BillyC

WhoDat --

I\'ll give you the Jake Delhomme\'s and Trent Dilfer\'s of the world and I\'ll take the John Elway\'s and Joe Montana\'s. Fair enough? How many Super Bowls have your QB\'s won compared to mine?

Do great QB\'s not have a place in your football world WhoDat? Of course you are still trying to reinvent the wheel aren\'t ya? LOL. Let me know when you put GoodYear out of business. :P

saintfan

This is just pressing the anti-Brooks agenda ever forward at any cost...whether it makes any sense or not. From one side of the mouth you hear \"Our QB must be the man that leads us to the Superbowl\"...and from the other you hear, \"Teams that make it to the Superbowl do it with average QB\'s\"...

So, all the junk about AB\'s stats and \"let\'s run him out of town because his stats aren\'t this or that\" is completely undone by the most recent \"let\'s not spend any real money on a QB because we don\'t need a statistically gifted one\" junk. That someone can actually come in here and post this kinda stuff after arguing so heavily in the other direction is laughable. I\'m laughing at it.

C'mon Man...

BillyC

saintfan -- It\'s amazing ain\'t it? I have accepted the fact that you can\'t win an arguement with these folks, but geeez. Do they think we forget what they posted in the past?

WhoDat

Really - it is funny how much certain people in here INFER and how little they read.

Have I not ALWAYS said that Brooks is physically gifted, but not smart or a good leader. Being a good leader does NOT equate to being the best player. Most of the best leaders in the history of the world have been intelligent enough to surround themselves with people who are better at their job than the leader is.

And here we have the point. I\'ve said throughout this discussion that a QB with fewer physical talents, but more brains and more leadership is always better than the opposite. My argument hasn\'t changed.

Neither has either of yours. You choose a physically gifted and expensive \"star\" over an average and consistent QB. That\'s fine, go ahead and believe that. You guys have seen one of your QBs in the Super Bowl in the last four seasons, and I\'ve seen 7 of mine. You two want to point to the last 40 years and make conclusions about the game today. Go ahead. I liken you two to a couple of custom car makers like the Packards or Duesenbergs right after Ford invented the assembly line, saying \"Yeah they\'ve had a couple of good years of sales, but just look at the last 50 years. We\'ve killed companies like Ford over that time frame.\" You\'re right guys, maybe Packard will start making cars again, but my money is on Ford.

\"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.\"

saintfan

Don\'t you get it Whodat? If you don\'t get it (and with all that hangin\' around with the Mannings it\'s hard to figure how you don\'t) then watch the Panthers after they\'re forced to pay Jake next year. I guess that after they lose the Superbowl (assuming they lose) they\'ll have an average QB at best (by your own admission) who wants a raise. The Panthers have already said that next year they plan to give Jake a raise. If they\'re gonna give him a raise then they CLEARLY don\'t agree with your little theory about signing 2nd or 3rd tier players as the QB. Jake\'s numbers aren\'t Top 5 or ever Top 10, but they\'ll have to pay him like it. I rekon you think they should refuse to give him a raise or re-sign him right...and shoot for some other QB who\'s unproven and take their chances. Since they\'ll have to pay him more than your little theory allows whom do you think they should sign to replace him next year? I can throw the ball 20 yards. I can throw off my back foot straight up in the air just like Jake. Maybe I\'ve got a shot!

This little 4-year cycle you keep talkin about is 4 years...and some of those QB\'s are makin\' pretty good Money. This whole argument is you trying to pass off something unrelated as a reason the Saints should get rid of Brooks. You\'ve been at this for a LONG time now. Don\'t you think some of us see through it? Can\'t you understand that\'s why we constantly call you on this kinda stuff?

C'mon Man...

JOESAM2002

I just can\'t help but ask this of saintfan. When Jake signed this past offseason, wouldn\'t you agree that he was at best an unproven quarterback with no way to judge whether he was average or top tier? My next question of you is. How do you know what the Panthers will have to pay him after this year? Have you read something somewhere? Have they announced that they will will pay him top 5 or 10 money? Have you seen where he will ask for that kind of money? I read a lot of different articles and I haven\'t seen anything about how much he will be paid. Maybe I\'m wrong, or maybe this is all speculation.

Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt!!!!!

"Every time you think, you weaken the nation!" Moe Howard...The Three Stooges.

saintfan

Yes, JOESAM, I did read that, and I\'ll see if I can find the article.

At the risk of offending, you charge me with speculation, and yet I\'ve NEVER seen you ask Saintz08 (and others) for a link. How can that be?

saintfan

In fact if, I recall correctly, what I\'m speaking of in the earlier post was a show on the NFL Network where John Fox was interviewed and said they would have to pay Jake a \"starters\" salary next year. The link to the article is below. And again, at the risk of offending, it\'d be nice if those responsible for most of the rumors and speculation here were monitored as closely. In fact I\'ve been the link police here of late, and we all know I have no real power to enforce rules here anyway.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/sports/football/nfl/carolina_panthers/7804919.htm?ERIGHTS=-6661058240708351378charlotte::threeways1@yahoo.com&KRD_RM=4nmropmnnkksqllkkkkkkkkkos|Len|N

C'mon Man...

JOESAM2002

So let me get this straight. I ask you a question and you accuse me of playing favorites because I didn\'t ask anyone else?

Charge? I asked a question. I didn\'t get an answer but at least I did ask.

On the subject of asking for links, I think if you look back, I have asked everyone to post links. i did not post to anyone in particular. I thought everyone needed to do it. If you\'d like I will go back and find that post for you. That being said, I think everyone needs to settle down with the debates as some like to call them. It seems to me like some are getting to gun shy about saying anything.

Any way I would appreciate it if you wouldn\'t accuse me of playing favorites. I\'m an equal opportunity hater. I hate everybody!




[Edited on 28/1/2004 by JOESAM2002]

Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt!!!!!

"Every time you think, you weaken the nation!" Moe Howard...The Three Stooges.

BillyC

The whole arguement about paying a QB according to where they rank is ridiculous.

All I hear is that stats are for losers and the only thing that matters is winning. Then those same folks talk about Brooks needs to finish in the top 5 to justify being our QB.

The anti-Brooks crowd uses anything that is handy to make an arguement. But, you\'re running out of ammo fast folks.

You wanted better completion percetage: Brooks gave it to ya!

You wanted him to throw less interceptions: Brooks gave it to ya!!

Weren\'t those 2 things on the top of the Brooks bashers list? Yes it was, but of course they\'ll deny it now!!

Now they say Brooks isn\'t good becasue of \"intangibles\"

They tell us intangibles can\'t be taught. So, therefore, give up on the bum. Right? Isn\'t that what you guys are saying. It must be if these \"intagibles can\'t be learned.

All I see is a QB that is steady improving each year and proving all the critics wrong. Now, y\'all want to bring up the fumbling, right? Is that an intangible too? Can that not be corrected? I\'m sure you guys will come up with something to prove that out --------RIGHT?







[Edited on 29/1/2004 by BillyC]