There is a STRONG bias against Brooks - fueled in large part by the fact the Jake Delhomme was on the roster at the time. There isn't much in the arguments against Brooks that can't be successfully countered, but there are those that simply hate the guy "because he smiled after a bad play" or whatever.

Brooks is smarter than half the guys bashing him and more athletic than the other half. He held his head up through it all though. He was a good QB here, and it's sad there are so many people that can't (or won't) see that.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Who's telling you that?

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?

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 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.

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.