This is inexcusable

BillytheSaint · 10-10-2003, 11:01 AM

Prior to the opening of the season, I asked everyone here if this team is prepared to play this season. No one replied. Now I ask... Is this team properly prepared to play each Sunday. Why isn't Brooks being coached to improve his game. Why are there glaring problems with offensive production, defensive woes and abominable play calling. I'll tell you why..... there are leaders in the organization who are not leading. Game management is poor, people are unwilling to address the problems as they arise. Until someone grabs the reins of this organization run amoc and gets back on track we may as well pull out the paper bags. Under achieving is ugly!!! Especially for milionaire superstars.

Disgustedly yours,

BTS

TheOriginalSwampdog · 10-10-2003, 11:09 AM

Brooks isn\'t being coached because he\'s a malcontent with the ego the size of Texas.

ScottyRo · 10-10-2003, 11:34 AM

One thing I haven\'t thought of until I read this thread was the possibility that Brooks is actually being over-coached - not under coached.

Consider this: Brooks was a better QB when he had come in after Blake went down than he is now after he\'s had 3 offseasons to prepare. His numbers weren\'t fantastic in 2000 but, they were good and he\'s never posted a better rating since.

Why? Because McCarthy is trying to make brooks into a certain type of QB instead of accentuating his positives.

saintz08 · 10-10-2003, 11:43 AM

ScottyRo ,

Have you worked over the thought that Brooks benefitted from the veteran quarterback leadership that Blake provided while he was there ??? When Blake was there , Brooks had the option to talk to an experienced quarterback and get his insight .

ScottyRo · 10-10-2003, 11:56 AM

That\'s a definite possibility, but Blake was there in 2001 too and that didn\'t seem to help Brooks all that much. I\'m sure they weren\'t exactly best-friends that year, regardless of what they might have said publicly, though. However, I think highly of Blake and I think that he did everything he could to help Aaron even if all the while that help was keeping Brooks on the field at Blake\'s expense.

The fact is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of factors that come into play in situations like this and we\'ll never be able to nail one single factor down as THE reason. I just wanted to throw \"over-coached\" out as a possibility.

TheOriginalSwampdog · 10-10-2003, 12:29 PM

Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly.

BillyCarpenter1 · 10-10-2003, 12:35 PM

Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly.

That\'s an interesting concept. But how do you explain him beating these teams last year?

1. Tampa (twice) playoff team.
2. 49\'ers - playoff team.
3. Green Bay - playoff team.
4. Carolina - #2 defense.

That\'s off the top of my head but there were 4 more teams?

How did he throw for 27 TD\'s last year, if they had him figured out??

ScottyRo · 10-10-2003, 12:56 PM

He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly.

Wrong on all 3. Aaron didn\'t lose to Oakland. As I recall that was the game in which Blake was injured and we were already behind when Aaorn came in. You can\'t really pin that one to him.

The Denver loss was the one in which the defense was asleep most of the game and let Mike Anderson run for over 200 yards. It\'s hard to say that was AB\'s fault.

As far as the Rams go...I\'d think you\'d have pretty tough time finding anyone that would say the 2000 Rams defense forced any quarterback to make throws consistently. They were pathetic. They won that final game because 1) they had to win to make the playoffs and 2) their offense was nearly unstoppable. Faulk killed us in that game, but I thought the score was fairly close. Maybe 31 - 24? Again, you can\'t really fault Aaron for the defense giving up the points.

TheOriginalSwampdog · 10-10-2003, 01:42 PM

Point taken ScottyRo, but I still say that Brooks is a big liability. I agree in your assessment of D.Green. Hopefully, Haz will stink it up and be out the door.

RUFF · 10-10-2003, 02:42 PM

Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly.

That\'s an interesting concept. But how do you explain him beating these teams last year?

1. Tampa (twice) playoff team.
2. 49\'ers - playoff team.
3. Green Bay - playoff team.
4. Carolina - #2 defense.

That\'s off the top of my head but there were 4 more teams?

How did he throw for 27 TD\'s last year, if they had him figured out??

10-10-2003, 11:01 AM	#1
BillytheSaint Rookie Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 19	This is inexcusable Prior to the opening of the season, I asked everyone here if this team is prepared to play this season. No one replied. Now I ask... Is this team properly prepared to play each Sunday. Why isn't Brooks being coached to improve his game. Why are there glaring problems with offensive production, defensive woes and abominable play calling. I'll tell you why..... there are leaders in the organization who are not leading. Game management is poor, people are unwilling to address the problems as they arise. Until someone grabs the reins of this organization run amoc and gets back on track we may as well pull out the paper bags. Under achieving is ugly!!! Especially for milionaire superstars. Disgustedly yours, BTS
BillytheSaint Rookie Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 19

10-10-2003, 11:34 AM	#3
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	This is inexcusable One thing I haven\'t thought of until I read this thread was the possibility that Brooks is actually being over-coached - not under coached. Consider this: Brooks was a better QB when he had come in after Blake went down than he is now after he\'s had 3 offseasons to prepare. His numbers weren\'t fantastic in 2000 but, they were good and he\'s never posted a better rating since. Why? Because McCarthy is trying to make brooks into a certain type of QB instead of accentuating his positives.

10-10-2003, 11:43 AM	#4
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	This is inexcusable ScottyRo , Have you worked over the thought that Brooks benefitted from the veteran quarterback leadership that Blake provided while he was there ??? When Blake was there , Brooks had the option to talk to an experienced quarterback and get his insight .
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-10-2003, 11:56 AM	#5
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	This is inexcusable That\'s a definite possibility, but Blake was there in 2001 too and that didn\'t seem to help Brooks all that much. I\'m sure they weren\'t exactly best-friends that year, regardless of what they might have said publicly, though. However, I think highly of Blake and I think that he did everything he could to help Aaron even if all the while that help was keeping Brooks on the field at Blake\'s expense. The fact is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of factors that come into play in situations like this and we\'ll never be able to nail one single factor down as THE reason. I just wanted to throw \"over-coached\" out as a possibility.

10-10-2003, 12:29 PM	#6
TheOriginalSwampdog 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 215	This is inexcusable Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly.

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

10-10-2003, 11:09 AM	#2
TheOriginalSwampdog 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 215	This is inexcusable Brooks isn\'t being coached because he\'s a malcontent with the ego the size of Texas.

10-10-2003, 12:35 PM	#7
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	This is inexcusable Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly. That\'s an interesting concept. But how do you explain him beating these teams last year? 1. Tampa (twice) playoff team. 2. 49\'ers - playoff team. 3. Green Bay - playoff team. 4. Carolina - #2 defense. That\'s off the top of my head but there were 4 more teams? How did he throw for 27 TD\'s last year, if they had him figured out??
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

10-10-2003, 12:56 PM	#8
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	This is inexcusable He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly. Wrong on all 3. Aaron didn\'t lose to Oakland. As I recall that was the game in which Blake was injured and we were already behind when Aaorn came in. You can\'t really pin that one to him. The Denver loss was the one in which the defense was asleep most of the game and let Mike Anderson run for over 200 yards. It\'s hard to say that was AB\'s fault. As far as the Rams go...I\'d think you\'d have pretty tough time finding anyone that would say the 2000 Rams defense forced any quarterback to make throws consistently. They were pathetic. They won that final game because 1) they had to win to make the playoffs and 2) their offense was nearly unstoppable. Faulk killed us in that game, but I thought the score was fairly close. Maybe 31 - 24? Again, you can\'t really fault Aaron for the defense giving up the points.

10-10-2003, 01:42 PM	#9
TheOriginalSwampdog 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 215	This is inexcusable Point taken ScottyRo, but I still say that Brooks is a big liability. I agree in your assessment of D.Green. Hopefully, Haz will stink it up and be out the door.

10-10-2003, 02:42 PM	#10
RUFF Rookie Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6	This is inexcusable Wrong on both accounts. Brooks did well his first year because D\'s didn\'t know how to defend him. Brooks also played with careless abandon. Did you also consider how EASY our schedule as that firs year? He lost to all the good teams we faced, except the Rams who he did lose one to. He lost to Oakland, Denver and the Rams all good teams who forced him to make throws consistantly. That\'s an interesting concept. But how do you explain him beating these teams last year? 1. Tampa (twice) playoff team. 2. 49\'ers - playoff team. 3. Green Bay - playoff team. 4. Carolina - #2 defense. That\'s off the top of my head but there were 4 more teams? How did he throw for 27 TD\'s last year, if they had him figured out??
RUFF Rookie Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6