz needs to leave the state as quickly as possible.

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

12-09-2004, 08:54 PM	#206
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks Houston! Help BMG! We have a problem! Boys, you had to know our peaceful co-existence wouldn\'t last. BMG, A fine point. We were merely talking about Brooks\' leadership qualities, not the other things you\'ve mentioned. Of course, those are important too. Brooks has many problems (not the least of which you list). However, it is my general view that \"intangibles\" is ambiguous - it is a word that stands in for many things. One of them is \"leadership\". Whodi, Mutineer, and myself have argued that \"leadership\" breaks up into AT LEAST two kinds: vocal - chewing out, being emotive, being firey, and example - playing well, being ballsy on the field, getting things done. I think we all agree that Brooks has little to none of either. However, it is still worth making the distinction, since people make arguments that are incorrect if they don\'t make the distinction: namely, unless you\'re all up in peoples\' faces, you ain\'t no leader. This is false, look at Montana, or RBs - they are example leaders rather than vocal leaders, BUT they are leaders nonetheless. Thus, I argue that vocal is part of the equation, but I agree with you that it is only a small part. And, I argue, that it is not a necessary part of the equation. So, I don\'t think we have a problem. What do you think? Cherm, Buddy, someone needs to make an argument as to why JT is any good (though I agree that he was probably better than Bouman). He looked like carp in the preseason, so I don\'t know why people keep thinking that he\'s all that. This \"Klingsbury\" guy, or whatever the heck his name is, is so far just as good as JT was (since we know relatively little about either).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-09-2004, 09:42 PM	#207
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks why JT is any good (though I agree that he was probably better than Bouman). He looked like carp in the preseason Sorry, struck me funny, had to be done. So, I don\'t think we have a problem. What do you think? OK, I can buy that. In fact, I can agree wholeheartedly that the \"in your face\" style is not necessarily leadership at all. I see the QB\'s job to direct the offense. Hence, the emphasis we hear all the time about the QB learning the playbook. My big accusation against Brooks for some time now has been that he is a sandlot player. He\'s really pretty good when he\'s improvisational and freelancing. He\'s just the guy you want as QB at the family reunion or the company picnic. He\'s not the guy you want to pay millions of dollars to direct a professional offense. I have questioned his mechanics, his ability to see what the defense is giving him and his ability to work with the offense to execute a game plan. However, in this narrow context I think that leadership is directing the offense effectively and making the guys around you better. I think Brooks has a particularly hard time with having the confidence of the guys playing around him. Haslett is partly to blame for this predicament because as an offensive player you never know if you are going to make the media hi-light reel showing how it isn\'t Brooks\' fault. Brooks also bears responsibility as well. Throughout his career, he has been a little too eager to point the finger at the guys around him or to make excuses for himself. I can\'t imagine it might not seem natural to try and trust a guy who will push you in front of the bus if things go badly. When Brooks first appeared, he was this peppy, eager guy who seemed happy to be playing. He was pretty fast and had a big arm. He didn\'t have to do too much. If he missed his first read, he ran. We all loved that kid. The problem was that he never seemed to really move past that. He\'s still making rookie mistakes and relying too much on the canon arm to bail him out. Even worse, he now has a canon mouth to go with it. And the bottom line remains that he isn\'t directing the offense on the field. That\'s kind of where my beef with his leadership ability lies. He seems to \"me-first\" to really help the guys he\'s playing with.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

12-10-2004, 02:11 AM	#208
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks BMG, (1) Hilarious. I loved the carp. Damn, that\'s a good sized catch too! (2) It looks like you agree too now. This thread is just getting better and better. PS - :dancingmonkey:

12-10-2004, 02:57 PM	#209
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Brooks WhoDat blaming Brooks? But he says he\'s not blaming Brooks. That\'s typical WhoDat. At least have the guts to take a stand. Just kidding WhoDat. :P Brooks hasn\'t played great, but who has? I could and DO blame Deuce more than Brooks. Deuce has looked awful this year. Our running game and run blocking has forced Brooks to throw the ball more than any other QB in the NFL. You folks do understand that we have the worst defense in the NFL and absolutely no running game. How many QB\'s do you think would be sucessful in that situation? Books is in the absolute worst situation a QB could be in. He has to drop back to pass on every play and everyone knows. it. And to top it off, our offensive line sucks. No one is going to do well if put in the same situation. Get off Brooks and jump on Deuce. He\'s looked worse than Brooks. Or, blast the defense. Or coaching. Who started this thread.......?? Oh yeah, Whodat did. Go figure.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

12-10-2004, 05:49 PM	#210
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks WhoDat blaming Brooks? But he says he\'s not blaming Brooks. That\'s typical WhoDat. At least have the guts to take a stand. Just kidding WhoDat. Is it just me or does this not read like \"just kidding\"? Nice to see you back though Billy. I\'ve missed your perspective. Get off Brooks and jump on Deuce. He\'s looked worse than Brooks. Or, blast the defense. Or coaching. I\'m not sure I understand this sort of argumentation. Everyone else has looked awful. The coaching has been awful. Brooks has looked awful. Therefore it\'s ok to talk about the coaching and anyone else, but Brooks is verboten? If everything is bad, why not talk about everything? Who started this thread.......?? Oh yeah, Whodat did. Go figure. Just a couple of items here. 1. This thread got the JoeSam stamp of approval for thoughtful discussion with respect all around. I think it is right up there with the Tony Dungy thread in the other forum as one of the better discussions I\'ve ever been a part of on this board. If you wish to support Brooks or make an argument that he is being scapegoated here, by all means make the argument and know that your opinion will be respected. But please let\'s not get sidetracked with trying to put verbal thumbs in the other guy\'s eye. You\'re better than that. You\'re a passionate fan with a valuable point of veiw Billy. Castigating each other doesn\'t provide the dialogue with anything constructive. 2. I think that WhoDat\'s initial post was born out of frustration during the Denver game. The int that AB threw might as well have been a handoff to the linebacker. It wasn\'t one of AB\'s better moments. I don\'t think WhoDat was all that far out in being frustrated with the play. WhoDat also seemed to be contending that AB\'s longtime problem with backing out of the protection may be making the linemen worse than they are. This is a debatable topic since the offensive line has just been abysmal this season, but it\'s not a crazy thing to talk about. At any rate, as we face an offseason where virtually everyone agrees that major changes need to be made, it is very difficult not to discuss Brooks. His cap number is going to get very large this coming year and it is a good time to evaluate whether AB has more value to us as a tradable commodity, whether we should re-work his deal and whether he is the answer for this franchise at the QB position. I think that the board would be a much more interesting place with your perspective in answering those questions Billy. Is Brooks worth his cap number? Should we keep him? Is this supporting cast and coaching staff really holding a good player back? Let\'s not lose sight of what could be a pivotal off-season by making the other guy our punching bag. PS: JOESAM or HALO could we get an olive branch smiley to put in here? I\'d really like to see peace on the board.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg