Brooks
 

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.

Next....

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:




8)

RE: Brooks
 

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 .

RE: Brooks
 

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).

Re: Brooks
 

Many think he's the poster child for the Saints' problems.

How about this one: NOTHING! Nothing went wrong.

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.
Simple. A top 15 defense. A top 10 rushing attack. A top 10 run defense.

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.

They are subpar to any of Brooks' 4 complete seasons. But they belong to the Super Bowl winning 2000 Baltimore Ravens.

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.

SFIAH

RE: Re: Brooks
 

Oh please ................

If we had a quarterback that could perform to the level of the other play off quarterbacks , the Saints might stand a chance .

Top 20 puts him in the bottom 50% Kool. :wink:

Only in passer rating. Brooks was 9th in TD passes and 12th in passing yards.

SFIAH

Love those come from behind stats , well after Brooks has taken the running game out early with his ineffiency .

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?
Obviously not.
But.....
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.

.

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.

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.

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

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 . :wink:

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 .

Debate closed. :wink: 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.

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. :wink:

Why don't you two lovebirds have sex already? Let's get this party started. Can I watch? :shock:

BNB, my apologies man.

:evil:

You know my smiley sucks on the new format . Halo - seriously do something with these sad smileys ........08

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.

Yep, and we have lost just as many.

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?

It is apparent that there is no real middle ground when it comes to Brooks -- Fair enough -- there are many facts about Brooks that span all sides -- Fact -- he is a tremendous athlete with a gun for an arm -- Fact -- when he is on he is one of the better QBs in the league Fact -- when he is off he is truly awful -- Fact -- Consistency escapes Brooks -- one never knows from game to game -- from quarter to quarter from play to play what Brooks is going to do -- Fact -- Brooks does not seem to be able to read defenses --

The list goes on and on -- I can say this -- he is not the biggest rpoblem on our team but I can also say that I am a little tired of his ego being about 10 times the size of his performance -- Brooks is easy to dislike - he opens his mouth at the wrong times -- he says stupid things -- blames everyone else on the team but never himself -- basically he is full of it -- If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks

I think that's it in a nutshell. I praised his perfomrance in the final Carolina game of the season. If he had been doing that all his career he would be an annual pro-bowler and get all the accolades he feels he deserves. Unfortunately since he has been here complete games like that have been a rare bird.

Time of Possession is always an interesting stat , it creates a couple of variables . For instance , ask " Where did the Saints defense rank in 2004 ?? " and 9 out of 10 posters would say dead last . Total Yards per game allowed is a bad way to check a defense , because it does not factor the offense pulling up lame .

Consider yards per play as an average , it factors the yards allowed by the amount of time on the field .

The 5 worst N.F.L. defenses 2004
5. Minnesota
4. Indianapolis
3. Oakland
2. Kansas City
1. New Orleans

Yards Per Play Factor , and the order changes .

5. Green Bay with 5.7 yards per play - 967 plays
4. Minnesota with 5.8 yards per play - 1018 plays
3. New Orleans with 5.8 yards per play - 1067 plays
2. Tennessee with 5.9 yards per play - 977 plays
1. Kansas City with 6.3 yards per play - 960 plays

Everyone has a excellent points. I have to agree with 4saints on this. No matter what everyone's opinion is...the fact remains that no one REALLY knows how Brooks will play this year. The one thing everyone CAN agree on is that AB is going to be the starter and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Same thing goes for the defense. No one really know if this group is going to be much more improved this season. Everyone has their opinions, but it still is a prediction.

When I read these Brooks threads, I see both points of view on the guy. Fact is, I know that he SHOULD play better this year, but I don't know for sure if he will. No one does. I used to be a huge fan of AB. His inconsistency and immaturity has made me question his reliability. No matter what, he is our starter. I don't think Brooks is a terrible quarterback, he just has a lot of room for improvement. I can think of quarterbacks I would rather have, but I can also think of a lot more quarterbacks I'm glad the Saints don't have. He has the tools and the talent around him to put up fantastic numbers...lets just hope he comes to play this season.

How about the simple explanation that the position is being handled well enough that it doesn't merit a change.

There's always the presumption that there's a problem so egregious at the position that it must be changed.

Quick Quiz: Name all NFL QBs that have had at least 20TD passes and 3500+ yards each of the last 4 years?

It's a really short list dude!

Back to the quick quiz. What exactly kind of consistency do you want? Quantify it please.
And please no "I know it when I see it..." type handwaving.

And before you talk about QB rating make sure that you read this article:

http://www.bluedonut.com/qbrating.htm

That describes its invention and the issues associated with it.


That event sir was more than 2 years ago. That sir was a coach's decision. It was the wrong decision. However why do you blame the player for that, and not the coach?

All I keep hearing about Brooks is that he's inconsistent, makes boneheaded plays and needs to be replaced. Please describe a realistic replacement to me.

Also Joe Horn hasn't been replaced in this tenure you've described. Why not get rid of him too?

SFIAH

Co-sign on that.
Co-sign on that too.

I disagree. Too much water under the bridge. I think that even if this team won the SB, there would still be folks calling for his head.

SFIAH

Agreed.

I think the reason people have such a problem with AB is because he has the potential to be so much better. I kind of fell off the "Brooks Bandwagon" when I saw him throw the ball backwards a couple times. When, year after year, I kept hearing how he was going to be much more of a leader, but that observation never materialized. At first the smiling after a game changing interception didn't bother me much, but after seeing it a few more times, it got on my nerves. I don't think the Saints need to get rid of him, I just want him to play at the level he has the ability to play at. A lot of people have already made up their mind about AB. To those people, he sucks, he needs to be cut, he needs to be replaced. Even though he has lost some of my confindence, I still have a little confidence that he will be great this year. Like I said, I can think of a lot of other teams that are in a worse situation at Quarterback than the Saints. I think, eventually, Brooks will mature into a fine QB. That may start this season, it may start in 3 years....who knows.

To me Brooks at QB is kind of like a Stallworth at WR. He has had fantastic games and really poor games. Stallworth is inconsistent, but has the ability to change the tempo of the game entirely. Like Stallworth, I wouldn't cut him or bench him, he just needs to work harder on consistently playing at a high level.

Let me give you the list :

Pennington - 65.4 %
McNabb - 64.0 %
Manning - 67.6 %
Bulger - 66.2 %
Culpepper - 69.2 %
Brady - 60.8 %
Roethlisberger - 66.4 %
Hasselbeck - 58.9 %
Brees - 65.5 %
Plummer - 58.2 %
Vick - 56.4 %
Favre - 64.1 %

Aaron Brooks - 57.0 % completion percentage . At 57.0 % Brooks is not fit to serve drinks on the Pro Bowl party bus to the quarterbacks in the Play Offs .

Consistency ??? 62.0% at season end .

2000 58.2 %
2001 55.9 %
2002 53.6 %
2003 59.1 %
2004 57.0 %

Brooks aint never done it and wont ever do it ........

Kool raises a good point (as always).

I would offer the suggestion that most Brooks debates turn on football as a team sport. (I will set aside the arguments that are based on Brooks' personality or cap number for the moment, since they don't generate as much statistical argument.)

I will basically agree with this statement: "If every other unit on the team played lights out every week while Brooks remains basically the same, then the Saints are a deep playoff team." For the sake of discussion, I'm going to offer a suggest the 2 poles of the arguments about the QB position. Since they are the poles, they are both extreme and I'm not suggesting that any one person holds these views entirely. I think we basically fall along a spectrum between these poles.

Option 1--Many people feel that the QB position has to be seen in the entire team context. Thus, the QB cannot bear the full responsibility for wins or losses. As I see it, there are a couple of flaws with this argument.

1. It seems to encourage finger pointing. While losses cannot be all of AB's fault, it seems to be easier to blame losses on Venturi, McCarthy, Deuce, drops, the secondary, linebackers, et al. For example, if there were a group of rabid Venturi fans posting on the board, I can imagine them saying, "Football is a team sport, Venturi can't win them by himself."

2. It depends on the idea that the QB's contribution is no different than say the SS's or the WLB. I agree that football is a total team effort involving no less than 24 guys. However, it's hard to seriously suggest that in terms of compensation and responsibility the QB is no more important than any other member of the team.

Option 2--Many people feel like the QB is the on the field general and has the responsibility to carry the team on his back when the going gets tough. I see a couple of flaws in this argument too.

1. It assumes that the QB has control over some phases of the game that he just doesn't have. For instance, I think any team can give up 200+ yards rushing and realistically expect to win games, no matter who the QB is. Even if the QB plays perfectly (as Elway did so often in his early career), it still may not be enough to win games or championships.

2. It tends to require that somehow that QB be "larger than life". Not only must the QB be smart enough to read defenses, but he must motivate the entire team, command the situation, be classy and humble, he also needs to be able to make all the throws and still have enough left in the 4th quarter to carry the team on his back. Even though only 32 guys in the whole country get to be starting NFL QBs, everyone has their limits. We have a man, not superman. Not everyone is "larger than life".

I will illustrate with the Packers loss to the Eagles in the playoffs 2 years ago. The way I saw it, Brett Favre made a mistake and threw that game away. However, Favre is one of those larger than life guys and is immune from mistakes. So the Packers fire the defensive coordinator because if the defense had held the Eagles to fewer points, Brett wouldn't have had his back against the wall and wouldn't have thrown the game away.

Most of these debates on Brooks seem to have a similar dynamic, except Brooks is not "larger than life". So we are left to figure out who to blame for our mediocre record for the past 4 years.

So ending with Kool's original thought--I would agree that this team can be a winner with AB if all other units in the team play lights out every week. The problem is--I don't see all the defensive units, special teams and offensive units playing lights out all season this year. At the same time, I don't see AB playing lights out either. I agree that he will probably throw for 3000+ and 20 TD's, but I won't be stunned if we miss the playoffs (heartbroken yes, but not stunned).

So in a nutshell, I'd like to see better production from the QB position, just seems unlikely that AB will be doing that.

[/code]

Quick Quiz: Name all STARTING NFL QBs that have averaged a QB rating of less than 81.5 for 4 years and still have their jobs as starters. It's a really short and very ugly list dude.

Completion Percentages above 60%. QB ratings no less than 90 at a minimum. You can post all the articles you want about how QB rating isn't really a fair measure, wah wah wah. Bottom line, when I look at QB rating, I see it accurately measure the QBs in the league and where they fall. Peyton Manning is the MOST EFFICIENT QB in the game. AB is somewhere in the bottom half of the league. Furthermore, I'll take Joe Montana's and Steve Young's word for it when they say that it is bar none the best measure of how effective a QB is in a game - which they have both said on national TV. I think those two know something about quarterbacking, don't you?

Well, this relates to two issues to me. First, the frustration with past poor decisions. Jake Delhomme was a good candidate to replace Brooks. So was Marc Bulger. JT O'Sullivan might have developed into one, who knows? True, those aren't AB's fault, but then, saying the team should replace Brooks is not only a criticism of Brooks, but a criticism of the team's decision-making ability, or lack thereof, isn't it?

Currently, A-Mac is probably the best candidate on the team. That's not to say that the team couldn't seek replacements in FA. Ramsey and Vollek were two names that I heard speculation about this offseason and I particularly like those two. Mind you, there were never any confirmed trade rumors, etc, just two suggestions, but I like them. There are QBs available in FA and the draft every year. What the Saints need now is a veteran. A-Mac is as good a future prospect as any. They need a realistic substitute option for the right-now, not the two years from now.

Did you forget Rivers and Brees ??? I would take a shot at Ramsey if he was cost effective .

I'm not interested in Rivers, personally. Brees is an interesting prospect, but I'm not sure that he's the real deal yet. He certainly took a huge step forward last season. Let's see if he can maintain it.

1. Brees and Vollek would be fine with me. We're not going to get either of them though. If they become available, I'd consider droping my mini-max approach to Brooks.

2. BMG, DAMN fine work (as usual)! I have to cavil a couple of points. As you note, no one falls in either extreme camp, but I guess, I'm pretty close to the first one, so I'm going to offer why I think your problems noted there aren't so severe.

2.1 Finger pointing is just a fallacy. If it is a team game, no one phase, player, unit, coach, etc. is to blame anymore than any other (while I think this is technically incorrect, see next, I'll go with it for now). I agree that taking the team line, usually leads to blaming everyone/thing but Brooks - but, of course, that is an error. Brooks shouldn't be insulated from blame, he should receive his fair share. However, this share is what is at issue in the "team game" response.

2.2 I agree that blame should not be distributed evenly accross all players, units, teams, coaches, and plays. This is why I started harping on "blame analysis/distribution". I certainly agree with the other camp on this - the QB is the figure head of the offense (and sometimes the whole team). As a result, he should be held MORE accountable than many other players, units, plays, etc. Of course, given a 45 man roster and a number of coaches on any game day, you'd be hard pressed to argue that his responsibility is anymore than 4-5% (you do need to include the other team, and it seem unreasonable to me that any player who played could be less than say 0.1% responsible for the outcome of the game). It is here that I have to say the other camp doesn't look so promising to me - the QB can't be held so darned accountable that things like Wins and Losses are all his.

