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

I hear ya, bro...and pretty much totally agree. The part that I like most is that it is just a thread...a conversation topic...and mostly that I could give a rat's patootey whether he gets in or not.

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

You brought it up, backtracked in the very next sentence, and are left to explain it. Yes, as you confess, Rose is an extreme case. If your point is that you have to look at more than stats, then good for you. You have mastered the obvious, only you could have done that without insinuating Brooks=Rose. Stats are part of the equation - not the end all. Even you agree his Stats are up to snuff. You seem to dislike his attitude as presumed by you. If you look at the points of those for it versus those against it, you'll see that those for it generally think his stats along with the playoff win and that fact that at the time he was far and away the second best player we'd ever had at that position are enough. Those against even make reference to his numbers but didn't like HIM, primarily because he didn't whine his way off the field after a bad play.




Overall, and you MUST look at the overall picture and NOT just one game, or a season, or a handful of losses, yes, OVERALL, while Brooks was here, our lines, our secondary, our Wr's, and our coaching are very suspect, and through it all Brooks was able to put up pretty damn good numbers, especially when those numbers are compared to players that came before him. Fact is we had some damn good teams that never won a playoff game. You can get as granular as you'd like as you try to mis-represent the spirit of my post when I say those teams that Brooks was on weren't very good. Knock yourself out. It doesn't change the fact that those teams, overall, were not very good teams. If I were arguing the same about Joe Horn would you disagree? I doubt you'd even bother, and that's called bias.





Your 'factual' points aren't relevant to the topic are they? Nope. You're tying to spin my comments in a way that make it seem that I think Brooks alone won that game. I never said that, and no spin by you will make it any different.

Look at it any way you want. We had a GOOD offense with Brooks, and we typically needed to outscore people because in general our defenses weren't that good. If you disagree that's fine. Ask around if you don't believe me, or average it out. I know what I saw, and I watched every game.

How much money did Brooks invest in the Children of New Orleans and to charities in general? No, it's not all about stats, but you might want to slow your roll a bit about his community and charity work in New Orleans.

Players Stories

"New Orleans Saints quarterback Aaron Brooks will receive the Humanitarian of the Year Award for his efforts in the community. Brooks started a literacy program in New Orleans in conjunction with the public library, promoting the use of libraries during the summer months when school is not in session and some students may not have access to books. Last summer Brooks told students, "If you want to be like me, you'd better read like me." And they took his words to heart. It is estimated the program, "Read to Pass" motivated 15,000 children to read 80,000 books from May 24 to August 8, 2003.
"I was able to help create an environment for the kids to better themselves for the future through literacy programs," said Brooks, who believes reading can open doors for young people. "I just try to stay involved. There's a great need of leadership and support from the role models that kids look up to, and that is what I am trying to do."


And here's a link you might want to visit:
Aaron Brooks Family Foundation | Home


Now, I submit to you that without desire and dedication you are not very likely to rise from where Brooks came from to be a Starting QB in the NFL. Brooks was not the leader on the field that a Manning or a Brees is, but if you're focusing on that you're sadly misguided.









Are you a hater? I didn't call you one, but you sure as hell seem offended by the potential of that label. You can wear your feelings on your sleeve if you'd like, but you've taken a pretty strong stand against Brooks. Maybe you shouldn't be so thin-skinned if you want to participate in a discussion about Brooks with someone that feels differently.


I do think Brees gives 100%. Beuller? Hasn't got anything to do with anything. I think Randy Moss doesn't give 100% and yet he will make the NFL HOF based on his numbers alone - even though he isn't a great leader. In fact I think TO will make the HOF as well, and I cannot say he gives 100%, but he DOES whine and pout a lot, so he's instantly qualified!

I didn't drag Delhomme into it. He is a part of it. When did you start watching Saints games? God man, Jake and the Louisiana connection was half the reason people wanted to get rid of Brooks. I mean...seriously?

And Brees is beyond reproach, he is special in a way that places him above even the typically special people in this world. He's a slam dunk, so there's really no point in bringing that to the discussion, unless of course you think every player in the Saints HOF should measure up to that standard, in which case you better empty out those already in the Saints HOF and go ahead and close the doors, because you probably won't find many candidates worthy of induction in the future.




And you may be right, but then again, after 43 years most teams have a bit more to choose from huh? L...O...L

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

OK, I thought this was funny. Take a look at this comparison:

Aaron Brooks per game career average with the Saints
Yards TDs TO's (INT + Fum) Sack
206 1.3 1.53 2.24



Jim Everett’s per game career average with the Saints
Yards TDs TO's (INT + Fum) Sack
226 1.27 1.43 1.43

Now before evryone freaks out and thinks I'm saying Jim Everett was as good for us as Brooks, chill out and take a deep breath. That is not what I am saying. Brooks was more important to us as a QB then JE was. Again, he was MORE IMPORTANT. But don't tell me his stats were that great. If we would have had JE for 8 seasons he would have had better overall stats than Brooks did at the rate he was playing for us.

