WhoDat

Delhomme and all of those other players Billy. When did I say I wanted Peyton Manning? You must be confusing me with someone else. I think I\'ve said over and over again that I want a Delhomme or Dilfer type QB. Spend the money elsewhere. Care to did up quotes?

BillyC

Hey, I never said you did say that. It was a question WhoDat. I\'ll repost it at the bottom of this post for you again.

WhoDat

OK, so what\'s your point?

You\'re the guy supporting a highly paid QB who hasn\'t made it to the big game. I\'m supporting the inexpensive underdog who did. I\'m failing to see your point on this one - it seems as if you\'re shooting yourself in the foot... and since I know that you NEVER do that, I\'ll just ask - what was the purpose of that question?

BillyC

The purpose was to find exactly where you stand on high price QB\'s. I wanted to know if it was only the high priced Aaron Brooks that you were against. Now, I know that you don\'t want ANY QB on your team that is making big money.

Which means you wouldn\'t want these guys on your team right now.

1. Peyton Manning.
2. Steve McNair.


Furthermore, in years past you wouldn\'t have wanted these high priced QB\'s either!!

1. Joe Montana
2. John Elway.
3. Steve Young.
4. Dan Marino.

Nope, those guys don\'t fit the type of QB that you want on your team. You want a Jake Delhomme or a Trent Dilfer. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Isn\'t that what you are saying? Don\'t let me put words in your mouth!! Am I correct?

[Edited on 22/1/2004 by BillyC]

saintfan

Dude, it\'s not about the price tag. Jake Delhomme\'s price will go up next year and the Panthers will have to cough it up to keep him. This is new? No, this is the NFL. All these guys that wanna draft ELI would pay out the nose to get him too.

It\'s not about the price, it\'s about this thing or that thing or some other kinda thing...as soon as one is proven wrong then it\'s on to the next thing. It\'s about not being wrong, and some folks just can\'t accept that their opinions aren\'t necessarilly facts.

Is the argument here that Brooks\' contract has stopped the Saints from being able to sign quality players? If so I disagree with that argument completely.

C'mon Man...

BillyC

What do WhoDat and Jim Haslett have in common? They both make different excuses every year. WhoDat\'s first arguement was Brooks threw too many interceptions. Brooks fixed that, then it was completion percentage. Then it was QB ratiing. Brooks fixed that. Now, it\'s too much money. What will it be next WhoDat? I asked you a long time ago what Brooks needs to do to win you over and I\'m still waiting on that answer. Winning, is that it?

WhoDat

Actually, I\'ve had three...four... complaints about Aaron Brooks over the last three years.

1. Value. I was adamantly against giving him the $36 million contract. I still think that he is overpaid. If you guys don\'t think judging personnel has to do with determining value, well, I\'m glad you\'re not GMs.

2. He made too many mistakes (that includes INTs, throwing off the back foot, missed reads, locking onto one receiver, completion percentage... etc. etc. etc.) He has improved his mistakes when he throws the ball. I gave him credit for that ALL year long. GO back and look at the posts Billy. I was often the guy first to credit him for NOT throwing off his back foot, throwing the ball away and eliminating the dangerous throw this year. Of course, he replaced interceptions by fumbling more often. If you think those fumbles this year didn\'t hust just as much as INTs do... well, you\'re flat wrong. He has improved SOME in this area, but while he could be very good here, the fumbles here hurt him and the team a lot this season.

3. Intangibles - i.e. smarts and leadership. I don\'t think that he has a lot of either. I don\'t believe that either of these are things that can be acquired through practice or some type of schooling. You\'ve got it or you don\'t. He don\'t.

4. Progress. Brooks has progressed more slowly than I would have liked and I see younger less experienced QBs taking bigger strides. Brooks need to come around more quickly.


Of course, Billy, I will reitterate for about the millionth time that I don\'t think AB is a BAD QB, which you seem to think I am saying. I am saying, yet again, that he is WRONG for our system. By that I mean team. Give me a smart leader who is cheap. Why does that translate into me having an agenda against the guy to you two? As much as you two support him I could just as easily say that you two have an agenda. Do you hear that coming from me? Do you hear me saying that you two obviously hate Delhomme b/c you don\'t think he is right for the Saints?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

codename47

Actually, that\'s not true.
Off the top of my head, New England had as many injuries to starters, and the Giants had more.

saintfan

Really? Off the top of your head, how many starters were injured and for how long for each team...off the top of your head? Were the backups better than the Saints backups? The point here is that injuries make a difference. If you didn\'t know that already then you\'re just being antagonistic!

whowatches

New England\'s injuries -- 2003 season

http://www.foxsports.com/named/FS/NF...tegoryId=67054

New Orleans\'s injuries -- 2003 season

http://www.foxsports.com/named/FS/NF...tegoryId=67055

God forbid anyone is antagonistic on this board.

Be nice to the new people, moderator.

Welcome, codename. Some of us are cordial around here.


[Edited on 25/1/2004 by whowatches]