subguy

I think I would do well to stay clear of this thread. As a matter of fact I see no need to even have started this thread it could have been an addendum to the previous 3 page AB thread. Knowing that I am classified as a basher the only question I can think of is;you have a show where 3 guys who have no emotional attachment either way, they are analysts, tell you in is as many words as this thread says, that AB basically is not the answer at QB. The question is how many people does it take to establish a pattern? Not saying he is the only issue, but they have surrounded him with decent offensive talent, some other QB\'s dream of. This thing seems like a bad relationship where everyone on the outside wonders what the hell is going on and the people inside continue making each others lives miserable. Did we address our defensive back situation......no, are there other situation\'s that we have not addressed.......yes. But I do think there does come a time, loyalty or not , that you have to admit that these opinions are not just emoionally driven and well maybe we dont have aces in places.

Don't want em to get your goat don't show em where it's hid.

saintfan

Subguy.

These clowns seem to think Deuce is better off with Gash here than he was last year. They spoke about the FB position as if the Saints executed a MAJOR upgrade by gettin rid of Smith. They spoke about Brooks\' inconsistancy...and no real argument there from me, necessarilly...except they failed to mention the fact that we had 3 number 3 WR\'s on the field at times due to injury. They just weren\'t very insightful. The only thing they had to say good about the Saints at all was directed at Howard and Grant. If you watched the show then you\'d know those clowns CLEARLY (sorry Whodat) had little to no clue. I was totally hacked about what I saw on that show...honestly it\'s one of the worst shows of it\'s kind I\'ve ever seen, and that has only a very little to do with them calling Brooks inconsistant.

C'mon Man...

BlackandBlue

I think you might have misunderstood the reference. The way I read it, and WhoDat, please correct me if I am wrong, but referring to Brooks and the way he played his first year when he took over for Blake, he played more of a “sandlot� type football, in other words, he played more off instincts, was unorthodox, and seemed to make more big plays when the play broke down. But then, WhoDat id make the reference, so maybe you are correct in you evaluation of the statement.

WhoDat

No, BnB is right. By saying Brooks was \"sandlot\" (which I actually didn\'t say), meant he played more off of instinct and ability than training. In other words, he was still raw. A lot of people want him to be that way again. I do not - in fact, I said that going back to that type of play (a la the \"just sling it idea\") is a bad bad idea.

saintz08

Street ball get confused with sandlot ????

JKool

(1) Sand-lot, Street-ball, whatever - no way Brooks is in that category. I understand it as a metaphor, and I probably just got my panties in a bunch (so to speak) over the way it was used.

(2) I agree with WhoDat that this \"just sling it idea\" is a poor idea; sure, I\'d like to see Brooks looking more intuitive, but I\'d like him to do that in combination with making good decisions rather than just decisions that defenses had trouble planning for (which, as someone else noted here, was probably the reason that his \"intuitiveness\" looked so good that first year).

(3) I actually think the reason it looked like he made more big plays when the play broke down is that the play broke down often as a result of Brooks hesitations or misreads. Thus, more big plays on broken plays, but more broken plays (this is just a best guess, and I\'m sure someone could provide evidence for this, but as usual I\'m too lazy to do so). Thus, his intuitiveness (and subsequent success) is an illusion created by the trouble he got himself in IMO. I think he is playing much better ball now.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks