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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.