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

It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again.

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; I agree with all of this, but I guess we'll see. It's just that this debate is comparable with "the Iraq had WMD... or not" debate in the political world. There are only so many ways to look at it, ...

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2005, 01:27 PM   #41
Site Donor 2016
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 17,242
Blog Entries: 45
I agree with all of this, but I guess we'll see. It's just that this debate is comparable with "the Iraq had WMD... or not" debate in the political world. There are only so many ways to look at it, all 4 or 5 restated a bizlillion times on this board and that's why I never jump in on it... I just did!

Anyway all I ask is whether you agree or disagree, don't get bent out of shape over it. Let bygons be bygons, I can see where this thread could get bad but it hasn't. Some people just differ in opinion, but please don't explode over it. When the season starts you won't even worry about this.

Like blackandgold.com on facebook follow us on Twitter
Halo is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 01:43 PM   #42
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
Originally Posted by JKool
Thus, I believe the "go with Brooks, because he is the best available" argument turns on TWO things - fear (or as I like to call it risk aversion - it doesn't sound so bad to those of us who are risk averse) and subjective assignment of "goodness". This second factor is very difficult to assess - it isn't plainly irrational to use - but it is obvious that rational individuals can still differ once the evidence is in. As far as risk aversion goes, it seems the same - rational people can have different levels of risk aversion.

Final Analysis: judgement of the "Brooks is best available" is doubly open to subjective constraints. As long as people aren't too far apart on who might count as a reasonable replacement, should he become available, I think two rational people can stand on opposite sides of this argument.
Kool, as basically agree with this take. I think that 30 years of things going from bad to worse with the franchise has made many people gun shy. Justifiably, a lot of folks don't want to risk losing more ground than we have now. Because we have seen as Saints fans just how bad things can get when you roll the dice.

On the other hand, other folks feel like we just need a little push to get us over the hump. I generally favor dealing Brooks in the offseason when we can actually get value for him. I'm not typically in favor of benching him or cutting him once the season starts (it hurts his trade value too much). I doubt that A-Mac is ready to start, but if it's true that we're dumbing the playbook down for AB anyway, I'd like to see if AMac compete and see if he can pick up the dumbed down version to be a valid option at #2 and eventually the starter.
BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 03:18 PM   #43
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 18
Playoffs is a very attainable goal at this point

super bowl???? i wish, but doubtful

as far as a teams qbs...... well we had 2 a teamers at one time and didnt use the "2nd" stringer properly(oh well an nfc championship and field goal away from the big ring opps my bad got off of the subject)

anyways brooks is our qb for better or worse we gotta live with his strengths and "many" weaknesses

and imho the brooks backers are pretty pushy when it comes to their rah rah brooks but this is still a free country so say whatcha like

as for saying horn bailed out brooks alotta times well you need to go back and watch the film horn has been and will more than likely continue to be our MVP well unless the duece gets loose now wouldnt that be nice
kojak is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts