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

Brooks for Brees?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Quote by saintwhodi: I said teams cannot stockpile QBs like Montana and Young these days cause of the cap. Here was your arguement as to why Delhomme and Jeff Blake shouldn\'t have been let go. Quote by saintwhodi: The 49ers ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-09-2005, 01:03 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Brooks for Brees?

Quote by saintwhodi:
I said teams cannot stockpile QBs like Montana and Young these days cause of the cap.
Here was your arguement as to why Delhomme and Jeff Blake shouldn\'t have been let go.

Quote by saintwhodi:
The 49ers didn\'t ship Young off, cause he and Montana were class players and not afraid of competing.
Show me where you EVER said teams can\'t stock-pile QBs because of the cap?

That was ME who said that:
Quote by GumboBC:
How many teams do you know that have 2-back-ups good enough to start for other teams?

You can\'t keep 3 starting QBs on your team. And if you think you can you are misguided!!!
I\'ll be waiting!!!!!!!!!!
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:19 PM   #12
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Brooks for Brees?

From the Pats thread,

The Pats MAY NOT( I say may cause players are definitely bigger, faster, and stronger, but I will go from a talent stand point here and those other teams had that) beat any of those other dynasty teams in a game, but they also aren\'t able to stockpile hall of famers on one team either cause of the cap. They may not be the greatest dynasty of all time, but for what they have done in the period in which they have done it, they have had the greatest accomplishment in NFL history.
Again, please don\'t respond to me anymore, especially if the best you can do is take pieces of arguments from different threads and throw together some crap assumption, and then try to tie them together. I WILL PUT THIS IN CAPS, MAKE IT BOLD, AND UNDERLINE IT, PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANY MORE. I HAVE NO TIME FOR THIS BECAUSE ALL YOU SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO IS MAKE CRAP UP AND TRY TO PISS PEOPLE OFF BY UNDER-MINING THEIR OPINIONS. IF ANY OF THE MODS CAN MAKE THIS FLASH SO GUMBO GETS WHAT I AM SAYING, PLEASE HELP.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:21 PM   #13
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Brooks for Brees?

not to dicker too much on the point, but i believe most teams do maximize their cap spending. 16 teams are already facing cuts to get under it with the titans on the high end at +26mil. last season at july 15 the saints were further below the cap than any other team (http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayt...n/1510617.html). without calculating it looks like most teams were 3-4mil under after their big cuts.. that is 8mil left on the table n.o. could have bid harder on antoine winfield, hartwell, or ian gold. anyhoo, the bolts are in perfect position to keep both imo. also i cant imagine brooks being schottenheimer\'s choice to lead them over brees.

the best fits for ab i think are, in no particular order-
clev- dump garcia, crennel uses #1 for derrick johnson
gb- from whence he came, works as favre heir, even better if he retires before next season
dal- perfect fit but can you see imagine parcells choosing leon as his main man? laughable
sf- his daddy mc could sell nolan on him. neither rodgers or smith look like true #1 overall picks.
arz- green likes to load up on offense. it owuld be my fave place to see him end up

gumbo, it aint annointing. plenty of folks would simpl;y rather try a different poison than the 50+ fumbles in the last four years guy.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:24 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
Brooks for Brees?

Gumbo, Brees stats aren\'t all that important. I mean, they\'re in the back of my mind, but what is important to me is the overall impression I have gotten from him. I think he\'s going to be a good QB. When looking at his stats and things you point out, all I see is that he is capable of winning.

I\'m not trying to compare him to Brooks or anything. My problem with AB is the same as with Haslet...that is, they\'ve both had time to get things done and haven\'t done it. Now, we know we are stuck with Haslet another year. That doesn\'t mean we are stuck with AB and, thus, there\'s nothing wrong with talking up Brees as a replacement.

I like the thought of trading Howard and a 3rd or 4th to SD for Brees. They were drafted in similar spots and have both had good careers. Howard\'s downside is that he\'s been injury prone. Brees is worth more cuz he\'s a QB. It might take more than a 3rd pick. I don\'t know.

I\'m not annointing Bress the second coming of Archie. I just think it\'s a very interesting scenario to look at.
ScottyRo is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:29 PM   #15
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
Brooks for Brees?

Whodi, all I can say about your problem with Gumbo is take it upon yourself to ignore him if that\'s what you want. He has every right to post about whatever he wishes, whether you agree with it or like it or whatever.

If you post something and he responds to you about it, it is up to you to ignore it if you prefer. From what I\'ve seen you just can\'t help but to respond to him and that\'s not his fault.
ScottyRo is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:30 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Brooks for Brees?

Again, please don\'t respond to me anymore, especially if the best you can do is take pieces of arguments from different threads and throw together some crap assumption, and then try to tie them together
Okay, so, in one thread you say the Saints should have kept Bulger and Delhomme. And I tell you teams can\'t stock-pile QBs and you tell me that the 49\'ers did it with Young and Montana.

Quote by saintwhodi:
The 49ers didn\'t ship Young off, cause he and Montana were class players and not afraid of competing.
Then in another thread you say:

Quote by saintwhodi:
The Pats MAY NOT( I say may cause players are definitely bigger, faster, and stronger, but I will go from a talent stand point here and those other teams had that) beat any of those other dynasty teams in a game, but they also aren\'t able to stockpile hall of famers on one team either cause of the cap. They may not be the greatest dynasty of all time, but for what they have done in the period in which they have done it, they have had the greatest accomplishment in NFL history
.

Which one do you believe? You said 2 different things in two different threads. I was going by what you told me in the thread where we were discussing keeping a bunch of QBs.

I can\'t read everything you post.

I\'ve shown you where you said the exact opposite on the same subject.

Now, I ain\'t the smartest guy in the world, but you confuse me at times with whatever it is you\'re saying.

I\'ve been very civil with you and I haven\'t stretched anything you\'ve said.

It\'s cool........ I won\'t respond to you if you\'re going to act like that. Peace... :P

[Edited on 9/2/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:38 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Brooks for Brees?

Scotty --

I understand what you\'re saying.

But, I just don\'t know if I\'m sold on Brees.

And I\'m not so sure Brees could do as well in our offense.

Our offense is based on production from the WRs.

Brees and the passing game went through the TE. And through the running back. The WRs in San Diego were only a small part of the passing game.

The question in my mind is how effective Brees would do without a superstar TE and less production from the running game. And Tomlinson is more productive than Deuce. Or to this point he has been...
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:42 PM   #18
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Brooks for Brees?

Pot meet kettle.

I often get criticized for taking different stances on the same topic.

But -- there\'s a reason for that.

For one... I don\'t know if there\'s a right or wrong answer to many things that are discussed here.

Take Haslett for example. I hear some persuading arguements on both sides. I agree that Haslett probably should have been fired. And I agree that he\'s made some bad mistakes. But I also think he can still be a damn fine coach.

Confusing?
I\'m sure it is............ I\'m just not willing to side with either crowd on this one. So, I question both sides. And I learn some stuff too. But I\'m leaning towards the anit-Haslett crowd!!

Same thing with Brooks. I don\'t know at this point. I can see a case for getting rid of Brooks. I can see a case for keeping him. Since there ain\'t too many folks here who stand up for Brooks, then it ain\'t much use in me repeating all the negative things about Brooks. Overall, I\'m on the pro-Brooks side of this arguement. Surprise, huh?

But I actually like to hear the negative side about Brooks. I just don\'t like some unfair things that are said. Like folks using win/loss records as a way of judging Brooks. Totally off-base, IMO. I\'ve already stated why a long time ago.

Some folks just take everything a little too far. And I do too at times. You get caught up in a discussion and its hard to leave it alone some times.

Anyway, I learned long ago that its wise to question both sides if you\'re not sure about something. It\'s served me well for many years.


I\'m not on of those guys who thinks he knows for sure what the problems are. In fact, I\'m one of those guys who know for sure that he doesn\'t know what all the problems are.

Someone might tell me McCarthy needs to go because of his play-calling and I\'ll disagree.

Someone might tell me McCarthy needs to stay because he is an excellent play-caller and I\'ll disagree.

Maybe I think McCarthy is an average play-caller who has been crippled by somethings outside of his control.

I\'m always open to debate on EVERYTHING. As long as its logical to me. But don\'t we all feel that way?
The Art of debate, 2/1/2005. GumboBC.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:50 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Brooks for Brees?

saintwhodi --

Look, this isn\'t as personal for me as it seems to be for you. This board is about agreeing and disagreeing. If you post something I agree with, I\'ll be the first one to agree with you. If you post something I disagree with, then I\'ll disagree with it and tell you why.

You have turned this in to something that has nothing to do with agreeing or diagreeing about football.

I don\'t wish to carry on our personal likes or dislikes about each other.

You\'re right, we should not respond to each other. We tried to work it out and it didn\'t work. That\'s the way it goes sometimes, I suppose. Happy posting.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 01:53 PM   #20
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Brooks for Brees?

i was gonna say the same as scotty gumbo but i know you like to use stats. in beisbol you can do that somewhat. but you propose the this qb or that, with this rb or this running defense or that group of lineman propositions ad nauseum. football is a team game which statistics only reflect a portion of what the team performance is. the hallmark of the first dynasty of the cap era, the pats is performance beyond stats. with no statistical examination i would bet they havent led the league in offense or defense the last 4 years. it is the teamwork and contributions from all corners as needed which sets them apart. a successful nfl team needs that more than ever before with the cap. i think you make some interesting posts dewd. i\'m all for examing stats as an aspect of analysis but it can often be quite distant from football realities. i\'m just saying the statistical extrapolations are usually stretched a little far for my little noggin. keep on shining tho bro.
LKelley67 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts