another i cant hepp it thread

[Saint_LB]

I would not trade him for:
2. Your uncle\'s first cousin.

You wouldn\'t!! That\'s too bad...dude\'s got game!!

[ScottyRo]

The only time you see JKool and Scotty in a Brooks thread are if they are defending him.

Sorry, wrong answer, for my posts anyway. The bashers are so vast in number that there is little need to add to what is pointed out as AB negatives. My position, which I refrain from stating again, means that I feel like reigning in those extremist views on either side. Again, because there are so many in opposition to AB there is sufficient rallying against the pro-AB stance and rarely a need for me to chime in there unless I think I can add a novel perspective.

In the end, the number of posts I make either way shouldn\'t matter any way. What should matter is the content. If you look at my retorts, they are not defenses of AB as much as they are intended to deflate an overstatement of AB\'s responsibility for our team\'s failure.

I read this and felt the need to respond while it was fresh. I haven\'t read much past it, but I will now. It looks awful interesting.

[ScottyRo]

A) There are those who want the Saints to win no matter
what it takes.

I\'d be surprised to find out that we\'re not ALL in this category.

Deuce is one of my favorite players. Turley was one of my favorites until the JETS meltdown (I agree with wanting to do what he did, just not with the lack of self control). I was all for getting rid of Turley because I thought it would help the team just as I\'d be for getting rid of Deuce if I thought it\'d help us win a superbowl. It wont, though (Danno).

[JKool]

Billy,

Say it with me:

Raven\'s Waterboy, Raven\'s Waterboy, Raven\'s Waterboy...

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

Why not simplify things with your groupings?

A) There are those who want the Saints to win no matter
what it takes.

B) There are those who want the Saints to win as long as
AB is the QB.

It doesn\'t work. These are only mutually exclusive as long as you believe that the Saints cannot win if Brooks is the QB.

How about:

B) There are those who believe that the Saints can win only if AB isn\'t the QB.

That\'s probably closer.

SFIAH

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

SaintFanInATLHELL--

You are correct about the points our defense gave up. And you\'re correct on our win/loss record when a the defense holds an opponent to a respecable score.

But, our defense still ranks near the bottom of the league in most catergories. Like run defense. And it allows the opposing team to run a bunch of time off the clock. I think that\'s gotta be taken into consideration also.

I really appreciate the fact that you bring facts into the debate and make very good observations.

No problem.

I think that a lot of elements go into scoring defense. But in the end teams win games when they score more than the other team. Lower scoring games favors the Saints because there\'s a more controlled balanced game on the offensive side of the ball when the score in close.

SFIAH

[saintswhodi]

Wow, beautiful responses, mostly. Kool, you are absotively right. I argued against grouping, read the post I was responding to again, and got pissed off all over again and responded again. Look at the disparity in times I posted. I decided if grouping was necessary I would give it a shot. Your response was both well thought out and more or less what I expected. There should be NO grouping, but there is. The possible categories we all can fall into are endless. I have said NUMEROUS times if Brooks\' stats came without all the mistakes I have to live with, I would never speak out against him. If that makes me hate him, so be it. I see both you and Scotty had the \"so many people speak out against Brooks already\" answer, and I understand that. And that\'s all good. But if you are truly in the middle, on the fence, whatever, the response should not only be to the person against Brooks, but also to the person who supports Brooks. That makes it seem more evenly that you are truly undecided. I know both of you have said you were, but just like I can give the impression I hate Brooks, you guys can give the impression of undying supporters, not saying you are, just that it\'s an impression that can be drawn. I know both of you have told me clearly where you stand, but when we get into 4 and 5 pages of Brooks defenses, that tends to show a lean towards a side. But damn Kool, I respect the time you put into your post. Mad love and respect to you and Scotty. Like I said initially I wasn\'t dissing either of you, just the ideas of moderates, and groups in general as a response to SFIAH\'s post that anyone who wasn\'t in love with Brooks was a hater. Didn\'t mean to draw ya\'ll in, just to make a point.

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

C. The AB haters. Brooks sucks. Brooks is THE PROBLEM! who is \"lousy\" and can\'t get anything done. Haters who thinks he is the one person in the organization personally responsible for the Saints not winning and not making the playoffs. They thinks that the guy is a CANCER that should be excised post haste.

I was gonna leave this debate alone but I can\'t let this lie rest.

As was I

Get yourself out of the moderate category SFIAH cause it is CLEAR by this post you love Brooks as you try to paint yourself in the most glowing light, while downing others.

I have no need to paint myself as anything. And may seem that I\'m a Brooks lover because all I really get to do here is to discuss attributes that are in the positive direction for Brooks, because so many folks in camp C rail away about how the guy needs to get gone.

I knew your true colors would come out. I have not heard one person say Brooks is THE PROBLEM. They have said he is A PROBLEM THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED FOR YEARS. Your Brooks love obviously prevents you from seeing the difference. I can see Scotty as moderate, and JKool, but you most definitely are not. Kool or Scotty may use the term Brooks bashers, but not haters cause noone has said they hated him.

A vehemently, stridently and vociferously as the negative side of this debate has been going on for over two years, what else would you have me label it?

I find it interesting that folks can dispassionately call Brooks a cancer but somehow not be a hater.

I and others who want him gone have said NUMEROUS times we wish beyond wish he would do better. But he doesn\'t. And he hasn\'t. IT is so evident to me what side of the fence you swing from, stop fooling yourself. I would never expect to see a post like this from Scotty or Kool, but I knew from your posts your true colors would come out eventually. Why\'d it take so long? It\'s obvious you don\'t read what is posted and have a pre-formed opinion.

Not only do I read it, but I always quote it when I respond.

In your eyes I must be a Brooks lover because I point out despite his faults, it\'s not enough to warrant starting over at the QB position. Or that simply by replacing Brooks, that all of a sudden that the Saints will become playoff bound winners. But that\'s what I read on the other side of the debate on a daily basis.

It\'s not a preformed opinion. It\'s a opinion based on facts that I bring to the discussion. Here\'s the typical discussion from my view:

\"We need to get rid of Brooks. He\'s a cancer.\"

\"Let\'s trade Brooks for QB XYZ.\"

\"Brooks isn\'t smart enough to be an NFL QB.\"

\"Brooks is the reason this team cannot make it to the playoffs.\"

When I don\'t see anyout out there that\'s significantly better that\'s available and we can afford. When I see the best 4 year run by a QB in the history of the franchise. When I see a QB that\'s 20-8 when the team holds the opposition to under 21 points.

I also see a QB who makes bonehead plays, who doesn\'t run enough, and who I wish beyond wishing would just shut up when anyone sticks a mike in his face.

Well, i\'m not gonna let you pass it of as fact. Get your head around this. WE DO NOT HATE BROOKS, at least I don\'t. We are simply tired of his cancerous

See? There it is again. If Brooks were really a cancer don\'t you think that someone, anyone, that is actually in the Saints organization would say something?

Let\'s call Brooks a cancer, but don\'t \"hate\" him.

I find that disingenuous.

nature and stupid mistakes hurting this team. See the difference? If he shuts his mouth next year and puts up his stats WITHOUT the stupid mistakes, don\'t you think we wouldn\'t have anything to say?
[quote:0417d56814]

Of course you would. That\'s the point. two years ago it was the interceptions and the fact that he played in December instead of Jake. Last year it was the fumbles. This year it\'s \"stupid mistakes\". Next year it\'ll be something else.

See the pattern?
[quote:0417d56814]
Probably not cause then you can make up some other myth. Do you have a I\'m a Deuce moderate and everyone else hates him plan too? Be for real. At least know what you are talking about before you rant.

Actually I\'ve been meaning to get on Billy about Deuce. He didn\'t do as well this year because he lost his safety net.in Terrell Smith. But I believe in the last 3 years he has proven his worth and should get the contract.

SFIAH

[JKool]

Whodi, I think some of us just put out our best (you included) as often as possible - it can be frustrating to come up against what feels like a brick wall, time and again.

I said this a long time ago, but it might be worth saying again. It isn\'t really of much value to try and assess the psychology, desires, or agendas of other posters (sometimes, but rarely, does this get anywhere). What we ought to talk about is whether or not their arguments are good, bad, middling, what have you. This is of more interest than what camp they fall in.

So, I\'m inclined to agree with you that putting people in camps is often relatively fruitless, including the group moderate. Sometimes it helps to simplify arguments, but generally it is just frustrating.

I know both of you have said you were, but just like I can give the impression I hate Brooks, you guys can give the impression of undying supporters, not saying you are, just that it\'s an impression that can be drawn.

I can understand that.

My point earlier is that it is easy to come to believe that someone is defending Brooks, when merely they are pointing out that blame/praise comes in degrees and is often spread out accross several players at the same time. Thus, saying the OLine sucks is not a defense of Brooks, so much as it is pointing out that the blame for some plays/things is spread out over the QB-OLine group. It is sometimes hard to tease out on which part of that group most of the blame falls, other times it is easy (like some of the cases you pointed out - e.g. backward pass). This is true not just for the QB-OL pair but many other groupings and combinations - that is because it is a team game. For example a pass over the middle. Is that the MLBs fault, the SS fault the LBs as a group\'s fault, the LB-S grouping that is to blame? It is hard to say; sometimes it is obvious, the trailing LB in coverage is to blame, but if it is a zone, it is hard to say which guy should have been rotating, and so on.

Thus, I\'m a bit confused by the reaction of some when they say, you defend Brooks at all costs, when all the other was doing is pointing out this fact about blame distributions.

I just don\'t think a lot of things are that obviously cut and dried.

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

A) There are those who want the Saints to win no matter
what it takes.

I\'d be surprised to find out that we\'re not ALL in this category.

Deuce is one of my favorite players. Turley was one of my favorites until the JETS meltdown (I agree with wanting to do what he did, just not with the lack of self control). I was all for getting rid of Turley because I thought it would help the team

I don\'t think it did though. In fact if his back checks out, I\'d be in favor of bringing Turley back. I do belive that he has burned his bridges in St. Louis.

(I snipped the rest)

SFIAH