lumm0x

saintfan and BillyC....I don\'t believe either of you are referring to me with these posts, so I\'m not saying this in effort to defend myself here, but......
I like to think I keep a pretty open mind about any arguement. There is and always has been an arguement on here about Aaron Brooks. I just don\'t understand what it is.

The self-labelled Brooks supporters have many times openly acknowledged that he is not flawless, they accept his idiosyncracies as the visible weaknesses that every player will have and they focus on what has been good and what might be better.

The title-acquired Brooks bashers have also many times acknowledged that he is the most productive Saints QB ever, that he has elite skills and unlimited potential in this game. They however, focus on the negative aspects of his play in effort to critique what elements in his game are lacking and how he could be a better QB.

What is the arguement? Everyone thinks he has done some good things, has some areas that need improvement, but has the necessary abilities to be better. The arguements over will he be better are individual opinions based on nothing. To compare him to other great QB\'s that took time to develop is meaningless. To compare him to elite athletes that busted is meaningless. Everyone that argues this also acknowledges that we will never know until it happens. So why the ine in the sand seperating lovers and haters?