Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

To all Brooks' Bashers.

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Isn\'t that song about a guy and a girl?...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-31-2005, 07:03 PM   #31
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
To all Brooks' Bashers.

Isn\'t that song about a guy and a girl?
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 07:09 PM   #32
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
To all Brooks' Bashers.

:shrug: Maybe, but it can apply in this case in a purely heterosexual way. :realmad:

ScottyRo is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 07:16 PM   #33
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
To all Brooks' Bashers.

:no_no: :arge:
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 10:51 PM   #34
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
To all Brooks' Bashers.

You seem to deny the fact we have an inconsistent offensive line, inconsistent receivers, and, according to you, inconsistent play calling. You you seem to deny that the QB is affected the most by all of that. But, yet, you want to suggest that changing Brooks is the move to make.
Apparently you don\'t read Billy. Let\'s try to make this civil shall we?

Now, you believe that I discount entirely the play of anyone on the team but Brooks and focus solely on him. I deny this allegation. Likewise, you deny my allegation that you refuse to place any blame whatsoever on AB. So we\'re at an impass. What do we do?

Here\'s one idea. Why don\'t we take a look at what the analysts, other fans, and even the organization are saying? Do you think that is fair?

You see, I\'ve come to realize Billy that you are so entrenched in this argument that you may not be able to even look at it objectively anymore.

Now, let me be clear on my opinion. Aaron Brooks is an average QB who is of a net zero gain to this team. On the up side, he puts up great stats, he is athletically gifted, he has good escapability, and when he\'s on he can really light it up.

On the down side, he has an inflated salary, he is inconsistent, he is does not possess much leadership or many of the intangibles you look for in a QB. He doesn\'t have much touch and his football IQ has been questioned.

Now, I believe that is a pretty fair analysis. All of those attributes, one way or the other, have been claimed by professional sports writers and analysts. But my guess is that you probably disagree with many of the cons that I listed. What does that tell you? If many fans all see the same thing, if a number of professional writers all say the same thing, if tv personalities, ex-player, current players (ex-teammates), analysts, and even members of the organization all say the same thing, do think maybe there\'s a chance that AB really is a problem? Or is this just some huge conspiracy where thousands of people all harbor a personal and unfounded hatred for AB? Or, are we all just missing something that apparently you and a markedly smaller minority of folks still seem to see? Any chance you\'ve entrenched yourself so much in this debate that you may skew things? Billy, understand that I\'m not attacking you. I\'m being quite serious. I have no doubt in the past that I did exactly what I\'m describing right now. I feel that I came out of it, to the point where I could understand why you pro-brooks folks thought he could make the Pro Bowl... I even agreed. I\'m not suggesting that the line doesn\'t effect his play. I\'m not suggesting the WRs, or TEs, or RBs, or coaches, or playcalling, or fans, etc. don\'t effect his play. But doesn\'t EVERY QB deal with those same elements? So then we\'re back to where we started, aren\'t we?

Bottom line - I don\'t care what Philly did, or what works in Indy or Carolina or SD. I care what works or doesn\'t work in New Orleans. Now I\'ve been over this a number of times, and if you look at the offense, the number one need is Tackle. After that, you simply cannot identify another single position or player who could effect the team as much as Brooks does. Period. Could the Saints get worse with another QB? YES - but that\'s not the point. No one is suggesting AB is the worst QB in the league. At least, I\'m not. I am suggesting that the Saints COULD improve at the QB position and SHOULD seek to do so. Can you really argue with that?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 11:34 PM   #35
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,288
To all Brooks' Bashers.



... this is really good for the shoulders and the traps....
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 08:57 AM   #36
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
To all Brooks' Bashers.

WhoDat --

I\'ve thought long and hard about how to reply to your last post.

I don\'t want to complicate my response, so, I\'m going to keep it simple.

The question is should Brooks stay or go?

The answer is............ well, there is no right or wrong answer.

Some folks think he should go.

Some folks think he should stay.

There\'s evidence to support both sides.


So, you\'re not wrong. And I\'m not wrong. We just have a difference of opinion.

I hope I\'m clear on that and I hope you agree?

My problem is with the folks who state in no uncertain terms that Brooks needs to go. And there\'s a bunch of \'em.

It\'s fine to feel that way. But, it\'s not fine to tell me I\'m some kind of idiot for thinking otherwise.

Am I WRONG for wanting Brooks to stay?

Of course I\'m not WRONG. But, I\'m not RIGHT either.

That\'s hard for some folks to understand. It\'s hard for them to understand that they aren\'t RIGHT about Brooks. And it makes them mad as hell that everyone doesn\'t agree with them.

I understand that I\'m not RIGHT about wanting Brooks to stay.

I\'m not blind, I see a lot of the negative things Brooks does.

There is no winning the Brooks debate.

So, some folks can believe they are RIGHT.

But, I think most folks know what\'s really going on here.

I feel no need to post all the negative crap about Brooks, even if I agree with some of it. There\'s just too much of it on here.

Instead, I put up the pro-Brooks side of the arguement.

The other side needs to be heard, IMO. It\'s not heard nearly enough on here.

I believe some folks who want Brooks to stay are just tired of the subject and don\'t post. I believe some are kinda scared to cross all the Brooks\' bashers.

Well, I\'m not scared. But, it is getting old...



[Edited on 1/2/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 01:40 PM   #37
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
To all Brooks' Bashers.

While I disagree with the suggestion that there are throngs a AB supporters out there too frightened by the big bad bashers of blackandgold.net, I otherwise agree with most of what you said. I am a little confused though.

You stated that we all have our opinions and none of us is right or wrong. OK, so then why is this a problem?

\"My problem is with the folks who state in no uncertain terms that Brooks needs to go. And there\'s a bunch of \'em.

It\'s fine to feel that way. But, it\'s not fine to tell me I\'m some kind of idiot for thinking otherwise.\"

You state in no uncertain terms that he is not the problem, so you not? You question others\' football knowledge and even personal ag--da for suggesting that AB is the problem. How is that different?

I also believe, maybe foolishly, that AB could silence all of us \"bashers.\" Is he capable of a Pro Bowl year? I used to think so - I\'m not so sure though. I\'ll tell you one thing, he could shut me up by producing those types of numbers. But he doesn\'t have to be a pro bowler to make me happy. I\'d lay off of him if he could just play smart, efficient football. Hopefully, you are willing to at least concede that in the past, I have backed AB when he played well despite his team.

Problem is, I\'ve never seen you get down on the guy - and that\'s what I think upsets a number of people here. I can\'t remember seeing you come on this board after a bad game and simply say, \"Man, AB stunk today. When is this guy going to CONSISTENTLY play like I know he can?\" Even when he stinks you rush to his rescue. Which prompts that same old question we kept coming back to with Haslett - what is it going to take? If Brooks gets benched, will you believe that he hurt the offense or wasn\'t the right option? If he gets cut or traded - what then?

In total, a lot of this, IMO, goes back to the team in general. Aren\'t you tired of same old? I certainly am. More than anything else I\'m tired of seeing inconsistency and failure to live up to potential. I can\'t think of a single person of the team that fits that description more aptly than AB. And sure, b/c he\'s the QB he does get more attention that any other player - but don\'t you think it\'s justified? Doesn\'t he affect the team far more than a DT or G or even WR or LB?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 01:58 PM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
To all Brooks' Bashers.

WhoDat --

I\'ll concede. I used to think Brooks was a top 5 or 10 QB in the league.

But, now, the potential doesn\'t seem to be matching the results. I can only go on potential for so long.

I\'m not saying Brooks hasn\'t played well enough to be our QB. I don\'t go along with all this Brooks has played like a \"bum\" stuff. That\'s hardly been the case.

I aslo stil believe Brooks can be one of the top 5 or 10 QBs in the NFL if Haslett will get some of these problems straighted out.

But, at the same time, I\'m willing to concede that Brooks might never be in the elite catorgory. He might fail.

I\'m also willing to concede Brooks has played badly in some games. But no matter how Brooks plays, folks run to this board after the game and lay it ALL on him.

GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-03-2005, 01:21 PM   #39
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
To all Brooks' Bashers.

I\'m glad you can see that. I understand why you get mad when people say, \"Brooks is a bum.\" He may be an idiot, but he\'s not a bum! LOL

Seriously though, it\'s fair to say that Brooks has played like a bum, b/c he has. Likewise, it\'s fair to say he\'s played great, b/c he has. I don\'t think it is unfair to suggest there is some credibility to the generally accepted opinion of AB, b/c writers, analysts, coaches, players, and yes, even fans, have been observing the guy for five years now.

Brooks has improved in a number of areas, but he\'s also fallen off in others. To say that AB is refined is a stretch. I\'m also not so sure you can say that the guy has really improved, despite more attention from the staff (coaches, classes, former greats, coddling, etc) than about any other player.

Here\'s a comparison from his first year as a starter to this year.
2001 - 3,832 yards, 26 TDs, 22 INTs, 55.9% comp, 6.87 y/a, long of 63, 13 40+ comps, 76.4 QB rating
2004 - 3,810 yards, 21 TDs, 16 INTS, 57% comp, 7.03 Y/a, long of 57, 5 40+ comps, 79.5 QB rating

That ain\'t much improvement - certainly not commisserate with what you expect from a guy going from first year starter to highly paid five year pro. At least, that\'s not what I expect. I expect more.

The guy isn\'t bad, nor is he particularly good. I couldn\'t call him average, though that\'s close. I can only accurately classify him as inconsistent. Now people want to debate whether he is THE problem - it\'s hard to ever point to any ONE player and say, that guy is THE problem with the team. However, I believe that he is a significant problem for the team. Further, if you think way back to when he was signed, paid top-5 money to be the starter, and chosen over Blake, Bulger, Delhomme, et. al., the rationale was that he was already a playmaker and he had the POTENTIAL to be great. Well, he makes fewer plays on his own now and his potential hasn\'t been realized. You can speculate as to whose fault that is or why it hasn\'t happened, but the bottom line remains that the results expected were no acheived. Now, I see fans of this team justifying a failure to act (not specifically you Billy, and not only in regard to Brooks) on the grounds that a change might make things worse. How is that a good plan?!

Well, this isn\'t really what we wanted, we haven\'t gotten what we expected, a number of different plans and options have been exercised to no avail... but making a change to try and get better also means we risk getting worse, and we just can\'t risk that. Better to suceed at being average than fail at being great. I can\'t tell you how much that attitude infuriates me, and IMO it only breads contempt, apathy, and it\'s the reason many teams stay mired in mediocrity.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 02-03-2005, 04:05 PM   #40
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
To all Brooks' Bashers.

Who,

Good post buddy.

I\'m sure you already know what I have to say about the mediocrity thing, but here are some additional points made by several people here:
(1) We have a limited time frame with the \"talent\" we currently have (this may only be the case if you consider Horn and Duece - b/c running back careers tend to be shorter than most positions - the bulk of our talent, since we have a lot of young guys espc. on D)
(2) If we improve the OLine and the D, we should rise above mediocrity - we were mediocre with the worst D in the league and an OLine that one would be pressed to call ok.

Thus, if we risk a new QB and there is a window you have two probable outcomes:
(1) The new guy is a bust and we get worse.
(2) The new guy is good, but even good new guys (like Boller or Leftwich for example) take about two years to get to close to where Brooks is now statistically.
Either way, our window probably closes.

If you think the window is not closing, the there appear to be two probable outcomes:
(1) New guy is a bust.
(2) New guy makes this team great, but not until after two years.

If we stick with AB, there are two probable outcomes:
(1) AB continues to be the same, and we do better - as our D and improved OL allow the team to win games we didn\'t last year.
(2) AB gets worse (though, I\'d have to say that there is little evidence for that), and we end about the same as last year.

Which of get new guy or stick with AB seems to depend on these factors:
(1) Window, no window.
(2) Probability new guy is a bust
(3) Reasonableness of the belief that AB will get worse.

I can see taking either a pro or a con side on (1) or (2), but I\'m not sure why someone would take the view pro (3)?

I can\'t remember where I was going with this now, but since I wrote it, I\'m gonna see what kind of response it gets - maybe I\'ll remember what I was up to.

One more thing: Compare ABs stats the year prior to this one to his stats his first year as a starter, (modulo fumbles) there is a more significant improvement. If you take the dive in the D and the utter explosion of stupidity on our OL to have effected him this year, then there is reason to believe he is improving (IMO).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts