New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Why in the world am I doing this?! (https://blackandgold.com/saints/7261-why-world-am-i-doing.html)

FrenzyFan 01-30-2005 10:55 AM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
This post is about Aaron Brooks. If you don't want to get drug into the same argument, stop reading here. If you have some belief that this thread will change opinions, when the evidence of their own two eyes will not, stop reading. This thread is here because I need to make this point - and no matter how hard I try to stop myself - I just have to do it.

Aaron Brooks is not a terrible QB. He has a ton of athleticism, and the ability to scramble, which makes enemy defensive coordinators have to plan for that. AB has a powerful throwing arm, and is capable of throwing the long ball. AB led us to our only playoff win.

Aaron Brooks is not a great QB. He has trouble reading a defense. He gets happy feet in the pocket when under pressure. He throws off his back foot. He is slow to start a play (why his center keeps stepping on his feet) and he drops back WAY too far (you've all seen the ten step drop?). He has trouble throwing the touch pass. His record as a starter stays at .500, including the year he tooks Blake's team to the playoffs and beat the Rams.

The problems that AB has, he has always had. Though people like to throw stats around (Low INTs) as if they indicate he doesn't throw off his back foot any more - I suggest they are not watching the same games I am. AB has always been, and likely always will be, inconsistent. The entire NFL knows it. Profesional sportswriters use him for the gag reel and call him "the most overrated player in the NFL."

Even so, I would keep him if that were all there was to it. Many people compare him to other QB and say they have the same types of problems. These comparisons are 100% accurate. The difference is that those other QBs, DON'T THINK THEY ARE GREAT! Those other QBs recognize their shortcomings. They acknowledge them and work on them. Many of them show CONSISTENT IMPROVEMENT.

AB is an arrogant, ego-maniac who cannot even acknowledge where he needs to improve. He calls himself a great QB on an average team. What kind of selective vision of reality is that?!

One of the medical definitions of insanity is attempting the same actions over and over again, and expecting a different result. For example, running full-steam at a wall. You hit the wall, bounce off and wind up in pain. You do it again, expecting this time you will fly over the wall, maybe? For that reason, I am going to try to make this my last post about AB and the reasons I think we need to get rid of him no matter the cost, no matter the consequence.

These posts won't change anything or anyone's opinon, especially when it appears stapled to their brain. Lord knows, my opinion of AB has changed this year - but it seems obvious to me by now that some people are incapbale of changing their mind - even when the evidence is overwhelming.

So be it and that, as I have said before, is my two cents.

JKool 01-30-2005 12:18 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
FF, great post. Both level headed and intelligent.

I, of course, cannot resist comment, even though I share the same frustration as most do with this very topic. Some of the points are general, so don\'t take them as directed at your very even and well written post.

(1) People do change their mind. Some are more honest than others about it. Of course, there are some who dig in and become more pig-headed about their view rather than less, but many do slowly change their views, arguments, and thoughts even if it is only about subtleties.

(2) All this stuff about inconsistency boggles my mind. Imagine a team with an inconsistent running game, inconsistent defense, inconsistent passing game, and an inconsistent special teams. On any given Sunday any two of these five things could be relatively poor and the team could win - it really just is a matter of all of them not being off at the same time. Sure, inconsistency is frustrating, improvement would be good, but it isn\'t the end all be all of a winning team. Also, I grant that Cullpepper is a better QB than Brooks, how much better is debateable, but here is a QB who can throw more INTs than TDs one year and another year throw almost 40 TDs - it that isn\'t inconsistent, what is? Granted those are his yearly stats, but many other QBs are game to game inconsistent and still great QBs (Farve, still my favorite example, sorry Whodi).

(3) W-L records actually only give us information about the team and not really much at all about the players. Since games are won and lost by teams, I don\'t see how that really provides much, if any, about any particular player. The details of the W or L matter much more. Throwing a pick on the goaline with seconds left costing you the game - that says something about the player. Having a L, without information like that, says nothing IMO about the player(s). I guess I never really understood why W-L were used in arguments about players, as they are aggregate stats (apply to large groups). Thus, a QB\'s W-L record is a bit of a red herring, since it is NOT the QB\'s W-L record, but rather the TEAM\'s W-L record. I\'m open to argument here, but that is my current view.

(4)
Quote:

One of the medical definitions of insanity is attempting the same actions over and over again, and expecting a different result.
No. This is not a medical definition of \"insanity\", since there is no medical definition of insanity. This is a handy way of talking about a particular kind of problem we like to talk about here. It is more like \"folk wisdom\" on \"nut jobs\", than it is like any medical definition.

(5) I agree 100% that AB says some stupid sh-t. I also agree that he is lacking in the leadership department. However, since when did being arrogant make you a bad football player. Think Deion Sanders - a pretty darn good cover corner (if nothing else) - arrogant as sh-t. If you are saying that AB impacts the other players on his team with the stupid stuff he says, I agree, but there are many players like that (Horn was like that once, and no one is saying ship him out right now!). I suppose, I agree with you that this is a knock against AB, but I\'m confused as to why it is conclusive reason to get rid of him (especially given the ambivalence in the arguments you note earlier in your post).

(6)
Quote:

I think we need to get rid of him no matter the cost, no matter the consequence.
I\'m guessing this is an overstatement. Brooks would be a starting QB on some other teams, if we just said \"here ya go\", I bet they\'d take him, and they\'d improve. Surely, even if you want him gone, you\'re in favor of getting something for him. This is a small point, but I am more swayed by arguments that imply we could get some advantage from trading him - cap space, draft picks, a rookie replacement, etc. I for one am never in favor of doing something \"no matter what the cost\" (and I\'m sure you actually agree). What if Bouman were our ONLY other option (I know he isn\'t but what if)? I would definitely want AB over Bouman - believe me.

(7) Thanks for the very level post with good points on each side. I see your position, and I hope you will explain it a bit more to me, since I have the confusions above about it. Nicely posted, FF.

saintswhodi 01-30-2005 01:01 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Frenzy, you\'re my hero. I love you man. :heartpump: You cut right to the heart of the matter.

Kool, I know you always want an explanation, but I think this is one where all included should just agree to disagree. Obviously some are seeing things in AB others are not, and that is fine. It\'s funny though how people who disapprove of AB have the SAME opinions of him but people who support him differ. Some use stats, some use the playoff win, some use noone better out there, some use potential and talent, some blame the rest of the team, but ALL who want him gone say the SAME thing. Now this could be a hive mentality, or a piling on, but it just seems odd to me that so many who want the same thing can see it the same way, yet the opposite argument have different criteria for basing their decision. Just ranting. But anyway Kool, I think this one calls for a handshake at the 50 yard line, and going in opposite directions. There are enough AB threads on here already to weigh in on. Of course if Frenzy chooses to address your fine questions, more power to you guys. Peace.

BrooksMustGo 01-30-2005 01:27 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Please, please, please bring back the monster \"Brooks\" thread to discuss this topic. I\'m dying to pull that one out of the mothballs. We had a virtual encyclopedia on all the different takes on Brooks. Great thread that received the JoeSam stamp of approval. (deep sigh)

But to the thread we have...

Frenzy, I feel you man. I agree with large parts of what you have to say.

JKool, as always a lucid post.

As a show of solidarity, I\'ll outline my own case against our current starting QB in order of importance in my own thinking.

1. He has an ever growing cap number. This year he is slated to jump up from 3.25 million to 5.5 million dollars. In 06 the number goes to 6.25 million and in 07 up to 7.25. Based on what we are seeing on the field from him, I don\'t think he\'s worth 5.5 million dollars.

----a. He is fishing for a new contract. Talking to the press about whether he will stay in NO while he still has 3 years on his contract seems peculiar to me. My own personal take on this is that he wants a deal like the ones recently given to McNabb, Manning, Culpepper and Vick. I fully expect him to hold out if the Saints refuse to give him some sort of 10 year mega deal.

-----b. He is a financial ticking time bomb. I think it\'s ruinous to allow him to hold this franchise hostage over his contract demands. I also think that it would be wiser to let some other team deal with his money requirements.

-----c. He tends to view success through paycheck. By this I mean, it seems that he\'s more interested in being compensated like a top QB than playing like an elite QB. Simply put, this franchise cannot afford him as he is.

2. His trade value will probably never be higher. At 28, I\'m really sure that some organization will become enamored with his stats. I also figure that someone with a huge ego will believe that Haslett\'s incompetance as a coach is what has held our current QB back all this time. I have no doubt that we could probably get a couple of picks and maybe a player out of a deal and given our needs on defense it might be important to do so before we really do need a full rebuild.

3. He is maddeningly inconsistent. He teases you with ability, he\'s the classic coach killer kind of player.

-----a. You can\'t count on him. He may win the game for you and he may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on you. It\'s impossible to tell when he\'s going to put you behind the 8 ball.

-----b. He makes bad decisions. The examples of this are legion. I\'ll just underscore the under hand pass to the Denver linebacker backed up on our own goal line as a classic example.

-----c. His mechanics and fundamentals are bad. 10 step drops, backing into the pass rush, throwing off the back foot, no touch, no screens, fumbled snaps, the center exchange, tripping himself down at the snap. For all the things he does well, you have to admit he does a LOT of things badly--at the worst possible time.

-----d. He doesn\'t read defenses well. He doesn\'t realize that when the safety or linebacker comes up on the line of scrimmage, they want a sack. Probably not a good time to put the back in motion to your other side. He\'s ok against zone teams, but always takes too long to let the WR get separation when the defense plays man.

-----e. He doesn\'t play the game intelligently. If we were playing flag football at the company picnic, then he would be my first pick. But I wouldn\'t pick him to be the starter for a pro team. He\'s a great sandlot player, but he struggles against teams that prepare for him.

-----f. No intangibles. Leadership, chutzpah, guts, whatever, he doesn\'t seem to have \"it\" that all the greats have.

4. Ego/Selfishness/Mouth.

-----a. Whatever he means to say (which I think is a kind way of putting it), comes out awfully wrong. He is notorious about saying the wrong thing to the press. Whenever the mic is on him, you can count on him to say something that alienates fans, team-mates, etc.

-----b. Me-First. There\'s a reason that people call him \"Leon\". The team is here for him, not him for the team.

-----c. Finger Pointing. He is never to blame when things go badly. He doesn\'t take responsibility for his own faults. It\'s one thing to play on a bad defense that cost the game, it\'s another thing to hear your QB (who may or may not have played well himself) blame the loss on your unit. His self-centeredness erodes the team concept.

-----d. Baselessly high opinion of himself. Whatever else one might say about him, I think we can all agree, he isn\'t an elite QB. He isn\'t the best to play the game. He isn\'t a great player being held back by an awful team. I think we can all agree that Archie could have been a great player if the rest of the team had even been decent. Our current QB has some of the best players this organization has ever had to work with. It rings false to suggest that guys like Deuce and Horn are holding him back.

-----e. He\'s a hard guy to pull for. He\'s a little bit like Bill Romonowski, Deion Sanders or Michael Irvin. Even when he is playing great, he still comes off like a jerk. He rubs some fans the wrong way.

-----f. He doesn\'t seem to care. Statements like, \"I\'m just here to do my job and leave\" and \"fake love\" make me question his heart and his will to win. I\'d rather not have a guy just putting in his time and phoning it in. As much as the language drives me crazy, I\'d rather have someone making Reggie White \"this is a team of destiny\" statements. Or things like the Patriots all being in it together.

Now after all this, do I want to just cut him and take the cap hit? Nope, I think the reason to get rid of him is financial. He costs too much for what he brings to the table. However, plenty of other teams are probably willing to deal for him and laugh all the way to the bank. I think he has great trade value now and with the cap savings we could sign 2-3 key players on defense and get serious about a playoff push.

Cutting him doesn\'t seem smart to me, dealing him does.

Anyway, that\'s my take on why we shouldn\'t keep our current QB.

saintswhodi 01-30-2005 01:40 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
BMG, great post. Very concise. :fanclub:

LKelley67 01-30-2005 01:43 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
a fine thread. wouldn\'t it be interesting to see how loomis would respond. beyond the bs and covering his rear i somehow think we wouldn\'t be impressed. i wish we had more insight into what the philosophy of the franchise, specifically the front office, is. again though, i think we might feel worse if we did. not a rant on the front office here. it is just that i find so much logic and continuity of thought (i do see the ab mr. wonderful/cut him at all costs chasm narrowing) here on some of these things that it makes me i wonder if such is there or if they are just along for the yacht ride.

JKool 01-30-2005 02:06 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Whodi,

(1) As always, :cheers:

(2) Since most people agree on the \"facts\" about AB, it is my thesis that the difference between the keep Brooks and the get rid of Brooks camp is mostly a difference in risk aversion. Those of us who are interested in keeping him are averse to the high risk that might entail (a worse player, etc). Of course, I\'m in the camp that has agreed with BMG\'s financial argument - if we can get a replacement that appears to us to be of roughly the same ability (given our risk averseness) and some other benefits, I say go for it. Those of you who are in the get rid of Brooks camp appear to be much less risk averse - yourself being a prime example. I think this is where the handshake at the 50 is appropriate. I don\'t think that arguing over whether or not some poster\'s personality should be adjusted is worth while. On the other hand, I have learned a lot from these discussions, and just because no argument that has been conclusive is forthcoming, I think my view is MUCH better having discussed it, in particular with you and BMG in this case.

(3) I\'m sorry I got frustrated last week, I swear it was mostly outside stuff. You da man.

JKool 01-30-2005 02:23 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
BMG, mad props buddy. That is a fine summary.

While I agree with almost all that you\'ve said (in particular your points 1 and 2) and I, a long time ago, agreed that the financial argument is the strongest I\'ve heard for getting rid of Brooks, I have to cavil with a few of your points:

3b - I think you should add that how bad the mistakes are matters. There are few starting NFL QBs who are merely managers of the game that people can get excited about. As a result, many QBs make dumb mistakes - again, Farve is an example of this. The manager QB is the guy who won\'t lose you the game, but most of the time he won\'t win it either (Brady is one guy who I think can do both, but he is a rarity). Thus, I think you could make this point more strongly, and I also think it could be a weakness of your argument (but we\'d have to investigate it more thoroughly).

3c - This is not only AB\'s fault. Coaching has not helped him here. While I agree that this may be symptomatic of his \"dumbness\", it may also be due to coddling and/or poor coaching. I feel it is difficult to say how much of this is really on AB himself.

3f - I actually disagree here. There are two intangibles that Brooks does have (though, I agree that for the most you are right on this point): (1) he is actually pretty darn tough - he takes a lickin\' and keeps on tickin\', and (2) he is a threat to gamble. On point (2), I believe it is the coaches fault that teams aren\'t affraid of Brooks making plays with his feet. That first season, teams had a bit more trouble with Brooks, as he \"improvised\" more often, adding a more Vick-like dimension to our offense. That appears to be gone, and I think that is our loss - I honestly believe this is a coaching (game planning) error.

4c - I take your point here, but I feel like people can\'t have it both ways. Either you think that Brooks should get up on people and lead - thus, sometimes calling guys out (even when he had a bad game), or you think that he should shoulder all the blame. A really good leader, which Brooks is not, would do both. However, during all those \"leadership\" discussions, it was often pointed out that Brooks didn\'t challenge others to be better - then, when he does it, he\'s doing something wrong? This point needs to be clarified, since it appears that many have contradicted themselves here - I feel like this may be two or three separate points. I hope you can see what I\'m getting at here, since a greater diagnosis might be possible.

It is still my view that while 1&2 (and I very much enjoyed 4e) are good points, they are only really going to be convincing when a good alternative to AB is presented.

Don\'t take that the wrong way, I know a number of candidates have been mentioned - other than Brees or perhaps a rookie (and I\'d need some serious convincing), I\'m mostly unimpressed.

I want a QB who wins games, not one of those \"manager\" types; I just don\'t think our running game (mostly due to the Oline) or defense is strong enough to have that kind of QB.

Note my point about \"risk aversion\" in my post to Whodi to get a better feel for my point (beyond the problems with our OLine and D) here.

JKool 01-30-2005 02:24 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
PS - I don\'t think the \"get rid of Brooks\" camp has any greater similarity in view or argument than the \"keep Brooks\" camp, just for the record.

BnB, that\'s three...

BrooksMustGo 01-30-2005 03:33 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
JKool, As always, it is refreshing to discuss things with you. I\'ve never been caviled before though?

Quote:

3b - I think you should add that how bad the mistakes are matters. There are few starting NFL QBs who are merely managers of the game that people can get excited about. Thus, I think you could make this point more strongly, and I also think it could be a weakness of your argument (but we\'d have to investigate it more thoroughly).
I agree entirely on the timing of the mistakes. Our current QB tends to make them as such awful times that they are underscored in the minds of people watching. I would also agree that what I\'m arguing for is basically to have a game manager for the coming season. However, like you and everyone else, I\'d rather have an Elway than a Dilfer for the long term.

I also agree that more investigation would clear this up. As a fan, I tend to get really nervous when our current QB is inside the 20\'s--backed up or in the redzone. I expect bad things to happen. Between the 20\'s I\'m never worried. I\'m not sure if I\'ve been trained to this or just notice it more, but that\'s basically my take on the current QB.

Quote:

3c - This is not only AB\'s fault. Coaching has not helped him here. While I agree that this may be symptomatic of his \"dumbness\", it may also be due to coddling and/or poor coaching. I feel it is difficult to say how much of this is really on AB himself.
Agreed. Halo has said on several occasions that he felt the organization has ruined the current QB during his development. I think it\'s certainly possible. The trouble is, I\'m not sure it\'s fixable. He seems to think he\'s elite and the coaching staff hasn\'t ever really held him accountable. So I\'m not sure that we\'re ever going to see marked improvement from him in NO. I wouldn\'t be surprised if he went somewhere else and did quite well though.

Quote:

3f - There are two intangibles that Brooks does have (though, I agree that for the most you are right on this point): (1) he is actually pretty darn tough - he takes a lickin\' and keeps on tickin\', and (2) he is a threat to gamble. I honestly believe this is a coaching (game planning) error.
I agree that he is tough and seems to do a good job of staying in good condition. I also agree that he is better on bootlegs where he is dangerous to run.

However, I\'d qualify that a bit. I don\'t think he\'s nearly as dangerous as McNabb, Culpepper or Vick. This could be a game planning problem. Maybe McCarthy emphasized that he shouldn\'t run at all, but throw the ball away? Even the scramblers settle down into the pocket as their career goes on, so I\'m not sure we\'re going to see as much freelancing from him regardless?

The one key difference I\'ll note from the last couple of seasons is that he tends to go backwards. When he used to roll out, he stayed close enough to the LOS that he was a threat to run. Now with 10 step drops, he ends up so far back that he takes his running out of the equation--a good run will just get him back to the line. Maybe this can be fixed, I don\'t know, but I\'m relatively sure that he\'s not going to have as good a rushing performance as when he was younger.

Quote:

4c - I take your point here, but I feel like people can\'t have it both ways. A really good leader, which Brooks is not, would do both. This point needs to be clarified, since it appears that many have contradicted themselves here - I feel like this may be two or three separate points. I hope you can see what I\'m getting at here, since a greater diagnosis might be possible.
Here\'s the BMG spin on the subject. I think the current QB is weak on people skills. I would compare it to this: imagine Cheers. Our current QB is more like Lilith, I\'d rather have a guy like Norm.

All I\'ve read suggests that our current QB is kind of a recluse, he comes in and does his job and then leaves. I\'d rather have a QB that the other guys respect and trust. I\'d rather have a guy kind of like Roethlisberger who comes in and shakes everyone\'s hand, values what they do and conveys in word and action that nothing good happens without their contribution.

This overlaps another area, but it seems like our current QB conveys that he\'s in it for himself and tolerates the guys around him.

Quote:

It is still my view that while 1&2 (and I very much enjoyed 4e) are good points, they are only really going to be convincing when a good alternative to AB is presented.
I understand the risk aversion part. (Spend WAY too much time around lawyers). This is really where it gets sticky and where I can\'t really offer a lot of suggestions. Our current guy is, after all, the devil we know.

I think, for example, that Mike McMahon from Detroit could be very good if given the chance. I also think we could get him for less than 1/4 of what we\'re paying this season. So strictly from a cap standpoint, I think it\'s a good idea. I also figure from a cap standpoint that if we paid McMahon around 1/2 million a year we\'d be in far better financial shape to shore up the defense and LT and have a coachable QB.

However, here\'s a fun hypothetical for you. Let\'s say that McCarthy gets Nolan and the 49ers to drink the Cool-Aid and they are willing to part with the #1 overall for Brooks. Would you be willing to accept such a trade to get Aaron Rogers or Alex Smith? Or would you be willing to deal our current QB and try to pick up Rivers from the Chargers? I\'m curious as to who it would take to get the more risk averse fans to sign off on the trade?

And my last hypothetical for the risk averse. Deciding to keep the current guy brings up 2 questions for me.
1. Are we going to be able to draft or free agency the players we need to make a superbowl run with his number against the cap?
2. Are we going to be able to make this superbowl run while our WR corps is still playing at a high level? It seems to me that the decision not to deal the current QB brings up all kinds of problems with Horn. For example, if we decide not to pay Horn his 4.5 million this year and cut him where are we at then? Or if we can re-sign Joe to a cap friendly deal, how long is he going to play at such a high level?

Quote:

I want a QB who wins games, not one of those \"manager\" types; I just don\'t think our running game (mostly due to the Oline) or defense is strong enough to have that kind of QB.
I agree, long term it\'s better to have Elway than Dilfer. I\'m wondering whether our current guy could be our Herschel Walker? I think that his trade value is such that he could buy us 2-3 players that could go a long way towards fixing the defense and OT problems we are facing.


saintswhodi 01-30-2005 04:15 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Kool and BMG, whatever side of the argument you are on, you have to love the banter that is taking place back and forth. Both responses are well-thought out and very poignant.

Kool, I understand very well risk aversion. No problem on the blow up by the way. The point is this, sometimes you take the risk to reap the rewards. Example, what if New England decided to stick with Bledsoe once healthy instead of 6th round pick Tom Brady? Steelers let Maddox start when healthy instead of Ben? What if San Fran never decided to give Young a chance after his terrible seasons in Tampa? They gambled the franchise he could pick up where Montana left off and it happened. I have seen many good examples where the player you have just can\'t get you over the hump, and it seems our current guy can\'t get us into the playoffs without a 7-4 head start posted by another qb. If we sit back and allow ourselves to be held hostage by the \"we may not get anything better\" argument, we may be looking at Horn retiring and having no receiver to pick up the slack and seeing that as ANOTHER need very soon WHILE we are trying to fix the D, which will take more than one off-season. I agree with BMG that the time to act is now, while AB has trade value and there are teams of need, and teams with new coaches. I think a shot at Aaron Rodgers or ALex Smith is worth it.

BMG\'s financial point is extremely valuable also. for what he is being paid, preparing to be paid, and seems like he is beginning to scoff at is FAR AND ABOVE what he gives on the field. Dealing him allows the freedom to bring in a decent alternative at least for a year and shore up some other positions of need. The point has been amde coaching may have hampered him, and I am not inclined to disagree. But if that is the case, AB is beyond the window of learning that has been established by coaches in the league. He is who he is and who he is gonna be. With is salary, that is absolutely not good enough, and with him feeling he is great, it is obviously not gonna get better. We KNOW if any competition is brought in, he will be in the paper the next day saying how unappreciated he is. This team doesn\'t need that any more. It\'s time to cut our losses and move on.

LongTimeFan 01-30-2005 06:03 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
JKool..I couldn\'t have said it any better than you this in this post..
As I said before I don\'t think that AB is a top 5 QB and if there was a way to trade him in return the Saints gets back something that would be worth the trade, some one said here that they would just cut him for the hell of it ( I guess if it\'s not your money you can say such things), also some would trade Brroks for Carr, Why?, I like Carr I feel that one day he will be a good QB but he wouldn\'t be in the timetable in making the playoofs with the team that we have now, hell by the time Carr learned the game better and then have to come in and learn a new system Horn, Deuce might not be there, as I said before I strongly beleive that the Saints will get back into the playoffs within 2 years.
Bottom line: The only way that I would trade Brooks right now would be for a P. Manning or McNabb which as we all know won\'t happen, be careful what you wish for..
I agree though that Brooks makes mistakes, talks without thinking and says how great he is but he\'s the best we have right now, he\'s it, so when you say that you would cut him for the hell of it think about what your saying, we could end up with a Bledsoe or worst and then we would really have problems, I would like to see our line begin to improve next season and once we have a good offense and Brooks still doesn\'t bring us to the playoffs then it could be time to re-build our entire offense which would mean that the playoffs would be 4-5 years away if we were to be lucky.
I want the Saints to make the playoofs and do well in the next 2 years, some of you might be ready to start from scratch which I\'m not ready for that just yet.

LongTimeFan

saintswhodi 01-30-2005 06:17 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Long Time, I think it was Saints LB who said it best in another thread. Pretty much EVERY position on this team has been changed except QB the last 4 years, and WE STILL don\'t make the playoffs. It\'s time to stop dancing around that postion and make a change. To say we should get a McNabb or Peyton for AB, who is barely worth a Bledsoe or Collins is just ridiculous. You might as well say you don\'t wanna trade him. What if we could get a guy who could post similar numbers, yet cut the mistakes and not make stupid comments once a month in the paper? Why wouldn\'t that be a fair trade? That\'s like going to the Lexus dealership with a Pinto and demanding they accept it for LS 430. I mean if you say he CAN be traded, at least be realistic, or please just simply say you don\'t wanna trade him.

LongTimeFan 01-30-2005 07:03 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
saintswhodi


\"What if we could get a guy who could post similar numbers, yet cut the mistakes and not make stupid comments once a month in the paper? \"

Who could we bring right now that is available, not under contract that would be better than what we have right now,
they have to be avaliable, a wish list doesn\'t count.

It may be tougher than you think to get rid of Brooks and get a better QB

Saint_LB 01-30-2005 07:28 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Quote:

It may be tougher than you think to get rid of Brooks and get a better QB
It may be tough, but it could be done. The thing that is funny is that we have had guys in the last five years that could\'ve fit the bill on our roster, and we let them go. I know Jake and Bulger can play in the NFL, and I suspect that J.T. might have what it takes. But, we keep letting them go, and the fans keep piling into the Dome, and Benson stays happy and remains pat. IMHO, the whole thing unraveled on Benson and Haz the moment they inked AB to a contract that pays him way more than he gives back, and have made a decision that whether we like it or not he is going to remain the QB until his contract expires. Their kinda saying, \"We made a mistake, now you guys are going to have to live with it...sorry.\"

LongTimeFan 01-30-2005 07:38 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
You know the bad thing about losing Jake is he really wanted to remain in N.O even if he had to be a backup but the didn\'t want to pay him for what he was worth,
Glad to see him do well as a starter except when he plays the Saints

JKool 01-30-2005 07:54 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Wow, lots of good stuff here.

First, let me thank FF for starting the most congenial thread on this subject in a long while.

Second, LTF, I\'m glad you felt the post conveyed a sentiment you have. I often wonder how many people agree with anything I say?

Third, here are some points:

(1) Being caviled ain\'t so bad, is it?

(2) I always prefer the posts that are about what we can do about our problems over the ones that are merely pointing out our problems. Look, I\'m mostly a pro-Brooks guy, but if a good deal should come up, I\'m not opposed to trading him. He is definitely one of the better QBs we\'ve ever had, and that may not be saying much, but he\'s still good enough to be a starter in the NFL, and he\'s not in the bottom third of QBs in terms of ability (talent and otherwise) IMO. That said, I fully agree that he has many drawbacks.

(3) I agree with Halo that the window for improving our QB has probably almost closed. I do feel with slightly better game planning and a coach who doesn\'t constrain Aaron so much, he could be better. Not because he\'s improved, but merely because he is better utilized.

(4) I\'m starting to think that one of Horn, Duece, or Brooks will have to go or we won\'t be able to afford the defensive players and Offensive Tackles we need. Either we\'ll need to find some diamonds in the rough (which we seem to suck at) or we\'ll have to cut our losses on one of our big contract players (maybe Tebucky on top of one of those other three). I\'d really like to see us pay through the nose for two of the many free agent Tackles and at least one Linebacker (and maybe even a Corner). If we do that, I\'m not opposed to using a higher pick (maybe even a first) on a QB. That said, see below.

(5) I don\'t think that Rodgers or Smith will develop fast enough for us to win within the window that Whodi has helpfully delimited. People are a bit too enamored with Rothlisberger\'s work this year. It is not like it is common for a rookie QB to step in and start playing at that level. QBs, much like WRs, usually take two to four years to develop. Horn will be gone by then. Thus, I feel like a rookie may not be our answer, if we want to win on the frame people seem to think we have. Brooks could get it done, IMO, if we improve the OLine, the Defense, and Duece has a good year WITH BETTER GAME PLANNING.

(6) IMO Brooks contract will be no bigger problem to our getting the extra talent we need on D and the OLine than Duece\'s or Horn\'s. I\'m starting to have the feeling that we may have blown this window. Unless our key guys (Horn, Duece, and Brooks) get on board and don\'t hold out for the $$$, we\'re going to be in trouble next year anyway.

(7) For all the times I hear about Brooks workin\' for the payoff, I\'ve recently seen some stuff that suggests Duece and Horn aren\'t that much different. I agree that those two appear to be more team oriented, but I\'m beginning to have some doubts.

(8) BMG, it seems we agree on most everything except our risk aversion. I will consider which QBs I think would be worth what, but it might be helpful to hear ideas from others on this. I especially agree with this, \"I\'d perfer an Elway to a Dilfer.\" I feel that Brooks is more of an Elway; though obviously he\'ll never be in that class, he has the tools to be dangerous that Dilfer does not. I will repeat that with our OLine and Defense the way we are \"a Dilfer\", IMO, would be screwed here in NO.

(9) Whodi, I agree that risks must be taken. We\'re just disagreeing on the amount and on what. For every risk that takes off there are others that crumble. For every Tom Brady there are many other 6th rounders who don\'t make a team. For every Patriots there is a Bengals. I really think that you and I agree on most of the \"facts\", we just don\'t agree on the conclusion. The two missing premises that we don\'t agree on are these: (1) AB can get it done if properly handled and surrounded by a solid running game and pass protection, and (2) if we dump AB the risk will payoff in the time frame you have in mind.

(10) Whodi, I like when I\'m poignant. :D I also agree that it is nice to have a bit of give and take in an argument. Sometimes when backed into a corner people start believing bad arguments more, rather than just giving them up. Oh well.

(11) LTF, I\'d consider trading Brooks for many others than the top three or four QBs in the league. If we could get Brees, perhaps I\'d consider letting AB go for high draft picks (or an OT or LB). I\'d even consider giving Brooks up for a guy in the middle of the pack, if we could get a second rounder too. HOWEVER, I do not think we should trade him for a \"game manager\" QB UNLESS we seriously improve our OL (two new Ts and maybe a new G) and get a STUD back up for Duece. A \"game manager\" just won\'t be able to get it done with our ALMOST WORST OF ALL TIME defense and our shi-ty O Line.

(12) :pinkele:

LongTimeFan 01-30-2005 08:02 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
JKool

I thought of Brees and he would be worth a trade for Brooks but there is no way the Chargers will part with him, that\'s the word from a few guys on ESPN anyways..
To me there\'s just not anybody out there right not to even consider, word is Bledsoe will be a backup for the Bills, he could be a starter else where I suppose but he\'s at the very end of his career and might only be good in a backup role

JKool 01-30-2005 08:06 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
BMG, sorry I didn\'t get to your questions to the risk averse among us. I\'ll have to ponder them further.

LB, don\'t take this the wrong way, but what did you see in J.T. (other than he wasn\'t Brooks) that I didn\'t. He looked ok to me in one quarter of preseason football against the other team\'s third stringers. Other than that he didn\'t look any better than Bouman. I think Bouman isn\'t even suited to be a second stringer. I\'ll happily eat my words if he pays off in GB, but I won\'t be holding my breath. Don\'t get me wrong, several others share your view on J.T., but every time I try to get an answer to the question that I just put to you, I never get an answer.

BMG, now that I think about it, I would be very warry of bringing in a QB to replace Brooks who hadn\'t taken a snap in a regular season NFL game. I\'m not saying I wouldn\'t, but I think that improving the O and the D is possible and within our cap range even with Brooks here one more season (we could draft and develop a QB if we keep Brooks at least one more year). I\'d much rather trade Duece for high picks and draft a RB than draft a QB. Here is my reasoning: given my stance on a \"game manager\" QB given the shakey prospects for our OLine and Defense and the usual development period for a QB, a RB would be a better choice. RBs can usually contribute right away, unlike QBs, and if we got another high pick, we may be able to trade up to get one of those stud RBs in this year\'s draft (who would be cheaper and less likely to hold out than Duece). What do you think about that? I\'m not saying I favor that plan just yet, since I just thought of it, but it doesn\'t seem all that unreasonable to me.

FireVenturi 01-30-2005 08:23 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
The ONLY available guy right now i would agree upon to replace AB would be Hasselback(even though he also suffers from some of the same inconsistencies), but Matt aint going anywhere!

saintswhodi 01-30-2005 09:13 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Hasselbeck ACTUALLY DOES suffer from a preposterous amount of drops from his receivers, unlike the perceived amount for AB. He would be an instant and immediate upgrade.

Kool, the difference between AB, Deuce and Horn is Horn and Deuce have proven it on the field. Outside of this year, with the injuries and such, not may considered Deuce a fumbler. And Joe Horn is on top of the respect train. Know how much he made this past season? $600,000. He tool a cap friendly year for the team. Now, do you see AB EVER doing that? Ever? Never in a million years. Deuce has been playing off his rookie contract and been putting up pro bowl numbers, again except for this injury plagued year. If Clinton Portis deserves a raise, he sure in the hell does. AB on the other hand makes a buttload of money, with not much to show for it. Stats are great, but so are leaders, team players, and humble guys who perform for less. That\'s what I wanna see.

Now what you said Kool about trading Deuce is very interesting except, his salary is still cap friendly. Drafting a RB high will increase that number. AB on the other hand has a high salary relative to production. Better to trade him.

And also I don\'t like the \"enamored with Roeth\" equation. I believe Ben just showed what a qb in the right situation could do as a rookie. MOST times a team drafts high enough to get an elite qb in the draft, their team sucks and one qb won;t fix that. I also don\'t like the Bengals example cause although there were many misses, Carson Palmer is a hit. I would trade AB for him right now. Pittsburgh had NUMEROUS INJURIES last year that hurt their team. They were healthy and Ben stepped in, formula for success. I feel with some parts, we have that here. I don\'t see a rookie struggling here as much cause we aren\'t and haven\'t been a 4-12 team, like the Giants were just last year and got Eli. So I really don\'t like that example. Not many rookie QBs are put into situations ready made for success. Again, Peyton was 3-13 his first year cause of a terrible team. Where are they now?

Saint_LB 01-30-2005 09:21 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
JK, if you go back and read my post, you will see that I said that J.T. might have what it takes. To be honest, I didn\'t get to see him much this year in pre-season, so I am basing most of my speculation on what I saw two pre-seasons ago, and what I read about him while he was playing in Europe. You say he was playing against third-stringers, which meant he was also playing with third-stringers. You see, that has really been the whole problem, and why the others slipped through our fingers. It seems that the whole time that AB has been here, he has been the only one that we have been able to see with the first-string guys. Getting back to J.T., though. What I saw was a firey competitor that just seemed to have the knack for getting the job done...a little bit like what you see in Jake. I know a lot of you don\'t put much stock in attitude, but I for one think lthat leadership is way underrated. An example would be Joe Montana. Can you imagine what his coaches must have thought the first time they saw him. He\'s not very fast, not very big, didn\'t have a big arm, certainly didn\'t look like a QB. He really looked more like, well, I don\'t know what they call them, but a guy that is into ballet. All he did, it seemed, was get six yards when you needed five, and on a very, very consistent basis. He seemed to do this exceptionally well when playing the Saints, too...lol. Don\'t get me wrong...I am not saying that J.T. is going to be the next Joe Montana, I am just saying that you never know until the guy gets in their with the first group and has his shot at it...ala Tom Brady. Did anyone see that one coming before Bledsoe went down. The problem is that is as long as Haz and AB have anything to say about it, we are never going to get a look-see at anyone else. It almost seems that they went out and got a guy like Boumann so they could say, \"OK, this is your back-up. We know you don\'t want him in there, so just shut-up about replacing the QB, OK.\" J.T. may make it, he may not. One thing is for certain and that is if he does, he will not be wearing a Saint uniform, and to me that is sad.

[Edited on 31/1/2005 by Saint_LB]

JKool 01-30-2005 10:12 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Nice work guys.

Several things:
(1) Duece\'s salary is cap friendly, but if we don\'t get him a new contract this offseason, he will be next year\'s Darrin Howard. Thus, he will be wanting a contract that will effect our cap. That was my point. I really haven\'t thought much about it, but trading Duece may be a good option.

(2) As far as Duece proving it on the field, I don\'t know if I buy that. He\'s been hurt regularly, developed an issue with fumbling (including in bad places), and he had a strictly unimpressive year this year. That makes him a bit inconsistent, I think. Of course, that inconsistency thing isn\'t as big an issue to me as it appears to be to others. Either way, I\'m just saying think about it.

(3) A recent article has noted that Horn feels that his salary for next year is a bit of a joke - something about signing bonuses for lesser WRs being more than his salary next year. I do think he gets props for not holding out for a better contract THIS LAST season, but I\'m not ready to say that he won\'t be a contract problem in the coming months. I agree that he\'s proven himself, but he keeps renegotiating his contracts after he signs them; there is something about that that sinks. I love Joe, don\'t get me wrong, and I think THIS PAST season he\'s been nothing but a team guy, but that hasn\'t always been the case. I\'m going to suspend judgement on this one a few months to see what happens with his contract.

(4) If you agree that there have been many misses in Cincy, then you have admited my point. For every Carson Palmer, there is an Akili Smith and a Kilmer (I don\'t remember his first name even, David maybe?). I just don\'t see why people are so certain the risk will payoff in the way that will help us.

(5) If you don\'t like my examples, that\'s fine. They were just examples of a rule that most will agree holds in the NFL - QBs, like WRs, take two to four years to really come into their own. This is why many of the good QBs have spent time in the CFL, NFLE, Arena Football and so on - they just weren\'t ready right away.

(6) I think we\'re agreeing on the Roethlisberger (though I don\'t think everyone sees it as clearly as you do/did). My point was that for every rookie success there is MUCH more to the story than just being highly touted out of college. I am of the view that VERY few rookie QBs can get the job done in their first few years - Ben is an exception, and you seem to agree.

(7) This team is NOT in a position for success with a game manager QB. We need to fix an OLine that was carp (smile) this year! We also have a terrible defense (nearly the worst in NFL history). These are not a recipe for success. I may change my view on the risks we should take at the QB position IF we improve the OLine and the Defense dramatically, but until then I don\'t see taking a risk on a QB. Our QB, if nothing else, is able to take a serious beating AND he CAN run away from the pass rush (unlike most \"game manager\" type QBs). Why bring in a guy who may get his clock cleaned over and over again?

JKool 01-30-2005 10:22 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
LB,

I did read your post; I\'m sorry if you felt mis-heard, I could have been clearer. I was merely wondering if you had some insight into this stuff about JT, since people keep mentioning him.

I\'ve heard this conspiracy theory about protecting Brooks from competition many times, and I don\'t know what I think about it. I\'m still not buying it I guess, but lots of smart people have made some cases for it.

If this is true:
Quote:

I am just saying that you never know until the guy gets in their with the first group and has his shot at it
Then I don\'t see why we should have a feeling one way or the other about JT. He did not have this shot so we don\'t know one way or the other. It doesn\'t make sense to say that you can\'t know (since he never had a really opportunity to show his stuff) but that you think he would have turned out well (which is not exactly what you said, but I think you\'ll take my point).

Montana is an odd example for a leader. He certainly did lead by example, but he was never really an up in your face guy vocal kind of guy. He just did his job and did it IMPOSSIBLY WELL. I\'ll ponder this.

IMO, from what I saw of JT, I saw a guy excited to have a chance at the NFL who threw the ball relatively poorly and had some happy feet. Sure he had more passion than AB, but wouldn\'t you expect that from a guy trying to win a job? I don\'t know. I\'ll take your word for what you saw, but I\'m just not feeling this whole JT thing. Honestly though, thanks for you thoughts, I will continue investigating the JT thing.

If he does well in GB, I won\'t think we made a poor decision. As you note, we had very little good information about him, and we got McKenzie in the deal - who was a proven commodity and has helped us. Even if JT is their starter next year, I think that was a fine move on our part.

[Edited on 31/1/2005 by JKool]

BrooksMustGo 01-30-2005 10:33 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
JKool--let me direct your attention to my response on FireVenturi\'s \"My !st four rounds\" thread.

I basically agree that at least 1 of the 3 amigos won\'t be with us next year. I would expect it to be Horn given his run-ins with Haz, but Deuce is easily the most replaceable of the 3 right now.

The only drawback I see to dealing Horn is age. I\'m not sure that Joe has as much trade value given his age and his recent history of playing through injury. I could see maybe Denver being interested in him, but I don\'t see Denver being 1st round interested in him. I hate to say it but signing Joe is a huge risk for anyone. I don\'t question his will, but his body might just fail him. Great player, but too great a risk of minimal return. Even though, now that I think about it--I could see Philly being interested if they want to get back to superbowl next year. Either way, Joe would need to get used to being a 2nd or 3rd WR.

Deuce is even more problematic. With 3-4 guys who could go in the first round and contribute as the feature back from day 1 (for FAR less money), I\'m not sure what the market for Deuce might be.

Additionally, this is a bad year to try and swing a Ricky Williams type trade. Guys like Travis Henry, Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James, Correll Buckhalter, Najeh Davenport, Rudi Johnson and LaMont Jordan are all capable of being an every down back and are all some variety of free agent this season. The good news is that Deuce should be more affordable if we try to sign him. The bad news is that I don\'t see enough demand for a feature back to give Deuce great trade value.

I really can\'t see Miami (for instance) trading for Deuce unless Saban is dying to have Aaron Rogers. But even then, I can\'t see a team in the top 10 offering their number 1 pick for a guy that Haslett has been running down as being undisciplined and fat all season. Honestly, why trade for Deuce if you could draft Benson, Williams or Brown?

I\'m not so attached to Deuce that I\'d be opposed to dealing him. Especially if he holds out for crazy amounts of money or isn\'t properly conditioned. The problem is that there are just too many quality RBs available in free agency or the draft this year.

Which brings us back to the current QB. I\'m obviously no fan of his, but at the same time, he\'s the only 1 of the 3 that we can get any sort of value for in a trade. I just don\'t see anyone but our current QB bringing us a good return.


[Edited on 31/1/2005 by BrooksMustGo]

JKool 01-30-2005 10:43 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Nice post BMG.

I\'ve now reordered my thinking on this matter. We could keep Duece under his current contract this next season, if he doesn\'t hold out and then resign him the next season. What are your thoughts on that option? Holding out may just hurt his chances of getting a better deal the following year? <Crossing my fingers>

Also, if Duece\'s price will be lowered as a result of the glut of backs, I\'m not sure our worry that we can\'t keep all three is true. Horn will be over priced, but he is one of our few stand out players. AB is already over priced, but IMO we won\'t get a reasonable replacement for him (see above discussion of this before anyone jumps on me). Thus, we may have to spend on the three, an extra OT and LB and hope our draft pans out? My, I\'m starting to think that our Super Bowl window really has closed already... snif. That was a depressing revelation. Quick, someone try and convince me I\'m wrong!

[Edited on 31/1/2005 by JKool]

shadowdrinker 01-30-2005 11:19 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
I\'m going to try my best to sum up why Brooks and the rest of the team just don\'t mix...

I have neve rbeen a Brooks advocate, Nor do I call him Leon...

Almost everybody in here can relate to the guy who has worked for the Son of the Boss..or something of the like...

It seems that ..no matter what happens..the blame never falls on the child..even if the actions he took..made the problem...

When Aaron Brooks started his first NFL game for the Saints..He came in like a Fireball..Totally unpredictable..and very exciting for everyone to behold...He managed to help this team to a playoff victory against a very potent foe..and we , as a Team, had never experienced such success...it was almost intoxicating...The Town , no...The State was at an all time high...ESPN was covering every move this kid made..and the townsfolk were quite pleased to have some positive feedback on thier team..and Town...and the , until then,..joke of a Football team called the Saints...

We had players in commercials..we had never really had the kind of luxuries other teams had , as far as publicity in the media went..people knew about us..and they respected us...and it had never really happened before...

Aaron Brooks..like the Boss\'s son..had some weight to throw around..he could pick fights with players..and noone would oppose..He could call his team whatever he wanted..and put them in whatever light he chose..and noone would oppose...

His success here has gained him alot of respect from the Coach..and more Importantly..the Owner...

And much like the Boss\'s son..he will continue to pass the blame..and say what he wants..and act how he wants..no matter the consiquence...

In his world..the Coaches have been paying extra special attention to him..sending him to specialized classes to build his self esteem..and leadership abilities..often..neglecting other equally important players on the very same team...sending him the message..we can\'t win without you, you are the missing link..you are everything..and..like any normal person..he may have started to buy inot this belief..and we are left with what we have now..an average Qb..on an average team...

This problem was created by the Saints themselves...partly the Coach and Owner..for making him believe he is irreplacable..and partly the players..for going along with it...now..it\'s out of hand...he may not be the biggest problem as far as..winning goes..but..He is the biggest problem ..when you ask....Why can\'t this team seem to get it together?...

In the words of Forrest Gump...\'\'That\'s all I have to say about that\'\'


Tobias-Reiper 01-30-2005 11:29 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 


..to answer the original question:

mas·och·ism

A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

saintswhodi 01-30-2005 11:52 PM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Kool, I am gonna flat out disagree with your assessment of Deuce. IF he didn\'t lead the NFC in total yards last year, he was second. And if he didn\'t lead in rushing yards, he was at least second in that as well. You can\'t do that being injury prone and inconsistent. He also had about 1400 yards rushing the year before, his first as the starter. So, as far as your assessment of him in relation to AB, I am gonna have to disagree, like I said, until this year, where an offense he openly complained about in the off-season and injuries doomed him, yet he still got over 1000 yards and more TDS than last year behind an O-line almost everyone on here calls garbage. My value for Deuce is WAY WAY above AB.

And you could very well be right about his FUTURE contract, but right now he is cap friendly for his production. AB is not. It is totally lop-sided. I think what backs like Shaun Alexander and Rudi Johnosn get will determine Deuce\'s value, and it won;t be like what we saw for Tomlinson and Portis, especially with the flood of new backs coming in through the draft. I think we will be okay there.

Joe, man, I love Joe, but trading him to Philly or such or Denver like BMG suggested is not a terrible idea, but his age is, cause it will bring down value. We have to re-sign Joe to a contract he can retire here with.

So IMHO, AB is the only one valuable enough who has such a disparity between performane on the field and salary. Add to that his crap attitude, ego, and apparent poor work ethic, the time is right to unload him. I am not sure we can\'t get by with a game manager here, and his contract off the books. That allows us to put money into different positions of need, and allows us to take a young guy who can sit for a year. I felt this was the year for us to tank it and get high in the draft because liek you, with all the moves that need to be made, we may be losing our window, or it may have passed. That\'s the truly scary thought. And if it has, nothing wrong with starting a rookie.

Like I said, rookie QBs are generally drafted to crap teams. Ben was in the right spot. Look at Carr. He started for an expansion team, got his head relentlessly beat in, and now his team is on the verge of the playoffs. We don;t have expansion team talent here. A few moves, and we are in the thivk of it and I feel a rookie CAN be successful here, or anywhere else in the league IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. Again, all the guys you named for Bengals were drafted by POOR BENGALS ORGANIZATIONS, before MArvin Lewis and before any committment to winning. No lie, I read their scout team was treated the shabbiest of any in the league, and they generally did a poor job. Marvin Lwewis changes that, bam Carson Palmer. So the team and org around a rookie can affect him more than anything else. I can\'t think of any examples where a rookie qb was drafted high to a good org and DIDN\"T have success. McNabb is another example. HE had success almost immediately for the Eagles. On the other hand, QBs drafted by poor orgs have more road to hoe to make a dent. If you have examples to the contrary, where a qb rated high in the draft was taken by a good team and did not have success, I am willing to listen. I don\'t see where I have admitted your point though. Sorry.

JKool 01-31-2005 01:27 AM

Why in the world am I doing this?!
 
Whodi,

(0) I like the way you phrase things Whodi, you have a nice knack for making the people you disagree with sound like they\'ve said something totally moronic. What I said with respect to Duece was this:
Quote:

As far as Duece proving it on the field, I don\'t know if I buy that.
Then I went on to suggest some reasons not to buy it. Thus, I\'m not sure why you think you are \"flat out disagreeing with my assessment of Duece\", since I didn\'t provide an assessment. I provided some points, and I was waiting to hear what other people had to say.

(1) Whether or not Duece is inconsistent depends on what you are looking at. I hadn\'t thought of this before, but it is an interesting point. A guy with two good years and one bad one, who develops a fumbling problem and a weight problem may be judged as inconsistent - year to year. However, I agree that judgement is probably a bit off. I already agreed with BMG that trading Duece is probably not a great option - but it is an option nonetheless. Furthermore, at the outset of this season it was already in open discussion that Duece would be up for a contract negotiation. Sure, he\'s still under contract, but are we going to pay our only real back rookie money? That doesn\'t seem right. He\'ll be renegotiating and getting paid money that WILL hurt our cap position.

(2) I actually don\'t think that we need to get rid of any of the three, though BMG makes a fine point on this. Horn will want to be here, and he won\'t get a better deal elsewhere. He\'ll sign for less than he wants. If Duece is smart, he\'ll wait until next year when there isn\'t a glut of good RBs; this way they\'ll have to pay him more. We\'re already in pretty good cap position even with Brooks\' contract. We should be able to sign 2-3 pricey FAs and our rookies (at least last I heard).

(3)

- (a) The Bengals being a poor orginization is irrelevant. They drafted guys that most teams thought would be good. Both Smith and Kilmer were highly rated QBs. It isn\'t like the Bengals were reaching. Those guys just didn\'t pan out, just like over 50% of fist round picks.
- (b) Again, our defense sucks, our OLine stinks, we have one really good WR, and a back who is overweight, injured, and has a case of the fumbles. Are we really that much better than all these other teams?
- (c) Also, I\'m not making this up, there are few guys who can come right in and play at the QB spot. Maybe one or two per draft class. Most guys need to learn systems much more complicated than their college system, get used to NFL speed, get used to leading older more experienced guys. It takes a few years to get a real feel for it in most cases. Again, that is why so many starting QBs in the NFL did NOT start as rookies - it is not merely because there is another guy there, it is because they have to LEARN to play NFL ball and the learning curve for a QB is NOT the same as it is for a RB or DLinemen.
- (d) I don\'t think this but if you DO think that poor orginizations draft poor players (as in the Bengals case) how in the world could you believe that we would draft a good QB? Do you think we have a good orginization? IMO our Front Office is actually the biggest embarassment as far as this season went. Wow, we do a great job of assessing talent and paying the right amount for it - Stinchcomb, Sullivan, Ruff, Jones, Henderson, and the list goes on.

(4) I never said that a rookie couldn\'t succeed here. I said that without certain changes he will not succeed here. For a rookie, other than a real special rookie, to succeed here we would need a MAJOR improvement in our OLine and we would need a defense. Both McNabb\'s and Roethlisberger\'s teams had solid defenses - we do not. Having a good defense is critical to having a \"game manager\" QB.

(5) Jim Druckenmiller is perhaps an example of what you are getting at - he was drafted in the first round by the 49ers in 97, they still had a pretty good squad then.

Either way, the question was a bit odd on both our parts: a really good QB will be drafted high up in the first round (unless we\'re willing to widen the scope of our definition of \"projected to do well\") - good teams don\'t get to pick then, so it may be IMPOSSIBLE for me to give you the counter example you are asking for. Thus, before I can answer your excellent challenge, we have to decide what we mean by a \"QB who should succeed\" and a \"good orginization\".

(6) McNabb\'s QB rating in his rookie season was 60. He threw 8 TDs and 7 picks that year. That is not a success. His second season his QB rating was 77.8 (that isn\'t too bad for a sophomore) but worse than Aaron\'s rating for this year (which we both know you think is sh-t for a QB rating). I\'d have to say that McNabb did not have \"success\" right away. Maybe McNabb is an example that will satisfy you?

[Edited on 31/1/2005 by JKool]

JKool 01-31-2005 01:59 AM

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.

JKool 01-31-2005 02:17 AM

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.

JKool 01-31-2005 02:24 AM

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...

JKool 01-31-2005 02:29 AM

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.

johnnythesaint 01-31-2005 08:32 AM

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..............................

JKool 01-31-2005 09:17 AM

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...

saintswhodi 01-31-2005 09:35 AM

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.

GumboBC 01-31-2005 09:47 AM

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]

JKool 01-31-2005 10:02 AM

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.

saintswhodi 01-31-2005 10:10 AM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com