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

SAINT_MICHAEL · 06-08-2010, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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

Really SF. Now you just look sad.

Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you.

Hmm, lets see. Having a player contibute to our team for 5 years and be our leading passer (Brooks) is more valuable than a guy who contributes for 3 (Everett). Are you really going to argue against that?

Hmm lets see, I never mentioned a free agent. But JE was a Pro Bowl QB for the Rams and beat us many times as a Ram. His best days as a QB were for the Rams and he built his legacy as a Ram. He then came over to us to finish his career. Contrast (go aheah and look that up in a dictionary) this to Brooks who was not a starter for another team before us. He never beat us as a memeber of another team. His best days as a QB were not as a member of another team. Try to put two and two togeather from here and figure out why this makes Brooks more important as a saint then JE. You may need to pull your socks off and use your toes, but that's OK.

The third one is a little trickier, but I'll walk you through it. If Blake does not get hurt in week 12, then Brooks does not get to sub for him in 2000. If he does not sub for him, then he does not play in the 2000 playoffs. If he does not play in the game, then he does not get to help the team win the game. If he does not help win the game, he may not be given the chance to be our starting QB for the next 5 seasons. So it was fortunate (i.e. Lucky...as in lucked out) that he even got to play in the playoff game that you are so anxious to anoint him into our HOF for winning. If you try and think about it rather than simply insult it's not that tough.

saintfan · 06-08-2010, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by skymike

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.

I wouldn't call him mediocre either, not by a very long shot. Can you image what he might have done had he played when we had the Dome Patrol running around? Back when we could never get past the 49ers?

I do wonder though about his potential too. With a better line around him and a group of WR's like we have now, how might things have been different for him?

saintfan · 06-08-2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

Really SF. Now you just look sad.

Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you.

Hmm, lets see. Having a player contibute to our team for 5 years and be our leading passer (Brooks) is more valuable than a guy who contributes for 3 (Everett). Are you really going to argue against that?

Well since Brooks played more but had similar numbers across the board, you'd think you would have jumped on that right away, but you didn't, because you know better. If Brees retired right now would you say Brooks was more valuable - laughing - because he played more - laughing louder - seriously? See how much sense that doesn't make. I bet you do...

Hmm lets see, I never mentioned a free agent. But JE was a Pro Bowl QB for the Rams and beat us many times as a Ram. His best days as a QB were for the Rams and he built his legacy as a Ram. He then came over to us to finish his career. Contrast (go aheah and look that up in a dictionary) this to Brooks who was not a starter for another team before us. He never beat us as a memeber of another team. His best days as a QB were not as a member of another team. Try to put two and two togeather from here and figure out why this makes Brooks more important as a saint then JE. You may need to pull your socks off and use your toes, but that's OK.

And yet there are people in our HOF and every HOF that played for different teams. Delhomme played for us before doing rather well for a while at Carolina. You think the Panther fans cared? You think Sharper or Shockey or even Brees, who all played for other teams...Vilma maybe, you think those guys would be welcome in our hall in spite of their affiliation with other teams? You really think that matters. Man that's a joke and you know it. Then again maybe you don't know it. The simple things appear to evade you.

The third one is a little trickier, but I'll walk you through it. If Blake does not get hurt in week 12, then Brooks does not get to sub for him in 2000. If he does not sub for him, then he does not play in the 2000 playoffs. If he does not play in the game, then he does not get to help the team win the game. If he does not help win the game, he may not be given the chance to be our starting QB for the next 5 seasons. So it was fortunate (i.e. Lucky...as in lucked out) that he even got to play in the playoff game that you are so anxious to anoint him into our HOF for winning. If you try and think about it rather than simply insult it's not that tough.

Yeah, Tricky...cause it doesn't make any sense, so yeah, trying to make sense of it IS pretty tricky. Hey look, we agree again! LMAO

The question was Brooks was more important, in ALL CAPS as you typed it, than Everette because...

So lets try and make sense out of it answering in a complete sentence just like they taught us in grade school...one, two, three...

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because Jeff Blake got hurt. --Dude that's just stupid

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because he never played for another team, even though our BEST QB ever DID play for another team. Ig-No-Rant

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because he played there longer. That 'almost' makes sense, until you think about how important a player can be in a very short time span. Then you see just how silly that statement really is. See Darren Sharper if you need help grasping this very simple idea...or Shockey...or Vilma...or...oh jeesh this is just too darn easy...

Nice try tho...

SAINT_MICHAEL · 06-08-2010, 09:36 PM

[quote=saintfan;229415] [quote=SAINT_MICHAEL;229413]Really SF. Now you just look sad.

Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Well since Brooks played more but had similar numbers across the board, you'd think you would have jumped on that right away, but you didn't, because you know better. If Brees retired right now would you say Brooks was more valuable - laughing - because he played more - laughing louder - seriously? See how much sense that doesn't make. I bet you do...

Nice job hypocrite. You get all bent out of shape and accuse me of twisting your words, then go and make a comment like this. Way to hold others to a standard you won't hold yourself to. But to humor you I'll play along. If Brees retired right now after helping us win our first SB, I think that would outway that he did not play as many games for us as Brooks. Couple that with his average game stats vs Brooks (and JE) and even you should be able to see that. But if he (like JE), had only played for us for three seasons and lead us to no playoff wins, then I would say Brooks was more important. So what (If you even have one) is your point here?

Originally Posted by saintfan

And yet there are people in our HOF and every HOF that played for different teams. Delhomme played for us before doing rather well for a while at Carolina. You think the Panther fans cared? You think Sharper or Shockey or even Brees, who all played for other teams...Vilma maybe, you think those guys would be welcome in our hall in spite of their affiliation with other teams? You really think that matters. Man that's a joke and you know it. Then again maybe you don't know it. The simple things appear to evade you.

You really think that is a like comparrison? Jake played 6 games for us....SIX! Brees has now QBd us for more games than he did the Chargers....and won a SB. Vilma is similar, not because he has played more games with us, but because his career in NY was not outstanding and he has now won a SB with us. Possibly...POSSIBLY I would put in Shockey and Sharper, but they have two things that Brooks did not. A SB victory and the fire to be a winner. Notice how you never hear people question Shockey's and Sharper's desire to win like they do Brooks'. JE was the Rams starting QB for over seven SEASONS and is STILL their all time passing yardage leader. Simple things evade me, huh? If you can't see this difference then you are an idiot.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Yeah, Tricky...cause it doesn't make any sense, so yeah, trying to make sense of it IS pretty tricky. Hey look, we agree again! LMAO

We agree you can't handle simple concepts...sure

Originally Posted by saintfan

The question was Brooks was more important, in ALL CAPS as you typed it, than Everette because...

First, of all, it wasn't a question. It was a statement, not a question Mr Wizzard. Another simple concept you have missed. And the statement (you typed it first) was ""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..."

Originally Posted by saintfan

So lets try and make sense out of it answering in a complete sentence just like they taught us in grade school...one, two, three...

You mean just like where they didn't teach you the difference between a question and a statement?

Originally Posted by saintfan

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because Jeff Blake got hurt. --Dude that's just stupid

No, it's not really stupid. It was just too deep for you to see. But it gave you a chance to twist things like you love to accuse me of doing. True, it would have been more accurate of me to say...Because of an injury to our current starting QB, Brooks was able to step into a good situation for him and be part of the team that won our first playoff game. As a result of this game (which he was able to play in beacuse of the injury) he got the chance to be our starting QB the next year and for several seasons more. Therefore, because he played in more games and won more games as a Saint then did JE, he was moe important to the history of our franchise. sorry if you could not connect the dots to get here. Must have tought you guys about connect the dots the same day they taught about the difference between a statement and a question.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because he never played for another team, even though our BEST QB ever DID play for another team. Ig-No-Rant

Ahh again, the old double stadard from you. pick out an example that fits your argument, but freak out when I do it. The comparrison was not about Brees, so apples and oranges. Was Brees the all time leading passer for a division rival (or the Chargersfor that matter) like JE is for the Rams? Did Drew make a name for himself in the recordbooks of another team before coming here like JE did withthe Rams. It's kinda hard to say someone is important to your franchise when he is the record holder for a historic division rival. In my comparrison of JE and AB (not in your "twisting" by adding Brees) it makes perfect sense to say Brooks is more historically significant to the Saints then JE because Brooks built his "legacy" WITH THE SAINTS and JE BUILT IT ELSEWHERE. If you can't see that, then you are the ignorant one.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because he played there longer. That 'almost' makes sense, until you think about how important a player can be in a very short time span. Then you see just how silly that statement really is. See Darren Sharper if you need help grasping this very simple idea...

You might have a point here if this mini-discussion was not directly about JE vs AB. Unfortunately for you it is so try and stay on yopic please. Throwing Sharper is a reach for you, but comparing that Brooks played in roughly twice as many games for us than Je it makes sense to say he was more important on that alone.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Nice try tho...

Yours was not a nice try. It was lame.

saintfan · 06-08-2010, 11:54 PM

[quote=SAINT_MICHAEL]

Nice job hypocrite. You get all bent out of shape and accuse me of twisting your words, then go and make a comment like this. Way to hold others to a standard you won't hold yourself to. But to humor you I'll play along. If Brees retired right now after helping us win our first SB, I think that would outway that he did not play as many games for us as Brooks. Couple that with his average game stats vs Brooks (and JE) and even you should be able to see that. But if he (like JE), had only played for us for three seasons and lead us to no playoff wins, then I would say Brooks was more important. So what (If you even have one) is your point here?

I'm not bent out of shape in the least, but you did twist my words. What if Brees hadn't won our first Super Bowl...what if he retired last year? Does winning a Super Bowl become a requirement for our HOF? Of course it doesn't...and NOW we're back to the stats? Those that don't really matter in light of community service and dedication and desire and leadership? My point is clear, I think, to probably everyone but you, which is that although Everett's numbers were on par with Brooks, and considering he played fewer years, you might think he did more in a smaller window...and...lo and behold that is precisely how math works huh? And yet you missed that...probably more like ignored it, because you Everett argument blew up in your face shortly after you posted it. LMAO

You really think that is a like comparrison? Jake played 6 games for us....SIX! Brees has now QBd us for more games than he did the Chargers....and won a SB. Vilma is similar, not because he has played more games with us, but because his career in NY was not outstanding and he has now won a SB with us. Possibly...POSSIBLY I would put in Shockey and Sharper, but they have two things that Brooks did not. A SB victory and the fire to be a winner. Notice how you never hear people question Shockey's and Sharper's desire to win like they do Brooks'. JE was the Rams starting QB for over seven SEASONS and is STILL their all time passing yardage leader. Simple things evade me, huh? If you can't see this difference then you are an idiot.

Brooks=Pete Rose? You wanna talk to me about like comparisons? I'm poking holes in your statements at every turn. What then, since I missed your point, is the cut off? How many games must it be, or seasons, or are we talking quarters? Must the player have been outstanding on the other team now too? You kinda blew right past Sharper and Shockey (and I would too if I was you cause, well, there goes your silly argument right there). You can't just change the rules every time I show you how ignorant your statement are, and with examples nonetheless. Keep reaching.

First, of all, it wasn't a question. It was a statement, not a question Mr Wizzard. Another simple concept you have missed. And the statement (you typed it first) was ""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..."

Now your arguing English with me? That'd be a mistake. I am well aware of the difference between a statement and a question, and I'm also well aware of who typed what first, just as I am well aware of the general ignorance of your response, which I have shown here at least twice. You wanna talk on topic or would you like me to grade your next essay? I can do either equally well...

No, it's not really stupid. It was just too deep for you to see. But it gave you a chance to twist things like you love to accuse me of doing. True, it would have been more accurate of me to say...Because of an injury to our current starting QB, Brooks was able to step into a good situation for him and be part of the team that won our first playoff game. As a result of this game (which he was able to play in beacuse of the injury) he got the chance to be our starting QB the next year and for several seasons more. Therefore, because he played in more games and won more games as a Saint then did JE, he was moe important to the history of our franchise. sorry if you could not connect the dots to get here. Must have tought you guys about connect the dots the same day they taught about the difference between a statement and a question.

Sorry. It's stupid. Brooks was more important than Everett for a lot of reasons, but Blake's injury isn't one of them. It is, the dumbest thing I've seen in a LONG time. Blake's injury was how Brooks got into the lineup, but it doesn't provide any evidence as to why he was more important to the team than any other player. Sorry man...that's just stupid...We're talking about Brooks and Everette and you bring up Blake? The more I think about it the dumber it sounds.

Ahh again, the old double stadard from you. pick out an example that fits your argument, but freak out when I do it. The comparrison was not about Brees, so apples and oranges. Was Brees the all time leading passer for a division rival (or the Chargersfor that matter) like JE is for the Rams? Did Drew make a name for himself in the recordbooks of another team before coming here like JE did withthe Rams. It's kinda hard to say someone is important to your franchise when he is the record holder for a historic division rival. In my comparrison of JE and AB (not in your "twisting" by adding Brees) it makes perfect sense to say Brooks is more historically significant to the Saints then JE because Brooks built his "legacy" WITH THE SAINTS and JE BUILT IT ELSEWHERE. If you can't see that, then you are the ignorant one.

So now the player from the other team has to be that teams statistical leader in something before your argument kicks in? LOL I'm not freaking out, I'm LMAO. It is really that hard to say Sharper is important? I could look it up, but I'm fairly sure he's got some Vikings records. Sharper didn't build his legacy in New Orleans, so I guess he's not that important. There are TONS of other players that I could use as examples, on our team and on just about any other. Friend, the quickest way out of a hole is to stop digging, and you should put the shovel down.

You might have a point here if this mini-discussion was not directly about JE vs AB. Unfortunately for you it is so try and stay on yopic please. Throwing Sharper is a reach for you, but comparing that Brooks played in roughly twice as many games for us than Je it makes sense to say he was more important on that alone.

Sharper and Shockey and Vilma and just about any other player that came here from somewhere else and did well are very good examples of why your argument here is dumb.

Lets condense, shall we?

Leadership: Questionable. This is where we agree. However, I've always argued that being a great leader is not a requirement, and certainly history proves that, so at the very least we agree that Brooks was not the greatest natural leader.

Determination/Desire: I submit that growing up poor in Virginia amidst the same people and elements that put Mike Vick in his predicament, Getting a degree in Anthropology, becoming a starting NFL QB, winning our first playoff game...I don't think a person just lucks in to that. Talent helps, and he surely had talent, but he didn't just bliss out and wake up one day having done what he has done. Feel free to disagree, but provide some proof beyond the fact that you don't like his smile.

Stats: Even you agree he has the numbers.

Community: Although I think you were legitimately surprised to learn of Brooks' involvement with kids in New Orleans and elsewhere, I think you'll have to either check this one of on the positive or find something to solidify your position short of comparing him with Brees, since there are lots of players less charitable than Drew in the Saints HOF.

What else you got? You wanna say that we shouldn't put him in because we don't have a very good history of having great players? I suggest the NFL doesn't look at it's HOF and say, "You know, we better not put player X in the HOF because someone better might come along." Instead you look at what a player did, stats, wins, meaningful wins, etc, and if you want to look at his community involvement then fine, you judge that player on those things. You don't take the best player a team ever had and hold every one to that standard. You don't require that he only played for your franchise. You don't say, "Well, he has to have played x number of years for your franchise." He doesn't have to have set NFL records. Lots of people here think the playoff win alone is justification. You clearly do not. That's ok, but with you it's a moving target with more stipulations than a government loan.

strato · 06-09-2010, 01:03 AM

It could have been good..now

...lol..

Budsdrinker · 06-09-2010, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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

Yes I agree.

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.

The only reason I brought up the record is because someone said Brooks was a much better QB. He had more talent than Delhomme there is no argument there but he didn't utilize it. Brooks was the classic case of an underachiever as compared to Delhomme whom is an overachiever. And I'll take someone who gives his 100% all the time as to a person who plays halfass. With that said, my opinion is still that I don't think he deserves to be in the SHOF, but again that is my opinion and if my opinion was always right I'd probably be working a different job. By the way it is 3months till Kickoff, WHODAT!!!!!!!!

Saint_LB · 06-09-2010, 09:37 AM

There was definitely a cry for Delhomme...but it wasn't a local boy, fan favorite thing, IMO. It was that AB started stinking the joint-up, game after game...and probably some of it was due to injuries. For some reason they would no get him off the field when he could hardly throw a pass. That's why they wanted to see Jake. They didn't want to see melt-down after melt-down at the end of the season, which is what happened following the 2000 season.

I will admit to some of it being the local boy thing, and if I'm not mistaken, Jake was a prodigy (is that the right word) of Archie. It did play into it, but I'm contending that I was right there and it had nothing to do with my loyalty to Jake and everything to do with what was going on on the field and the desire to make a change of any sort that might get us that one extra win that we needed to get into the playoffs.

VillainAgain · 06-09-2010, 09:49 AM

Again, Brooks had the best Career a Saints Qb had prior to Brees comming to town. Jake a prodigy of Archie is dead on Both Threw outrageous amounts of INTERCEPTIONS so jake must have been a good student. Who had a better career Marc Bulger or Rex Grossman????(your answer)______ _________ But Rex got to the Super Bowl, see how foolish that sounds? Super Bowll's are awesome thats why you play the game, but even a Blind Squirrel finds a nut some times

foreverfan · 06-09-2010, 10:36 AM

View Poll Results: Should Brooks one day be in Saints HOF?
Yes.	32	41.56%
No.	45	58.44%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

06-08-2010, 07:15 PM	#161
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? Originally Posted by saintfan 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 Really SF. Now you just look sad. Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you. Hmm, lets see. Having a player contibute to our team for 5 years and be our leading passer (Brooks) is more valuable than a guy who contributes for 3 (Everett). Are you really going to argue against that? Hmm lets see, I never mentioned a free agent. But JE was a Pro Bowl QB for the Rams and beat us many times as a Ram. His best days as a QB were for the Rams and he built his legacy as a Ram. He then came over to us to finish his career. Contrast (go aheah and look that up in a dictionary) this to Brooks who was not a starter for another team before us. He never beat us as a memeber of another team. His best days as a QB were not as a member of another team. Try to put two and two togeather from here and figure out why this makes Brooks more important as a saint then JE. You may need to pull your socks off and use your toes, but that's OK. The third one is a little trickier, but I'll walk you through it. If Blake does not get hurt in week 12, then Brooks does not get to sub for him in 2000. If he does not sub for him, then he does not play in the 2000 playoffs. If he does not play in the game, then he does not get to help the team win the game. If he does not help win the game, he may not be given the chance to be our starting QB for the next 5 seasons. So it was fortunate (i.e. Lucky...as in lucked out) that he even got to play in the playoff game that you are so anxious to anoint him into our HOF for winning. If you try and think about it rather than simply insult it's not that tough.
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

06-08-2010, 07:29 PM	#162
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? Originally Posted by skymike 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. I wouldn't call him mediocre either, not by a very long shot. Can you image what he might have done had he played when we had the Dome Patrol running around? Back when we could never get past the 49ers? I do wonder though about his potential too. With a better line around him and a group of WR's like we have now, how might things have been different for him?

06-08-2010, 07:38 PM	#163
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL Really SF. Now you just look sad. Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you. Hmm, lets see. Having a player contibute to our team for 5 years and be our leading passer (Brooks) is more valuable than a guy who contributes for 3 (Everett). Are you really going to argue against that? Well since Brooks played more but had similar numbers across the board, you'd think you would have jumped on that right away, but you didn't, because you know better. If Brees retired right now would you say Brooks was more valuable - laughing - because he played more - laughing louder - seriously? See how much sense that doesn't make. I bet you do... Hmm lets see, I never mentioned a free agent. But JE was a Pro Bowl QB for the Rams and beat us many times as a Ram. His best days as a QB were for the Rams and he built his legacy as a Ram. He then came over to us to finish his career. Contrast (go aheah and look that up in a dictionary) this to Brooks who was not a starter for another team before us. He never beat us as a memeber of another team. His best days as a QB were not as a member of another team. Try to put two and two togeather from here and figure out why this makes Brooks more important as a saint then JE. You may need to pull your socks off and use your toes, but that's OK. And yet there are people in our HOF and every HOF that played for different teams. Delhomme played for us before doing rather well for a while at Carolina. You think the Panther fans cared? You think Sharper or Shockey or even Brees, who all played for other teams...Vilma maybe, you think those guys would be welcome in our hall in spite of their affiliation with other teams? You really think that matters. Man that's a joke and you know it. Then again maybe you don't know it. The simple things appear to evade you. The third one is a little trickier, but I'll walk you through it. If Blake does not get hurt in week 12, then Brooks does not get to sub for him in 2000. If he does not sub for him, then he does not play in the 2000 playoffs. If he does not play in the game, then he does not get to help the team win the game. If he does not help win the game, he may not be given the chance to be our starting QB for the next 5 seasons. So it was fortunate (i.e. Lucky...as in lucked out) that he even got to play in the playoff game that you are so anxious to anoint him into our HOF for winning. If you try and think about it rather than simply insult it's not that tough. Yeah, Tricky...cause it doesn't make any sense, so yeah, trying to make sense of it IS pretty tricky. Hey look, we agree again! LMAO The question was Brooks was more important, in ALL CAPS as you typed it, than Everette because... So lets try and make sense out of it answering in a complete sentence just like they taught us in grade school...one, two, three... Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because Jeff Blake got hurt. --Dude that's just stupid Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because he never played for another team, even though our BEST QB ever DID play for another team. Ig-No-Rant Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everett to the Saints because he played there longer. That 'almost' makes sense, until you think about how important a player can be in a very short time span. Then you see just how silly that statement really is. See Darren Sharper if you need help grasping this very simple idea...or Shockey...or Vilma...or...oh jeesh this is just too darn easy... Nice try tho...
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 06-08-2010 at 09:03 PM..

06-08-2010, 09:36 PM	#164
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? [quote=saintfan;229415] [quote=SAINT_MICHAEL;229413]Really SF. Now you just look sad. Bitter? What a laugh. You are the one who has thrown out the hate talk. Try looking in the mirror. I guess having your arguments crushed would do that to you. Originally Posted by saintfan Well since Brooks played more but had similar numbers across the board, you'd think you would have jumped on that right away, but you didn't, because you know better. If Brees retired right now would you say Brooks was more valuable - laughing - because he played more - laughing louder - seriously? See how much sense that doesn't make. I bet you do... Nice job hypocrite. You get all bent out of shape and accuse me of twisting your words, then go and make a comment like this. Way to hold others to a standard you won't hold yourself to. But to humor you I'll play along. If Brees retired right now after helping us win our first SB, I think that would outway that he did not play as many games for us as Brooks. Couple that with his average game stats vs Brooks (and JE) and even you should be able to see that. But if he (like JE), had only played for us for three seasons and lead us to no playoff wins, then I would say Brooks was more important. So what (If you even have one) is your point here? Originally Posted by saintfan And yet there are people in our HOF and every HOF that played for different teams. Delhomme played for us before doing rather well for a while at Carolina. You think the Panther fans cared? You think Sharper or Shockey or even Brees, who all played for other teams...Vilma maybe, you think those guys would be welcome in our hall in spite of their affiliation with other teams? You really think that matters. Man that's a joke and you know it. Then again maybe you don't know it. The simple things appear to evade you. You really think that is a like comparrison? Jake played 6 games for us....SIX! Brees has now QBd us for more games than he did the Chargers....and won a SB. Vilma is similar, not because he has played more games with us, but because his career in NY was not outstanding and he has now won a SB with us. Possibly...POSSIBLY I would put in Shockey and Sharper, but they have two things that Brooks did not. A SB victory and the fire to be a winner. Notice how you never hear people question Shockey's and Sharper's desire to win like they do Brooks'. JE was the Rams starting QB for over seven SEASONS and is STILL their all time passing yardage leader. Simple things evade me, huh? If you can't see this difference then you are an idiot. Originally Posted by saintfan Yeah, Tricky...cause it doesn't make any sense, so yeah, trying to make sense of it IS pretty tricky. Hey look, we agree again! LMAO We agree you can't handle simple concepts...sure Originally Posted by saintfan The question was Brooks was more important, in ALL CAPS as you typed it, than Everette because... First, of all, it wasn't a question. It was a statement, not a question Mr Wizzard. Another simple concept you have missed. And the statement (you typed it first) was ""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..." Originally Posted by saintfan So lets try and make sense out of it answering in a complete sentence just like they taught us in grade school...one, two, three... You mean just like where they didn't teach you the difference between a question and a statement? Originally Posted by saintfan Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because Jeff Blake got hurt. --Dude that's just stupid No, it's not really stupid. It was just too deep for you to see. But it gave you a chance to twist things like you love to accuse me of doing. True, it would have been more accurate of me to say...Because of an injury to our current starting QB, Brooks was able to step into a good situation for him and be part of the team that won our first playoff game. As a result of this game (which he was able to play in beacuse of the injury) he got the chance to be our starting QB the next year and for several seasons more. Therefore, because he played in more games and won more games as a Saint then did JE, he was moe important to the history of our franchise. sorry if you could not connect the dots to get here. Must have tought you guys about connect the dots the same day they taught about the difference between a statement and a question. Originally Posted by saintfan Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because he never played for another team, even though our BEST QB ever DID play for another team. Ig-No-Rant Ahh again, the old double stadard from you. pick out an example that fits your argument, but freak out when I do it. The comparrison was not about Brees, so apples and oranges. Was Brees the all time leading passer for a division rival (or the Chargersfor that matter) like JE is for the Rams? Did Drew make a name for himself in the recordbooks of another team before coming here like JE did withthe Rams. It's kinda hard to say someone is important to your franchise when he is the record holder for a historic division rival. In my comparrison of JE and AB (not in your "twisting" by adding Brees) it makes perfect sense to say Brooks is more historically significant to the Saints then JE because Brooks built his "legacy" WITH THE SAINTS and JE BUILT IT ELSEWHERE. If you can't see that, then you are the ignorant one. Originally Posted by saintfan Aaron Brooks was more important than Jim Everette to the Saints because he played there longer. That 'almost' makes sense, until you think about how important a player can be in a very short time span. Then you see just how silly that statement really is. See Darren Sharper if you need help grasping this very simple idea... You might have a point here if this mini-discussion was not directly about JE vs AB. Unfortunately for you it is so try and stay on yopic please. Throwing Sharper is a reach for you, but comparing that Brooks played in roughly twice as many games for us than Je it makes sense to say he was more important on that alone. Originally Posted by saintfan Nice try tho... Yours was not a nice try. It was lame.
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-08-2010, 11:54 PM	#165
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? [quote=SAINT_MICHAEL] Nice job hypocrite. You get all bent out of shape and accuse me of twisting your words, then go and make a comment like this. Way to hold others to a standard you won't hold yourself to. But to humor you I'll play along. If Brees retired right now after helping us win our first SB, I think that would outway that he did not play as many games for us as Brooks. Couple that with his average game stats vs Brooks (and JE) and even you should be able to see that. But if he (like JE), had only played for us for three seasons and lead us to no playoff wins, then I would say Brooks was more important. So what (If you even have one) is your point here? I'm not bent out of shape in the least, but you did twist my words. What if Brees hadn't won our first Super Bowl...what if he retired last year? Does winning a Super Bowl become a requirement for our HOF? Of course it doesn't...and NOW we're back to the stats? Those that don't really matter in light of community service and dedication and desire and leadership? My point is clear, I think, to probably everyone but you, which is that although Everett's numbers were on par with Brooks, and considering he played fewer years, you might think he did more in a smaller window...and...lo and behold that is precisely how math works huh? And yet you missed that...probably more like ignored it, because you Everett argument blew up in your face shortly after you posted it. LMAO You really think that is a like comparrison? Jake played 6 games for us....SIX! Brees has now QBd us for more games than he did the Chargers....and won a SB. Vilma is similar, not because he has played more games with us, but because his career in NY was not outstanding and he has now won a SB with us. Possibly...POSSIBLY I would put in Shockey and Sharper, but they have two things that Brooks did not. A SB victory and the fire to be a winner. Notice how you never hear people question Shockey's and Sharper's desire to win like they do Brooks'. JE was the Rams starting QB for over seven SEASONS and is STILL their all time passing yardage leader. Simple things evade me, huh? If you can't see this difference then you are an idiot. Brooks=Pete Rose? You wanna talk to me about like comparisons? I'm poking holes in your statements at every turn. What then, since I missed your point, is the cut off? How many games must it be, or seasons, or are we talking quarters? Must the player have been outstanding on the other team now too? You kinda blew right past Sharper and Shockey (and I would too if I was you cause, well, there goes your silly argument right there). You can't just change the rules every time I show you how ignorant your statement are, and with examples nonetheless. Keep reaching. First, of all, it wasn't a question. It was a statement, not a question Mr Wizzard. Another simple concept you have missed. And the statement (you typed it first) was ""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..." Now your arguing English with me? That'd be a mistake. I am well aware of the difference between a statement and a question, and I'm also well aware of who typed what first, just as I am well aware of the general ignorance of your response, which I have shown here at least twice. You wanna talk on topic or would you like me to grade your next essay? I can do either equally well... No, it's not really stupid. It was just too deep for you to see. But it gave you a chance to twist things like you love to accuse me of doing. True, it would have been more accurate of me to say...Because of an injury to our current starting QB, Brooks was able to step into a good situation for him and be part of the team that won our first playoff game. As a result of this game (which he was able to play in beacuse of the injury) he got the chance to be our starting QB the next year and for several seasons more. Therefore, because he played in more games and won more games as a Saint then did JE, he was moe important to the history of our franchise. sorry if you could not connect the dots to get here. Must have tought you guys about connect the dots the same day they taught about the difference between a statement and a question. Sorry. It's stupid. Brooks was more important than Everett for a lot of reasons, but Blake's injury isn't one of them. It is, the dumbest thing I've seen in a LONG time. Blake's injury was how Brooks got into the lineup, but it doesn't provide any evidence as to why he was more important to the team than any other player. Sorry man...that's just stupid...We're talking about Brooks and Everette and you bring up Blake? The more I think about it the dumber it sounds. Ahh again, the old double stadard from you. pick out an example that fits your argument, but freak out when I do it. The comparrison was not about Brees, so apples and oranges. Was Brees the all time leading passer for a division rival (or the Chargersfor that matter) like JE is for the Rams? Did Drew make a name for himself in the recordbooks of another team before coming here like JE did withthe Rams. It's kinda hard to say someone is important to your franchise when he is the record holder for a historic division rival. In my comparrison of JE and AB (not in your "twisting" by adding Brees) it makes perfect sense to say Brooks is more historically significant to the Saints then JE because Brooks built his "legacy" WITH THE SAINTS and JE BUILT IT ELSEWHERE. If you can't see that, then you are the ignorant one. So now the player from the other team has to be that teams statistical leader in something before your argument kicks in? LOL I'm not freaking out, I'm LMAO. It is really that hard to say Sharper is important? I could look it up, but I'm fairly sure he's got some Vikings records. Sharper didn't build his legacy in New Orleans, so I guess he's not that important. There are TONS of other players that I could use as examples, on our team and on just about any other. Friend, the quickest way out of a hole is to stop digging, and you should put the shovel down. You might have a point here if this mini-discussion was not directly about JE vs AB. Unfortunately for you it is so try and stay on yopic please. Throwing Sharper is a reach for you, but comparing that Brooks played in roughly twice as many games for us than Je it makes sense to say he was more important on that alone. Sharper and Shockey and Vilma and just about any other player that came here from somewhere else and did well are very good examples of why your argument here is dumb. Lets condense, shall we? Leadership: Questionable. This is where we agree. However, I've always argued that being a great leader is not a requirement, and certainly history proves that, so at the very least we agree that Brooks was not the greatest natural leader. Determination/Desire: I submit that growing up poor in Virginia amidst the same people and elements that put Mike Vick in his predicament, Getting a degree in Anthropology, becoming a starting NFL QB, winning our first playoff game...I don't think a person just lucks in to that. Talent helps, and he surely had talent, but he didn't just bliss out and wake up one day having done what he has done. Feel free to disagree, but provide some proof beyond the fact that you don't like his smile. Stats: Even you agree he has the numbers. Community: Although I think you were legitimately surprised to learn of Brooks' involvement with kids in New Orleans and elsewhere, I think you'll have to either check this one of on the positive or find something to solidify your position short of comparing him with Brees, since there are lots of players less charitable than Drew in the Saints HOF. What else you got? You wanna say that we shouldn't put him in because we don't have a very good history of having great players? I suggest the NFL doesn't look at it's HOF and say, "You know, we better not put player X in the HOF because someone better might come along." Instead you look at what a player did, stats, wins, meaningful wins, etc, and if you want to look at his community involvement then fine, you judge that player on those things. You don't take the best player a team ever had and hold every one to that standard. You don't require that he only played for your franchise. You don't say, "Well, he has to have played x number of years for your franchise." He doesn't have to have set NFL records. Lots of people here think the playoff win alone is justification. You clearly do not. That's ok, but with you it's a moving target with more stipulations than a government loan.
	C'mon Man...

