Brooks Poll
 

Here we go guys! This has been a debate for years. How do you feel?

RE: Brooks Poll
 

Same old Brooks, looks great for a while and then he goes and does something stupid.how do you fumble the ball inside the red zone.

RE: Brooks Poll
 

But he had such a great camp????
Personaly, I thought he looked OK.....nuthin special but nuthin horrible...
I know one thing...
HE HAD ALL DAY TO THROW THE BALL!!!!!!!
O-Line is a monster.

RE: Brooks Poll
 

...like the song says... I'm comfortably numb....

RE: Brooks Poll
 

Wow! The first 8 votes were either mediocre or negative. I'm waiting for the supporters to even this poll out...if indeed there are enough supporters.

Lets wait and see.

RE: Brooks Poll
 

Well, I am a Brooks support, but even I'm not delusional enough to call him a Pro-Bowler. McNabb, Vick, and Culpepper easily come before him in NFC quarterbacks. Top 10? Probably not. Maybe, mid to low teens. I'd actually have to do a little research before I can spout off the top ten quartbacks in the league. What I will say, however, is that he is the best quarterback we've ever had (sorry old schoolers, I know I was yeh high in his hey-day, so I can't have much of an opinion, but I'm not an Archie believer). And they're no non-starting quaterback that we should even be mildly entertaining replacing him with.

For the record.
 

In the entire NFL Brooks is;

#19 in passer rating
#12 in touchdowns
#9 in passing yards

In the NFC our Brooks is;

#9 in passer rating
#6 in touchdowns and
#6 in passing yards

These are the NFL stats, make of them what you will. We tend to blame our qb for the failures of the entire team, not fair. Sure he has made some goofy plays but he is not the only one.

RE: For the record.
 

19th in PASSER RATING. He's worse than 20th in Completion Percentage. There is MUCH more to being an NFL QB than yards and TDs. AB's EFFICIENCY numbers tell that story. He's below average in the league at doing the things you have to do to be an effective NFL QB.

McNabb and Culpepper definitely. Vick is a huge playmaker and his impact on the field can't be denied. That said, he isn't a great QUARTERBACK, IMO. If you're looking at the whole NFC, I'd say the following QBs are AT LEAST AS GOOD AS Brooks:

Delhomme, Griese, Bulger, Hassleback, Favre, Culpepper, McNabb.

[/quote]

You are correct if you are looking at Passer Rating alone which obviously you are because that is the only category that Griese #3, Buldger #4, Hasselbeck #8 that come ahead of Brooks and he is #9. However, In TDs he's ahead of Bulger Griese and Vick. In yards he is ahead of Hasselbec Griese Vick, just to name a few. you were talking about the NFC, right?

Somebody please tell me how to handle placing quotes from others into my post. Thanks

Look at the spot where you submit your post and you'll see the "Quote selected" button. Highlight the quote you would like to use and then press the button.

I hope this got it thanks.

Uh - I don't think Brooks has ever finished as high as 9th in Passer Rating. I do know that for 3 of the last 4 years he has finished 19th or worse. Like I said, his completion percentage is even worse than that. To me, yards and TDs just aren't that important statistically. They are relevant, sure, but a QB's real value is seen by how effective he is when he tries to throw.

For example:

Aaron Brooks threw for 3,810 yards last season, so just looking at that you might say that he had a better year than, say Drew Brees. If you did, you would be completely nuts.

In 2004, Drew Brees was 262 of 400 (65.5%) for 3159 yards (7.9 yards per attempt). He had 27 TDs and 7 INTs. His Passer Efficiency Rating was 104.8.

Aaron Brooks, on the other hand, was 309 or 542 (57%) for 3,810 yards (7 yards per attempt). He had 21 TDs and 16 INTs. His passer rating was 79.5.

