Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

lumm0x · 06-14-2003, 12:41 PM

Opinions? How many teams, if handed Aaron Brooks right now, would make him their starter over the current #1?

My guess: 10
Dallas, Washington, Chicago, Carolina, Arizona, Seattle, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh(?)

I'm not sold that Pitt would but I think the others all would do it. Keep in mind the teams are handed Brooks, I'm not saying they would actively seek his service given their current depth or project QB's. I'm sure every team would grab him if handed for no compensation, but they wouldn't supplant their starter.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-14-2003, 12:51 PM

1. Tampa Bay.
2. Panthers.
3. Arizona.
4. Denver.
5. Cowboys.
6. Vikings.
7. Detroit.
8. Ravens.
9. Washington.
10 Cleveland.
11. Ptitsburg.
12. Devner.
13. Miami.
14. Jets
15. Chargers.
16. Seattle.
17. Kansas City.
18. Bengals.
19. Jacksonville.

lumm0x · 06-14-2003, 01:15 PM

You seriously believe that Denver (who you listed twice by the way) after just picking up Plummer would lead with Brooks? And Culpepper and his $100M would take a back seat?The Jets would sit Pennington? The Chiefs Green? I think teams like Jacksonvillewould rather start Leftewich before they\'d plant a new QB in ahead of Brunell. I don\'t see there being a shot in hell of your #1,4,6,13,14,15,17,19 being on thelist, IMO.

Here\'s why:
1. Tampa-Gruden has proven he likes gritty leaders that can manage an offense. That\'s why he\'s signing guys like Jim Miller and not looking at Shaun King types.
4. Denver-Same thing for Shanahan. He wants a guy who can win it himself if needed, but he can\'t deal with mistake throws. Plummer had to force too much in Arizona with one WR option and no running game. He will succeed in Denver.
6. Minnesota-Culpepper is as talented or more than Brooks and more of a competitor. I would take him over Brooks.
13. Miami- Norv Turner also likes a mistake free pocket manager. Not Miami\'s style of ball either.
14. NY Jets- Same thing. Hackett built that offense around Testeverde and Pennington\'s style fits it like a glove.
15. Chargers- Shottenheimer would have no hair left with Brooks in there. Brees will only get better.
17. Chiefs- Green is well suited for Vermiel\'s offense also. If it\'s not broke why fix it.
19. Jaguars- Although Brooks is a Jaguars type QB, why lose chemistry on your veteran unless you are going to the future today-and that is Leftewich.
14. J

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-14-2003, 01:27 PM

June 13, 2003) -- Given the choice between improving with potentially great new players or potentially great new strategy, any rational NFL coach would say there is nothing to choose.

Talent always comes first.

I absolutely beleive that. Brooks will be a Pro Bowl player this year. As far as the coaches that want QB\'s that play not to lose (which is basically what your saying) if given the option to have a QB like Brooks, I think they would start him. Are you saying Brooks can\'t manage a game and play virtually mistake free?

lumm0x · 06-14-2003, 02:11 PM

So all of the coaches that start a veteran player at any position over a more talented young player apparently don\'t know that rule? I\'m ceratin that Byron Leftewich has way more physical talent than Mark Brunell at this point in his career. Should they throw him in if talent should always win over? Talent cannot be the only factor in deciding who plays. If that was the case, a players career would be 6 years. Talent will fade and experience and veteran saavy will replace it and often eclipse it.
I\'m sorry, but to use WhoDat\'s analogy, you don\'t put a stock car diver into an indy car race and expect him to succeed. If he does it is very, very, very rare. And I\'m sure that the teams I listed wouldn\'t do that regardless of the fact that Aaron Brooks has more physical talent than their current starter.
The phrase \"talent always comes first\" signifys that the physically gifted players get looked at first. That doesn\'t mean they are the best players. Sammy Knight was an undrafted rookie because he wasn\'t a \"talented\" player. But he was a smart player and grew to overcome his physical limitations and took the job from a more talented player because of his intellengence and instincts.

Brooks has shown he can move the ball. He lacks roundedness. You can\'t do three things phenomenally and three things poorly and not expect people to attack your strengths and make you win on your weaknesses. A QB has to do almost everything above par or he will be predictable. Brooks can\'t yet do everything above par. He can\'t play mistake free. I have never seen a game where he did and not many QB\'s do. I don\'t expect him to be mistake free, and don\'t get me wrong, I think he is a great talent, has alot of potential untapped, and will be better every year. In my comments I was asking if given all factors involved in the teams, would they start him. You have to quit focusing on who you think is the better talent and look at the big picture. You just signed Culpepper to a $100M deal. He\'s had three years to learn the offense, build chemistry with his weapons, and develop a repoire with the team. You get Brooks for free on waivers. You start him? You may as well get the rope and kick the chair because you just coached your last game.

Talent does not always answer the question.

tweeky · 06-14-2003, 02:33 PM

Brooks debate #17,890 summary....

1. All the necessary talent.
2. Lacks leadership and consistency.

3. If he improves #2, he can be one of the great ones, if not he\'ll join the 10,000 other QB\'s that had #1 and lacked #2.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-14-2003, 02:43 PM

That\'s a lot to cover, but let me try.

The reason talent should always win over strategy is because you fit the system to the players not the other way around. Your right about talent fading, as was the case with Sammy Knight. The reason he is no longer here is because we have a faster more talented player , to fit our denfensive scheme. I don\'t agree with you that Aaron cannot manage a game just as well as some other QB\'s that you have mentioned, if that\'s what he is asked to do, but that\'s not what they are asking him to do. They want a high flying offense, that can strike at any time, not an offense that dinks and dunks its way down the field. You might or might not agree that is the way to go on offense, but this is the case with the Saints. When you have that kind of offensive mentality, more mistakes are going to happen, because the risks are greater, but so are the rewards. If you look at the offenses that the QB\'s \"manage the game\", it is a low risk passing game they are using and basically relying on their defese to keep them in the game, and try to win it in the 4th quarter. The Saints are trying to blow teams out of the game with our high-powered passing attack. It\'s really not even fair to compare Brooks with a passing attack like that. If Brooks was put in an offense like that, his passer rating would be higher. Also, if we had a defense that could stop someone, his passer rating would be higher because he could hand off more and not rely on Brooks so much. in the 4th quarter, where most of his mistakes are made. So, to anwser your queston, I would start Brooks on all of the teams I mentioned, regardless of how much money they make, and all of the other reasons you mentioned, because I beleive in the guy.

WhoDat · 06-15-2003, 07:57 PM

No way - you fit the players to the system... what changes more often, a team\'s strategy/scheme, or the players on the team? You don\'t fit your strategy to your players... no. Maybe you tweek it based on that... but a good organization finds the right players to fit their strategy....

And let me ask you this... if you think the Saints should base their offensive strategy on any one guy, or group of guys, who would it be?

1. Deuce
2. Horn, Stallworth, Pathon, etc.
3. Brooks.... although with Sloan AND Conwell AND Boo Williams, that may change this year. If our tightends play up to potential they could be a hotter commodity when this season is over than Brooks.

BillyCarpenter1 · 06-15-2003, 08:03 PM

If you take over a team like, lets say the Rams, and you previuosly run an offense like tampa, what offense do you run. You use the system that maximizes that talent. You don\'t change all the players, do you?

WhoDat · 06-15-2003, 08:40 PM

Of course not... but we\'re talking about a coaching staff that has been here for three years... they\'re not taking over... If you think back you will remember that this team\'s players were VERY different when Haslett took over. There was no Brooks. There was no Deuce, or Horn, or Stallwaort, or Pathon, or Conwell, or Sloan, or Boo Williams, or Gandy, or Bentley, or Jacox, or Riley... in fact, ulness I\'m mistaken, Fontenot is the ONLY player on O who was around when Haslett got here... so did he change the players to fit his system... or did he change the system to fit his players?

06-14-2003, 12:51 PM	#2
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... 1. Tampa Bay. 2. Panthers. 3. Arizona. 4. Denver. 5. Cowboys. 6. Vikings. 7. Detroit. 8. Ravens. 9. Washington. 10 Cleveland. 11. Ptitsburg. 12. Devner. 13. Miami. 14. Jets 15. Chargers. 16. Seattle. 17. Kansas City. 18. Bengals. 19. Jacksonville.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-14-2003, 01:15 PM	#3
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... You seriously believe that Denver (who you listed twice by the way) after just picking up Plummer would lead with Brooks? And Culpepper and his $100M would take a back seat?The Jets would sit Pennington? The Chiefs Green? I think teams like Jacksonvillewould rather start Leftewich before they\'d plant a new QB in ahead of Brunell. I don\'t see there being a shot in hell of your #1,4,6,13,14,15,17,19 being on thelist, IMO. Here\'s why: 1. Tampa-Gruden has proven he likes gritty leaders that can manage an offense. That\'s why he\'s signing guys like Jim Miller and not looking at Shaun King types. 4. Denver-Same thing for Shanahan. He wants a guy who can win it himself if needed, but he can\'t deal with mistake throws. Plummer had to force too much in Arizona with one WR option and no running game. He will succeed in Denver. 6. Minnesota-Culpepper is as talented or more than Brooks and more of a competitor. I would take him over Brooks. 13. Miami- Norv Turner also likes a mistake free pocket manager. Not Miami\'s style of ball either. 14. NY Jets- Same thing. Hackett built that offense around Testeverde and Pennington\'s style fits it like a glove. 15. Chargers- Shottenheimer would have no hair left with Brooks in there. Brees will only get better. 17. Chiefs- Green is well suited for Vermiel\'s offense also. If it\'s not broke why fix it. 19. Jaguars- Although Brooks is a Jaguars type QB, why lose chemistry on your veteran unless you are going to the future today-and that is Leftewich. 14. J

06-14-2003, 01:27 PM	#4
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... June 13, 2003) -- Given the choice between improving with potentially great new players or potentially great new strategy, any rational NFL coach would say there is nothing to choose. Talent always comes first. I absolutely beleive that. Brooks will be a Pro Bowl player this year. As far as the coaches that want QB\'s that play not to lose (which is basically what your saying) if given the option to have a QB like Brooks, I think they would start him. Are you saying Brooks can\'t manage a game and play virtually mistake free?
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-14-2003, 02:11 PM	#5
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... So all of the coaches that start a veteran player at any position over a more talented young player apparently don\'t know that rule? I\'m ceratin that Byron Leftewich has way more physical talent than Mark Brunell at this point in his career. Should they throw him in if talent should always win over? Talent cannot be the only factor in deciding who plays. If that was the case, a players career would be 6 years. Talent will fade and experience and veteran saavy will replace it and often eclipse it. I\'m sorry, but to use WhoDat\'s analogy, you don\'t put a stock car diver into an indy car race and expect him to succeed. If he does it is very, very, very rare. And I\'m sure that the teams I listed wouldn\'t do that regardless of the fact that Aaron Brooks has more physical talent than their current starter. The phrase \"talent always comes first\" signifys that the physically gifted players get looked at first. That doesn\'t mean they are the best players. Sammy Knight was an undrafted rookie because he wasn\'t a \"talented\" player. But he was a smart player and grew to overcome his physical limitations and took the job from a more talented player because of his intellengence and instincts. Brooks has shown he can move the ball. He lacks roundedness. You can\'t do three things phenomenally and three things poorly and not expect people to attack your strengths and make you win on your weaknesses. A QB has to do almost everything above par or he will be predictable. Brooks can\'t yet do everything above par. He can\'t play mistake free. I have never seen a game where he did and not many QB\'s do. I don\'t expect him to be mistake free, and don\'t get me wrong, I think he is a great talent, has alot of potential untapped, and will be better every year. In my comments I was asking if given all factors involved in the teams, would they start him. You have to quit focusing on who you think is the better talent and look at the big picture. You just signed Culpepper to a $100M deal. He\'s had three years to learn the offense, build chemistry with his weapons, and develop a repoire with the team. You get Brooks for free on waivers. You start him? You may as well get the rope and kick the chair because you just coached your last game. Talent does not always answer the question.

06-14-2003, 02:33 PM	#6
tweeky 500th Post Join Date: May 2003 Location: South Alabama Posts: 779	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... Brooks debate #17,890 summary.... 1. All the necessary talent. 2. Lacks leadership and consistency. 3. If he improves #2, he can be one of the great ones, if not he\'ll join the 10,000 other QB\'s that had #1 and lacked #2.

06-14-2003, 12:41 PM	#1
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... Opinions? How many teams, if handed Aaron Brooks right now, would make him their starter over the current #1? My guess: 10 Dallas, Washington, Chicago, Carolina, Arizona, Seattle, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh(?) I'm not sold that Pitt would but I think the others all would do it. Keep in mind the teams are handed Brooks, I'm not saying they would actively seek his service given their current depth or project QB's. I'm sure every team would grab him if handed for no compensation, but they wouldn't supplant their starter.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-14-2003, 02:43 PM	#7
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... That\'s a lot to cover, but let me try. The reason talent should always win over strategy is because you fit the system to the players not the other way around. Your right about talent fading, as was the case with Sammy Knight. The reason he is no longer here is because we have a faster more talented player , to fit our denfensive scheme. I don\'t agree with you that Aaron cannot manage a game just as well as some other QB\'s that you have mentioned, if that\'s what he is asked to do, but that\'s not what they are asking him to do. They want a high flying offense, that can strike at any time, not an offense that dinks and dunks its way down the field. You might or might not agree that is the way to go on offense, but this is the case with the Saints. When you have that kind of offensive mentality, more mistakes are going to happen, because the risks are greater, but so are the rewards. If you look at the offenses that the QB\'s \"manage the game\", it is a low risk passing game they are using and basically relying on their defese to keep them in the game, and try to win it in the 4th quarter. The Saints are trying to blow teams out of the game with our high-powered passing attack. It\'s really not even fair to compare Brooks with a passing attack like that. If Brooks was put in an offense like that, his passer rating would be higher. Also, if we had a defense that could stop someone, his passer rating would be higher because he could hand off more and not rely on Brooks so much. in the 4th quarter, where most of his mistakes are made. So, to anwser your queston, I would start Brooks on all of the teams I mentioned, regardless of how much money they make, and all of the other reasons you mentioned, because I beleive in the guy.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-15-2003, 07:57 PM	#8
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... No way - you fit the players to the system... what changes more often, a team\'s strategy/scheme, or the players on the team? You don\'t fit your strategy to your players... no. Maybe you tweek it based on that... but a good organization finds the right players to fit their strategy.... And let me ask you this... if you think the Saints should base their offensive strategy on any one guy, or group of guys, who would it be? 1. Deuce 2. Horn, Stallworth, Pathon, etc. 3. Brooks.... although with Sloan AND Conwell AND Boo Williams, that may change this year. If our tightends play up to potential they could be a hotter commodity when this season is over than Brooks.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

06-15-2003, 08:03 PM	#9
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... If you take over a team like, lets say the Rams, and you previuosly run an offense like tampa, what offense do you run. You use the system that maximizes that talent. You don\'t change all the players, do you?
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

06-15-2003, 08:40 PM	#10
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Just to beat the Brooks debate to death... Of course not... but we\'re talking about a coaching staff that has been here for three years... they\'re not taking over... If you think back you will remember that this team\'s players were VERY different when Haslett took over. There was no Brooks. There was no Deuce, or Horn, or Stallwaort, or Pathon, or Conwell, or Sloan, or Boo Williams, or Gandy, or Bentley, or Jacox, or Riley... in fact, ulness I\'m mistaken, Fontenot is the ONLY player on O who was around when Haslett got here... so did he change the players to fit his system... or did he change the system to fit his players?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"