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

I think you're starting to get it. Why don't you elaborate on that statement...here, let me frame it for you:

"Aaron Brooks and Jim Everett were statistically similar QB's for the New Orleans Saints, and yet Aaron Brooks was MORE IMPORTANT to the franchise, and here's why..."

I'll be interested in hearing your response. Maybe if Brooks punched Jim Rome dead in his face he'd be sees as passionate and he'd be a Saints HOF slam dunk then?

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

good thread. lively discussion. seems like a crazy topic on the surface, but then you think again.

I wouldnt call Brooks mediocre. Think of the times we WISHED we had someone with his ability. Had he lived up to his potential, there's no telling how far we could have gone.

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

Backtrack, dude, what the heck are you reading? You puposefully took my original point about Rose wrong-even when I explained it in the very next sentence. Talk about misrepresenting. And one of your original points was he has the stats to back it up as if that was all that mattered. So obviously it wasn't so obvious to you because you sure as heck didn't say it until after I mentioned it. But thanks for trying to take credit for my point.




Well I have looked at his overall career and pointed out stats. Impressive for a franchise with a history of poor QB play. If you think that is enough to reward him, then fine. I don't. And please tell me how I misrepresented your post when I pretty much quote what you say. Seriously, what did I misrepresent?






Ok, that is worth a LOL. You champion Brooks because (along with his stats) he won our first playoff game. I bring up stats about that very team and they AREN'T RELEVANT? Are you serious?

I watched every game too. Our offense performed well at times, but at other times it looked like it had no focus and was simply going through the motions. Brooks frequently made fine plays and he frequently had his head in the clouds. This had nothing to do with our defense. See, since we are talking about Brooks and his performance rather than the defense and theirs here would be the time to use your line about how "your 'factual' points aren't relevant to the topic are they? Nope."


I don't know how much money he gave. Good for him. But that does not change the fact that he does not have the same legacy and is not recognized with the same connection to the Saints as some of the other noteable players through our history. Your comments about other people's posts about Brooks is testament to that. We have some of the most knowledgable Saints fans ever on this site and it says a lot that even some of those that vote him in do so with reluctance. One of the overriding reasons they do is that playoff win. But he took over a team that was 7-4 that year. He went 3-2 as a regular season starter. And then went 1-1 in the playoffs with the 10th ranked defense in the league. But I guess those stats don't matter either because they don't fit your argument.



And I submit to you that you are very wrong about that. The league is full of gifted, talented players that have been idolized since they were in HS running over opponents. Plenty of guys got where they are based on natural talent alone and worked very little. Michael Vick admitted recently to not being a hard worker before. You mentioned one yourself in Moss.

Wow, wanting a QB in your HOF to be a leader on the field is misguided. Now that is worth another LOL.


No I'm not a hater. I'm just pointing out errors in your posts. A logical conclusion of your remarks is that I am a hater. This is a discussion/debate. When you make stuff up, like your hate remarks, it hurts your side. But if you can't see that, then maybe I shouldn't point it out. You obviously never took any debate classes in school. Or you have forgotten some of the basics if you have.


The fact that you didn't hesitate to say Brees gives 100% yet you won't even answer the question about Brooks speaks volumes about him, what kind of player he was, and what he brought to the game. And hey, if Brooks had numbers that were in the top 20 all time for his position, like Moss and TO then I'd say put him in the Saints and NFL HOF. But he just doesn't does he?


Here is another good place for "your 'factual' points aren't relevant to the topic are they? Nope." line. You are honestly going to give me flack for bringing up stats about the team that won the first PO game and say my points aren't relative...then go out and drag Delhomme into this again like it proves something? Unbelievable.

If Brooks was SHOF worthy like you say, then he wouldn't have had any trouble keeping his job. But instead, He ended up signing a big contact with us. He then went 35-42 (here comes the "It was all the defense's fault" rant) for us as a starter after the playoff win. He then went on to play a total of ONE more year in the league for Oakland where he went 0-8. Yeah, with a resume like that, it sure must have been Delhome's fault he's not a shoe-in for the SHOF.


Sure there is a point in bringing him in to the discussion. If nothing else it shows that you cannot say that Brooks was a hard worker. I've already said I think a HOF should be more exclusive than it is. But there are many past Saints that showed just as much desire to win as Brees did. I won't go through the many names because I'm sure we can all list a few. When discussing if a player is HOF worthy, it never hurts to compare them to other players. In fact, it is a requisite.

And as far as how long I've been watching the Saints, I remember as a kid having big, thick dark framed glasses just like Chuck Muncie.

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

"Aaron Brooks and Jim Everett were statistically similar QB's for the New Orleans Saints, and yet Aaron Brooks was MORE IMPORTANT to the franchise, and here's why..." Because he played with us for more seasons than JE. Because we didn't get him afer he played well for a division rival like JE. Because he lucked out on a Jeff Blake injury and was part of the team that won our first playoff game. None of which makes him worthy for our HOF.

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

He was better than mediocre for us. But as an overall NFL QB:

Yards...88th all time
Tds...93rd all time

Again, to me his stats speak as much to our poor history at QB as they do his quality as a QB. Plus, your "lived up to his potential" statement says it all to me.

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

He's more important because he played for more seasons? Seriously? LMAO
He's more important because he didn't come to us as a free agent? You CANNOT be serious?
He's more important beacuse he 'lucked out on a Jeff Blake injury". Dude that doesn't even make sense.

Now, you did say he was part of the team that won our first playoff game so you got that much right anyway...the rest of that is just you being a bitter little man. LMAO

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

Just because you purposefully took my comments about Brooks winning our first playoff game and the fact that over the course of his Career here we had a generally bad team and twisted it (or tried to) doesn't mean I twisted what you said. I didn't HAVE to twist it. YOU brought it up, then said it didn't matter, then you said it did in context. I think you've become confused.


What standard do you suggest? Brees? Like I said before, if that's the case, revoke everyone's membership in the Saints HOF and lock the doors, cause we're done.

I as well as others here believe that he was a good QB, particularly by Saints standards, and that winning that playoff game is worth more than you seem to think it is. I don't think we win that game with Bobby or Jim or Billy Joe. Do you? Of course I'm not saying he did it alone - and I feel the need to qualify that because you'll damn sure attempt your little spin game again - do YOU think we win that game with those guys?

Yep, and I've watched Manning and Brady and Montana led offenses appear as if they're going through the motions too. You haven't? QB's are judged on their wins and losses, fair or not, but it's a TEAM game and what happens with the LB's and DB's and whether or not they can stop your grandma DOES make a difference. I'm amazed that you'd even attempt to disagree. You don't think with a better defense or our current group of WR's that Brooks might have even BETTER numbers than the ones he had with the group he had them with? You think Montana could turn Willie Jackson in to Jerry Rice? Pass me some of what you're smokin man.


Now tell the truth. You probably didn't even know about his charities. Don't EVEN lie, cause if you lie you'll pee in the bed. Now, as to the rest of this paragraph, you're focusing in on one season again. Tisk tisk. That's not how it works. Haven't we been over this already? <yawn>

What am I wrong about, that people without dedication and determination don't end up as QB's in the NFL? Granted, skill will take you a long way, but I bet those that were dedicated and worked at it outnumber those that weren't...by a long shot. You disagree? As for his work ethic, I don't know that I ever heard anyone say he didn't work hard. I know a lot of fans assumed that because they didn't like his smile, but as for people that would know, I just don't think I've ever heard that. You have? Elaborate if so...

At the mutual exclusion of everything else? Yeah, misguided and THEN some. Hell man, lots of great leaders never even made it to the super bowl, and many 'bus drivers' made it and won.

Errors in my posts? I don't think I've said anything that isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean that the spin machine hasn't attempted to twist my words into something like, oh, I don't know, like maybe the Brooks won our first playoff game on his own, only I didn't say that, you tried to say I did, but I didn't. No spin baby...just the truth...

The fact that I think anything about the work ethic of either of them doesn't make much difference. Your opinion is weighted equally. What matters IMO are the numbers, the Playoff wins, and his place in our History - same as many others here who can recognize that while they may not have cared much for his style, they must also recognize what he did for our team.

Hello? Bueller? Are you slow. Delhomme is in this conversation by default, whether you like it or not, because of what happened. Not bringing that into the equation is like saying we're going to talk about our Super Bowl win but we're not going to discuss Brees. They are forever married as a result of what happened, like it or don't.

Now, bright one, I said he won our first playoff game. He did that. No, not alone, but he DID do it. That is VERY different than you trying to extrapolate his value by pointing out selected stats from a few hand picked games. It is the BODY OF WORK that is considered. What part of that are you unable to get wrapped around anyway?

Holy crap man. He didn't win our playoff game alone, and he sure and hell didn't lose any of those 42 games on his own either, any more than he might have won any of those games on his own. As for Oakland - well, we're talking SAINTS HOF and not Oakland's, in the even you got light-headed or something. So is it a team sport, and might Brooks' number have been even better with a better team, or is he to shoulder the load of 42 losses because the team around him was pretty darn good and he simply stunk up the joint. I think the numbers tell that story, and I think you know it, and I think you don't like it, which is why you point to leadership and community. Your community argument is now in the toilet, so you've got your leadership argument to hang your hat on I guess, because we do agree that he wasn't General Eisenhower on the field. Hey, you're 1 for 3. In baseball that's a .333 average or thereabouts...not bad...not bad a'tall.

I can't say he was or wasn't. I CAN say that, knowing no more than you know, the averages are in my favor, considering what he has accomplished in life, to include his NFL career but not to exclude all he's done beyond that relative to where and how he got started.

As for the Brees standard, I dunno man. He's elite. I'd like to see your list of players that had the same desire to win, even though it's just your opinion and all since you can never really know. Some of those guys might have just been athletically gifted and mean and liked to hit people and it might have actually had very little to do with winning. Maybe it was all about the money? Not a real reach there in this day and age eh? Oh sure in their acceptance speeches they talk about winning being the most important thing, but I'd guess that's actually true about half the time - and the other half it was about stats which directly relate to their bottom line.

I'll buy the 'thick glasses' part for sure. Did they have blinders on the side?