What does that mean? It means that regardless of raw numbers, every time Aaron Brooks dropped back, he was less likely to complete a pass and twice as likely to throw an interception than Brees. If Brooks did complete a pass, it was NOT as likely to go for as many yards as a Brees pass, and was LESS likely to result in a score.

I mean, let's take two hypothetical players, RBs. You tell me which had a better year.

Player 1: 400 carries for 1200 yards and 15 TDs.
Plyaer 2: 200 carries for 1000 yards and 13 TDs.

Now - who is the better back?

One More Year
 

What's that sh*t all of us backers of continuous underachieving losers say, something about 'Wait till next year"? Well, as far as I can determine, Brooksy has this year to put it together and thats it. No more excuses man, it's now or never for me and a lot of fans I know. Dude has got talent out the wazzu but I think it's his head that prevents him from making it to the next level. I stand beside him as I have for the last 4 years, but it's geaux time right f**kin' now man. I'm sick of waiting..........

One More Year
 

By the way.....anyone going to the Green Bay game? There are 6 of us going and the more the marrier.

RE: One More Year
 

Same old story.

The Saints in the last 4 years are 20-8 when they hold the opposition to under 21 points.

It's not about Brooks directly. All we need the offense to do this season is not give the ball away.

To that end I'd like to see the following stats from Brooks:

1) Less than 15 total turnovers.
2) 90+ passer rating on 3rd down and in the red zone. In addition I'd like to see that stat consistently every game.
3) Less than 10 total fumbles for the season.

That's it. If Brooks can accomplish those three things then the QB position will do its job this season.

SFIAH

RE: One More Year
 

Yep , but aren't they undefeated when they score more points then the opponets ???

Re: RE: Brooks Poll
 

Archie was League MVP one season. If you keep in mind that he NEVER had a winning season with the Saints, that should tell you something about how well the man played...

Re: One More Year
 

Haven't I heard this before? LOL

Re: RE: One More Year
 

And they are 0fer when they don't! :D

Note that there's only 12 winning games in the opponents over 21 points category (12-24 over that same period).

The Saints do better when the game is tight. They end up on the losing side 2 out of 3 times in a shootout. Typically this is due to playing behind most of the game.

So while of course the team wins when they score more points than the opposition, they win more consistently when the opposition scoring is held down.

SFIAH

RE: Re: RE: One More Year
 

Uh, that hasn't been my feeling, so I looked it up. The Saints are 14-10 in games that I called "shootouts" (which included "blowouts") over the last 3 years. Maybe you disagree with my definition of shootout - I basically used high-scoring games in which one or both sides moved the ball essentially at will.

2002
Green Bay - W - 35-20
Bears - W - 29-23
Lions - L - 21-26
Steelers - W - 32-39
Redskins - W - 45-27
49ers - W - 35-27
Falcons - L - 35-37
Panthers - W - 34-24
Ravens - W - 37-25
Vikings - L - 31-32

7-3 in "shootouts" in 2002

2003
Colts - L - 21-55
Falcons - W - 45-17
Eagles - L - 20-33
Redskins - W - 24-20
Gaints - W - 45-7

3-2 in "shootouts" in 2003

2004
49ers - W - 30-27
Rams - W - 28-25
Cardinals - L - 10-34
Vikings - L - 31-38
Raiders - W - 31-26
Chargers - L - 17-43
Chiefs - W - 27-20
Broncos - L - 13-34
Panthers - L - 21-32

4-5 in "shootouts" in 2004


14-10 in "shootouts" in the last 3 years.

"Shootouts" probably allow the Brooks and the rest of the offense to get hot...and get a rhythm. We've seen it happen too many times. Still....i want to see more RUNNING THIS YEAR!! RUN RUN RUN!!! DAMMIT!!.. First 2 preseason games were a positive step in this direction..

3RD AND 3???? WHO YA GONNA CALL???? Not Ghostbusters.....but rather...a A DELAY HANDOFF TO ANTOWAIN OR AARON STECKER!!!

Bleed the clock, baby...bleed the clock.