Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

First of all Saintfan - find me one time that I ever called for Bouman or O\'Sullivan.

Second - Apparently, from your post, you don\'t believe that 38 games as a starter, 2 playoff games, and 5 seasons in the league is enough time for a QB to develop - is that correct? If we\'re paying Brooks to be a TOP 5 quarterback, how long do we have to wait before we can expect him to be one? I think you\'d have us wait until the man retires from the league, all the while suggesting that he IS a top 5 qb right now. Is that what you believe? Do you feel that he is an elite QB in the league RIGHT NOW?

Interesting - do you want to tell me how I think or feel about anything else while you\'re at it Saintfan? The fact that you\'re comparing Brooks to McNabb favorably makes me sick to my stomach. Are you suggesting that Brooks is as good a QB as McNabb? Oh, and who are McNabb\'s receivers? Don\'t look them up, just tell me right now off the top of your head - who are the three top receivers for Philly and are they ANYWHERE near as talented as Horn, Stallworth, and Pathon? And is their Duce anywhere close to our Deuce? Face it, McNabb has done more with less b/c he is a better quarterback, hands down.

Now, I also find it interesting that you single me out and come after me. I did not say ONE thing about Brooks in my post that was negative. All I suggested was that he has plenty of time to develop and now it\'s time for him to start playing like a top 5 QB - as we\'re paying him. You construed that to be some bash of Brooks, when in fact, it isn\'t - again unless of course you believe Brooks is a top 5 QB RIGHT NOW.

If you remember Saintfan, I was THE FIRST person to support YOUR COMMENTS about Brooks after the Seattle game. I gave the shush to many fans on this board just as you did. If I remember correctly, I placed blame on the defense, coordinators (play-calls), o-line, and special teams ALL ahead of Brooks. Apparently, that was just me bashing brooks again huh?

What I find interesting is that when I call \'em like I see them and say Brooks played fairly well, that doesn\'t count. When I criticize, it\'s obviously b/c I have some vendetta. It sounds an awful lot to me like you areclinging to this belief that Brooks id the best QB that the Saints have ever had ALREADY, and that he is an elite NFL QB REGARDLESS of how he actually plays. Now, I won\'t put words in your mouth, as you did to me. Go ahead and speak your piece, but please address my questions. I\'m not throwing out any stats other than his time in the league. So, you tell me, is nearly 5 years in the league and 4 as a starter not enough time for Brooks to have at least progressed? How much longer do we have to wait until we can expect him to be a TOP 5 qb in the league?

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Passing Yards
Player Team Yds Att Cmp TDs Ints Long Rating
1. Rich Gannon OAK 4689 618 418 26 10 75 97.3
2. Drew Bledsoe BUF 4359 610 375 24 15 73 86.0
3. Peyton Manning IND 4200 591 392 27 19 69 88.8
4. Kerry Collins NYG 4073 545 335 19 14 82 85.4
5. Daunte Culpepper MIN 3853 549 333 18 23 61 75.3
6. Tom Brady NE 3764 601 373 28 14 49 85.7
7. Trent Green KC 3690 470 287 26 13 99 92.6
8. Brett Favre GB 3658 551 341 27 16 85 85.6
9. Aaron Brooks NO 3572 528 283 27 15 64 80.1
10. Steve McNair TEN 3387 492 301 22 15 55 84.0


He\'s not in the top 5 but he\'s in the top 10

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

IN YARDS!!!!!

Not in efficiency. not in completion percentage, not in TD/INT ratio, and not in wins.

His attempts are also in the top ten - if you\'re attempts are in the top ten, shouldn\'t your yards and TDs and INTS be also? I think, if I remember correctly, that all of those hold true.

Yardage is not an accurate measure, in my mind, of a QB\'s effectiveness. Efficiency rating, completion percentage, yards per attempt, TD/INT ratio are. He ranks 20 or below in all of those categories - again, if memory serves. I\'d be happy to go back through and do the rankings again.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

A little lesson on statistics:

While I agree that they don\'t tell you everything about a QB, for example, I do think they can paint a decent picture. No, they cannot judge intangibles like leadership ability or motivation - and I think it\'s been a good thing historically for the Brooks supporters that they can\'t - but they can give you some insight when applied correctly. FOR EXAMPLE:

Aaron Brooks had the 10th most pass attempts in the league last year. Somewhat accordingly he had the 9th most yards and 10th most INTs in the league. However, he tied for 2nd in TDs. There a stat that is to his favor. He threw a higher rate of TDs per Attempt than many other quarterbacks. When I do the math, that holds true and we see that Brooks was 5th in the league in the TDs per Attempt ratio. He ranked about where he should - 11th - in TDs per INT.

However, he ranked much lower in other key categories. Yards per attempt - 17th, Efficiency Rating - 20th, and Completion Percentage 27th.

Now, we\'ll delve one step further. His supporters are quick to show that he was in the top ten in the league in such stats like Yards and TDs. However, those stats are directly coorrelated to Attempts. In other words, they\'re not a comparison (as a ratio is), but they depend on something else. You cannot have lots of yards without lots of attempts.

On the other hand, stats like efficiency rating, yards per attempts, and completion percentage are independant. It doesn\'t matter if you throw 3 passes or 300 the comparison is still possible - whereas comparing the yards to a QB that threw 3 passes to one that threw 300 is an unfair comparison.

Now, obviously some basic level of attempts must apply b/c we know that it is much easier to throw 3 completions in a row than 300. This pool of QBs used for comparison are the 30 QBs with the MOST passing yards and attempts from last year. Thus they all had meaningful playing time. So to compare the number of yards they gained per completion is fair b/c they all had a lot of both.

I\'m sure Saintfan and Billy will argue this, but it is very hard to. Certainly there are other influences - Jake Plummer is a key example. His numbers are undoubtedly made worse by his team so it can be harder to evaluate him. However, I would like to see someone argue that the talent on offense on this team HURTS Brooks\' numbers. If anything, I would expect that they prop them up.

The bottom line is this. The law of averages shows us that, given a certain minimum level of involvement (i.e. attempts), the best way to compare one thing to another is to compare their ratios in certain categories. Thus, completion percentage, efficiency, and yards per attempt will always be more relevant that yards, touchdowns, or INTs on their own.

You see where Brooks ranks in those categories - the bottom half of the league. And just to drive this point home one last time - it\'s like saying that Brooks was a better QB last season than Marc Bulger b/c he had more yards and more touchdowns. Well Brooks also had 10 more starts and 314 more attempts. If you look more closely you\'ll see that in his 6 starts Bulger averaged:

2.3 TDs per game - Brooks 1.6875
304 Yards per game - Brooks 223
8.5 Yards per attempt - Brooks 6.76
64.5% Completion percentage - Brooks 53.6%
101.5 QB Rating - Brooks 80.1
Bulger threw a TD every 15 attempts - Brooks every 19.5
They both threw an INT every 35 attempts

So you see, while Saintfan and Billy would tell you that Brooks is better b/c he had more total yards and more TDs - they are obviously comparing the two unfairly b/c they did not play the same number of games. If you compare, however, by game or by attempt - both good common denominators - you will see that Bulger beat Brooks in every category but one - in which they tied. So you tell me, who is the better QB?




[Edited on 11/9/2003 by WhoDat]

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

WhoDat -- Judging a QB is really much more simple than you make it out to be. In my mind, here\'s how it works. In order of importance !!

1. Put points on the Board -- Arron tied for the league lead with 27 -- Don\'t wanna hear anything about our great receivers.

2. Low interception ratio -- 27 TD\'s and 16ints is grrrrrrrrrrreat !!

3. Abliity to comeback in the 4th quarter -- Has done this many many times from huge deficits.

4. All that other STUFF you talk about!!

[Edited on 11/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Whodat --

First -- I never said YOU did...I said PEOPLE are, and there\'s a difference...read more closely next time

Second -- I\'m NOT saying 38 games is or isn\'t enough. I\'ve been attempting to suggest to you and others that the growth of a QB happenes over time, but you KNOW that...you won\'t accept the argument where it applys to Aaron Brooks. Your assesment of Brooks is not fair with respect to other QB\'s in the league, and it never had been because you\'ve wanted him gone from day one. BC got it right...as much as you\'ll try and tip toe around it, the FACT is POINTS are what matter most and Brooks is right up there baby, as much as you hate it, there he is.

Furthermore, I\'m not comparing Brooks to McNab...I\'m comparing the scale with which people like you judge Aaron Brooks, and I\'m trying to show you as simply as I can that, since McNab had such a poor game -- and provided the playing field was level -- that you\'d have him benched by now...and you\'d probably be screaming for the head coaches job too...that is IF you were fair in your assesment, cause although you probably DO consider McNab to be an \"elite\" QB, he has up to now failed to do what I can only assume is the only thing Brooks could do to make you and other anti-Brooks folks hush, and that\'s win the Superbowl.

So, Brooks hasn\'t won the Superbowl...YET. Lot\'s of Hall of Famers never did, and while I\'m not saying Brooks is a lock for the hall of fame I AM saying you and the anti-Brooks crowd are simply NOT interested in judging him fairly...you can\'t not because you can\'t, but because you won\'t.

Finally, I DO consider Brooks to be a \"TOP\" QB in the NFL. Is he top 3 or 5 or 10 or 15...well that squarely depends on which stastic(s) you wanna use or combine. Like I said last year, if averaging damn near 30 points a game isn\'t enough to satisfy, then hell I don\'t know what is.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

here\'s a quick question that should put this thread down

DO YOU THINK THAT PHILLY SHOULD BENCH MCNABB OR THAT NE SHOULD BENCH BRADY?

if you answered \'no\' then shut the hell up because you have no arguement to stand on, both of those guys had much worse weeks than AB and i know for a fact that you all think those guys are better than AB, i don\'t care what the stats were what the game situation was who was injured who likes AB who doesn\'t or any of that

TO CALL YOUR QB INTO QUESTION AFTER THE FIRST WEEK IS STUPID

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Is there a sports psychiatrist in the house?

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Yea, you tell \'em.
And besides, McNabb and Brady never owned anybody with their eyes either!
So, everybody just shut the F up about our golden-boy goofy-smiling eye-spell-casting top 5\'er, OK?

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Eloquent? Nope

Accurate? Yup

Thank\'s Rusta. I especially liked the \"shut the hell up\" part! :P

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

OK Saintfan - I hear where you\'re coming from, I just think it\'s wrong. It\'s got nothing to do with my take on Brooks.

You and Billy seem to want to credit BROOKS for scoring 30+ points a game last season when in fact it was the SAINTS who scored all those points. I will agree that Brooks probably had more direct control over that than say Bentley or Turley, but I don\'t know if you can say he had a greater affect on it than th WRs, Deuce, or McCarthy. I mean, are we to credit Trent Green with scoring all those points for KC, or is Priest Holmes more responsible? Fiedler in Miami, or Ricky? Johnson in Tampa, or was it Gruden\'s system that really began to kick in in the playoffs?

Crediting Brooks for that is like saying, \"David Sloan is a great tightend. Why? B/c the Saints scored 30+ points a game last season.\" No, you evaluate Sloan based on HIS performance compared to other players at the SAME position - not based on how the TEAM played. It works both ways too. I used PLummer as an example in my last post to show how a team can hurt a player\'s stats. Archie is another good example.

The point is, in order to evaluate a plaer you compare him to his counterparts. That\'s what every NFL scout, coach, GM, etc. does. I\'m not comparing Brooks to past QBs, or comparing one year to another. I can\'t think of anything more fair than comparing him in 2002 (his best year so far mind you) to the other top 30 QBs in the league during the same season. (by the way - if teams statistics is all that matter he can\'t be higher than 12th, b/c we didn\'t make the playoffs).

I\'m not saying Brooks is a BAD qb. I think he\'s average - physically gifted, but a poor manager of the game. My beef is still what I perceive to be a mismatch of styles. He is not fitted for our offense. Just look at the other QBs like him. They are the only, or one of two, weapons on their team.

McNabb - He\'s it in Philly unless you want to count Duce.
Vick - He was it until Price came along
Culpepper - He and Moss are it
Carter - He got the job b/c the offense in Dallas is without play-makers
Blake - Unless Boldin keeps playing like he did last week, Blake is it in Zona.
Stewart - If you want to call Booker a weapon then he has Booker.

Now, consider the type of quarterback that the teams like ours have - teams with lots of weapons or a similar system - they\'re drop-back, efficient, physically unspectacular, game managers.

Oakland - Gannon
St. Louis - Warner/Bulger
Pittsburgh - Maddox
Buffalo - Bledsoe
Jets - Pennington
New England - Brady
Seattle - Hassleback
Indianapolis - Manning

Now c\'mon. Are you going to tell me that Brooks belongs on the guys at the bottom more than the guys at the top? We are forcing him to be something he isn\'t to fit our system. Everyone on the board is complaing about him not running anymore. It\'s not a matter of whether Brooks is good or not - look at some of the best QBs in the league right now and you\'ll see that they didn\'t get that way until they found the right system.

I\'m not in favor of benching him now, no, but I do thin kthat the Saints need to pursue other options at quarterback. I don\'t know how you don\'t see this. Is it just me guys? Am I missing something? Am I nuts? B/c this seems blatantly obvious to me. The meaningful stats that are used to compare quarterbacks put him average at best, he\'s the only QB in the league of his type playing in a system like ours, and you two can\'t see what\'s wrong?

Try this. Put Mario Bates in the backfield, Lorenzo Hill, Floyd Turner, and Eric Martin at WR, and make Sloan the TE and Carl Smith the coordinator - then Brooks is perfect for this team, but until that, they need to explore other options. And Billy, Saintfan... if Brooks really is a top 5 QB, why do you oppose giving someone else a shot? If he\'s that good we\'ll all see it right away huh? I know we didn\'t see much of Delhomme in a Saints uniform, but it didn\'t seem to me that he played noticably worse than Brooks.

Help guys - am I nuts or is this a no-brainer?

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

By the way, Whodat, the talent on the Saints certainly doesn\'t hurt Brooks\' numbers, but I\'ll be damned if the dropped passes don\'t, and if you deny that has been a MAJOR issue for this team for the better part of a year now then pass me the crack pipe.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

You are absolutely right. it is an issue. But so is throwing the quick slant at your guys feet, or a yard behind him. In the WC system that pass needs to hit the WR in stride. We have guys making circus catches on passes that should hit them in stride.

And yes its frustrating when he finally does hit them in stride and they drop it. But I see that as 2 problems. Its 2 problems that have been a MAJOR issue for this team for the better part of a year now

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

I just thought of something. AB said he owned them all night with his eyes right?
Maybe he was talking about another game. The Seattle game started at 3:15 our time right? That would make it a starting time of 1:15 in Seattle. Just what the hell is he talking about? It wasn\'t night or even dark for that matter. Maybe he had on a blindfold? Just kidding guys. He really didn\'t mean it. He knows the difference between night and day! Right? :P

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

WhoDat -- I don\'t care who you put in our system at QB. You would be hard pressed to beat 27TD\'s and 3,500 yards for a QB that\'s only started for 3 years. All that other STUFF you talk about that is just that STUFF.

And yes you are NUTS if you think otherwise !!!

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

WhoDat, I completely agree that a QB\'s style of play is contingent on his success within a given system. Take any number of the teams in which you show pocket passers and slap Vick in there and I don\'t think he will be as successful because at this point in his career his touch, timing and accuracy are not at the level of the majority of those guys. The same can be said of any one of those pocket passers into the Falcons offense. They would be less successful as thye offense is now designed around the QB\'s motion and so many plays call for the scramble as the second or third checkdown option. Also the blocking schemes are centered either around pocket protection, or to allow front/side escape holes in Vick\'s case.

In my opinion, the biggest factor in determining how a QB rates is simply by success. That means wins.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

LummOx -- I respectfully disagree. The QB alone does not contol the success of the team. All he can do is lead TD drives. Aaron passed for 27 TD\'s which was tied for most in the NFL. He limited his interceptions to a very respectful number. Our offense scored the most in the NFC. If we woud have had the Bucs defense we would have won the super bowl. Aaron has played without the benifit of a good defense much less a great defense that gives the ball back to the offense.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

What is it going to take for Brooks to get some respect????????????

#1- When he can put together drives in the 1st half like he does in the 4th quarter when we`re behind 20 points and the defense gives a cushion. (Thats where the stats are coming from..so you can shut up about the stats.)
#2- When he can stand in the pocket and make good judgement passes instead of rolling out instinctively every pass play and throwing on the run or off his heels as he back petals. (sometimes pressure causes a QB to move...but not every damn pass play)
#3- When he can play with the same drive an attitude as he did the first 4 games he started. Brooks reminds me of a corvette with a bad carburater...oh he has potential, but if you can`t get him cranked up, you`re better off on a Moped.
#4- When he gets consistant for 4 quarters....like Horn and Mcallister, you know what to expect from these guys, but with Brooks it`s a coin toss. I want a QB that is going to WIN more often than not in crucial games. You guys keep bringing up McNabb, McNabb is not the weak link in their offense. McNabb is going to beat you if his other teammates are as half as consistant as himself.
#5- When he stops grinning after every boo boo....and yes..that pisses me off.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Saintsfan4ever -- That\'s a bunch of garbage if I\'ve ever heard any. Forget the stats. What about the league leading 27 TD passes he threw? That\'s all I\'m worried about. The name of the game for a QB is TOUCHDOWNS.

The fact is if we had a defense to go with our NFC leading offense we would be in the superbowl. If you want to complain -- complain about the defense -- because right now you are talking garbage.

[Edited on 11/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

1. So it\'s easier for a quarterback to put up big numbers when the defense primarily defends the pass?
2. 27 TD passes. Even if they play a \"bend but not break\" defense the goal is not to give up a TD, right?
3. 27 TD passes. All the losses were close enough that defenses didn\'t just willingly give up a TD in the last few minutes of a game. Maybe against Atlanta, but that\'s only one.
The stats are impressive and you will have a hard time arguing that.
On the other hand: All that counts is the W, throw out the stats. Right now Brooks is our best chance to get some of those Ws and he will be for some years to come. If he has a sub-par season I\'ll reevaluate him, but as of now I\'ll support him.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Billy, I\'m glad you respectfully disagreed. That was nice. My point was that if a QB is winning you will likely not hear negative talk about him. Say the Bucs win the next three superbowls (ohh god, I just threw up), and they go 14-2 every season, and Brad Johnson throws more picks than TD\'s and has a completion percentage below 50 and a rating around 50, will you hear alot of people talk trash? Winning will disguise alot of faults.

Every QB in this league has faults and fans will be quick to point them out, especially when things go sour. I didn\'t see alot of people in here mentioning faults when we were 6-1. Thus, winning will get him respect.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Then I respectfully agree. That\'s what I\'ve been trying to tell WhoDat. The hard headed bastard. ;)

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Bottom Line, everyone would be happy if a few simple things happen this season:

1) If Brooks puts up numbers similar to last year.

2) If his fundamentals continue to improve, i.e. he uses the pocket more effectively, chooses his targets and routes more wisely and improves the accuracy of his throws.

3) If he quits smiling when he f--ks up.

4) If he takes more of a leadership role, and

5) If he takes responsibility for his mistakes.

I know this discussion in well into its second year, but it\'s always the same. It can be debated and argued forever, but that\'s the bottom line no matter what anyone says, supporter, detracter or indifferent.

People have strong feelings about the SAINTS and sure everyone\'s happy when they win. But when they don\'t everything, opinions especially get magnified.

So I say let\'s wait a couple of weeks and see what happens. Then if he still plays the same, I say off with his head!

Go SAINTS!!!!!

David in Houston

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

OK....The question was entered somewhere in this thread \"What is Brooks going to have to do to get some respect?\".....well....I made a list of my personal opinions of what would earn my respect for Brooks. Garbage or no garbage, I`m sticking to it. I think Drake did about the same thing and may have summed it up more eliquently.
Myself and others are sick of Brooks\' inconsistentcy. period.
I believe also that the offense is not designed around Brooks abilities. He`s just not a control-offense kind of QB. He has done his best work playing \"catch-up\" where he gets to run a `Michael Vick\' style offense. Connecting on deep crossing paterns,screens and posing a run threat. Go back 17 games and add up his 4th quarter TD`s as opposed to 1st,2nd,3rd quarters combined.....\"no more questions your honor, the prosecution rest\"

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

I didn\'t exactly do that, but I looked through last season\'s games and how many TDs he scored in a half. It\'s either 12-15 or 13-14 (somehow I missed one TD throw). If you\'re trying to use stats against him, get the stats right first.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/u/footba...2002_split.htm

If you want to see all of Aaron\'s situational stats, click on the link.


Now, heres some facts that are bullet proof and yes, even WhoDat proof......

Most stats for QB\'s are useless. The job of a QB is to help lead the offense into the endzone. Wheather that be moving the ball down the field by throwing for a 1st down or running for a first down (which by the way doesn\'t show up in the passer rating but keeps drives alive, none the less) or throwing bombs for TD\'s. It really doesn\'t matter what the stats are. What matters is if the QB helps put points on the board !!

Would you rather have a QB that completes 25 of 30 passes and the team scores 2 TD\'s or a QB that completes 20 of 30 passes and the team scores 3 TD\'s?? Kind of a no brainer ain\'t it??? Now, you can slice it any way you want to but Aaron was tied for 1st in the NFL in TD passes and our offense was # 1 in the NFC in scoring. Furthermore, Aaron didn\'t cost the team not 1 game by thowing an interception last year.

The offense did it\'s job last year. What happen is the defense DID NOT do it\'s JOB and now Aaron has to take the blame from some fans that really have no idea what they are talking about.

I dare anyone to tell me that passer rating is more important than putting points on the board. WhoDat, 08, FWtex, anyone -- Is that what you want us to beleive??? NO? Well, that\'s what you\'ve been screaming.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

...ok so now...along with all the other rediculousness that gets held against Aaron Brooks, people are gonna hold the number of 4th quarter touchdown passes against him too? Absolutely un-fu@&ing believeable!

Did anyanyone ever hold 4th quarter td\'s against Elway? Montana? Marino? Aikman? Bradshaw? Satubach? Anyone? Beuler? Anyone?

You people are freakin\' amazing...and obviously on crack. You guys are lookin for perfection, but I swear Jesus Christ could be our QB and you people would bench HIM too. Absolutely unbelievable.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Uh, I gave Brooks credit for his fourth quarter play in another thread, but whatever...

Lumm0x - \"In my opinion, the biggest factor in determining how a QB rates is simply by success. That means wins.\"

Billy - \"I respectfully disagree. The QB alone does not contol the success of the team.\"

Billy\'s Article by John Elway - \"To me, the No. 1 job of a quarterback -- besides winning, of course -- is what he does on third down.\"

So which one is it Bill? Is Elway, and thusly Lumm0x, right? Is winning the #1 job of a QB - or is that just a team thing? You can\'t have it both ways.



Billy - \"The name of the game for a QB is TOUCHDOWNS.\"

So the guy with the most touchdowns is the best QB in the league? Regardless of system, surrounding talent, injury, etc.? Didn\'t your article from Elway argue just the opposite? Is the guy who catches the most touchdowns in the league the best receiver? If so, Horn\'s not a Pro Bowler now is he?

Why are the stats different for a QB than any other position? We can judge a receiver by catches, yards, YAC, TDs, drops, big-plays, etc, but a QB is judged ONLY by wins or points? That\'s the most ridiculous thing I\'ve ever heard. Then ranking quarterbacks is simple. Ranks them by all-time winning percentage, then by Touchdowns. The combination of those two figures is a Qb\'s rank. Simple. That ranks Archie Manning 650,000th. Archie was a bad QB right? Kerry Collins would rank above Brooks right now then. You all obviously agree with that right? As would Trent Dilfer. Marc Bulger is the best QB in the league then. 6-0, 14 TDs - 2.3 a game. NO ONE will top that. Oops, actually, one guy will - JAKE DELHOMME. 100% winning percentage, 3 TDs. Thanks guys, you just proved Jake is a better QB than Brooks under the BillyC system. Thank you.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

WhoDat -- Let\'s go ahead and cut to the chase here OK??

What is more important for a offense to be successful?

A) Score Points

B) For the QB to have a high passer rating??

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

:casstet:
:casstet:
:casstet:

DIE THREAD, DIE!!!!!!

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Whodat, you\'ll do anything to facilitate the argument. NO ONE can succeed without the other. You\'re hung up on \"ranking\" and side stepping the fact that all these statistics you toss up into the wind are all relative to the players that surround the player who\'s stats you\'re discussing.

Now tell the truth. If AB had the kinda game Mcnabb had last week you\'d be in here with all kind of \"I told you so\'s\". On the other hand, if you were in charge, there\'s no way in hell or on earth that, after last weeks performance, you\'d sit Donovan down.

The question is why? Do you acknowledge all the droped passes and cut the QB some slack? Well, do you? If so, why Donavan and not Brooks? Do you think all the dropped passes hurt Donavan\'s numbers last week? Do you think McNabb\'s numbers...his QB \"statistics\" -- you know those numbers you think tell the whole story -- would be better if his receivers hadn\'t dropped so many passes?

I know you\'re a \"numbers\" guy Whodat...tell me...if we\'re not penalized early on 4th and inches and we make that first down and go on to score and the momentum of that game were a complete 180 versus what it was, how much credit does Aaron Brooks get for it? How much does he deserve? How responsible was he for the pentalty that the players all agree really set the tone early on?

Remember that in all your number crunching, Football is a TEAM sport and everyone\'s stats are in part relative to everyone else\'s. Go ahead and cut Donovan some slack cause as you stated earlier he\'s really the only guy they have. Is that right? Weren\'t they awefully close to the superbowl last year? Didn\'t he miss quite a few games due to injury? They did pretty well for a bunch of \"nobodys\" minus their Star QB \'d say. would\'nt you?

What I think Billy is trying to say, and I could be wrong (but it\'s not likely), is that if you\'re gonna start judging a QB by numbers alone, perhpas looking at TD passes and points on the board would be a good place to start. If you start trying to judge a guy based on how well he did last season in NOON games in the second half when the wind was blowing from the southeast and the temperature was between 49 and 70 degrees etc etc you just MIGHT have an agenda. At least that\'s the way it appears to me.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

ok....I`m convinced now...Brooks is the best QB we`ve ever had...what was I thinking?....I mean. it`s not his fault he played poorly the last 4 regular season games. it was that darn defense and bad play calling.....Brooks has performed brilliantly at times, so whatever he does from here on out is fine by me. :hallucine:

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Just for kicks, and to see how everyone really feels about Brooks.
How many QB\'s would you trade straight up right now for AB?
Taking into consideration long term and short term, here\'s my list.

McNabb
Manning
Mike Vick
David Carr
Joey Harrington

I can\'t think of anyone else I\'d rather have.
Five QB\'s!!! From a guy that some have labeled a Brooks Basher.
There are some I\'d like for just one season (Favre, Brunnel, Gannon, McNair), and some that come close (Culpepper, Hasselback).
But only five that I\'d trade head up, right now.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Whodat wants to blind you with stats and complicate matters so he doesn\'t get exposed for being wrong but I\'m going to lay it out in a very simple way, because it really is very simple.

1. The objective of a FOOTBALL TEAM is to win games.

2. The objective of the DEFENSE is to keep the other team from scoring.

3. The objective of the OFFENSE is to score points.

I think we can all agree on this. If not, you are retarded and need to seek help.

WhoDat says Brooks isn\'t right for our system, but how can that be when the SYSTEM led by AARON BROOKS was more successful than every other system in the NFC. Is there anything more important than scoring points on offense? I thought the objective for the offense is to get in the endzone. I didn\'t know you had to go look at the stats on the way to the endzone to make sure we make WhoDat happy.

I know WhoDat understands eveything I\'m telling him -- he just doesn\'t want to admit it. He wants to complicate matters and not look at the FACTS -- Aaron Brooks led the # 1 offense in the NFC. He wants everyone to beleive that passer rating in more important than scoring points. I might be alone in my belief that scoring points on offense is the most important thing, but I thought that\'s the way it worked. Ask yourself what you want. Do you want to be the highest scoring offense or do you want all that STUFF WhoDat talks about????



[Edited on 12/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

You are not alone. There is another. LOL

:P

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

saintsfan -- Unfortunately this is something WhoDat will never admit to. It\'s a lost cause but it sure is fun watching WhoDat try to wiggle and squirm his way out of looking at the facts.

WhoDat wants ANYONE besides Brooks as the starter and while he might give a little credit to Brooks here and there, to try to make himself not look like a HATER, all the evidence is there.

WhoDat is a classic example of the fan that thinks the backup QB is the next superstar. And it\'s hard to argue that the backup QB isn\'t going to be great. It\'s also hard to argue that alien life doesn\'t exist on another planet.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Alien life on other planets? That\'s quite likely...statistically speaking of course!

Sorry whodat...Billy tee\'d it up. I HAD to swing at it!

LOL

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

OK - let me address the many posts...

\"NO ONE can succeed without the other\" - Agree completely. However, WINS AND LOSSES AND POINTS SCORED ARE TEAM STATS, not individual ones. You two want to credit Brooks for things the TEAM did, but ignore the things that HE did.

\"If AB had the kinda game Mcnabb had last week you\'d be in here with all kind of \"I told you so\'s\". On the other hand, if you were in charge, there\'s no way in hell or on earth that, after last weeks performance, you\'d sit Donovan down. \"

AGAIN SAINTFAN, go read my other posts. I do not advocate sitting Aaron Brooks down. Nor Donovan McNabb. Brooks is undoubtedly the most talented QB on the team RIGHT NOW. That does NOT mean he is the best fit for this team in the LEAGUE, but I do not, and have not, suggested that Brooks be benched. I think you have me confused with other members of this board.

\"Do you acknowledge all the droped passes and cut the QB some slack? Well, do you?\"

Yes, I do. I did in other posts. AGAIN - FOR THE 10TH TIME - AARON BROOKS IS NOT THE REASON THE SAINTS LOST IN SEATTLE. Is that clear enough to you. Why is it that you cannot differentiate my feeling Brooks is not the right QB for our system, and your perception that I blame every one of the Saints misfortunes on him? I certainly do not, as evident by the many posts in which I blame the defense, coordinators, o-line, receivers, special teams.... etc. for losses this year AND LAST.

\"WhoDat wants ANYONE besides Brooks as the starter and while he might give a little credit to Brooks here and there, to try to make himself not look like a HATER, all the evidence is there. \"

What is amazing to me is that you two have to polarize this argument this much. AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN - Aaron Brooks is the best quarterback on this team. He should be, and is, the starter. How the two of you can construe that as \"I hate AB and want any bum off the street over him.\" is beyond me.

\"WhoDat says Brooks isn\'t right for our system, but how can that be when the SYSTEM led by AARON BROOKS was more successful than every other system in the NFC.\"

So obviously there is ZERO room for improvement on offense then huh? Is that right Billy? And if your TEAM leads the conference in a particular category it obviously means that every player on that TEAM is the best possible player you could have at that position. Right? That\'s why every player on Tampa\'s defense went to the Pro Bowl... er...

The reality of the situation here is this. I have given Brooks credit for his strengths, but made solid arguments for why I think he is wrong for this team. You two seem to believe that he is infallible. Have you conceded that he has ANY weaknesses? ANY AT ALL? No, of course not. He is obviously the perfect QB, and perfectly fit for our system.

Forget the stats that the NFL uses to compare quarterbacks - what does the NFL know about football anyway? BillyC and Saintfan - they know how to judge a quarterback. Obviously it\'s by how many points the defense scores.

I mean, Jesus Christ. I say that you need to have a common denominator to compare stats and in addition state that there are intangibles that cannot be measured. That gets construed as \"you start trying to judge a guy based on how well he did last season in NOON games in the second half when the wind was blowing from the southeast and the temperature was between 49 and 70 degrees etc etc you just MIGHT have an agenda. \" What the F??

B/c Passer Efficiency Rating, Completion Percentage, and Yards per Attempt are obviously RIDICULOUS (that\'s RI not RE) measures of a QB. It\'s Interesting - YARDS and TDs are all that matter, huh? Could AB have AS MANY yards or TDs if he played for Arizona? NO. Obviously. Somehow that means that he is a less talented quarterback according to Saintfan and Billy. Good thing he plays here I guess.

Now, I\'ll try this again. I have a business. Billy has a business. My business made $1 million in 10 days. Billy\'s made $750,000 in three days. Now, Billy and Saintfan would have you believe that MY business is better b/c it made MORE MONEY TOTAL. Forget a common denominator. However, when you compare the two with a common denominator like, say a day, you see that I make $100,000 a day whereas Billy makes $250,000 a day. Forget all that. When you start comparing money made only on days that end in Y and are between negative 30 and 150 degrees, you might just have an agenda.

Frankly, I am tired of this discussion once again. You two LOVE Aaron Brooks like he was your dad. You\'ve obviously both placed all of your hopes for the Saints in HIM. We\'ll wait and see what happens with the Saints. We\'ll see what he does this year. What his numbers are - but Billy is right about ONE thing. I will NOT say I\'m wrong about Brooks... not until he PROVES to me on the FIELD that he is a TOP 5 QB - like we\'re paying him to be.

That\'s it for this. I\'m done.

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Oh COME ON Gator...you LOVE AB\'s Smile and you KNOW it!

:D

Brooks"I owned them pretty much the whole night with my eyes
 

Gator -- I don\'t know how I come across wrong because I pretty much said the samething you did. And you should understand how easy it is to come across wrong when someone has been trying to prove a point to someo forever.

At least your assessment of Brooks is fair. I don\'t neccessarily agree with all of it but it\'s al helluva lot more fair than WhoDat\'s assessment.

Peace Brother.