I've had an opportunity to read a bit on your take on Brooks. I've seen the bashing and frustration. Seen a little support. It's obvious, to me anyway, that many think he's not gonna take us to the promised land...
I suspect when he was first drafted many were high on him. What went wrong? The system? The scheme? Is he not cerebal enough to handle a complex NFL offense? Is he not surrounded by offensive talent?
Those are the first questions.
Brooks is our starter in the upcoming season. What can be done to "salvage" this season and his Saints career. "Dumb-down" the scheme? Surround him with better talent and a sound offense? Etc...etc.
Smart ass or informed responses are welcomed. Thanks in advance for either. :wink:
1999 Packer Draft: Aaron Brooks, Quarterback
Virginia/ 6:03.2-200/ Newport News, Virginia
What the scouts are saying . . .
AFC scout: "He's not a detail guy. I get the feeling that Brooks isn't a worker or a studier. That scares you for a guy who's going to get barely any practice reps and will have to learn in the classroom."
NFC scout: "Maybe there's some hope for him as a wide receiver. He's a great athlete. Horrible quarterback."
From the original Packer draft report on Aaron Brooks , before being traded to the Saints .
Scouts seem to say it all : Horrible quarterback who does not study , hope I helped out .
He's clearly not a Horrible QB - he is a top 20 starter in the NFL.
It is up to the coaches to get a player ready to play on Sunday, design schemes that suit his strengths (and weaknesses), and so on. If that can't be done, it is their job to be sure the FO gets the idea that a new player is needed. The coaches have to take some of the blame here.
I usually of the view that a mini-max strategy was best when it came to Brooks - avoid the worst case scenario. Brooks is good enough to win some games for us when the rest of the team is playing well (he's no Elway - who could win a game on his own); however, there have been some noteable occasion in which Brooks has cost us too. The problem is, without someone "better" available (debateable, of course) we are avoiding the worst case scenario - getting someone much worse than Brooks - by keeping him around.
Of course, with his salary exploding next year, the worst case scenario won't be merely getting someone worse that Brooks behind center - it will be keeping Brooks and losing a bunch of the supporting cast, failing to make necessary improvements, and so on.
The time frame on the mini-max argument for keeping Brooks is coming to a rapid end.
What is wrong with Brooks?
Let me count the ways...
Just kidding. It is really hard to say, but some combination of the leading candidates are probably the case - lacks intangibles (that can't be taught...), isn't so smart, poor learning curve, bad chemistry with teammates, too much smiling, throws the ball backward, and on.
In the end, the coaches should have moved this kid up to at least "consistent" by now, and he will be too expensive to keep after this season, BUT for now he is the best option we have (and no others seem to be arising).
All you have to do is look at the numbers to see that. Brooks is the most prolific QB in Saints' history. In an 11 year tenure with the Saints Archie Manning threw for 115 TDs. Brooks has 107 in 4 years. No Saints QB ever has thrown for 3500+ years in 4 consecutive seasons. Or 20+ TDs in 4 consecutive seasons.
All the rest of the assertions above simply preume that the guy is a bust. But that assertion hasn't been proven.
Tom Brady has gotten most of these things and has won 3 SB. Peyton Manning hasn't and has won nothing. Note that none of the three really have nothing to do with QB.
The continual Brooks' argument always comes down to "if we had a better QB, then we can win [it all]". The best QB in the game today, Peyton Manning, hasn't won it all.
Doesn't anyone wonder why? All you have to do is read the sig below.
RE: Re: Brooks
If we had a quarterback that could perform to the level of the other play off quarterbacks , the Saints might stand a chance .
NFC Leaders %Passes Comp, 1st Quar
Rank Name Team Games Pct
1 Brian Griese TB 11 78.6
2 Marc Bulger STL 14 73.6
3 Daunte Culpepper MIN 16 70.5
4 Donovan McNabb PHI 15 69.6
5 Tim Rattay SF 9 68.4
6 Jake Delhomme CAR 16 68.2
7 Kurt Warner ARI 10 68.2
8 Patrick Ramsey WAS 9 68
9 Vinny Testaverde DAL 16 63.6
10 Michael Vick ATL 15 63.1
11 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 14 63
12 Brett Favre GB 16 60.8
13 Joey Harrington DET 16 58.2
14 Josh McCown ARI 14 57.1
15 Aaron Brooks NO 16 55.6
16 Mark Brunell WAS 9 49.3
AFC Leaders %Passes Comp, 1st Quar
Rank Name Team Games Pct
1 Billy Volek TEN 10 73.1
2 Trent Green KC 16 73
3 Drew Brees SD 15 70.4
4 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 14 67.1
5 Peyton Manning IND 16 66.2
6 Carson Palmer CIN 13 65.3
7 Jake Plummer DEN 16 63.4
8 Steve McNair TEN 8 63.2
9 Chad Pennington NYJ 13 62.9
10 Kyle Boller BAL 16 59.4
11 Tom Brady NE 16 58.9
12 David Carr HOU 16 58.3
13 A.J. Feeley MIA 11 57.7
14 Kerry Collins OAK 14 56.5
15 Drew Bledsoe DAL 16 55.8
16 Byron Leftwich JAC 14 52.9
17 Jeff Garcia DET 11 50.9
Brooks ranks right up there with some benched quarterbacks . No where near play off caliber .
Is Aaron Brooks the only problem?
See below sig.
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.
It seems to me the relevant stats have all been trotted out earlier this summer. His stats aren't going to change any of our minds anyway.
I will simply rely on my mini-max argument for now. When someone else produces something that sounds like a better option, then I'll get excited. I do have some standards for that though - Brooks has NFL stats - not AFL stats, not NFL-Europe stats, not preseason stats - I want a guy who looks like he's good enough to replace him right away (not two years from now).
I feel A-Mac might be that guy, but let's at least see him play a few downs, get a season of learning under his belt, and see if he can provide the consistency we so despirately need/want.
Furthermore, the economic argument makes good sense to me next year - provide a SB caliber season, take a pay cut, or you're gone AB.
Either way, I thought SFIAH's point about the last four games was interesting. Brooks played exactly the way he did all season, and we won four in a row. Isn't it worth asking this: if the defense were improved, and the starting cast were improved, isn't it possible (based on the evidence from the last four games) that we can win with Brooks?
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.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 AM.|
Copyright 1997 - 2012 - BlackandGold.com