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

I dunno about race. I think the Saints Collective had a mist in their eyes from the smoke of a distant (Delhomme) fire...LMAO

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

I think you are reading too much into this. This thread isn't about weather he was a good QB or weather he should have started over Delhome or not. It's about weather he deserves to be in a Hall of Fame, which is a subjective matter. The all time hit king is not in the baseball hall of fame, so obviously having stats is not enough to ensure you will make your sports/teams HOF.
Now I'm not comparing Rose and why he is out vs why I think Brooks is out, so don't go off and blast me on that. I'm just saying that because the guy is our second leading passer in many catagories it a) doesn't mean he deserves it and b) just because I don't think he is HOF worthy doesn't mean I don't appreciate his quality of play for us and/or I have a bias against him.
I think far too many players are in their respective sport's HOFs as it is. I just tend to think it should be more of an honor than that. Sure, you can't be in a HOF if you did not put up stats. But, to me, you can't be in there if you did not display the drive/desire/passion/fire/ or whatever you want to call it that makes a HOF caliber player be the best player they can be. In short I can't think of a current HOF player that did not strive as hard as they could on the field (and most of the time off the field as well) to win a game. There is no way you will convince me that Brooks had that quality as an NFL player from his demeanor and actions. To me, the fact that he is our second leading passer simply means that we had a bunce of poor passing QBs in our history.

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

Well, it's another thread entirely, but Pete Rose should be in Baseball's HOF - there are many worse characters in that hall. Notwithstanding that, when they accuse Brooks of betting on games let me know.

Bottom line is the guy won our first ever playoff game and prior to that lit it up in a way we had never seen, and he has the numbers - and he did it with a crappy defense, a questionable O line, average Wr's (with an exception) and questionable coaching. He shouldn't be barred from the Saints HOF because of some over-zealous Delhomme fans didn't like that he smiled instead of whined.

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

all this Jake Dellhomme mess should stop Brooks was better then Jake even when he was in carolina get the super bowl appearance out of the argument its as stupid as saying we are a better without Jamal Brown because we won the super bowl without him playing. Did Jake single handedly get them there or were the panthers just good that year?? The latter is correct, who was under center before Jeff Blake and Aaron Brooks??? that didnt turn out well did it??? He did put together a few solid year but hes always been a pick machine. its really black and white you make the hall off a great career and prior to Drew Brees, Brooks had the greatest a saints qb ever had the guy played here 5 years and is 3k behind archie who played 11, had he played here 11 years hed molest Manning 's total

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

Way to ignore the line I wrote right after this statement and miss my point entirely. It was again HIS STATS DON"T GUARENTEE ANYTHING

No, that's not the bottom line. Every guy that started that playoff game should be in our HOF then because they were part of that win too. Hell Haslet should be in then for coaching us to our first ever playoff victory too.
You are way overstating things with your remarks and making it sound like Brooks was the only decent player on our squad. You are also conveniently forgetting the missed passes, bonehead plays, and casual effort he brought to the football field. Why you keep bringing Delhomme into this is as puzzling as the way Hint of Logic brings Bush into everything.
Let me ask a simple yes or no question and see if you can give a simple yes or no answer….do you think Brooks gave 100 % effort to win games and be the best football player he could be when he was with the Saints?

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

Lol..i know that day when we won that playoff game i wasa very happy Saints fan...and Brooks was a part of it..if thats what your referencing..lol

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

I'm not ignoring anything, and I'm not picking on you, but you brought up the 'home run king', and then what...you said it didn't relate...so why bring it up? What's the point if it doesn't relate? I mean, you did have a reason right? Explain it or leave it out of the discussion.

I never said Brooks was the only decent player on the squad. If that's what YOU got out of it there's not much I can do about that, but it certainly isn't what I said.

We had a crappy o-line. You Disagree?
We had a crappy defense. You Disagree?
We had, for the most part, average WR's. You Disagree?
We had questionable coaching. You Disagree?

I don't forget the bonehead plays, but I can point you to bonehead plays made by anyone, HOF or otherwise. Exhibit "A" is the interception that lost the Superbowl last year... I'm not discounting them, but the Brooks haters are focused on them all the while ignoring that at times there were reasons. I used to bring up dropped passes and nobody wanted to hear it. Go look up that stat for Brooks' tenure in N.O.

I bring up Delhomme because I was here and was paying attention. Anybody that looks me in the face and tells me half the Brooks hate wasn't because we had a local boy at #2 isn't telling me the truth.

I'll never know if Brooks gave 100%. Neither will you. What makes you think he didn't? His demeanor? How many times might he have railed on any give player on the O-Line for missing a block? How many times might he have railed on a given 2nd or 3rd tier WR for running the wrong route or dropping a pass that hit him in the hands? There is no "Yes" or "No" to your question until you can get into someone's mind, which you can't do, which is more or less my point. You CANNOT know how he felt, you can only judge him because he didn't react the way you think he should. Who died and made you the authority on sports etiquette? You are entitled to your opinion though, and I am entitled to mine. Beyond opinion we have his numbers and his accomplishments, so all things being equal...

He has the numbers. He won our first playoff game. Some people don't like his 'style'. That shouldn't keep him out of the hall because his performance on the field warranted it. His place in our record books warrants it.

:bng:

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

It was, up to that point, my happiest time ever as a Saints fan as well. And Brooks was defenitely a part of it. But lots of guys were. We had a 1,000 yard rusher that year. Our defense was ranked in the top 10 in both points and yards. Don't tell me that everyone sucked and Brooks single handedly lead us to that win.

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

Who's telling you that?

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

For the record, the MLB HR king is not yet eligible for the HOF.

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

I disagree. LOL

Wait, we're talking about the Hits king right?

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

I did explain it. Twice. Try reading again...slowly. I even capatalized it for you. I originally said I said I wasn't comparing why Rose was not in vs why Brooks not in, yet you had to ignore this remark and make the jerk statement "when they accuse Brooks of betting on games let me know". My point is that you could have the best stats in the world (which Brooks does not), and still something may keep you out. Simple as that. That may be tough to wrap your head around, but take a tylenol and try.


Well, you've criticized the Defense, the o-line, the coaching, and the WRs. So, you're saying it was Brooks and the kicking game that won us that playoff game then.

Since you said it was the bottom line that he won us the playoff game, lets take a look at that year:

Crappy Defense...they were top 10 in yards and points. 4 pro bowlers. Yes I disagree.
Crappy O-line... they had a 1,000 yard rusher and threw for over 3,500 yards. Disagree.
Avg. WR's...as a whole yes. We did not have much outside of horn. But he was one of the best in the league that year and a pro bowler.
Questionable coaching...disagree. Haslett appeared an up and coming good young head coach at this time. It wasn't until a season or three later that he went loco.




I've never spouted hate towards Brooks nor love for Delhomme. I'm simply responding to the question of HOF or not. Do you label all those that don't agree with you as haters?



I realize that none of us know. Hence I asked what you think. And you couldn't even tell me that. I'm guessing that secretly you answered "no" and went off on the obvious argument that "no one knows" in order to make yourself feel better about it.

No one died and made me an authority. No one had to die....I'm just an expert.

OK, I was joking there. But I can't buy a guy for the hall of fame when he acts like he just dosn't give a damn. Obviously you can.

I also don't buy that his stats warrant it. I don't feel like we are a strong enough franchise at the QB spot throughout our history to vote him in simply because he was our second best ever. Those stats are just not good enough because they wouldn't crack the stats of the top 50 QBs of all time and might not crack the top 100.

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

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?
 

I do the same thing staring at your avatar.

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

I was bringing some too strat! LOL

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

You said it, then you said it didn't matter, so I'm asking you why you said it to begin with. Your point that good players don't make the HOF for other reasons isn't hard to understand, however you're comparing Brooks to A guy that was BANNED from his sport and thus isn't in that sports HOF is kind over the top. You said it. Either back it up or don't. Is your dislike of Brooks so strong that you'd make that comparison, and if not then why did you do it?




No. You're logic is flawed. I did NOT say that, and in fact I never mentioned the kicking game. You just pulled that out of your azz. I HAVE said Brooks played with a less than stellar team around him though, which stats will prove...but we'll get to that...



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






No, and I don't think I called you a hater. Are you a hater? I think you're taking this personally. lol





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.

Better think again...

What if it had been Delhomme with our first playoff win and Brooks' numbers over the same span. Jake is a whiner. He screams at his teammates and the refs every chance he gets. He pouts his way off the field. It's obvious he's upset. I guess then that had it been Jake or some other 'angry-acting' QB you'd be all for it? WTF?

How much you wanna bet the other 32 teams have guys in their HOF's that aren't top 50 or top 100 or hell even top 10? 10 bucks? A hundred? Wanna look that up? Oh, and you have to use their whole career, not just one game or one season. ;)

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

i two dat dat.

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

i don't and will not deny that brooks brought happiness to a million fans for the playoff win. but i admit i voted no. reason, can everyone remember after that big fat contract signing by aaron he flat out just quit running. and running was the savior in a lot of his wins along with his passing. to me thats when the sacks and fumbles increased. the hustling stopped .so that was a big factor in my vote.

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

It certainly appeared that way...and that's not the first time I heard somebody say that. Good point, st...would rep you if it would let me.

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.

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?