06-09-2010, 01:03 AM	#166
strato Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: "Little Ole Town in Tejas" Posts: 7,586	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? It could have been good..now ...lol..

06-09-2010, 09:16 AM	#167
Budsdrinker A Cajun Transforming TX Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Woodlands, Texas Posts: 2,787	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? Originally Posted by saintfan But isn't this a team sport? I think you agree on that, right? Yes I agree. 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. The only reason I brought up the record is because someone said Brooks was a much better QB. He had more talent than Delhomme there is no argument there but he didn't utilize it. Brooks was the classic case of an underachiever as compared to Delhomme whom is an overachiever. And I'll take someone who gives his 100% all the time as to a person who plays halfass. With that said, my opinion is still that I don't think he deserves to be in the SHOF, but again that is my opinion and if my opinion was always right I'd probably be working a different job. By the way it is 3months till Kickoff, WHODAT!!!!!!!!

06-09-2010, 09:37 AM	#168
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? There was definitely a cry for Delhomme...but it wasn't a local boy, fan favorite thing, IMO. It was that AB started stinking the joint-up, game after game...and probably some of it was due to injuries. For some reason they would no get him off the field when he could hardly throw a pass. That's why they wanted to see Jake. They didn't want to see melt-down after melt-down at the end of the season, which is what happened following the 2000 season. I will admit to some of it being the local boy thing, and if I'm not mistaken, Jake was a prodigy (is that the right word) of Archie. It did play into it, but I'm contending that I was right there and it had nothing to do with my loyalty to Jake and everything to do with what was going on on the field and the desire to make a change of any sort that might get us that one extra win that we needed to get into the playoffs.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

06-09-2010, 09:49 AM	#169
VillainAgain 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 273	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day? Again, Brooks had the best Career a Saints Qb had prior to Brees comming to town. Jake a prodigy of Archie is dead on Both Threw outrageous amounts of INTERCEPTIONS so jake must have been a good student. Who had a better career Marc Bulger or Rex Grossman????(your answer)______ _________ But Rex got to the Super Bowl, see how foolish that sounds? Super Bowll's are awesome thats why you play the game, but even a Blind Squirrel finds a nut some times
VillainAgain 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 273

06-09-2010, 10:36 AM	#170
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/26724-should-aaron-brooks-make-saints-hall-fame-one-day.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Should Aaron Brooks make the Saints Hall of Fame one day?	This thread	Refback	06-11-2010 08:02 PM	3