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

First Play from Scrimmage

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; OK...he lost 2 fumbles in the entire year of 2004.... Did both occur in the red zone? He must have thrown a lot of red-zone Interceptions LAST YEAR to lead the league LAST YEAR in total red-zone turnovers, given only ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2005, 10:42 PM   #21
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 599
OK...he lost 2 fumbles in the entire year of 2004....

Did both occur in the red zone?

He must have thrown a lot of red-zone Interceptions LAST YEAR to lead the league LAST YEAR in total red-zone turnovers, given only 2 lost fumbles (which may, or may not, have occured in the red zone).

A link from you would be most helpful....
TheGambler is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 08:43 AM   #22
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
I am sure a link would be most helpful, and were you here 6-8 months ago, I provided one repeatedly. As it stands now, since it is 6-8 months later, I have no idea where to find it. I'll give you a search area though. ESPN did their own QB ranking week 16 of the reg season, and as ESPN always does, there's a write up before they give you the numbers. In that write up, it stated Aaron Brooks led the league in red zone INTs. Peyton Manning was second in that number, but of course he threw 49 Tds so I think he probably would get a little more slack. So if you look back on this site to the Brooks debates from around week 16 of the reg season, I am sure you can find it. Happy hunting.

Also, one of the lost fumbles DEFINITELY occured in the red zone. Arizona, week four. That's a fact. So yes LAST YEAR AB led the league in red zone turnovers LAST YEAR. Sorry to burst your bubble. I am sure he won't repeat that feat this year. He seems to go from one dilemma to the next. double digit INTs in 2001 and 2002 and fumbles. Only 8 INTs in 2003 but 14 lost fumbles. Only 2 lost fumbles in 2004, but 16 INTs, and double digit total fumbles, he just learned how to recover them better, along with being the league leader in red zone turnovers. I wonder what new and exciting way he will stand out this year.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 08:58 AM   #23
Kinder, gentler
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,889
leads the league in safeties allowed? That would be a feat.
BlackandBlue is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 09:25 AM   #24
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by BlackandBlue
leads the league in safeties allowed? That would be a feat.
hahaha. Now THAT would be funny, but I am sure that the offensive line would just get the blame. Or maybe Brooks was afraid to throw cause his receivers dropped so many balls(even though they were nowhere near the league leaders, which was Jacksonville, and Leftwich still completed over 60% of his passes) so he just laid down in the endzone. Too funny.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 09:38 AM   #25
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 599
So if 1 fumble occured in the Red Zone....do you remember how many INTs occured there? You said earlier he was an "equal opportunist" when it came to turning the ball over in the red zone. If 1 fumble occured, then that means 1, 2, or no more than 3 INTs should have occured in the red zone. Thanks in advance for your help.

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
so he just laid down in the endzone. Too funny.
I've never seen anything in past history that would indicate Aaron Brooks would lay down in end zone. If you'd said "stepped on the out of bounds line in back of the end zone trying to escape a blitz", then I could go with that, perhaps..

By the way, what exactly would be funny about it? Do you enjoy seeing the Saints lose?
TheGambler is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 09:57 AM   #26
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
According to the guys on ESPN last night, the Jags lead the league in dropped passes last season. The team dropped 13% of its passes. Byron Leftwich had an 82.5 QB Rating. AB had a 79.5.



I guess that dispells the WR excuse as the reason AB isn't a top 10 QB... unless of course you believe Leftwich to be a top 10 QB too. Must be all the line's fault. And Deuce's fault. And the coaches' faults. And the defense's fault. Don't worry, those excuses are still intact.
WhoDat is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 09:58 AM   #27
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockley, Tx
Posts: 1,457
Oh boy here we go
lynwood is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 10:09 AM   #28
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by TheGambler
So if 1 fumble occured in the Red Zone....do you remember how many INTs occured there? You said earlier he was an "equal opportunist" when it came to turning the ball over in the red zone. If 1 fumble occured, then that means 1, 2, or no more than 3 INTs should have occured in the red zone. Thanks in advance for your help.

Originally Posted by saintswhodi
so he just laid down in the endzone. Too funny.
I've never seen anything in past history that would indicate Aaron Brooks would lay down in end zone. If you'd said "stepped on the out of bounds line in back of the end zone trying to escape a blitz", then I could go with that, perhaps..

By the way, what exactly would be funny about it? Do you enjoy seeing the Saints lose?
Wow, welcome Captain Literal. If you are gonna hang on my every word as if it's the gospel, let me say first, I am flattered, but second, it's annoying. So what if I said he was an equal opportunity red zone turneroverer? Does it matter? HE led the league in red zone turnovers. Period. And the INT number was more towards 5 or more, cause Peyton had 4. Does that somehow justify your questioning of the stat cause I joked he was an equal opportunity turnover machine in the red zone, when in reality he had more INTs than fumbles? Whatever justifies your blind faith I guess.

By the way, what exactly would be funny about it? Do you enjoy seeing the Saints lose?[/
Why would I enjoy seeing the team I love lose? I think the mediocre QB we have is part of the reason, and I don't think we can win with him. The more he goofs up, the sooner he is gone. The ends justifies the means to me.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 10:11 AM   #29
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
What was this thread about again?
ScottyRo is offline  
Old 08-26-2005, 11:06 AM   #30
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
I think we should make it about you. LOL
WhoDat is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts