Blowing up some arguments
 

I was watching the Eagles-Falcs game, and they mentioned how Vick was the most sacked qb in the league outside of David Carr. And I found that interesting since a huge argument people tend to use for AB is the play of the line and he has no time to throw. Well, Carr, Vick, and Culpepper were sacked more than Leon. Two of the 3 were in the playoffs(one the NFC champ game) and Carr is on an expansion team that had the same record as us. Marc Bulger was sacked the same amount of times as Brooks, but he missed two full games or it would have been more as well. Again, in the playoffs. And if we add in the sacks Chandler took while Bulger was out, Rams qbs were second in the league in being sacked. Here's the stats:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/...r?&_1:col_1=13

All of them also had better qb ratings than Brooks, except Vick, but we know the extra factor he brings to the game.

So then I decided to look at rushing stats. Now this is with the fact in mind that Deuce missed two games and played hurt in several others. Falcons led the league, but most of that is Vick, the extra factor I talked about earlier. Houston was 12th, Minnesota 18th, and the Rams one spot better than us. Not one of them had a dominating run game. In the Rams case, they were equally as bad.

So that leaves the defense and penalties. Oakland has the most offensive penalties and we are second, and the Rams right behind us. Amazingly Philadelphia is right there after them. Now these are not broken down into penalties for delay of game by the qb or holding and what not so I can't get an accurate assessment of what they are all for. That is just number of penalties though. In penalty yards per game we are FIFTEENTH. Worse than us, Indy, Green Bay, Minny, Denver, St. Louis, New England, Seattle, Philly, San Diego among playoff teams. Amazingly enough, they all have strong play from their qbs.

Lastly we have defense. We know we were last. But Indy was 29th. Minny was 28th, Seattle, 26th, Green Bay, 25th, Houston 23rd. All in the playoffs except Houston, again a 4th year expansion team with the same record as us. And the difference between 32nd and 23rd is a mere 42 yards per game. Wow.

Now with the help of BMG, I have already weighed in on the mis-leading dropped passes stat. Seems like bad passes are a much bigger factor for our team than drops. So someone explain to me why these are made to be the reasons why we can't make the playoffs when other temas do it and why there isn't more blame for Brooks? Just good discussion.



[Edited on 23/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

Blowing up some arguments
 

Nice work Whodi. This should prove interesting.

(1) By your argument, our OLine is as good as several that made the playoffs (e.g. Minnesota and Atlanta, as well as probably the St. Louis). We all know that is not the case. Thus, I conclude that there is an error in evaluating the line based on sacks allowed; I don\'t know what, but something.

(2) Before we evaluate how much work AB had to do to avoid the sacks, we must also acknowledege QB hurries. How many times were these other QBs, who were sacked more often hurried? If we don\'t know that we cannot evaluate the pass protection that was provided.

(3) As for dropped passes, I agree that wasn\'t much of an issue. However, missed passing attempts can occur for many reasons that have little to do with the QB - e.g. WRs on bad routes, good sideline coverages, throwing the ball away to avoid sacks, etc. While I really like your argument, it is hard for me to conclude that missed pass attempts were all on the QB using the aggregate stats you listed.

(4) People who are against Brooks are happy to cite WHEN and WHERE turnovers occured matter A LOT in evaluating him. How come they don\'t admit that when and where a penalty happened or a sack was allowed by the OLine matter a lot in evaluating the blame on the QB.

(5) Also, according to those who want to see Brooks go, Passer Rating is not a good way to evaluate a QB. Notice that no one likes when people point out that Brooks QB rating is better than Vick or Bledsoe, so why do we suddenly get to use it against him. When Brooks is allowed to \"just play\" in the fourth quarter, his passer rating is phenomenal, but it doesn\'t get to count for a reason to keep him. I see no reason to think this stat really tells us much of anything.

(6) I\'m going to have to disagree with you that 42 yards a game isn\'t very much. That is a huge difference in offensive out put allowed. Also, our defense stank and was on its way to being the WORST EVER in the NFL. Again, when and where the defense sucked it up is relevant to the play of our QB. When we are behind by a lot, the QB is asked to do even more. Our D left us in terrible position where the O is asked to do more and more. We both know that matters.

Don\'t get me wrong, I\'ll continue to think about your argument. It is very compelling. However, the stats you are using, IMO, are far too coarse-grained to provide a good analysis of what is going on. Also, some of the points you use seem to defend Brooks as much as impune him - if it matter when he threw a pick, then it matters where we took a penalty or allowed a sack or called a pass when we should have run, etc.

Everyone agrees that Brooks shares in the blame. All people seem to disagree about is how bad he is - that is the degree of blame he should take. IMO it is around 5% (quite a bit for a team that is usually composed of about 30 regular players) and coaching, play calling, our, lets face, shiznity defense, and our poor, poor, poor, OLine (just ask Duece what he thinks about the blocking he got this year) are considerably more than that.

Not only that if you are going to compare us to Minny in terms of making the playoffs - we didn\'t make because Brien missed a FG instead of made it. I don\'t see that they are any better than us in any relevant way.

Blowing up some arguments
 

As if Brooks could be blamed MORE?

Your logic is bent. Are just gonna look at stats now and ignore the painfully obvious fact that the o-line did not give Brooks an adequate time to read and make throws.

I mean there are so many holes in your \"since these other teams have more sacks, their o-lines must have been worse\" argument, it\'s just silly. Maybe Bulger holds the ball longer than AB or Carr faced better secondaries. Maybe AB threw the ball away before getting sacked more often and thus lowered the sack total.

I\'m basically just taking issue that you are ignoring the truth that for most of the season the o-line sucked so that you can find another reason to blame AB for the Saints not making the playoffs.

You spend an auful lot of time and energy trying to prove what many (most?) of us already recognize: AB probably needs to be replaced.

JK, I wish I had spent as much time responding as you did. Nice response.

[Edited on 24/1/2005 by ScottyRo]

Blowing up some arguments
 

Hhhmmm, what else am I gonna do with the postseason? We aren\'t in the playoffs AGAIN, and I find Leon to be a prime reason. Maybe you don\'t Scotty, bully for you. I applaud you, but if others can rant about how much they want to have Brooks here, I can rant about how much I don\'t, correct?

JKool, I know for a fact our line is equal to if not better than the Rams line. So no we don\'t all know that is not the case. The Rams line is terrible, TERRIBLE. Minny\'s not much better. And we ignore the fact that Brooks backs into the rush also. I didn;t even put that in there. If that happened even 5 times on the year and he got sacked, and that is 5 out of 16 games, there are about 5 more teams that would be above us in times sacked. So yes I am gonna say these lines were worse than ours. Rams and Houston for sure, Minny is close.

Also, Deuce rushed for over 1,000 yards after missing two games and being hurt like I said. Our line must be doing something right. He isn\'t blocking for himself.

And I am not saying penalties don\'t happen at inopportune times nor have I ever, but red zone turnovers hurt a lot more than a 5 yard false start in 1st and 15 at the 30 doesn\'t it? It does to me.

Also cool, stands to reason if you are getting sacked a lot, you are also being hurried. I would find there would be very rare instances in the NFL where a qb who is sacked a lot isn;t hurried.

On the passer rating deal, you got the wong guy. Onr of my biggest arguments always has been Brooks\' pathetic passer rating for years. If it is 80, it is barely 80. You would have to speak to others who don\'t wanna use that, it is very important to me.

And you are of the opinion the D has hurt the O, but I am of the opinion that a team that can\'t score in the first quarter AND turns the ball over hurts the D. That goes 3 and out giving the other team 3 and 4 possessions in the first quarter hurts the D. We can\'t evaluate when the D let down the O, but we can evaluate when the O let down the D, and that is every first quarter of at least 14 games.

Again Scotty, I have to diagree with you. You can dance around a lot of excuses as to why PLAYOFF teams have qbs sacked more than ours and more negative penalty yards from their offense and defenses just as terrible, but I am through rationalizing that. Again, if we can rant FOR Brooks, why is noone allowed to rant against him?

Blowing up some arguments
 

I\'m certainly not saying you cannot argue for whatever inane thing you want to here. I\'m not a mod, nor will I ever be a mod. It seems to castrate some of the better members to a degree. WD. ;)

Anyway, my main point - which I might have gotten away from - was that using the sack stat was not enough to claim that AB is the major reason we didn\'t make the playoffs rather than the o-line. The o-line sucked and I think that is undisputable.

That being said there are MANY other reasons why you and I can blame AB for not getting us into the playoffs. I do blame him to the degree I feel is deserved. There is MUCH blame to go around. Until I see a valid alternative to AB being our starting QB, I\'m not going to call for his replacement everyday .

Blowing up some arguments
 

Easy there big fella. You know I love you.

I\'m sticking to my claim that aggregate stats will not prove too many points; though I was very impressed with your work. Stats can be helpful in making some points, but we both agree that what happened is as important as the stats (consider the CB who no one throws at because he is that good - no stats but those watching the game can see his effect). I am, however, interested in still discussing some of these issues, so I\'ll get over that.

(1) Ok, lets say those lines are so terrible (having not seen them play very often, I\'ll take your word for it), how did they make the playoffs? On the strength of the rest of their team, I\'m willing to bet. It certainly wasn\'t just their QB, which seems to follow from what you\'ve said. Your argument is that these teams\' OLines are as bad as ours - conclusion QB is the reason they\'re in and we\'re not. Are you telling me that Culpepper and Bulger are THE reason that these teams made it and we didn\'t? (Ignore the fact that Minny made it on the \"strength\" of O\'Brien\'s leg - the only difference between them and us I can see with respect to the playoffs.) I\'m inclined to think not. Certainly other things played a role. Here are my guesses, in no particular order: (1) QB, (2) WRs, (3) RBs, (4) TEs, (5) OLine, (6) DLine, (7) LBs, (8) DBs, (9) Coaching, (10) Play calling, (11) Personel, (12) Talent, (13) Reffing, (14) Weather conditions, (15) any thing I forgot in the first 14.

(2) Duece is a top five back. Thus, he should perform well, even when the line doesn\'t; think of all those years Barry Sanders (and don\'t start with me on how there is no way to compare, because there is - they\'re both top five backs) produced with what appeared to be a pretty shakey OL. Now, I\'ll grant you the fact that he got so many yards says that our OL can RUN block, at least some. However, we both watched those games and saw guys like Holland plain wiffing on DLinemen. In fact, our pass blocking is somewhat sub-par.

(3) As for the hurries, my point wasn\'t that those other guys didn\'t get hurried. What I meant was this: total number of sacks plus total number of hurries would be more relevant to making your point than just sacks alone. It is possible that Brooks was hurried more often than Carr or Bulger and not sacked, as he is more elusive than either of those other two.

(4) Look, the point about penalties and turn overs is that where and when they happen is more important than how frequently (though that matters too). Thus, I will not grant that point to you. Agreed that your example is right, but a false start penalty on the other teams 20 yard line when we just tossed a TD is pretty bad too! Many people on this board will agree with this point; I\'m pretty sure you do too. The point here isn\'t that you\'re wrong about the penalty issue, it is just that the simple stats you gave are inconclusive on this point.

(5) I don\'t remember anyone ranting FOR Brooks for some time. I think that the strongest argument for keeping Brooks is that there is no one else as good available who isn\'t a risk. We disagree on the \"Devil you know point\", and I don\'t see that any argument will change peoples\' mind on that. If Brees becomes available, I say take a look. Otherwise get over the unproven guys; I don\'t see an argument for that at all. Brooks has proven he can win 8 games a year. Improve the defense and we\'ll one or two more and make the playoffs. He doesn\'t have to be great, he just needs to be himself to get to the playoffs. I\'m not going to cry if we get someone better than him, but if we waste our time on that instead of improving our LBs and OTs, I am going to go ballistic.

(7) I don\'t think passer rating counts for much. I\'d have to hear an argument for why it should really be a stat at all; there was a good discussion, here at B&G, of this at about midseason as I recall. There are good QBs with poor passer ratings (e.g. Drew Bledsoe) and poor QBs with good passer ratings (e.g. Brian Griese). Furthermore, I was merely pointing out that people who would generally agree with your argument would NOT agree with this premise. It was just a point for discussion; it was not aimed at you - just for the record.

Blowing up some arguments
 

:sleeping:

Blowing up some arguments
 

Kool, nothing but love for you. And I would continue the dance, but it appears you can\'t make a statement on here and have a decent disagreement without people being rude if they disagree, not meaning you. What happened to, hhhmm, I don\'t like this thread, I will IGNORE it. Hell ignore me. I am gonna rant regardless. But if you don\'t wanna see the argument, don\'t read it. Plain and simple.

But since you took your time to rebut Kool, I will reply in kind. When Iw atched the Saints play, being that I live in San Antonio, I have to go to a sports bar. Fast Eddie\'s inthis case who has Sunday ticket and shows all the games on big screens. I have seen many teams play many times, including the Rams. Their line is worse than ours. Truly. And don\'t let what Minny did to us when we played them fool you, their line is bad, as well as the Texans. And I related these teams to us in regards to defeense and penalties and NONE of them were that much better. So we can look at all the factors, which is what I did, tied them together initially. I took into account the line, penalties, and defense for us, the Rams, Minny and the Texans. Seemed pretty even.

Now on your point about Brien, I agree. If not for his leg, we woulda been in. But look at it like this, the Rams, who are no better than us, beat Seattle twice. The Vikes, who are barely better than us, beat us. We lost to two winless teams. Had we taken care of a semblence of business in any one game early on, we woulda been in with no need for help. But we didn\'t.

You know I am gonna call shenanigans on the Deuce Barry point. Not that they can\'t be compared, but they are such different backs. It is like comparing Jerome Bettis to Warrick Dunn. Deice is a power runner who has some speed. He is not gonna dance in the backfield and skirt around people like Barry did. Deuce is a good inside runner who can occasionally turn the corner. Barry could make 3 guys miss in the backfield. So since Deuce\'s yards come mainly from plowing ahead, the line must have been decent there. Not great, decent.

I couldn\'t find a place to get hurry stats. Can you? I would be willing to look at that. Now you and I agreed before the center-qb exchange looks slow on our team and at points Brooks backs into the rush. So consider these factors and we STILL weren\'t the worst in the league at giving up sacks, there is some credence to that argument. Now we do know AB is capable of thrwoing the ball backwards and under-handed to LBs to avoid sacks, so maybe that\'s why the total is lower. See if you can find those hurries so we can add them.

Gumbo( I know I know) rants for Brooks frequently. Also, if you are in the crowd of(we can\'t get anyone with his \"talent\" if we let him go,\" you are pulling for Brooks. My thing is, we don\'t make the playoffs with him so what\'s the difference?

On to Bledsoe, I don\'t think he is a good qb so thus his poor passer rating is correct to me. I also think Griese is a hell of a lot more competent than Brooks so his decent passer rating speaks to me. It\'s all in how you like at it. He definitely has LESS talent around him on O, so if he has a good passer rating, speaks volumes to me about our qb.

The thign is, you say Brooks is able to win 8 games. To me, he is getting worse. He definitely hasn\'t gotten better. So if there are no changes in a qb in 5 years,and he makes the same mistakes and dumb reads and bad throws, don\'t you think opposing teams can see this and plan for it? He thinks he\'s great. so why would eh change anything? That is a disadvantage to me already before going into the next season. We will have to see if he can win 8. He only plays well in abou 3 of the 8.

Scotty, I don\'t knwo if you don;t see it, but I am not the only one who calls for Leon\'s head every day. I guess it is just more convenient to only reply to me cause I try to give a better argument than just \"he sucks.\"

Blowing up some arguments
 

Whodi, I\'ve been waiting for your reply buddy.

Nice work. Here is a quick response, since I have to go teach shortly - I didn\'t want to leave you hanging though.

(1) We don\'t agree on Griese and Bledsoe, but that is ok with me for now. Other people can judge the argument on the basis of this premise for themselves. I\'m not convinced by this one.

(2) Yeah, I don\'t understand why people try to control the board by saying what they think is boring or stupid or repetitive. They should just move on and not mess up other peoples\' discussions. If they\'re interested in something else, they should post it. I, for one, thought your argument was interesting and interesting in what I count as its flaws.

(3) I\'ll take your word for the other teams\' lines - as I noted before, I haven\'t seen them play, you have and I trust your views (most of the time).

(4) Agreed on the factors that did/did not get us close to the playoffs. My point there is that saying those teams made the playoffs the way you did made it sound like they ruled despite having sucky OLs and sacked QBs - which we will both agree is not the case. Thus, I was arguing that your point sounded better than it was on this dimension.

(5) I knew you\'d disagree on the Barry Duece thing, but I too believe they are very different. We agree that a decent line AT RUN BLOCKING is all that is needed for Duece (and that was secretly my point). Thus, Dueces running stats are hard to relate to how bad the line was and how bad it was at PASS BLOCKING.

(6) I can\'t find the hurry stats either. But heck, I can\'t find \"thrown to\" stats anywhere either. Blah.

(7) I\'m sticking with this: Brooks can win 8 games with no OL and no Defense and Duece. We cannot say that about any of the guys who keep getting tossed about as possible replacements (except maybe Brees). If we improve the OL and the D, we will make the playoffs. Brooks other flaws aside, I see no reason to think this argument is false. With more pressing needs on D and OL, I see no reason to waste time getting a new QB; if one falls in our lap, hey, I\'m not gonna complain...

Cheers.

Blowing up some arguments
 

I\'m just not sure that even with the patriots or colts offensive line brooks would be much bettter.

However, as you said there is no one much better without more risk...

I think the key with brooks is accountability and having to earn his keep. he\'s got the talent, he\'s just lazy -IMO

Blowing up some arguments
 

Thanks for getting back Kool. I see there are several points we are gonna disagree on. But that\'s all good. I see it still comes down to the \"who\'s better than Brooks out there\" and that makes me ill cause this staff put us in this position. That is more frustrating than anything else. That\'s like if you needed a new car cuase yours runs okay, but occasionally it stalls and won\'t start, and you miss work. So you shop for a new car, but none of the ones in your price range APPEAR(key word) to be better than yours. Now without driving any of them, you have chosen to stick with the one that stalls on you cause you know what it can do and risk losing your job. I on the other hand would take a shot at the new car and the chance that it wouldn\'t stall on me. But if it does, what have I lost? I had the same thing either way. Add to that the fact that the old car thinks it\'s better than most other cars on the road and blames you for its stalls, well you see where I am going. :P

Hi baron, I agree with this

100%. It was evident even in the last 4 games this year when the TEAM played much better. He was still just as inconsistent as ever.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Whodi, I don\'t think we really disagree on that much. However, I wouldn\'t say that it comes down to no one better - that is just an additional fact.

I like your analogy, but the risk isn\'t that you can\'t do worse, because you could do A LOT worse. You\'re merely risking your job with your current vehicle; with a new vehicle you could guarantee losing your job - say you buy a car that never runs. Also, in our case, we don\'t just need to buy a car but we also need a nice suit and brief case. If we buy a new car, instead of investing in those other things, and the new car turns out to be a dud, we\'re in even worse shape than sticking with the risk we currently have.

My argument, however, remains the same: Brooks can win 8 games. Does anyone really think that with a better than last placed defense and a solid offensive line, that we wouldn\'t do better? That must be the position held by those who claim that Brooks sack stats, etc. are HIS fault (or mostly his fault). By that reasoning, we\'d have to blame Bulger, Culpepper, and Vick for their sacks - since their lines were as bad as ours and those guys took more sacks (at least if we grant Whodi\'s point about this).

Blowing up some arguments
 

You missed my point Kool. It was never that Leon caused these sacks, although I feel he is responsible for some. My point on the sacks was there are playoff teams with about the same offensive line, defense and penalties, if not worse, that were in the show. We weren\'t again. I never said AB causes the sack problems, though you and I have been through this point before and we BOTH agreed AB does cause SOME sacks. An exact number can\'t be determined. So this:

is not a correct statement. I will cite the Rams again cause I have seen a lot of their games. Bulger does not run around in the pocket and generally gets rid of the ball fairly quickly. Yet he was sacked as many times as AB and missed two games. My point is there are playoff teams with lines as bad as AB supporters wanna say ours is, if not worse. I think you totally mis-read me on that one, cause AB causes most of the sacks was NEVER my point.

Agreed on the new suit and briefcase, but I see other teams with a slightly better car and an old suit and briefcase similar to ours in the playoffs. And in the case of the Texans, 8-8 with a tougher division and conference. So to me, if we upgrade the car, that alone will get us to the playoffs. Upgrading the car need not be priority one, but it needs to be done THIS off-season. That is another point I have always made. I never said there weren\'t bigger problems, but even if there are does that mean we can\'t address this one also? Is there a limit to how many problems can be addressed in one off-season? That\'s about as bad as the \"noone else with his talent\" out there argument. You basically are saying you would keep a qb not cause he is good or brings added value to the team, but cause he is the default option. I want no part of that.

And YOU CAN do a lot worse, but if your goal is to reach the Superbowl, and you can\'t even make the playoffs in the last 4 years, how much worse can it be? If we miss the playoffs AGAIN next year, but we are 3-13 instead of 8-8, will that somehow make it worse? We still aren\'t in the playoffs and we get Matt Leinart. 8-8 to me is horrible and I have said it all year. Our defenses and line was better the previous years, were we in the playoffs then? I guess I don\'t understand that. Defense got worse, which means it had to be better the last few years. Line got worse, which mean it had to be better the previous few years. What has been the same? Number 2.

[Edited on 24/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

Blowing up some arguments
 

Whodi, just as a point of order: I understood you fairly well, though thanks for the clairification, sometimes I make points that are directed at the views that other people have (even if I make them off of your good arguments).

Here is my response, but I have to say that it has been a fine discussion so far:

(1) The idea with respect to causing sacks (and again I know we agree on this one) is this: if the lines are equally good and the sacks are the same (or worse), thus the only difference is the QB, then an argument from aggregate stats says this - either our boy is the cause of some of his sacks and so are the other QBs you note given the stats, OR we don\'t look at the aggregate sack stats and we look at the particulars (which is what you did in citing the Rams - good point). If we look at the particulars then comparing their aggregate sack stats is merely misleading - since the particulars matter. That was the point we were discussing earlier regarding the where, when, and how turnovers and penalties earlier. It is simply my view that you are a smart guy who knows his sh-t; this argument that you gave just doesn\'t work, since it requires the aggregate stats and ignoring of the particulars. I thought it was interesting, but flawed. I like the points when you point to particulars much better - those are often stronger and more compelling arguments.

(2) There is a limit to the number of problems that can be addressed in the offseason. We have only so many draft picks, so much money, so many available options, and so much available time. This, it seems to me, makes it the case that we have to prioritize. My priority list goes like this: LB, OT, LB, DT, OT, S, CB, and then maybe QB (but that is in close with TE, Backup RB, another Safety, and an OG).

(3) I just don\'t see that the QB situation is so dire it needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW. Soon, perhaps, but now? Our QB can make the playoffs, win a playoff game, win 8 games a year with the WORST defense in the league (almost of all time), and an OLine that we all agree needs SERIOUS help. Sure he\'s no Culpepper or Bulger, but he\'s no Collins either.

(4) A fine point on our having a better line and defense in the past, but there is a point about how much better they\'ve been. We need serious improvement in both areas. Our coaching has been the same over that time too, and I believe that is a big factor in our number of wins - not only number 2 has been the same all along. It is my opinion that coaching has hurt us more than our QB - this is not a rare view around here.

Blowing up some arguments
 

As you know I have called for Haslett\'s departure as well, consistently. So coaching is a problem for me as well.

See my point isn\'t to say these qbs cause sacks for their teams, the point was despite the number of sacks for these qbs their teams were in the playoffs. I am not discerning whether they cause them, avoid them, or any of that. I simply felt that our qb position was weaker than those of other teams in similar situations. I titled the thread as I did cause the common mis-conception is that Leon is held back cause of the line. I just wanted to point out none of those other guys were held back in similar situations. The sacks were just a stat I was using to compare line play. Are there other stats for the line? Yes, but I still find it hard to believe a line that gives up more sacks than ours gives up LESS hurries. I agree it is not as concise as it could be, but it was the easiest stat to look up for an o-line.

Here is where I stand on the off-season. If we go LB and T in free agency, I already consider us ahead of the game. That leaves us safety in the first round if Thomas Davis is available. Or Travis Johnson at DT. That takes care of 3 of the 4 biggest needs between free agency and the draft. If we trade Leon after free agency, that probably gives us a player or an extra pick in the draft, one or the other. I for one am not against a rookie starting at qb, cause I don\'t see us winning with the one we have. I think that\'s where our biggest divide in our arguments is. QB is lower on your list cause you think we can win with AB. I do not.

And actually, I would take Collins over AB. He led his team to a Superbowl. He was a totally different guy in New York than in New Orleans and Carolina and posted good stas in Oakland with NO running game and average at best receivers. That\'s just me though. He is no Ken Dorsey, I can say that. ;)

Blowing up some arguments
 

saintswhodi--

Your game is exactly the same as many foks here at B&G.

You try and blame EVERYTHING on Brooks.

Hey, there\'s nothing wrong if you think Brooks can\'t get the.
job done.

However, when you start to say things such as:

1. Our offensive line didn\'t affect Brooks and team.
2. Dropped passes haven\'t hurt.
3. Our defense isn\'t LARGELY responsible for us not making the playoffs.

When you start saying those things you become a \"one trick pony\". It\'s clear to me that you have only a purpose here. And that\'s to convince folks that Brooks is almost totally at fault! And no one else!!

Your refusal to talk about much elese, other than Brooks, tells me a lot about you and that\'s about all I got to say about that.

So, when I say the offensive line and dropped passes hurt Brooks. I\'m not say Brooks isn\'t responsible for a lot of what happened. I\'m saying there\'s PLENTY of blame to go around.

Get it? Or course you don\'t!! And you never will... ;)

Blowing up some arguments
 

Hey, no sweat off my back. You have your opinion, I have mine, If all you got out of this argument was all the blame is on Brooks, as normal you haven\'t read it or don\'t understand it. If you look a post or two up, you can see CLEARLY where I list problems that should be addressed before Brooks. But since you were called out, you gotta find aomeone on the opposite side of the fence and try to claim bias. Nice try though. It woulda worked had I not seen how most of your \"disagreements\" go.

Blowing up some arguments
 

saintswhodi --

Hey dude, it\'s all good. You certainly aren\'t alone is blaming Brooks for most of this team\'s failures.

You just all happen to be wrong.... :P

Just out of curiousity, what % of the problem would you say Brooks is?

25? 50? 75? 99? What % would you say Brooks is?

Blowing up some arguments
 

Realizing that there is a front office, coaches, and 52 other players, I would give him a hearty 10%. That is a lot for an individual player. But since you blame him 0%, there won\'t be any fair answer for you cause I went above that mark. ;)

[Edited on 25/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

Blowing up some arguments
 

Brooks is 10% of the problem, huh?

Yet, Brooks is 90% of all you talk about. Now, that doesn\'t make much sense.

I think Brooks is more like 15% of the problem. Honestly, I do. But that means there\'s 85% more of a reason we\'re not making the playoffs.

I also think that the 15% blame that I\'m placing on the QB (Brooks) can be reduced by shoring up the O-line.

You go to great lengths to show us how the O-line, dropped passes, penalties, etc., are no excuse.

Do you HONESTLY think poor blocking, dropped passes, and penalties are no excuse?

Look bud, you\'re not going to convince anyone of that.

IMO, you\'d be better off making your case about Brooks and leave that arguement out of it.

If you told that to an NFL coach they would laugh you out of their office. No offense, but they would.

So, talk about the % of bad throws and you\'ve got yourself a credible arguement. Talk about is stupid remarks to the media. Talk about anything on the Brooks\' subject, but leave penalties, dropped passes, and poor blocking out of it.

No one is going to buy that.

Look, football is about consistency from every position. Not just the QB position.

In fact, QB play depends more on the consistency of the other 10 guys than vice-versa. Brooks is only ONE guy.



[Edited on 25/1/2005 by GumboBC]

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!!

Blowing up some arguments
 

I am glad you watched that Gumbo. Did you watch him stink up Irving Stadium? Did you watch the backwards pass? Did you watch the under-handed throw to John Mobley? You realize he doesn\'t play for us right? Or how about in the first game when we were down 14-7 to Seattle and your guys throws an INT on his side of the field giving Seattle the ball IN THEIR OWN RED ZONE and effectively ending the game? I guess the D shoulda stopped them when they had just gotten off the field in the second half huh? Come on man.

Brooks gets 10%, like I said in my mind that is high when it is for an INDIVIDUAL PLAYER. Front Office and Haslett get 60 or 70% combined, and they aren\'t going anywhere so no fixing 90% won\'t get us anywhere cause we are keeping what I consider to be an adiitional 60%-70% along with Brooks. Understand now?

And I NEVER said Brooks was the BIGGEST problem, I said he is a big problem. Unlike you, I listen to people\'s arguments, and this is the second time in this one alone you have been off base and completely mis-stating what I have said. I guess when you have no good counter argument, mis-interpret and argue that misrepresentation right? Here\'s a small token of what I am talking about

Now maybe you can see where I listed THREE BIGGER PROBLEMS and how to address them. At least if you are gonna disagree with me, disagree with what I say and not what you make up.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Excuse me if I am wrong here but you do have the option to ignore any discussion about AB right? You aren\'t forced to read it or take part. If I am wrong about that, let me know. But if you don\'t wanna talk about it, you don\'t have to. You have a choice. I am choosing to talk about it, and not talk about something else. I see no reason why anyone needs to be told what is more important to discuss.

Blowing up some arguments
 

saintwhodi--

Okay, my bad. I guess you don\'t think Brooks is the BIGGEST problem. I\'ll admit, I haven\'t read every post you have ever made.

But, nevertheless, I do see that the MAJORITY of your posts are about Brooks.

Look, the QB position, by nature, is going to make more mistakes than any other SINGLE position on the team. Brooks\' INTs didn\'t keep us out of the playoffs. Brooks ints were no wose than these guys:

Tom Brady: 14INTS
Brett Favre: 17INTS
Trent Green: 17INTS
Jake Delhomme: 15INTS
Matt Hasselbeck: 15INTS
Mark Bulger: 15INTS

Some had a couple more or a couple less. You think all of those guys are bums?

Besides that, Brooks threw the 3rd most passes in the NFL. And did it behind one of the worst O-lines in the NFL.

You fail to take other things in to consideration and skew the facts!!







[Edited on 25/1/2005 by GumboBC]

Blowing up some arguments
 

I am not failing to take anything into consideration. Does Tom Brady lead his team to the Superbowl? Hell the playoffs? Every guy you listed does. See the difference now? I am not skewing anything. I am tired of EVERY season we have a new excuse as to why AB isn\'t the qb he should be, and I am ready for him to go. You aren\'t, I get that. But I am. So to that end, WE WILL NEVER AGREE until AB burns you again. But then I am sure there are more excuses ready. Why don\'t we just start preparing them now? We don\'t have to wait for the season.

And that quote was from this argument. You don\'t have to read all of them, just everything that is said. Any time you mention Brooks and it isn\'t praising him, people wanna say you think he is the biggest problem and I never said that.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Look, you want to talk about Brooks\' INTs. Fine. But, when I put them in some kind of context .. LIKE:

Tom Brady: 14INTS
Brett Favre: 17INTS
Trent Green: 17INTS
Jake Delhomme: 15INTS
Matt Hasselbeck: 15INTS
Mark Bulger: 15INTS

You don\'t want to hear it. INTs are INTs. No matter who makes them. It\'s just some TEAMS have the ability to overcome them.

Tom Brady, or any other QB, has never scored a TD by themselves.

Tom Brady\'s O-line gives him time to throw the ball almost all the time. Tom Brady\'s receivers get open. And Tom Brady\'s receivers catch the ball on a CONSISTENT basis.

What\'s more, Tom Brady\'s defense takes care of their business and gives him opportunity after opportunity by creating turnovers and stopping the opposing team\'s offense.

Tom Brady and the Pats offense only trailed in ONE quarter this year. That sure makes it easy on on QB. ANY QB!!

Blowing up some arguments
 

That\'s why arguments like this never end. Now you put it on Brady\'s team. What about Culpepper and Bulger\'s teams? That was my argument. But you have to compare AB and our team to Brady and a dynasty. Classic. Stick with Bulger and Culpepper. Why are their teams, which have the same problems as ours, able to get into the playoffs? Hhhmmm. Also, the Pats caoch makes ours coach looks like Gilbert Gottfried. But Mike Tice doesn\'t, people think Martz is an idiot. So explain that to me.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Whodi!!

You are fighting a losing fight. You have logic and common sense in your corner and the children look at the statistics. What the children don\'t realize is that the W-L percentage is the only real meaningful statistic. Leon has guided a talented offense to successive 8-8 season on the back of his \"greatness.\" While Culpepper, Bulger, and others have done slightly better. Why, because they are TEAM oriented and not SELF oriented. Leon is about 10% of the problem, but his ME FIRST attitude trickles down to the other 90% of the problem. One wonders if the real \"cancer\" in the locker room was Roaf, Turley, pick one. The dissention on the plane and in other places during the season is indicative of the negative feelings that the team has toward Leon. As I have said in the past, Leon is not the entire problem, but he IS the lightning rod for all that is wrong with the Saints.

After 5 years of 8-8, don\'t you think that it\'s time to TRY SOMETHING ELSE? Leon simply doesn\'t get it done, so, cut your losses and move on. I\'m not in love with Kitna, but he does appear to understand how a TEAM works, Leon doesn\'t. Therefore, let\'s looke at getting Kitna here for a season or two while we groom a young talented QB that we draft.

Blowing up some arguments
 

I am right there with you RDOX. That\'s what I am trying to get Gumbo to understand about my viewpoint. Just cause I say Leon is 10% of the problem, does not mean the other 90 being fixed would cure anything. If we change the other 90% and not Leon, he will just corrupt them as well. He is like a virus, and this team is the computer he is ruining. It\'s funny to me that Gumbo says no to Moss in another thread, a selfish player actually considered one of the greatest receivers of all time already, yet he says yes to Leon a selfish player who has done nothing but run his mouth and embarrass this team. Like I said before, classic.

Blowing up some arguments
 

Blowing up some arguments
 

RDOX & Whodi --

On one hand you guys claim that Brooks is only 10% of the problem. Then, in the same breath, you blame Brooks for just about every thing !!

For example:

You CAN\'T have it both ways. You either think Brooks is only 10% of the problem or you blame him for us not making the playoffs. Which means Brooks is much more than 10% of the problem. Surly you can understand that?

What do you mean if we fix the other 90% of the problems that you don\'t think that would cure anything?

Am I suppose to take that seriously? You\'ve got to be kidding me!!

I suppose having a defense that ranks last in the league didn\'t cost us a playoff spot. That\'s funny, \'cause when the defense starting playing well over the last 4-weeks, we NEVER lost a game. And guess who the QB was over the last 4 games? That\'s right.... Aaron Brooks.

As far as Bulger and Culpepper go. Well, both their teams finished 8-8. They had the same record as us. And we beat the Rams in our head-to-head match-up!!! How the Rams went to the playoffs and we didn\'t, I have no idea.

And guess what buddy, both the Rams and the Vikings have more talent than us. Or at least as much. I happen to think they have more talent myself!!

According to you guys, we have a playoff team if we had another QB. You really want us to believe that?

Not today, not tomorrow, not the next day either. I don\'t believe that!!!