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

Brooks

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; If your answer is a flat "no", then I ask what was going on in those four games? If the answer is a "qualified no", then I can see where you might be coming from and I am interested in ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-04-2005, 12:29 PM   #11
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
If your answer is a flat "no", then I ask what was going on in those four games? If the answer is a "qualified no", then I can see where you might be coming from and I am interested in hearing the qualifications
.

Um, the answer is a flat no. Did anyone else see who we played the last 4 games? Did anyoen see New England, San Diego, Indy, Philly, ANYONE DECENT? HELL NO. Sorry, but you can't win anything with a QB who loses just as many games as he wins, or takes 3 quarters before he decides to show up against bad teams. We all saw what happened when we played the AFC West, outside of the Raiders. The backwards pass against San D. and Denver LB pass. Brooks sucked the vast majority of the 4 game winning streak, but the teams we played sucked worse. IS it really exciting to beat Dallas who picked 11th, Tampa Bay who picked 5th, Atlanta's back-ups, and Carolina with 14 starters on IR? Damn, color me impressed. We played NO WINNING TEAMS at the end of the year.

Top 20 in the NFL is still a good QB (consider that each team has three QBs and most teams have a QB on the practice squad) - that is still an elite group. Either way, as SFIAH points out, it was a conservative estimate.
Is this a good thing? Practice squad players and 3rd stringers usually don't play no? I am having a hard time seeing the relevance of bringing them into the convo. Brooks is in the bottom 50% in STARTERS going by passer rating, you know the QBs who actually effect games? That's poo with the offense he has around him. Just by watching games you can pick at least 15 QBs that you would flat out take before Brooks, and maybe another 5 or so who you can go either way on.
saintswhodi is offline  
Latest Blogs
Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


MID TERM ELECTION Last Blog: 10-29-2014 By: teddybarexxx


Old 07-04-2005, 12:58 PM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,020
Is Aaron Brooks the only problem?
Obviously not.
But.....
See below sig.
No , but do his worthless performances in the first half of games lead to other problems ??? Like unsustained offensive drives that keep putting the defense on the field far too many times .

AFC Leaders QB Rating, 1st Half

Rank Name Team Games Rating

1 Peyton Manning IND 16 126.6
2 Billy Volek TEN 10 107.1
3 Drew Brees SD 15 105.6
4 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 14 100.1
5 Trent Green KC 16 98.4
6 Jake Plummer DEN 16 95.7
7 Chad Pennington NYJ 13 95
8 Tom Brady NE 16 92.9
9 Steve McNair TEN 8 87.4
10 Byron Leftwich JAC 14 87
11 Kerry Collins OAK 14 82.7
12 Carson Palmer CIN 13 79.8
13 David Carr HOU 16 77.6
14 Drew Bledsoe DAL 16 71.3
15 Kyle Boller BAL 16 71.1
16 Jay Fiedler NYJ 8 69.6
17 Jeff Garcia DET 11 67.1
18 A.J. Feeley MIA 11 62.6



NFC Leaders QB Rating, 1st Half


Rank Name Team Games Rating

1 Donovan McNabb PHI 15 127.6
2 Daunte Culpepper MIN 16 112.7
3 Marc Bulger STL 14 104.6
4 Brian Griese TB 11 104.5
5 Brett Favre GB 16 95.1
6 Jake Delhomme CAR 16 94.4
7 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 14 86.7
8 Vinny Testaverde DAL 16 86.5
9 Joey Harrington DET 16 86.4
10 Patrick Ramsey WAS 9 84.9
11 Michael Vick ATL 15 83.5
12 Kurt Warner ARI 10 82.7
13 Tim Rattay SF 9 82.4
14 Josh McCown ARI 14 73.7
15 Aaron Brooks NO 16 73.7
16 Ken Dorsey SF 9 69
17 Mark Brunell WAS 9 59.7

Now I wonder , how many of these guys will have a starting job next year for a team ???

12 Kurt Warner ARI 10 82.7
13 Tim Rattay SF 9 82.4
14 Josh McCown ARI 14 73.7
15 Aaron Brooks NO 16 73.7
16 Ken Dorsey SF 9 69
17 Mark Brunell WAS 9 59.7
saintz08 is offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 05:32 PM   #13
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,020
For the fun of it , let's look at the time of possession for the Saints offense .

2004 Regular Season

Pittsburgh 34:00
Denver 32:38
Kansas City 32:14
New York (A) 31:51
Tennessee 31:40
San Diego 31:30
New England 31:22
Washington 31:19
St. Louis 31:05
Arizona 30:53
Dallas 30:37
Green Bay 30:28
Jacksonville 30:28
Buffalo 30:21
Minnesota 30:02
Houston 29:59
Carolina 29:56
Tampa Bay 29:43
Baltimore 29:36
Cincinnati 29:20
Atlanta 29:10
Seattle 29:00
San Francisco 29:00
New York (N) 28:52
Indianapolis 28:40
Philadelphia 28:26
Miami 28:20
Chicago 28:20
New Orleans 28:18
Cleveland 28:03
Detroit 28:03
Oakland 26:47

For those that say the Saints need a better defense . The biggest problem is the defense . There is no better defensive scheme then not allowing the opposing offense to touch the ball .

On a side note :

2003
Pittsburgh Steelers 30:42
San Diego Chargers 27:52

Neither team had a major defensive overhaul , but they did get better production out of the quarterback position .
saintz08 is offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 06:17 PM   #14
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Debate closed. 29TH IN TOP? Holy #$%&!!!! I never took the time to see that it was that bad. Add that to the growing list of BS that is attributed to the defense, but can be traced directly to an inept offense. And wait, that time of possession is WITH the defense giving the offense the 10th most takeaways in the league. Just plain WOW.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 06:20 PM   #15
Site Donor 2014
Truth Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 16,813
LMAO. You'd think there was only one guy playing on offense.
Incredible. Every time I read a post by you Brooks bashers I have less and less respect for your opinion on anything football related
Good grief.
Danno is online now  
Old 07-04-2005, 06:24 PM   #16
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by Danno
LMAO. You'd think there was only one guy playing on offense.
Incredible. Every time I read a post by you Brooks bashers I have less and less respect for your opinion on anything football related
Good grief.
That would suppose that we cared about your "respect," or returned it.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 07:18 PM   #17
Retired
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 10,596
Why don't you two lovebirds have sex already? Let's get this party started. Can I watch?
papz is offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 08:35 PM   #18
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
BNB, my apologies man.



You know my smiley sucks on the new format . Halo - seriously do something with these sad smileys ........08
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 12:26 AM   #19
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
TOP goes way down when you have to throw a lot. I don't see the relevance? TOP also goes up when the defense isn't on the field forever.

Look, statistically speaking, we all know the details. What is the point here. As near as I can tell, there is nothing more than opinion (read: gut feel) to this debate anymore.

My point earlier is that you could do worse than Brooks. Also, you can complain until you're blue in the face, I guess, I just don't see the point. We have won games with Brooks - everyone agrees there are other problems with the team - and we have addressed other need spots. I just fail to see how we can't win more than 8 games with an improved OLine and Defense (though it is arguable how improved the Defense is). Mini-max, baby.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 07:34 AM   #20
Deuce
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,881
Originally Posted by JKool
. We have won games with Brooks .
Yep, and we have lost just as many.

- everyone agrees there are other problems with the team - and we have addressed other need spots.
Agreed. Why is it that we address every spot of need except the QB. The only explanation would be that they think he is eventually going to put it all together. We all hoped that after the 2000 season, but this is 2005, and the person playing QB has not achieved the level of consistency that is necessary to play the position. How long do we wait? Would it be such a terrible thing to put him on the bench when he is hurt?
Saint_LB is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts