Gandy refuses pay cut.
 

Saints | Brooks Backs Gandy
Mon, 20 Jun 2005

Larry Weisman, of USATODAY.com, reports New Orleans Saints QB Aaron Brooks is standing behind OT Wayne Gandy. The Saints approached Gandy and asked him to take a pay cut for the 2005 season and so far he has refused. Because of an accelerator in the contract he signed in 2003 when he joined the Saints as a free agent, his base salary is $5.25 million. Brooks says this about Gandy: "I think the guy deserves every penny of it." Brooks is hoping the Saints find a way to keep his back side protector, Gandy. "Tapping on Wayne's shoulder for a pay cut is not the answer," Brooks says. "That's kind of unfair, in my opinion. I respect him. I look up to him, as a player and as a person."

Saw this off another forum... thought it was interesting. Come on 5.25 mil and he's competeing for a roster spot... either take a pay cut, or get cut! He's got to realize he won't get any where near that amount on the open market right now... it wouldn't hurt to take a 2 to 3 million dollar pay cut. That's still a nice chunk of change he'll be making.

RE: Gandy refuses pay cut.
 

BYE..............

RE: Gandy refuses pay cut.
 

Hmmm. Now I have to put on my conspiracy cap. Was Jonathan Stinchcomb getting all that love and praise just to put some pressure on Gandy to take a pay cut?

#1)Brooks, again, shetup. I don't care about how you feel personally about Wayne Gandy. Noone cares about your opinion until you prove something yourself. Gandy is on the decline, and I understand you can sympathize with sub-par performance, but this is a business. Seems like a way for you to speak out on the fact you will be asked to take a pay cut or get cut next year yourself if you don't make the jump to the next level.

#2) Gandy, take the cut. you are 34 and are coming off a very disappointing year. Plus, you didn't have the hands or agility to catch Brooks' backwards pass. We simply need more of that from you for 5.25 mil. Take the cut, or get cut, plain and simple. That's too much money for a LT on the decline.

Shocker! Brooks backs a mediocre and inconsistent player when he refuses to take a paycut to reduce his inflated and undeserved salary at a time when a younger and maybe more talented player is beginning to challenge for a spot. Who'da thunk it?

Maybe Brooks is just trying to be the "leader" of the team.

mmm hhmmm

At least Brooks finally has a position on something. Perhaps -he's- starting to feel a little heat at last. Can you say A-Mac?

You must have been hanging out with 08. LOL

AB trying to buddy up to his teammates to build stronger bonds and make it harder for A-Mac to break in???

Sounds believable. Then again, it's an issue of money, so AB would weigh in anyway... LOL

-Saints GM is denying they asked Gandy to take a pay cut.
-Gandy's agent is saying they did for under performing and argues that point.

Someone is lying...

Gandy is our third largest cap hit behind D. Howard and A. Brooks this year. His cap hit does go down to the 3.5 mil range for the next three years, but he definitely has underperformed his contract. If players like Duece, Bentley, McKenzie can cry for new contracts for outperforming their old contracts, why can't the Saints ask for cap relief from Gandy?
Speaking of underperforming, I second and third the JUST SHUT UP AWARD of the day to Aaron Brooks. He is costing us over 7 mil against the cap this year and is the ultimate underachiever.

Amen Stockman.


Stick this in the back of your mind: After Howard leaves via FA next season (b/c he won't have signed a long-term deal, the Saints aren't going to franchise him for $10 million a year, and they'll most likely need the franchise tag for Deuce, Bentley, McKenzie, someone else), and Gandy gets replaced by Stinchcomb, gues who our biggest cap figure will be????

Buy those A-Mac jerseys now boys.

underachiever... he's like the best qb the Saints have ever had!!! How many qb's we have had to post over 3, 000 yards on a consistant bases?

He's an underachiever!!!! And an average QB... actually his QB Rating and Comp % are BELOW AVERAGE. LOL

SO WRONG!!! I'll give you average but if you compare him over all Saints QB of the past, how does he compare is that I was getting at.

Oh man I feel an AB thread forming... Again... :roll:

cant compare him to past qbs

his numbers become inflated due to the fact he will be throwing the ball 95 % of the time in the 2nd half because we are behind

usually due something he did in the 1st half

just a thought

I gotta give it up to Gandy on this one ......

Brooks is backing Gandy in hopes that he will spend some off season time working on his receiving skills and Gandy refuses to take a pay cut based upon Brooks play because he could end up being one of the top receivers ......

Way to go Gandy .....

sure you can compare him to past quaterbacks that theroy just doesn't hold water... you can come up with any excuse ya want to not to comaere him what oh he's black, you can't compare him to the others... oh hes from Va you can't compare him to the others... please.

Sure you can .....

Brooks is no. 4

Behind Manning , Everett and Hebert

Fifth, imo

Add Stabler to the list aforementioned by 08

Give me a break! If your comparing a dooche to a turd sandwich I guess I would rather have the dooche. Comparing Brooks to any other Saints QB is a horrible arguement for whether Brooks is an underachiever. The Saints have never had good QB's. How does that affect what Brooks has done to date?
With the natural skills he has he should be putting up at the very least Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb numbers. Hell I would even take Jake Delhomme numbers, but oh wait that was the Overachiever the Saints let go to stick with Mr. Backwards pass.

uhm do you read? I am comparing Brooks with past Saints QB's... mean he is the best QB we have had. I am not worred about the likes of Culpepper or McNabb, we have never had QB's of that caliber, the first step in that direction it seems was the likes of Manning and or Brooks. I know you're one of the types that will use whatever you can to dismantle an argument to fit your side, to hell with the facts or what someone elses point is or even comparinsons... "he sucks compared to Culpepper", when the original point is he is the best thing we have had over 38 years!

well...
 

AB should never be measured by how many yards he passes for...he passes for a lot of yards because he has to come from behind so often...to no avail at least 50% of the time.

That being the case...isn't it wise to back the main guy protecting your blind side while you're trying to find someone to pass to?

Take it easy bro. You missed the whole point of the guy's post. Don't let AB love blind you. First off, he is saying, and this really can't be argued, outside of Archie, the Saints have had no great QBs. Period. End of discussion. Then Brooks comes along, the Saints have a high powered offense, he puts up some good stats while making the dumbest mistakes you have ever seen, and fans, such as yourself, wanna annoint him into the Saints Hall of Fame(by the way, go take a look at that list for QBs). Brooks is in no way, shape, or form better than Archie. With the teams Archie had, it's a wonder he is still able to walk. He took a beating. And wasn't he league MVP one year? Not even close. If you wanna go on heart and emotion, Archie, Hebert and Fourcade have Brooks beaten in those departments. If you wanna go by stats, Everett put up some pretty good ones the two years he was here.

Second, he was comparing AB's natural ability to Culpepper and McNabb's, not his stats are legacy. This should have been apparent in his statement: but ya never know. You used it as an attempt to compare AB gamewise to Culpepper and McNabb, which it obviously was not.

Noone denies AB has nice numbers, but when have the Saints EVER had an offense like this for any prior QB? Ever? Nope never. So his basic argument that saying Brooks is the best we ever had is not really saying anything at all is true. Deuce could be the best RB. Joe could be the best receiver. Willie was the best LT. McKenzie is the best corner. See the trend? It's like saying the TC Scion is a better model than the Ab. Well, Scion has only had 3 models, so are you really saying much if all are crap compared to Lexus?

I have a question Euph...

How are you comparing Brooks now to QBs of the past?

I mean, saying that his numbers are better now then Mannings were 30 years ago, for example, isn't really fair is it? I mean, Kordell Stewart's numbers are probably better than Archie's, but that's b/c the game has changed. I wouldn't call Stewart better than Archie, would you?

So then the question is, how do Brooks' numbers compare to current QBs' versus past Saints QBs' as compared to the league average then. Make sense?

I mean, if AB normally has a QB Rating of 80, and that ranks him 20th in the league on average, and Archie had a career QB Rating of 65, but that ranked him 10th on average, I'd say Archie was a better QB, b/c for his era, relative to his peers, he scored better... wouldn't you agree?

In that case, isn't what AB does relative to Culpepper or Manning relevant? :)

Stabler was a good quarterback , but came to New Orleans a little too late in the career to make it in the top 5 quarterbacks in New Orleans . I always get stuck between Brooks and Kilmer in the 5th position .

Ok then... if you want to go there then rank the past Saints QB's league ranking in there era to Brooks in his era. You'll see that Brooks in the top ten overall in categories in yards TD's what have you. I think Manning was the only QB that we had to rank in the top 10. Brooks has been ranked in the top ten consistantly.

Just go with stats... and leave your heart out of it and only while they played for the Saints.

Already have .

Brooks is no. 4

Let's give Euph a break. As he points out, Aaron Brooks is on his way to holding some very important all time Saints records for a QB. Just counting 2000-2003, he was already SECOND on the all tiem fumbles list. Only 20 behind Archie, who had 8 years and the worst line in the history of the NFL to help him have a higher number. You go Aaron. they should prob add the 12 or so from this year soon. Also in those 3 years, Aaron has made his way to 5th on the all time INT list. This is just for stats 2000-2003 mind you, and he didn't even have a full season in 2000. So as Aaron heads towards these important milestones in team history, let's all give him the support he deserves. He has achieved these numbers with help from the best offense we have ever had in the team's history. You go Aaron.

well you did something wrong... Brroks is currently tied for first with Archie Manning 10 years with the Saints and Brooks with only 5 years.

here are just some of the numbers... TOTALL TOP TEN FINISHES while wearing a Saints uniform and the number of years they were a Saint.

...................TD......yards........Completions.....Total
Manning10.....3.........3...................4.................10
Brooks5.........3.........4...................3.................10
Everett3.........2.........2...................3..................7
Hebert 7.........2.........2...................2..................6
Kilmer4..........2.........2...................2..................6
Fourcade4......0.........0...................0..................0
Stabler3.........0.........0...................0..................0
Scott 9...........0.........0...................0..................0

playoff wins
Brooks............1

So as you see if we go with top 10 finishs in said cat. Brooks will lead the pack this year.

Some of the best comebacks of the season last year were put togeather by Aaron Brooks and our offense. You guys should give him some respect. No quarterback ever won us a playoff game. Weather we like him or not he is our quarterback. He does some things well and some not so well. All we can hope for is improvement. If he took us far into the play offs or the SB everyone would be saying how great he is.

Culpepper has thrown more INTs since 2000 than Brooks... 74-57

Manning 115 ints as a Saint for 10 years
Brooks 67 in 5 ok almost to close to call here.

I went looking for statistics on old QBs (mostly to support my Stabler theory, which statistically turns out to be a bad idea). Though I now admit that Stabler may not be in the top 5, I certainly don't place AB there either.

If you choose to evaluate things in a vacuum without considering the talent on offense that surrounds AB, and in comparison what was there for the prior QBs. If you choose to ignore the changes in the league rules that consistently favor the passing game. If you evaluate ABs stats for last year as a success when in reality they are inflated due to consistently playing from behind.

In short, Aaron Brooks has not earned the right to be even considered in the same league as Archie Manning and he never will be.

[quote="Euphoria"]First off, you don't have the slighest idea of what TYPE of person I am.
Also I never said "he sucks compared to Culpepper" so don't go putting quotes around it like I did. But since you brought it up, Aaron Brooks does suck worse than Culpepper and about 20 other starting QB's in this league.
Give me Jake Delhomme and his modest stats every day of the week over Mr. Stat Zero Heart!

Gandy= gone hahahahahahahah

...and I was waiting for a responce like that one. Its just a comparison. At least you seen the light of day with Stabler... But to say "well you can't compare them becuase they had different Centers is nuts to tough". GET ANOTHER CENTER THEN. Brooks has bad people around him... as well as the others... different opponets different style of games even. You wanted Stabler in the top 5 but the stats just don't add up... so you choose to use an arguement to get Brooks out of the top 5. Manning got to number one and you have to admit he was on HORRIBLE teams... Stabler had better talent and he doesn't perfrom, why... couldn't throw a deep ball ect helps the D out when playing against the Saints that counts agasint Stabler. So what the QB does either helps or can hurt the team and the over all teams performance.
Take into account number of years a player has been around the teams get better or worse it evens out over time.

Stats are the dumbest way of evaluating a QB possible. Give me Tom Brady and his three Superbowl rings over Mr. Stat Peyton Manning every day and twice on Sunday. You know what STATS stands for right? Same Tired Arguement That Sinks

We are discussing comparing Saints QB's not Manning and Brady. Ok then lets go by playoffs wins... damn Brooks wins that one. There are different ways you can classify in order to rank them... By your own heart, Wins, Stats.

Everyone is quick to bash Brooks sure he has had great games and bad... but over all he matches up with being the Best Saints QB's ever thus far in the Saints 38 year history. Perhaps not in Fan favorite but statistically, he does. Wins still yet to be determined and has playoff win under his belt.