Why the Colts QB?

WhoDat · 01-22-2004, 11:48 AM

There are two problems with your logic guys.

First, let\'s compare Jake\'s numbers this year to Brooks\' numbers in 01, his first year as a starter. You\'ll see that Jake threw fewer INTs, had more yards per attempt, a better completion percentage, and a higher QB rating... and more wins. I\'ve posted these numbers before, if you want me to go dig them up again to provide proof for these statements, just ask and I will.

Second, Brooks is an athlete. He is supposed to have all this potential that will one day materialize. No one says that about Jake. So basically, Jake is being asked to not screw up. In fact, he is being a leader and playing better than most expected. He is OVERachieving in his FIRST season. Brooks, on the other hand, is being asked and paid to be a top five QB. He supposedly is much more gifted than Delhomme, yet his numbers aren\'t really that much better after three and a half years as a starter. Plus, he\'s not a top five QB. He is not performing up to expectations. He is not progressing as quickly as expected. He is not a good leader. He is UNDERachieving. So really, we\'re paying A LOT more for a guy who isn\'t doing much more and isn\'t living up to expectations. Give me a cheap overachieving leader over that any day.

BillyC · 01-22-2004, 11:56 AM

You want to talk about flawed logic? Try this out!!

First, let\'s compare Jake\'s numbers this year to Brooks\' numbers in 01, his first year as a starter. You\'ll see that Jake threw fewer INTs, had more yards per attempt, a better completion percentage, and a higher QB rating... and more wins.

Should we compare Jake\'s and Aaron\'s first year numbers to John Elway and Terry Bradshaw and say that Jake and Aaron are better than 2 hall of fame QB\'s? That would be kind of dumb wouldn\'t it? Now, what does that say about your comparison?

He is not progressing as quickly as expected.

As who expected? WHO WHO WHO?? He\'s progressed nicely if you ask me. I can back that up. But, not in wins and losses, because that\'s not the way you evaluate progression for a QB. Just ask Archie Manning about that!! Oh, I forgot, you can\'t hold a Manning to the same standards!!

Give me a cheap overachieving leader over that any day.

Ok. Should we sign the cheapest QB on the market and somehow if he posts better numbers than someone who makes more money then you should be happy.

WhoDat · 01-22-2004, 12:13 PM

Should we compare Jake\'s and Aaron\'s first year numbers to John Elway and Terry Bradshaw and say that Jake and Aaron are better than 2 hall of fame QB\'s? That would be kind of dumb wouldn\'t it? Now, what does that say about your comparison?

Wrong. You\'re talking about a differnce of two years compared to a difference of 20 or 30. Think the game has changed as much in the last two years as it has in the last 30 Billy? If your answer is yes, then by all mean, compare them.

He\'s progressed nicely if you ask me.

Really? So he\'s gone up in the overall QB rankings? Oops. Nope, not since he was given the $36 million contract he hasn\'t.

I\'ll tell you what Billy. Go ask Belicheck or John Fox iif he would rather have lots of better than average to good players or a few super stars and tell me what their answer is. Then I\'ll address that last ridiculous statement.

saintfan · 01-22-2004, 12:18 PM

Whodat, do the Saints have, in your opinion, \"lots of better than average players\"?

BillyC · 01-22-2004, 12:28 PM

I\'ll tell you what Billy. Go ask Belicheck or John Fox iif he would rather have lots of better than average to good players or a few super stars and tell me what their answer is. Then I\'ll address that last ridiculous statement.

WhoDat, does calling my statement ridiculous make this board a better place? Personally it doesn\'t bother me, but you\'ve been very hard on certain member(s) about making this board a bad place and if you are going to preach that stuff on here, the least you can do is back it up by setting the example yourself. If you are going to degrade someone\'s post, then IMO you should stop with the holier than thou attitude you\'ve had on here. Hey, man, it\'s the truth

[Edited on 22/1/2004 by BillyC]

WhoDat · 01-22-2004, 05:52 PM

I addressed the statement as ridiculous Billy, not the person.

\"Should we sign the cheapest QB on the market and somehow if he posts better numbers than someone who makes more money then you should be happy.\"

I know you\'re smart enough to know that this isn\'t what I was saying. That statement is CLEARLY polarized and either sarcastic, antagonistic, or both. C\'mon Billy, your feelings aren\'t hurt and you\'re smarter than that. You were trying to rile me up or make me walk into a trap and I didn\'t. If your feelings are hurt, then I apologize. However, if you think I am dumb enough to make that statement then I\'m shocked and offended at your blantant disregard for my intelligence.

(two can play that game BC).

Whodat, do the Saints have, in your opinion, \"lots of better than average players\"?

On offense, unquestionably. On defense, no. Which is why I prefer an average QB and four defensive players over one hot shot QB.

saintfan · 01-22-2004, 05:59 PM

I\'m curious to know...

(a) which players you consider to be better than average

and

(b) if you think Brooks\' contract has prevented the Saints from signing quality defensive players

Sometimes we post vague statements (don\'t read that sarcastically). We\'re all guilty of doing that (yes, even you :P ) so I\'m curious to know if you really think Brooks\' contract (the numbers) has been otherwise detrimental to the Saints signing quality players.

BillyC · 01-22-2004, 06:07 PM

However, if you think I am dumb enough to make that statement then I\'m shocked and offended at your blantant disregard for my intelligence. (two can play that game BC).

LMAO!! Well, my feelings are hurt, WhoDat. I\'m a sensetive guy. However, I did not mean to insult your intelligence. You\'re just hard to prove wrong and I have to use any means necessary!!

Now I must take a break. All this Delhomme talk is going to get me in trouble!!

WhoDat · 01-22-2004, 11:19 PM

Saintfan, on the roster right now today I would have to say that Deuce, Horn, and Bentley are Pro Bowl caliber (either in their ability now or potential or both). AB is close, but I would classify him as good. Conwell is also a good TE, despite his off year. Boo Williams looks to be capable of being a very good player. Gandy is above average. Stallworth has potential to be great, although I won\'t suggest for a minute that it has materialized yet. Fontenot is above average to me - his physical ability is ailing, but he is very smart and experienced and that makes up for a lot.

Has Brooks\' contract prevented us from signing quality defensive players? Yes and no. The Saints have had the money and opportunity to sign many good players and passed. That\'s a Loomis and Haslett issue. Of course, Brooks is the highest payed player on our team, I believe, and yes, that definitely effects who you can or can\'t sign. Considering that he isn\'t playing to the level that his salary demands and the fact that I feel that he is one of the more easily replacable players on the offensive side of the ball, yes, he can be looked at a hinderance. That money signs us two serious defensive studs. That brings us closer to a Super Bowl to me than AB does.

saintfan · 01-23-2004, 10:14 AM

Has Brooks\' contract prevented us from signing quality defensive players? Yes and no. The Saints have had the money and opportunity to sign many good players and passed. That\'s a Loomis and Haslett issue. Of course, Brooks is the highest payed player on our team, I believe, and yes, that definitely effects who you can or can\'t sign. Considering that he isn\'t playing to the level that his salary demands and the fact that I feel that he is one of the more easily replacable players on the offensive side of the ball, yes, he can be looked at a hinderance. That money signs us two serious defensive studs. That brings us closer to a Super Bowl to me than AB does.

Either you think Brooks\' contract caused the Saints to not be able to sign these defensive studs or you don\'t. I\'m not trying to be argumentative necessarilly ( :P ) but either you do or you don\'t. If you\'re saying that theoretically it could have then that\'s fine, but it is my opinion that Brooks\' contract hasn\'t prevented the Saints from signing the players they wanted to sign. That they didn\'t sign some other players that some of us wanted them to sign could be the fault of Loomis or Haz for not pickin\' the right guys, but I don\'t think Brooks\' contract had anything to do with it. The Saints cap looks pretty good even with Brooks\' money...that\'s what I\'m sayin\'.

01-22-2004, 11:48 AM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why the Colts QB? There are two problems with your logic guys. First, let\'s compare Jake\'s numbers this year to Brooks\' numbers in 01, his first year as a starter. You\'ll see that Jake threw fewer INTs, had more yards per attempt, a better completion percentage, and a higher QB rating... and more wins. I\'ve posted these numbers before, if you want me to go dig them up again to provide proof for these statements, just ask and I will. Second, Brooks is an athlete. He is supposed to have all this potential that will one day materialize. No one says that about Jake. So basically, Jake is being asked to not screw up. In fact, he is being a leader and playing better than most expected. He is OVERachieving in his FIRST season. Brooks, on the other hand, is being asked and paid to be a top five QB. He supposedly is much more gifted than Delhomme, yet his numbers aren\'t really that much better after three and a half years as a starter. Plus, he\'s not a top five QB. He is not performing up to expectations. He is not progressing as quickly as expected. He is not a good leader. He is UNDERachieving. So really, we\'re paying A LOT more for a guy who isn\'t doing much more and isn\'t living up to expectations. Give me a cheap overachieving leader over that any day.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-22-2004, 11:56 AM	#12
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	Why the Colts QB? You want to talk about flawed logic? Try this out!! First, let\'s compare Jake\'s numbers this year to Brooks\' numbers in 01, his first year as a starter. You\'ll see that Jake threw fewer INTs, had more yards per attempt, a better completion percentage, and a higher QB rating... and more wins. Should we compare Jake\'s and Aaron\'s first year numbers to John Elway and Terry Bradshaw and say that Jake and Aaron are better than 2 hall of fame QB\'s? That would be kind of dumb wouldn\'t it? Now, what does that say about your comparison? He is not progressing as quickly as expected. As who expected? WHO WHO WHO?? He\'s progressed nicely if you ask me. I can back that up. But, not in wins and losses, because that\'s not the way you evaluate progression for a QB. Just ask Archie Manning about that!! Oh, I forgot, you can\'t hold a Manning to the same standards!! Give me a cheap overachieving leader over that any day. Ok. Should we sign the cheapest QB on the market and somehow if he posts better numbers than someone who makes more money then you should be happy.
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

01-22-2004, 12:13 PM	#13
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why the Colts QB? Should we compare Jake\'s and Aaron\'s first year numbers to John Elway and Terry Bradshaw and say that Jake and Aaron are better than 2 hall of fame QB\'s? That would be kind of dumb wouldn\'t it? Now, what does that say about your comparison? Wrong. You\'re talking about a differnce of two years compared to a difference of 20 or 30. Think the game has changed as much in the last two years as it has in the last 30 Billy? If your answer is yes, then by all mean, compare them. He\'s progressed nicely if you ask me. Really? So he\'s gone up in the overall QB rankings? Oops. Nope, not since he was given the $36 million contract he hasn\'t. I\'ll tell you what Billy. Go ask Belicheck or John Fox iif he would rather have lots of better than average to good players or a few super stars and tell me what their answer is. Then I\'ll address that last ridiculous statement.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-22-2004, 12:18 PM	#14
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Why the Colts QB? Whodat, do the Saints have, in your opinion, \"lots of better than average players\"?

01-22-2004, 12:28 PM	#15
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	Why the Colts QB? I\'ll tell you what Billy. Go ask Belicheck or John Fox iif he would rather have lots of better than average to good players or a few super stars and tell me what their answer is. Then I\'ll address that last ridiculous statement. WhoDat, does calling my statement ridiculous make this board a better place? Personally it doesn\'t bother me, but you\'ve been very hard on certain member(s) about making this board a bad place and if you are going to preach that stuff on here, the least you can do is back it up by setting the example yourself. If you are going to degrade someone\'s post, then IMO you should stop with the holier than thou attitude you\'ve had on here. Hey, man, it\'s the truth [Edited on 22/1/2004 by BillyC]
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

