Blowing up some arguments
 

I personally feel that 90% of this whole arguement is focusing on 100% of the wrong side of the ball, about 90% of the time.

Blowing up some arguments
 

(1) Gumbo, why are you badgering whodi. At least he makes arguments rather than just telling people they\'re stupid?

(2) Whodi, nice reply, as usual.

(3) Kerry Collins? Yikes, dude. We had him here, and he stunk, a lot. I wouldn\'t want him back even if he can take a team to the SB.

(4) We can win with Brooks and we have. In fact, if I recall correctly, he is the only Saints QB to win a playoff game. If he didn\'t have something to do with that, I don\'t know what to say. It wasn\'t like some other QB played that game - if QBs are to blame for losses, then they are to be praised for wins too.

(5) I thought that your point about OLines was interesting. It just wasn\'t as conclusive as you made it out to be. I wasn\'t saying I didn\'t think that was interesting, or of note; I was saying that it didn\'t on its own show that Brooks was the problem. As for hurries, when you avoid getting sacked you have been hurried, so if Brooks is more mobile and elusive than Bulger (a fact I think is true), it is quite plausible that he was hurried more often than Bulger, isn\'t it?

(6) I know we agree on Haz.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Like I said Gumbo, you see it one way, I see it another. With the often laughable comments you make on the board I doubt you have any idea what an NFL front office would or would not laugh out of their office so pardon me if I pay no mind to that. Go tell Marc Bulger he isn\'t supposed to be in the playoffs. Maybe you can stop by Daunte Culpepper\'s house on the way. NOONE drops more passes than the Seahawks, tell them they shouldn\'t be in the playoffs. Give me a break bud. Tell the Texans they shouldn\'t be winning 8 games as an expansion team. We only win 8 games and have been around 38 years. So, as everyone knows the problems on D and talk about it ad nauseum, I choose not to. I know your biggest hope is that people focus on other problems and ignore how big a problem your homeboy is, but I won\'t. I know we need LBs and T and a DT and S, but that is not gonna shield me from the fact that our qb is a moron who hasn\'t gotten better in 5 years. Like I asked Kool, is there a limit to how many moves can be made in the offseason? No. So once the key needs are addressed, we can get a halfway decent qb in here.

So you can save your \"all you wanna talk about\" speeches for someone else my man. Your \"the qb always gets all the blame and shouldn\'t\" argument that contradicts your \"Peyton Manning is a choke artict\" comment was more than enough for me to show how you like to talk it both ways.

Blowing up some arguments
 

I\'m not badgering whodi. It\'s his arguement that I have a problem with. And I\'m trying to get to the bottom of it.

There has been, and will be no name calling from me. I\'m sticking to the facts as I believe them to be. And as far as I can tell whodi is doing the same.

Blowing up some arguments
 

(1) Gumbo, it just came off a bit strong, bud.

(2) Whodi, there is a limit to the number of moves you can make in the offseason - I argued that above, before you got into it with Gumbo here.

(3) Minnesota should not have been in the playoffs. I\'ll tell Culpepper if I get a chance.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Danno, you are right, but how many times can you say, we need a run-stopping LB. We need a stud DT. We need tackles. We need safeties. I mean if you wanna talk about that, that\'s cool, but why does that preclude me fromm being able to talk about something else? I weigh in on those discussions too, but right now they aren\'t important to me. Everyoen will talk about who we should get, then we get noone but Jacob Jamowitz. Who you say? Exactly.

Kool, I agree with you. It is not a definitive argument, but as I said I couldn\'t find complete line stats. But it does eliminate ONE criteria of the line as being the weakest correct? Just wanted to show there are playoff teams with bad lines also. And penalties. And poor defenses. That\'s all.

Ask yourself Kool, who has been to a Superbowl, Collins or AB?

I still disagree that we can win with Brooks. We were 7-4 WITHOUT Brooks that year, and we have been .500 with him since. I do not see .500 as winning, ever, in any circumstance. It has been that way since the team made the decision to ride this guy. Nope, don\'t like it.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Actually Kool, there is no limit, but there is a cap. It just takes a little creativity. They have it figured out in Washington, why don\'t we? If we get half the players they get, we could be successful. We coulda gotten Trotter last year for cheap. Their defense is a top ranked unit and they get free agents like every year.

Blowing up some arguments
 

saintswhodi--

You\'re trying to covience me and everyone else here that Brooks is the biggest problem here. FINE. You\'re entitled to try to convince me of that. And I\'m reading everything you say on the subject.

But, you\'ve already admitted Brooks is only 10% of the problem in your mind. That means you blame the other 90% on something other than Brooks.

You then go on to say you don\'t believe we can ever win with Brooks. Can 10% of the problem really keep us from doing that.

I mean, if we correct the other 90% you don\'t think we can be a contender?

That\'s very confusing to me how you can think that.

I watch all the games and I see much more than Brooks that\'s keeping us from winning.

I saw Brooks and the offense go down and score the game winning TD against \"Vick\" AND the Falcons, with only over a minute left on the clock.

What happened? The defense allowed Vick and the Falcons to drive the length of the field and beat us.

Sure Brooks could play better. But I still can\'t pin all the things on him that you do....

[Edited on 25/1/2005 by GumboBC]

Blowing up some arguments
 

Apparently about 1/10th as much as we discuss Aaron Brooks.

Blowing up some arguments
 

I was thinking the same thing!! :P LMAO!!