Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Maybe Kyle Boller fits the bill.

First two season with the Ravens (a middle team - like us - in 2002, at 7-9, the year before they drafted him, and with an arguably superior defense to us) he had QBs ratings of 60.2 in \'03 and 70.9 in \'04. Boller was projected to be a pretty good QB and selected 19th overall in 2003, right about where we\'d pick if we were gunning for a QB in the draft. During his two first years, he\'s thrown 20 INTs and a mere 20 TDs.

Now, I\'m not saying I wouldn\'t take a Boller because of his future up-side, but if we\'re on the same page about our closing playoff window (in roughly a two year range), a QB like Boller won\'t get us there (at least according to his stats) any sooner than Brooks will.

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Leftwich may also be an example.

Also drafted in 2003, the Jags were 6-10 the year before (so slightly worse than us, I guess); he was drafted 7th overall though, so he may be better than what we could get at 16 (thus, I think Boller is a better example). In his first two seasons his QB ratings were 73.0 in \'03 (pretty sucky by your standards) and 82.2 in \'04 (not bad, but still only 2.7 better than AB). He\'s thown 29 TDs and 26 INTs during those two years - not great.

His average passer rating is 77.8 and AB\'s is 81.5 (not really a significant difference). However, over the last two years AB has thrown 45 TDs and 24 INTs. Overall AB has thrown 107 TDs and and 67 INTs - a much better ratio than Leftwich.

Rookie QBs it seems won\'t develop fast enough to help us if AB can\'t now - at least according to these guys\' stats. I know this ignores the \"leadership argument\", so don\'t anyone get all up about that. I\'ve merely been arguing that rookie QBs drafted near the middle of the first round by teams similar to ours aren\'t really that spectacular when compared statistically to the guy everyone wants to get rid of (or even at all - QB ratings in the 70s in their first year).

Thus, with a closing window, I\'m still left thinking the guy that we\'ve got will be better than a rookie. I remain open to discussion on this, but since I\'m only talking to myself at 2 am, I\'m starting to feel pretty confident. I\'m sure good argument will get me back on track tomorrow.

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Also, to get guys of this caliber, we\'d have to spend our 1st round pick. This means the FO would have to be ON FIRE during FA, or our defense and OLine will continue to have the same problems they do now - since neither squad will be getting a first rounder.

BnB, that\'s four...

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

PS - Whodi, now that I\'m thinking about it, I may have misunderstood your point about \"poor organizations\" in my earlier post. I now think that you just mean that the teams didn\'t have good records and good squads - your point wasn\'t about the orginization itself, right? Apologies. You can ignore my rant about that, if I was indeed wrong.

However, Leftwich and Boller, in my mind (at 2am mind you) make a pretty good argument against our drafting a QB to REPLACE Brooks this year.

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

JKool,

Excellent posts throughout, I read the entire thread. IMO, your view on this subject most closely mirrors mine. I think you constructed an air-tight argument concerning drafting middle-order QB\'s.

I guess it becomes very dodgy to insert any unproven entity with the window quickly closing. Something which particularly concerns me is our incoming OC. It seems quite likely that McCarthy will end up elsewhere. If that transpires this offseason, then it changes the equation doesn\'t it?

If there is a change at offensive coordinator then we are going to have to focus our drafts and FA on more grassroots positions no? Personally I would anticipate both Tackles being replaced, and maybe even Bentley moving back to guard, leaving a hole at center. A new coordinator is more likely to build from the line isn\'t he?
If that is the case then a more basic gameplan would remove some pressure from paying Brooks that huge cap-hit. I could be wrong, but if Mcarthy is gone then anyone coming in would be foolish to try to implement anything \"exotic\" considering the current deficiencies in talent and intelligence .
So the wrinkle which changes everything IMO is who is our OC in\'05, my two cents..............................

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Johnny,

Thanks for the thoughts.

I suppose the new OC and the other coaching changes may be a real X-Factor in all of this. I\'m not sure what my position on this is. The standard line is that a new scheme, etc. will cause Brooks to regress, due to his lack of intelligence. My position on this is neutral right now, but I know that others have been persuasive to the contrary.

When Brooks picked up for Blake, his passer rating was roughly 86. I don\'t know if that really means anything, but you may think that it means he wouldn\'t be any worse under a new system than he is now?

I guess, I\'m not really sure how to say what the impact of a new coordinator will be on Brooks. My gut tells me that a new coordinator might look at the kind of mistakes Brooks makes and try to minimize thme - get the number of runs up from roughly 45% to something more like 55%, include more deep passes with more running back pass protection, and perhaps eliminate most of the short passing game?

Interesting thoughts though.

I think we will keep Gandy (though I think we should consider trading his cap heavy number for a 4th rounder if we can get it). I would love for us to get two of the available studs at OT. I think our interior will stay the same. Bentley will be good where he is. After that we\'d better get AT LEAST one stud LB at either MLB or SLB, but I\'m really hoping for two.

Knowing our boys, we\'ll probably spend a butt-load of money on a FA kicker who will lose in competition with Carney, and do nothing else. Undoubtedly the FO will feed us some line about Cie Grant will be the next coming and Stinchcomb is the answer to our prayers...

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Sorry about how I phrase my questions dude. I am just trying to take in what I am reading. There is no way Ic ould ever make you look moronic dude. It\'s probably quite the opposite.

But, I am confused, has McNabb not been in 4 straight championship games? I would call that success right off. He has been around what 5-6 years? No, I don\'t like that example. He has been a success right off. AND he has consistently had one of the worst receiving crews in the league. Now if we allow all these excuses for AB as being hampered by his receivers, surely McNabb gets the same right? His receivers before TO were downright pathetic compared to ours and what AB has had. I can\'t but that one. If he had the receivers AB had from jump, trust me you wouldn;t be able to quote that one time qb rating.

Also, I don\'t recall anyone putting that much stock in Druckenmiller. I remember he was said to need a few years on the bench to be NFL ready. That does not seem like a top prospect to me.

AND, more and more college teams are developing pro style offenses like the NFL. They say it every Sunday on College Gameday. QBs are moe ready to come in the league and succeed, even from small conferences like the MAC. So at one time while I did believe that rookie QBs could not contribute, the changing landscape of college football has significantly changed my mind.

Boller? He had one good senior season and was inconsistent the 3 years prior under 3 different coordinators. Boller is a product of draft hype and combine hype. I never considered him a top prospect. But consider, he also has one of the WORST receiving corps in the game, a changing defense that was not as dominant as the Superbowl year, AND injuries to Lewis and Heap consistently. Not a formula for success. Look at the Dolphins with Ricky. Shows you what happens when a one dimensional offensive teams loses that one dimension.

I would tarde AB for Leftwich in a heartbeat. Great competitor, great team player, great athlete, tough as sh--, he played with a broken shin in college. His teammates had to CARRY HIM to the line of scrimmage when he completed passes. AND THEY WON. Also, better than AB by his second year. How long has AB been around again? And when you mention these qbs, I would like for you to ask yourself, would I trade our receiving corps for theirs? If the answer is no, then these qbs are not in a better situation than a rookie would be here.

Also again, you say we can get by with salaries for Deuce, Horn, and AB. My question is, of the three who has been the MOST inconsistent? By far it has to be AB. And his play is disproportionate to his salary. If he took a pay cut, I would love to keep him, but he won\'t. So he needs to go. Spend the money on the positions you feel we need to shore up. Seems like a win win to me. Then we can get by with a decent qb for a year, and draft one to sit for a year.

And you did get my point about the bad organizations thing, but in the Bengals case, everything was bad there, owners, scouts, personnel, players, coaches. I can\'t think of one qb who would succeed there in the past under any circumstance. Look at Steve Yougn when he was with Tampa. That losing org doomed him, but he showed what he can do with a good org.

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Man, there are a lot of good thoughts expressed in this thread.

I\'m especially impressed with JKool... ;)

JKool seems to get \"it.\" At least in my book. Not that I agree with everything. But... most of it I do.

As JKool says, win/loss records tell us very little about a QB. Win/loss records tell us about the \"team\"!!!!

And if some of you don\'t get that, IMO, you never will.

Anyone should know this. And I believe MOST of you do know this.

Why is it none of you ever bring up Archie Manning\'s win/loss record and use that to tell us how Archie sucked?

That would be silly right? I mean, if Brooks\' win/loss record applies to him, then, surly, it must apply to Archie..

Again, I think everyone knows this. I also believe folks use the \"Saints\" win/loss record to further their case against Brooks because, well, they will just use anything if they think it helps further their cause.

When folks use Brooks\' win/loss record, I don\'t even take them seriously. And how could I? How do you argue with such nonsense? You can\'t !!

If you don\'t think Brooks is a great leader? Fine. That\'s a credible statement.

If you think Brooks makes some stupid decisions? Fine, that\'s a credible statement.

If you think Brooks makes some stupid comments to the media. Fine, that\'s a credible statement.

And some of the other statements about Brooks are credible.

Some Saints\' fans seem to think we are this incredibly talented team that Brooks is holding back.

But, guess what? We ain\'t that talented...

This year we had.

1. The 32nd ranked defense. Which Brooks has nothing to do with.

2. The 26th ranked running game. Which Brooks had nothing to do with.

3. One of the worst offensive lines in the league. Which Brooks had nothing to do with.

And guess what? Another QB isn\'t going to fix those problems and we\'d be lucky to win 8 games.

But, win/loss record? Give me a break...

I\'m just glad some folks here are open minded and that\'s what keeps me here.... ;) Or any other QB!! Right??



[Edited on 31/1/2005 by GumboBC]

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Whodi,

Fine points, as always. I was getting a bit caught up in my view with no one to bring me back to earth at 2 am.

Here is my initial reply, then I\'ve got to run to meet with some students. I am eagerly awaiting replies on this thread - great work again FF for starting it. Thanks to Whodi and BMG for getting me to think much harder about this.

(1) McNabb is great, no doubt. Obviously, I\'d take him over Brooks. McNabb has his moments too though... yikes. The problem is more like this: if we bring in a rookie qb we can expect his QB rating to be roughly in the 70s his first year and roughly in the 75s his second year. Also his TD-INT ratio will be about 1-1. McNabb, Boller, and Leftwich all show that trend. That may be enough to \"get it done\", but Brooks is better than that now, with a roughly 80 passer rating and a 2-1 TD-INT ratio. I think the point was more like this: if you think the current guy can\'t do it, you shouldn\'t think a rookie can do it NUMBERS WISE.

(2) Given the kind of guys we can get a Boller or a Leftwhich (maybe since he was drafted much higher than we could get), there is little reason to think that without big improvements elsewhere that one of these guys could be a winner here next year - those teams they play on are very similar to ours in terms of NFL proven talent at the other positions (if their W-L records are any indication).

(3) I don\'t remember Drukenmiller all that well myself. Either way he was first round pick by an organization with an EXCELLENT scouting squad, a good FO, and a great team to put around him. What did he do? Squat.

(4) I would definitely consider Leftwich NOW, but we wouldn\'t be getting that, we\'d be getting Leftwich THEN. It takes rookies at least two years to get to where AB is now in terms of stats anyway - that is what the three examples have shown.

(5) Agreed on Boller\'s WR corps. However, I challenge you with this, since I\'ve answered your questions: find a team with good WRs, a ****y OL, a decent running game, and a terrible defense that is at least two players from being competitive (probably three), and who drafted a mid-first round QB who took them to the SB in two years. Ok, that is a bit unfair isn\'t it - since there isn\'t one.

Thus, while I agree with your counter-points. Your knowledge of the NFL in general appears to far surpass mine (I know some stuff about football and some stuff about the Saints, but after that it drops off fairly quickly), and I really appreciate that. However, we have to make some generalizations from the cases. Mine is that mid-first round QB draft picks do not have real success (when it comes to making good decisions with the ball - TD-INT ratio, winning games in the passing games - relatively unimpressive TD stats, and aren\'t very efficient - low QB rating). Thus, the guy we get would not be operating even at the level of AB by these standards. That BY NO MEANS suggests that trading AB and getting a rookie wouldn\'t be an improvement (especially if you look at the intangibles). I\'m merely suggesting that we need to improve MANY other things before a rookie could get it done here - and they may well be the same things that we\'d need for Brooks to get it done (since on these dimensions he\'s already better than a mid-first round QB).

(6) The point about the Bengals was this: both Klingler and A. Smith were respected prospects. They were drafted and were busts in Cincy. Smith even had a second chance with the Bears and sucked there too. Palmer succeeded under roughly the same conditions the other two failed (except the running game was slightly better and the FO was obivously better - though the team itself was arguable not much better). Thus, one might generalize that for every three QBs drafted high up, only one succeeds. I\'m willing to bet that that is a pretty good rule of thumb. I very much respect your points about how the circumstances matter - so this generalization may not hold. On the other hand, if we\'re going to make bets on whether or not a first round pick could succeed here in NO and do better than AB will in the next two years, this chance a pick will be a bust must be considered. Again, the devil you know I guess.

More later. Nice work. I\'ll think about this today.

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 

Here\'s my take on win/loss record between Archie and AB. AB has had the most talented teams that Saints have known offensively in their history. Archie was on the WORST Saints teams in franchise history. Overall, from the first year with Blake/AB, the talent that has been around AB has the been the best ever. By overall, I mean combo of OFFENSE AND DEFENSE. We all know the Jim Mora teams were the best defenses, but AB easily has the best offenses around him, and our defense didn\'t really jump into downright terrible until this year. The feeling of those who believe Archie was the best QB in Saints history is that you give Archie the talent AB has, and you have a winning team, no ifs ands or buts. Of course you can use the we will never know argument, but the one thing we know is fact is for 5 years AB has had the best offenisve weapons the Saints as an org have known, and he puts mediocre numbers up consistently. People want to point to all the problems THIS YEAR, but fail to realize I guess AB has been here for FIVE YEARS and has been the same inconsistent player whether we win or lose.

But trust me Gumbo, there are A LOT of arguments you use that are not taken seriously, so I guess most would feel they are even with you in that regard.

I had a question for you too. I remember you said a while back we are all just fans and our opinion doesn\'t count too much cause we aren\'t in the NFL and we aren\'t in the front office and stuff of that sort. So when announcers like Jimmy Johnson and Terry Bradshaw and howie Long make negative comments about Brooks and say we can\'t win with him, does their opinion hold water? What about when the ESPN NFL Live crew and the Sunday Morning Show team are cracking jokes about AB and his play? Those guys have been in the NFL, should we not trust them also? Are they ALL somehow biased against AB? I was just wondering where you draw the line at who we should trust and wanted to ask you.