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

01-22-2004, 05:52 PM	#16
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why the Colts QB? I addressed the statement as ridiculous Billy, not the person. \"Should we sign the cheapest QB on the market and somehow if he posts better numbers than someone who makes more money then you should be happy.\" I know you\'re smart enough to know that this isn\'t what I was saying. That statement is CLEARLY polarized and either sarcastic, antagonistic, or both. C\'mon Billy, your feelings aren\'t hurt and you\'re smarter than that. You were trying to rile me up or make me walk into a trap and I didn\'t. If your feelings are hurt, then I apologize. However, if you think I am dumb enough to make that statement then I\'m shocked and offended at your blantant disregard for my intelligence. (two can play that game BC). Whodat, do the Saints have, in your opinion, \"lots of better than average players\"? On offense, unquestionably. On defense, no. Which is why I prefer an average QB and four defensive players over one hot shot QB.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-22-2004, 05:59 PM	#17
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Why the Colts QB? I\'m curious to know... (a) which players you consider to be better than average and (b) if you think Brooks\' contract has prevented the Saints from signing quality defensive players Sometimes we post vague statements (don\'t read that sarcastically). We\'re all guilty of doing that (yes, even you :P ) so I\'m curious to know if you really think Brooks\' contract (the numbers) has been otherwise detrimental to the Saints signing quality players.

01-22-2004, 06:07 PM	#18
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	Why the Colts QB? However, if you think I am dumb enough to make that statement then I\'m shocked and offended at your blantant disregard for my intelligence. (two can play that game BC). LMAO!! Well, my feelings are hurt, WhoDat. I\'m a sensetive guy. However, I did not mean to insult your intelligence. You\'re just hard to prove wrong and I have to use any means necessary!! Now I must take a break. All this Delhomme talk is going to get me in trouble!!
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

01-22-2004, 11:19 PM	#19
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why the Colts QB? Saintfan, on the roster right now today I would have to say that Deuce, Horn, and Bentley are Pro Bowl caliber (either in their ability now or potential or both). AB is close, but I would classify him as good. Conwell is also a good TE, despite his off year. Boo Williams looks to be capable of being a very good player. Gandy is above average. Stallworth has potential to be great, although I won\'t suggest for a minute that it has materialized yet. Fontenot is above average to me - his physical ability is ailing, but he is very smart and experienced and that makes up for a lot. Has Brooks\' contract prevented us from signing quality defensive players? Yes and no. The Saints have had the money and opportunity to sign many good players and passed. That\'s a Loomis and Haslett issue. Of course, Brooks is the highest payed player on our team, I believe, and yes, that definitely effects who you can or can\'t sign. Considering that he isn\'t playing to the level that his salary demands and the fact that I feel that he is one of the more easily replacable players on the offensive side of the ball, yes, he can be looked at a hinderance. That money signs us two serious defensive studs. That brings us closer to a Super Bowl to me than AB does.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-23-2004, 10:14 AM	#20
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Why the Colts QB? Has Brooks\' contract prevented us from signing quality defensive players? Yes and no. The Saints have had the money and opportunity to sign many good players and passed. That\'s a Loomis and Haslett issue. Of course, Brooks is the highest payed player on our team, I believe, and yes, that definitely effects who you can or can\'t sign. Considering that he isn\'t playing to the level that his salary demands and the fact that I feel that he is one of the more easily replacable players on the offensive side of the ball, yes, he can be looked at a hinderance. That money signs us two serious defensive studs. That brings us closer to a Super Bowl to me than AB does. Either you think Brooks\' contract caused the Saints to not be able to sign these defensive studs or you don\'t. I\'m not trying to be argumentative necessarilly ( :P ) but either you do or you don\'t. If you\'re saying that theoretically it could have then that\'s fine, but it is my opinion that Brooks\' contract hasn\'t prevented the Saints from signing the players they wanted to sign. That they didn\'t sign some other players that some of us wanted them to sign could be the fault of Loomis or Haz for not pickin\' the right guys, but I don\'t think Brooks\' contract had anything to do with it. The Saints cap looks pretty good even with Brooks\' money...that\'s what I\'m sayin\'.
	C'mon Man...