GumboBC

Absolutely brother!! All you have to do is look at the way they hyped Vick as the second coming. But, you know this is true. You\'re smart enough to know how it works!

These guys get paid to have an OPINION. They don\'t get paid to be correct. They get paid for RATINGS. So, it\'s in their best intrest to hype players such as Mike Vick. Controversy also sells pretty good. So, buy into if ya want.

Me, they can tell me Aaron Brooks is the next Joe Montana of the next Heath Shuler and I don\'t believe any of it.

BlackandBlue

You could care less what they have to say, even though you haven’t seen the show, and probably don’t have the foggiest as to who is even on the show? Trying to figure out if you saw it, I can\'t tell by your posts. These are not guys that they just threw on a show, they do have credentials and they do have a history in what they do. They may not have shown a complete season, but they showed enough to prove their point, at that particular time.
NFL “experts�, and I use that term very loosely, are on any and all channels that have anything to do with sports. Whether or not you agree with what they have to say is your decision, but I’m not one that will totally dismiss everything they have to say all the time, just because I think they are “clowns.� I still read Peter King’s columns, even though I think he’s a clown. I don’t think there is a single “expert� out there that I have completely agreed with all of the time. I just think it’s naïve to dismiss everything they say just because you don’t agree with it.

EDIT: I have alot of respect for Solomon Wilcots, but I think Mike Mayock is a homer, not a clown- there is a difference



[Edited on 20/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

The waiting drove me mad....
I don't want to hear from those that know...
Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed

Eddie is a....draftnik?

GumboBC

B&B --

Oh, I watched the show. And, basically this one guy blamed everything on Brooks and the other 2 guys sat there and agreed with him. Just the fact this guy blamed Brooks for most of the problems and said Brooks would have to play better in order for us to get over the hump made me think he doesn\'t know what the HELL he\'s talking about. You see, I actually watched all the games last year.

Brooks played consistent enough for us to get to the playoffs. He played incosistently at times, but what QB does\'t. Our wide recievers, O-line, and play calling were inconsitent too. The only thing that was consistent was our inability to stop the run.

So, yeah, I\'m dismissing damn near everything those guys said.



[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC

I\'m sure most of my posts about Aaron Brooks sounds one-sided. Some proabably get the impression I think Aaron does no wrong. It\'s not that way at all.

For the record, I do think Aaron has some problems reading defenses. I don\'t think his \"pocket awareness\" is where it should be. I think he makes some bone-headed decisions at times. I don\'t think he has natural leadership skills.

So, if anyone thinks I\'m not aware of Brooks\' short-comings. Believe me, I am.

But, the thing is, there\'s a lot of successful QB\'s in this league that have more faults that Aaron Brooks.

I don\'t put a lot of stock in what these football experts say. Bill Walsh once dubbed Rick Mirer the next Joe Montana. At the time, a lot of folks bought into that. I remember a lot of experts talking about his accuracy, decision making, and his mechanics being great. The fact is, Bill Walsh (who\'s suppose to be a QB expert) couldn\'t have been anymore wrong.

We\'ve all heard one expert say one thing about a player and the next expert say just the opposite.

So, when someone tries to use something said by one of these \"experts\" to prove they were right about their opinion of Aaron Brooks. Well, it really doesn\'t prove anything.

Oh, I know B&B didn\'t bring up what was said about Brooks to further any agenda he has. I understand you were just passing along the info...

saintz08

Any analyst worth his weight in salt who analyizes Brooks at the quarterback position is going to see the same things .

lack of leadership
Streaky play
L-11 / R-1 just not in the arsenal
No hard count
No optioning at the line

Brooks put under the microscope is simply a street ball player .

Danno

I think Brooks is better than the vast majority of QB\'s starting in this league.
I think he\'s better than these \"Highly Respected\" QB\'s...
Favre
Hasselback
Bledsole
Pennington
Bulger
Vick
Delhomme
Culpepper
and even McNabb

But he\'s still a notch below McNair/Manning/Brady

WhoDat

Here is the basic difference between you and I Billy. This is a perfect example. You look at a single event and use it to show POSSIBILITY. You have faith in Brooks and Haslett (admit it you do), b/c it is POSSIBLE for them to turn it all around. You hope they will and so you use these examples to show that it isn\'t impossible.

I look at a guy like Bill Walsh and note that he was right a whole lot more often than he was wrong - and he produced a whole lot of great players especially at the QB position. I look at the trend over time, rather than one individual event, and try to determine what is PROBABLE given past performance. I never discount the POSSIBILITY, but I try to make my decisions based on PROBABILITY.

I\'m not knocking you - we just have different styles. That Bill Walsh comment shows it clearly.

\"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.\"

St.Shrume

Wow! That\'s saying a lot for Brooks. Can\'t agree on that, although i will not rag him until the season starts. Then.... :P

That show last nite was disappointing to a true football fan. NFL Playbook could be so much better. ESPN does a similar show EA Sports...something (forgot the name), but their analysts are SO much better.

If they say Brooks sucks, they will explain why intelligently. These guys on Playbook did nothing like that. You could tell they love the big names. Vick, Gruden, and now Fox etc. If the Saints kicked butt this year, they\'ll be like flies on shhhhhh...... all over us.

I love shows that breakdown plays and strategies. But these guys are all based in Connecticutt and mostly come from NY, New England or Midwest, so they naturally gravitate to their childhood teams. And then as an after thought, they\'ll mention the Saints (they have to...it says so in their contract )

One thing they said was that the reason the team under achieves year in year out, was maybe the city itself. My first reaction was to say \'fuct that!\' , but deep down i have thought that myself.

I have lived in a few places around the world and in the US. There is no place like Nawlins.

saintfan

In other words, they\'re clowns.

:P

GumboBC

Let\'s put this in CONTEXT, shall we? What I did was compare Bill Wash\'s ANALYSIS to the experts comment on Brooks. I wasn\'t looking at Bill Walsh\'s track record. Just showing that not only is it a possibility that experts are wrong, they are actually are wrong a lot.

The big difference in you and I is, you look at players and coaches and use only part of the story to further your beliefs. You\'ve pointed out that Haslett should have already been gone(you know you\'ve said it) and you say he isn\'t a good coach and compare him to other coaches that have been more successful in a shorter amout of time.

But, you don\'t bring up coaches like Mike Holmgren, Shannahan, or Jimmy Johnson, who have about the same record or worse than Jim Haslett over a 4 year period. You don\'t bring up Bellichick who failed miserably in his first 4-years. I understand why you don\'t. It\'s because it completely dismisses your so-called logic. Fact is, if you want to talk about probability, you don\'t make a good arguement. You\'re arguement is pretty one-sided and most of the time you close your mind to the REAL facts.

And you\'ve also stated Brooks should have been gone.(you know you said that too.) You look at Brooks and see a player that doesn\'t have what it takes. (although you do seem to be changing your tune lately) But the fact is you would have gotten rid of Brooks had you have been the one in charge. You\'re quick to put Brooks under the microscope.

However, I must point out that you\'re pretty close-minded when it comes to QB\'s, also. Petyon Manning (who you know you love) has been one of those QB\'s that has shown a PATTERN (you know those patterns that show probability) to choke in the playoffs. Yet, you still had faith in Peyton and could come up with all kinds of reasons why he was going to be great. I believe that\'s because you have preconceived ideas and you refuse to be open minded about things.

No knock on you here either WhoDat.

[Edited on 20/5/2004 by GumboBC]