WhoDat

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?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

BillyCarpenter1

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

WhoDat

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.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

WhoDat

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]

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

BillyCarpenter1

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]

saintfan

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.

C'mon Man...

rusta

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

BillyCarpenter1

Is there a sports psychiatrist in the house?

tweeky

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?

saintfan

Eloquent? Nope

Accurate? Yup

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