Damn fine work my friend. I thought it quite an interesting an helpful breakdown.

Finally, Who, why can't people let the whole JT thing go. We got McKenzie for cryin' out loud. No one seems to doubt his value. We traded a "maybe" for an impact player. Sure JT looked alright to some in preseason, but I still just don't get it.

Agreed, my critique is less with the argument itslef and more along the lines of its use as a device to protect AB from accountability by his more serious defenders.

Could be, I haven't ever really thought about it like that. It's an interesting idea. I've always thought about it in terms of the number of snaps the QB takes per games: more in terms of the QB calling the plays, reading the defense, audibles, executing the plays, etc. Not saying thatI think you're wrong, I'll just need to think more about it, it's an interesting idea.

I agree completely. We may regret picking up MM, if he expects to be paid like Champ Bailey.

Having read of of this thread, I must comment on the way that everyone has handled themselves here. This is the finest thread that I have ever read about the Aaron Brooks debate. Congrats to all. Well thought out discussions on both sides of the ball.

With that said, I have to come down on the side of the argument that trades Brooks to some other team. While statistics are great, they tend to be misleading, because with Brooks at the helm and the "Starting QB" (Read Team Leader) we are still cruising at the 8-8 marks since 2000. There are a number of factors here that need to be looked at, but strictly looking at Brooks, his numbers are good, but his winning percentage is poor. He doesn't seem to inspire his teammates to go "lights out" except for Sully who went "lights out" for the media buffet table.

With Brooks in the QB seat, there is dissention, fights, arguments, and essential disloyalty in the Organization and I truly don't believe that he has the strength of personality that it takes to move this organization to another level. Is that his fault? NO!! It is the fault of Hazlett, McCarthy, Sheppard, Loomis, and the higher ups of the Coaching Staff. Hazlett had the chance to compare Brooks with Delhomme when Brooks was hurt. That's not Brooks' fault, that's Hazlett's fault. He is to blame for this entire debacle. The trouble is that Brooks is taking the heat for a lack of decision making ability on the part of the coaching staff.

I am on the side of letting Brooks seek another team. Not because he is a poor athlete, but because he has lost the respect of his team and the fans. Dumbing down the offense is not the key either. I blame Brooks' inability to produce on the Coaching staff and Front Office. He does need to go elsewhere and find another team that will get him a fresh start. Chucky may be about ready to take him on. I'd be interested to see what would happen if Brooks went to Tampa.

I do believe that Brooks will never be "DA MAN" here. He has burned too many bridges with both fans and team mates.

My two cents.

While I am no fan of Brooks -- I do not in any way think he is even mostly responsible for going 8-8. Other QBs may have won 1 or at most 2 more games last year but not on a consistent basis -- so trading him because of the record is not in my mind

Cannot agree here -- it is his fault -- he has no control of the team -- he was even involved in some of the dissensions -- caused some of them. As for Delhomme -- I blame Haz but also AB -- AB should have been man enough to tell Haz he was not playing at full speed - a true leader would want wins not safety in his starting job.

I can agree with the statement let Brooks look for another team if he doesn't perform well this year -- Saints fans will give him slack if we go deep into the playoffs so if we make the NFC championship and he plays championship quality ball -- I say let him stay

I believe the problem is that he will not perform up to expectation due to the fact that he believes that he is doing all he can. I suspect that he could use someone who is more of a disciplinarian, like Parcells or Coughlin. Someone to push him and MAKE him produce. I truly don't see this staff doing that.

Well gotta tell ya WHODATNJ , you aint starting out with a bang here .

I have a few simple rules here .

1. Do not make an entire post directed at members or a member with negative remarks about them . In other words , " I think " should always be football related and preferably Saints oriented if posted on this board .

2. When in doubt on the matter refer back to point number 1 .

B and G Moderator :evil:

WhoDat

Speaking of Brees and his development . Have you seen the bio on Turk Schonert , the new quarterbacks coach ??? Man , this guys resume is like the Grim Reapers goin out on the town list . You need to see it , Turk is the guy brought in to develop Chris Weinke in Carolina ....What a fine job he did there ..... :roll: