Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

[quote]Yep. And Brooks was the QB. A Saints "Record-Setting" one at that. Good call...we had a pretty good team that year...

Only...if you look at the Career, which by the way is what makes or breaks someone for a HOF, you'll see that over the course of Brooks' CAREER in N.O. the defense was surrendering 20+ points a game while the offense was scoring, at times, like we did last year. Take a look at the year after the Season you picked...the best season the team had while Brooks was here, or even the one after that and you'll have no choice but to say, "Oh, I get it now." LOL


I think you need to look at some of the game stats again.
2001 we had 6 loses where we averaged 10 pts per game.
2002 we had 4 loses that averaged 13 pts per game not to mention the last 3games when he was hurt and should have been benched. We win 1 out of the 3 and we were in the playoffs. (This is the year that got me upset the most)
2003 5 loses averaged 12 pts per game.
2004 5 loses averaged 13 pts per game.
Won't do 2005 which was his last season here and what most people remember.
So the stats on points per game average are misleading when you take in account how many points we scored in the losses.



[QUOTE]I did tell you what I think, but for the sake of Clarity I'll tell you yet again. Brooks won our first playoff game and his stats are worthy. The fact that you don't seem to think he gave a hundred percent isn't something you can measure, while we CAN measure his numbers and take a look at the team around him OVER HIS CAREER and logically say we might have won more had we been able to stop anyone. You're argument against that is to pull stats from the ONE season we made the playoffs. LOL.

I'll have to disagree on this statement Brooks won our first playoff game. I'll admit he had a good game with 4 TD's but he also fumbled twice but we did get them back and he threw a pick. The win was a team win. We had crucial defensive stops when needed (Sammy Knight 2 picks) and the famous Hakim drops the ball and Brian Milne the long snapper recovers which we had to punt because of a 3 and out. Here is his line from that game.
Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost
12/30 16 29 55.2 266 9.2 4 1 2 15 111.5 10 26 2.6 0 2 0



If it would have been Jake with the same outcome, I would be saying the same thing. No he doesn't belong in the Saints HOF. And I view his emotions as passion for the game and a desire to win something Brooks never showed.
But everyone is entitled to their opinions and although I disagree with yours on Brooks I still respect it.

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

[quote=Budsdrinker;229337]Why do I need to look again? Like SM you are picking and choosing. That's not how it's done. Why did we lose those games? Can you remember? You want to pick and choose how you manipulate the numbers. I don't. I look at the Body Of Work over the course of his career here. Those numbers are pretty damn good numbers UNTIL people start to spin it, which is what lots of folks do when it comes to Brooks...

Oh and by the way, in that Carolina game to end the year, our WR's dropped two passes that hit 'em right in the hands that would have won that game. I guess I'm the only person who remembers that? Doubtful, but I am one of the few that will bring it up. I was never so hacked at my fellow Saints fans for the "We want Jake" chants during that game. They became the 12th man for the Panthers. Too bad Jake wasn't from way up North around Shreveport or something. It might have been different.

There are too many factors that go into a team sport like football to pick and choose games from which to manipulate statistics to prove a point. I'm saying when you look at the numbers as a whole there's not much to argue, and not many people do really. When it comes down to Brooks they don't like his smile. Take a look at the negative comments in this thread alone. It isn't the numbers, it's just that folks like to bash Brooks or make assumptions about his effort because of his style. Either way, he still won our first playoff game...oh, wait...let me be very careful since the spin doctors are in the house...HE WAS THE WINNING QB FOR OUR FIRST PLAYOFF GAME...and good for him the team was there to bail him out over and over again otherwise that great team we had might have been a Brooks victim right? LMAO ;)



You can disagree until the dry cows come home, but it won't change anything. I never said Brooks won it all by his lonesome. That's what SM says I said, because he needs me to think that way I guess, but that's not what I said. But just for fun, what do you remember as the theme of that playoff win? Why did we need the miracle recovery? Need some help? We needed that miracle recovery because we couldn't stop the Rams, and me and you and everyone else rooting for the Saints knew damn well when the Rams got the ball back there was a very good change they'd shove it down our throats.

It wouldn't have been the same with Jake if you use the criteria SM is using, since it was Brooks' assumed attitude and his presumed lack of interest that makes the difference...so for SM at least, if he's telling the truth, stats being equal, replace the name Brooks with Delhomme, and replace the smiles with a whiny baby attitude, and that's all that's missing. ;)

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

Just a sample taken from this thread of those that think he should be in the Saints HOF.


I think the overall theme of the posters in favor of putting Brooks into the Saints HOF is fairly obvious.

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

And some from this thread from those that say no.


The site won't let me quote everyone unfortunately, but I think the overall theme of those that don't want Brooks in the Saints HOF is fairly obvious.

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

:popcorn:

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

But isn't this a team sport? I think you agree on that, right?



So Jake gets the credit for being 4-2 against Brooks, but Brooks' biggest win (and at the time the Saints biggest win) had less to do with Brooks and more to do with the team?

Interesting thought process I must admit. Like you, I respect your opinion, but in this case I have to question whether or not you're being truly unbiased in your assessment.

:bng:

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

You and others have said he has the stats to get in. Apart from disagreeing with the quality of his stats, my point is that you have to look at more than stats. Obviously Rose is an extreme case, but he demonstates that you can't look at just stats. character/moxy/attitude or whatever IS part of the equation. No Brooks wasn't banned like Rose was, but his stats are nowhere near where Rose's were for his sport either. So my point is I disagree with your assertation that he gets in "because he has the stats". Unlike Rose whose stats were so important it took a major issue like betting to keep him out, Brooks' stats are nowhere near good enough to get him in without considering the other facet of his game-the one outside the numbers. You like to blow it off because you say it cannot be measured. I say it is an intrgral part of a player's legacy to their sport and a good yardstick of HOF credentials.


Yeah, I was poking fun at you about the kicking game. But my logic is not flawed. The fact is you have made comments about how bad the coaching, the defense, the o-line, and the receivers were for him. That leaves the RBs, TE's, special teams, and Brooks that you did not criticize. So back up what YOU say. By logic, your comments say you think the TEs, Brooks, RB's and kicking game were the strong parts of our team team during his time here. Otherwise what is the point of hacking on the other parts of the team if it is not to say that Brooks was carrying us?



I love how you try to make your points look better by adding LOL as a response to valid, factual points I bring up. I guess you fall back on giggles when you have little else. I pointed out this one season because this is the one magical season you give him credit for in winning our first playoff game. You use this as a main benchmark for HOF worth. I point out that in this ONE season we had a very good team around him and giving him as much credit for the win as you do is a disservice to the rest of the team.

I also love the slant you put in your line "over the course of Brooks' CAREER in N.O. the defense was surrendering 20+ points a game while the offense was scoring, at times, like we did last year."

More accurately would be for you to say the defense at times gave up 20 + points a game while the offense was at times scoring like we did last year. Or, the D was giving up 20+ points a game and our O was scoring X pts +. But qualifying the O's performance with "at times" while quoting an actual stat for the D is shoddy and proves nothing.

Since you are so stuck on career stats, lets look at some basics. Here are some of Brooks' career stats with the Saints:

Games Yards TDs INTs Fumbles Sack W-L
93 19156 120 84 59 209 38-44


Which gives us a Per game average of:
Yards TDs TO's (INT + Fum) Sack
206 1.3 1.53 2.24

Those stats do not add up to a Saints HOF career for a player that was not known for his leadership, desire, dedication, and did not go out of his way to establish himself in the community.





Take some responsability for your words. You said in a direct response to my earlier post "I'm not discounting them, but the Brooks haters are focused on them"

And then in this post....

"Is your dislike of Brooks so strong..."

So, yeah, I consider that to be calling me a hater when all I've said is he was a good QB but not HOF worthy. You used the word hate fist. How is that hate? If you did not mean it that way, then say so, but have the integrity to not deny you said it.





I'm thinking you might be in politics from the way you avoid my question, answer a differnt question entirely, then act condescending with your response.

Let me ask this then. Replace Brooks with Brees in my question. So, do you think Brees gave/gives 100 % effort to win games and be the best football player he could be? Is your answer still "I don't know"? I didn't think so.



And so you are giving me a bad time for making a joke. Ok......:rolleyes:



For the life of me I can't see why you keep dragging Delhomme into this. If Delhomme would have had the same career for us that Brooks did, no he's not in our HOF. But I will counter with this.....considering his attitude, his comeback story, how he represents himself on the field and what he has done for the Saints organization and the community I would say I would put Breese in with the same stats as Brooks. But he did a lot more than Brooks both on and off the field.


I'd bet you 10 bucks that any other QB in any other team's HOF has one of these three things (if not more than one)

a) Significantly better stats than he does
b) Signifcantly more playoff wins/championships than he does
c) Significantly more attachment to and identity with his team and community than he does.

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

I think you have to go back, sm, and look at ff's question. He was asking if AB should make the Saints' HOF. Would he, with the same numbers and smiles, have made the 49ers HOF? Not likely...

Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?
 

Sure, I get that. And to that end he and others are basically saying he's the second or third best stat QB we've ever had, and he was the QB of our first playoff win, so he should be in.

But to me, overall as a QB he was mediocre as far as NFL standards go, and less than mediocre with respect to the intangibles I mentioned. I just don't feel like mediocre players should be in our HOF and he would only be there because we have been so lousy at the position. Conversly, we have been historically stronger at positions like LB, DL, RBs, and K. I feel like, historically, our best players at these positions were much better than mediocre in both tangible on-field performance and intangible, character contributions to the game.