[quote="saintswhodi"][quote="SaintFanInATLHELL"]Brooks isn't as good as those guys. But he isn't trash either.

The point is that he is good enough right now to get this team where it needs to go. The issues that are on this team right now are in places where his contribution isn't significant.

The point still stands that Brooks has numbers that are in the ballpark of Brady's. Manning has superior numbers to both of them. Yet Brady has all the rings.

The question that keeps coming up is "What can we do about Brooks to make this team better?" I still contend it's the wrong question. You don't need to do anything to Brooks, warts and all, to make this team better.

I really feel that folks complain about Brooks just to have something to complain about because this team isn't successful. It's a continuing discussion about "digust" and "dissapointment" due to Brooks' inability "to lead the Saints to the next level."

The last time this team was in the playoffs they had a top 10 defense. They have had the most consistent and productive QB play in the history of the franchise since then. But yet they haven't gotten to the playoffs since.

But out of poor defense and the QB, folks keep choosing the QB. It's borderline insane to me.
All intagibles. Bring every QBs stats for the last 4 seasons into them and offer them blind and ask them to pick QBs based on it. Brooks would be in the top 5 every time.

At the end of the day QB play is about wins and stats. Like baseball pitchers, the QBs get blamed for losses even when they don't get run support. But to call a guy who is 2-10 with a 1.71 ERA a bad pitcher because of his record without examining the stats isn't evaluating the situation. By the same token calling a pitcher with a 4.6 ERA and a 10-2 record a great pitcher isn't a good thing either. In both cases the record doesn't give a true indication of the productivity of the pitcher.

It's the same with Brooks. The leadership, smarts, and intangibles arguments are a coverup for the fact that the guy posts consistent stats year after year and yet the team goes nowhere.

So when talking about QBing the stats are important. And I'll continue to bring them to the table.

That's the offense. Not Brooks personally. Personally Brooks gets the fumble in the Arizona game. But the entire offense including penalties by Riley and Boo, Deuce's fumbles, receiver drops, and flat bad playcalling all contributed to the effect. I can even buy an argument of "...if the OFFENSE was more consistent."

But Brooks is the poster boy for the offensive ineffiency. In virtually every post, he is the only one blamed. It's never "the offense is inconsistent." or the "offense needs to get better." It's Brooks specifically.
No I would prefer to have a defense that is in the top 10 so that we have a team that has a chance to win it all.

Championship NFL teams stop the other guys from scoring. All of the offenses that you named have never won the big game. And before you bring the 1999 Rams to the table, be aware that their defense was #4 in scoring defense that year.

You're still missing the point. Without a decent defense it doesn't matter if you have Brady, Manning, Vick, McNabb, or Brooks. No defense = No championship plain and simple.

SFIAH

So your point this whole time has been, "Hey everyone, ignore the fact Brooks led the league in red zone turnovers(which takes points off the board), ignore the fact the D was top 10 in takeaways, ignore the fact the offense couldn't score in the first quarter, and most first halves, ignore the fact the new offensive system was a disaster, ignore the backwards pass, ignore the awesome TD to Mobley or whoever for the Broncs, ignore the INT in the second half of the Seattle game that gave them the ball inside their own 20 in a 14-7 game(by the way, the D created THREE turnovers first half of that game, we had 7 points), ignore all the three and outs, ignore the fact Brooks still fumbled double digit times, he just recovered far more than last year, ignore all the fumbles last year, ignore the fact he can't complete 60% of his passes, EVER, ignore the fact Dallas fans were glad they had Vinny and not Aaron when we played and BEAT Dallas, and Vinny was poo, Aaron for three quarters was worse, etc. etc." IGNORE ALL THAT, and say the defense is the main and only problem. Okay, good luck with that.

Oh, and I will also look at Brooks' and Brady's stats side by side for you.

Brady-Career completion %=61.6 Best year 63.9. WORST YEAR=60.2. Career passer rating= 87.5. Best year=92.6. WORST YEAR= 85.7.

Brooks-Career completion %=56.5. Best year=59.1. WORST YEAR=53.6 Career passer rating=81.5. Best year= 88.8(plus 14 lost fumbles) WORST YEAR=76.4

So Tom Brady's WORST passing percentage year is better than Brooks' BEST. His WORST passer rating is almost the same as Brooks' BEST EVER. And until last year, Brady NEVER had a pro bowl RB, and/or a pro bowl receiver. Brooks has. Yeah, stack that side by side, and see who you would take. I know who I would.

You only pick the two stats that's significantly different. Both have played for 5 seasons. Here's ALL the career totals:

Like I said I think you picked the one of the three stats with a disparity: wins and SB titles the others. Brooks has comparable TDs and Y/A even though his career comp %ages is 5 points lower than Brady's. He also has nearly 20 total TDs more in the same time frame.

I just can't believe that a 5 point differential in completion percentage is the only difference between the Pats winning 3 SBs in 4 years and the Saints having squat.

Do you?

Look to the defense Whodi. Look to the defense.

SFIAH

Nope. BTW exactly how many of those were there? Who was second? How many did they have?

What I'm saying is that even if the redzone turnovers were cut down to zero, that there would not have been a significant variation in the number of wins.

And yet gave up nearly 26 points a game.


And yet that same offense was in most games despite the fact that they were virtually guaranteed to be down 20 points in the second half.


As you ignore the fact that Brooks brought the offense back in the 4th quarter of multiple games. The fact that the offense scored the last time that they held the ball in the Minnesota game.

Yes. exactly. That's why the debate continues. The offense was in the top half of the league in most statisitical categories, while the defense was in the bottom third for virtually every statistical category.

Because the stats show that regardless of offensive efficiency, that to be a Super Bowl caliber team you must have a top 10 defense, and must must must be able to stop the run.

So yes, until the Saints' defense can consistently stop teams from running and scoring, ignoring Brooks is the best move because it's the wrong focus. What he brings to the table, warts and all, is sufficient.

SFIAH

Wasn't the offense 27th in rushing? Yes let's ignore that. Oh, the team didn't, they drafted Jamaal Brown first and not Derrick Johnson. I think they know what side of the ball could help the team the most. They went after Jermaine Mayberry ASAP in FA. Hhhhmmm....maybe they think running the ball and controlling the clock will give them a better chance to win. Imagine that. Offense on the field more, defense on the field less, yards the defense can allow goes down. BRILLIANT!!!

What multiple games? That's not true. Do you mean games where he sucked for 3 quarters and Joe Horn bailed him out in the 4th like Dallas and Tampa? Please tell me you don't mean those. His slow starts were half the reason we were behind. People were speculating he was throwing the first half of games so he could bring the team back. Guess you bought it. Do you seriously see a QB who hurts the team for 3 quarters but may get lucky cause he has a pro bowl receiver in the 4th as something that shouldn't be addressed?

We didn't need a significant variation in wins, we needed one more to make the playoffs. One. Maybe if Brooks doesn't fumble on the one in Arizona, the team doesn't get down on themselves, and somehow we win, and we are in the playoffs. I think you are missing how NOT putting points on the board can HURT a team. The object is to score more than the other team is it not? When you have a QB who CONSISTENTLY gives away those opportunities, well you do the math.

Again, not true. Why do you think the offense had as many opportunities as they did? Do you think a D that is top 10 in takeaways helped that? We were never guaranteed to be down by 20 points, what we were guaranteed is that the offense would nto score in the 1st quarter, and possibly the half, while also going three and out. Yes, I can see how that helps the defense.

No I picked the two stats that are most important for a QB, passer rating and completion percentage.

He also had a pro bowl receiver and RB, unlike Brady. Think Brady would have more TDs with Joe HOrn and Deuce his whole career?

Nope, not the only difference, but one of the main ones. There is more than one way to fix a team. Don't pop firecrackers to distract people from the fact you are stealing their car. The offense AND Brooks was just as big a problem as the D last year. But I don't have to prove that to you, the team already did with the first round draft choice and the first free agent we got. LEt's not forget TE Shad Meier, WR Az Hakim, RB Antowain Smith, and I think we see what the people who get paid to do this saw as a priority. But by all means, continue to divert people's attention. The TEAM has shown us where they think the problem is.

In the interest of brevity:

BROOKS RULES!

BROOKS SUX!

Two camps.
And ne'er the twain shall meet.

btw, BROOKS SUX!

Sure. It's just as valid as the fact that you ignore the poor defense, inconsistent running game, sloppy offensive line, predictable play calling, the drive killing penalties and drops, and the complete inability of the defense to stop the run in any meaningful way.

Every discussion about Brooks with you whodi seems to be designed to put every onus of this team on one and only one guy: Brooks. You are convinced that the Saints will be a better team without him. But you may soon find out the difference that he in fact makes. When our offense looks like the Chicago Bears or the Washington Redskins.

You keep complaining about a QB that led last years offense which was in the top half of the league in scoring, passing yards, and passing TDs. You keep saying the guy is a bad QB. 118 total TDs in 4.5 years isn't a bad QB. Flawed maybe. Needs improvement possibly. But just so flat bad that he must be gotten rid of any and all costs? You have to be kidding me!!

The defense ranked in the bottom 5 in every meaningful category. And nothing, NOTHING, that you can say about Brooks can change that.

SFIAH

Why are they so important? What specifically about those two stats that leads to SB wins. Manning won both of those categories last year. The 2000 Ravens yearly numbers for those categories were worse than Brooks worst average.

So explain the correlation to me.

SFIAH

Why does he SUX? Who would you replace him with that doesn't SUX?

SFIAH