GumboBC salutes WhoDat

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 03:46 PM

That\'s a shame Saintfan - you should start a support group with Billy. He\'s still trying to \"draw\" the right numbers to support his pipe dream also. LMAO.

GumboBC · 06-24-2004, 03:48 PM

Posted by Gatorman:
Gumbo salutes Whodat? Huh! Sounds like the title of a gay porno flick. Again not suprised Billy is out saluting members and thier members.

Whodat,

I laugh when threads like these started by Billy get refered to as \"debates\". [singing] You say debate, I say beat down, let\'s call the whole thing off. LOL

Again Billy you consistantly use different criteria to defend AB and Haslett, then a different criteria to down Jake and Peyton. You have admitted you hate both Jake and Peyton.

Gator --

You\'ll have to excuse the title of the thread, as it was the least gay title I could come up with. You see, I\'m don\'t eat much granola and the concept of admitting I\'m wrong is something that\'s new to me. In other words, I\'m new to the system. I\'ll get better.....

Now!! Yes, I have used different criteria to judge certain people or things. But, we all know who started all of that. That honor goes to the WhoTang clan.

The difference is I have no trouble admitting it. Doesn\'t make any difference to me.

To borrow a line from BlackandBlue:

ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“Now, we can split hairs all you want, doesn\'t matter to me. You say \'tomato\', I say \'BS\'. \" LMAO

We can have debates where we can be fair, or I can play the game too. Doesn\'t make much difference to me. I\'ll argue with a goat if I think he\'s wrong.........LOL.

saintfan · 06-24-2004, 03:58 PM

I sleep better with a lotto ticket whodat...what can I say. And I DO have the right numbers, they just refuse to pick \'em. They\'ll come around tho...ya gotta have some faith my man.

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 04:05 PM

I\'ll argue with a goat if I think he\'s wrong.........LOL.

I gotta ask - how often does the goat win? LMAO.

Hey Billy - in all seriousness, you say the WhoTang clan uses different criteria to judge QBs. I assume you include me in that group. Answer a question for me, have I deviated from these measurements

QB
Tangible: efficiency numbers that are comparitive, not raw. In other words, I look at completion percentage, yards per attempt, TD:INT, etc. as compared to yards, TDs, and the like on their own. Has that changed?

Intangibles: I look at smarts and decision-making indicators (granted this is much less objective than when you have hard stats, but..) and leadership as the two primary categories. Have I deviated from that? I also like fiery players more than quiet calm ones, but that is a small consideration.

Other considerations: value - pay versus performance.

Now, did I not bash Brooks in late \'02 for his numbers in those categories? Did I say despite having great raw totals in yards and TDs he wasn\'t very efficient? Did I not say that he compared poorly to other QBs in that regard?

In early \'03, was I not the FIRST person to come to his defense based on THOSE same measurements when they got better, despite low yardage totals and TDs?

Have I not maintained that I think Brooks is not best suited for our system (or what was our system, I\'m not sure what it is anymore) and that I thought he was being overvalued (overpaid)?

Can you show me where I have ever fluctuated in those views?

Can you remember in \'02 when you and Saintfan polarized the argument and said that because I was considering comparative measurements like completion percentage and passer efficiency that I was making up things to find wrong with him? SOmethign about, \"if you look at a guy\'s numbers in the first quarter of rainy days in outdoor games in Charolette you may have an agenda...\" Do you remember talking about all the yards he had and the TDs?

Do you remember a year later in \'03 when you said it didn\'t matter that those numbers were down from a year ago b/c his completion percentages were up? Is that not a complete 180?

Now you\'re talking about how you don\'t believe in magic in one thread but do in another??? Can you see that one \"playing the game\" is not me? My guess, probably not. You\'ve contradicted yourself more times than I can remember Bill. You say one thing and sometimes immediately, sometimes a year later you completely flop and then talk about how we\'re playing games. C\'mon man. Honestly, in this case I\'m not trying to burn you - but you wanna talk about me being on the fence with Brooks - at least I\'m on it and not back and force on either side of it as often as he fumbles the ball.

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 04:07 PM

I sleep better with a lotto ticket whodat...what can I say. And I DO have the right numbers, they just refuse to pick \'em. They\'ll come around tho...ya gotta have some faith my man.

Saintfan - you\'re take on Saints football just became much clearer. :P

GumboBC · 06-24-2004, 04:17 PM

WhoDat --

To make this short and sweet, let\'s leave me out of it for a minute. K?

It\'s your statement that you have been completely fair on all things at all time? Is that what you\'re telling me? If so, I\'m sure I\'m not alone when I don\'t beleive you.. As many folks have pointed out to you. You just refuse to believe it.

You have used everything in the world to show how Brooks was.....well......ummmmm.....let\'s say not worthy.

You tried to tell us that he wasn\'t right for our West Coast Offense, when we kept telling you that we really didn\'t run the west coast offense. I told you. Saintfan told you, but it made no difference to you because it helped to further your AGENDA. You never took into consideration that we didn\'t really run the west coast offense when you watched the games the same as us. But, it did help you to try and prove a point, didn\'t it?

I told you a long time ago that I really didn\'t give a damn about stats. All I was worried about was the QB putting up points for the offense. We led the NFC in scoring but you wanted to talk about completion percentage. Completion percentage doesn\'t put points on the board. Thought, It\'s helpful. But, points wins game and I\'ll take points over a higher completion percetage any day of the week.

To wrap this up, you\'ve let your dislike for Brooks game get in the way of being fair with your evaluation of Brooks just like I\'m unfair in defending him at times.

Come on WhoDat.

[Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 04:33 PM

For the record - we did run the west coast in 2000 and 2001 - we ran a variant in \'02 and now we seem to have mostly abandoned it for a scheme that is more pro style in its run appraoch and one that tries to stretch the field with the pass.

In any case, my view may be skewed to some degree, but i wouldn\'t necessarily say I was unfair with Brooks.

I will admit to being hasty, should he have a good year this season and continue to improve. I will admit my wrongs there and say that you and Saintfan were right in wanting to grant the guy some time, IF he plays better ball this season. However, if AB finds a new and exciting may to screw up this season (locking onto Joe Horn, backpeddling, throwing off his back foot, fumbling, or something totally new), I won\'t feel that I was being unfair.

I continue to believe that we paid Brooks before he proved his worth and that move has not paid off. I also think that at the time, my criticisms of the guy were not unfair. He was inefficient. He did make bad decisions. Did he not? Now, it seems like you may turn out to be right in his ability to improve, but to date, you have not been vindicated. That said, I hope you are Billy, I really do.

saintfan · 06-24-2004, 04:45 PM

My argument \"for\" Brooks is now and has always been that the problem with our team hasn\'t been points scored. You can argue \"it\" until you actually figure out how to clone \"it\" in a lab, but this team\'s problem has been DEFENSE, and while all the Who-Tanger\'s and 08er-aid consumers were hollering this, that, and the other in an attempt to show their general displeasure with Brooks as the Starting QB our defense was busy giving up 20 + points a game...and nobody was saying anything about it.

From the day Aaron Brooks started his first game until now this team has scored enough points to win. Brooks isn\'t perfect. I\'m not saying it...never have...but Brooks isn\'t the issue.

Funny how people speak about all these \"weapons\" Brooks doesn\'t take full advantage of. How many times did the Saints starting linup include Horn, Pathon, and Stallworth last year...AT THE SAME TIME??? Too many generalizations and not enough FACT. You focus on the team\'s record and blame it on a QB who\'s numbers are generally as good as anybody\'s and ignore the defense giving up 20+ points a game when you have an agenda.

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 04:55 PM

Show me where Gator or I ever said that defense wasn\'t a major concern. Show me where I ever said that Brooks was MORE of a concern. (I won\'t speak for 08 or BrooksMustGo, but...)

Seriously, you guys this that if we say Brooks had a bad game that translates into it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost the game.

If we criticize Brooks in general than we\'re saying that he is THE problem with the team. I\'ve never said that and I continue to feel that way.

Can you understand that saying \"Brooks didn\'t play well\" is a mutually exclusive thought from \"it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost?\" After all this time I\'d think you\'d learn not to polarize. I mean, when Brooks plays well and you two jump on here to rave about it do you see me chiming in with - How can you possibly this Brooks won that game by himself? Our D only allowed 10 points! No, b/c I understand the difference between making a comment about a player and suggesting that he is the root of all good or evil.

saintfan · 06-24-2004, 05:03 PM

I\'ve always thought it interesting that some of you were more interested in griping about Brooks than about the real issues with the team. It\'s that simple. Whodat...you know I love ya, but you have used every angle known to man in an attempt to show Aaron Brooks isn\'t capable...first of being an NFL QB, then of being a QB in our \"system\", then of not being worthy of his Salary. You\'ve focused your general displeasure with Brooks on something new as quick as he\'s forced you to. Not that I care, but I know for certain you\'ve put the ills of the team squarly on his shoulders...even when the defense couldn\'t stop a team full of grandparents on vacation.

06-24-2004, 03:46 PM	#21
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	GumboBC salutes WhoDat That\'s a shame Saintfan - you should start a support group with Billy. He\'s still trying to \"draw\" the right numbers to support his pipe dream also. LMAO.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

06-24-2004, 03:48 PM	#22
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	GumboBC salutes WhoDat Posted by Gatorman: Gumbo salutes Whodat? Huh! Sounds like the title of a gay porno flick. Again not suprised Billy is out saluting members and thier members. Whodat, I laugh when threads like these started by Billy get refered to as \"debates\". [singing] You say debate, I say beat down, let\'s call the whole thing off. LOL Again Billy you consistantly use different criteria to defend AB and Haslett, then a different criteria to down Jake and Peyton. You have admitted you hate both Jake and Peyton. Gator -- You\'ll have to excuse the title of the thread, as it was the least gay title I could come up with. You see, I\'m don\'t eat much granola and the concept of admitting I\'m wrong is something that\'s new to me. In other words, I\'m new to the system. I\'ll get better..... Now!! Yes, I have used different criteria to judge certain people or things. But, we all know who started all of that. That honor goes to the WhoTang clan. The difference is I have no trouble admitting it. Doesn\'t make any difference to me. To borrow a line from BlackandBlue: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“Now, we can split hairs all you want, doesn\'t matter to me. You say \'tomato\', I say \'BS\'. \" LMAO We can have debates where we can be fair, or I can play the game too. Doesn\'t make much difference to me. I\'ll argue with a goat if I think he\'s wrong.........LOL.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-24-2004, 03:58 PM	#23
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	GumboBC salutes WhoDat I sleep better with a lotto ticket whodat...what can I say. And I DO have the right numbers, they just refuse to pick \'em. They\'ll come around tho...ya gotta have some faith my man.

06-24-2004, 04:05 PM	#24
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	GumboBC salutes WhoDat I\'ll argue with a goat if I think he\'s wrong.........LOL. I gotta ask - how often does the goat win? LMAO. Hey Billy - in all seriousness, you say the WhoTang clan uses different criteria to judge QBs. I assume you include me in that group. Answer a question for me, have I deviated from these measurements QB Tangible: efficiency numbers that are comparitive, not raw. In other words, I look at completion percentage, yards per attempt, TD:INT, etc. as compared to yards, TDs, and the like on their own. Has that changed? Intangibles: I look at smarts and decision-making indicators (granted this is much less objective than when you have hard stats, but..) and leadership as the two primary categories. Have I deviated from that? I also like fiery players more than quiet calm ones, but that is a small consideration. Other considerations: value - pay versus performance. Now, did I not bash Brooks in late \'02 for his numbers in those categories? Did I say despite having great raw totals in yards and TDs he wasn\'t very efficient? Did I not say that he compared poorly to other QBs in that regard? In early \'03, was I not the FIRST person to come to his defense based on THOSE same measurements when they got better, despite low yardage totals and TDs? Have I not maintained that I think Brooks is not best suited for our system (or what was our system, I\'m not sure what it is anymore) and that I thought he was being overvalued (overpaid)? Can you show me where I have ever fluctuated in those views? Can you remember in \'02 when you and Saintfan polarized the argument and said that because I was considering comparative measurements like completion percentage and passer efficiency that I was making up things to find wrong with him? SOmethign about, \"if you look at a guy\'s numbers in the first quarter of rainy days in outdoor games in Charolette you may have an agenda...\" Do you remember talking about all the yards he had and the TDs? Do you remember a year later in \'03 when you said it didn\'t matter that those numbers were down from a year ago b/c his completion percentages were up? Is that not a complete 180? Now you\'re talking about how you don\'t believe in magic in one thread but do in another??? Can you see that one \"playing the game\" is not me? My guess, probably not. You\'ve contradicted yourself more times than I can remember Bill. You say one thing and sometimes immediately, sometimes a year later you completely flop and then talk about how we\'re playing games. C\'mon man. Honestly, in this case I\'m not trying to burn you - but you wanna talk about me being on the fence with Brooks - at least I\'m on it and not back and force on either side of it as often as he fumbles the ball.
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.\"

06-24-2004, 04:07 PM	#25
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	GumboBC salutes WhoDat I sleep better with a lotto ticket whodat...what can I say. And I DO have the right numbers, they just refuse to pick \'em. They\'ll come around tho...ya gotta have some faith my man. Saintfan - you\'re take on Saints football just became much clearer. :P
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

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

06-24-2004, 04:17 PM	#26
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	GumboBC salutes WhoDat WhoDat -- To make this short and sweet, let\'s leave me out of it for a minute. K? It\'s your statement that you have been completely fair on all things at all time? Is that what you\'re telling me? If so, I\'m sure I\'m not alone when I don\'t beleive you.. As many folks have pointed out to you. You just refuse to believe it. You have used everything in the world to show how Brooks was.....well......ummmmm.....let\'s say not worthy. You tried to tell us that he wasn\'t right for our West Coast Offense, when we kept telling you that we really didn\'t run the west coast offense. I told you. Saintfan told you, but it made no difference to you because it helped to further your AGENDA. You never took into consideration that we didn\'t really run the west coast offense when you watched the games the same as us. But, it did help you to try and prove a point, didn\'t it? I told you a long time ago that I really didn\'t give a damn about stats. All I was worried about was the QB putting up points for the offense. We led the NFC in scoring but you wanted to talk about completion percentage. Completion percentage doesn\'t put points on the board. Thought, It\'s helpful. But, points wins game and I\'ll take points over a higher completion percetage any day of the week. To wrap this up, you\'ve let your dislike for Brooks game get in the way of being fair with your evaluation of Brooks just like I\'m unfair in defending him at times. Come on WhoDat. [Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-24-2004, 04:33 PM	#27
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	GumboBC salutes WhoDat For the record - we did run the west coast in 2000 and 2001 - we ran a variant in \'02 and now we seem to have mostly abandoned it for a scheme that is more pro style in its run appraoch and one that tries to stretch the field with the pass. In any case, my view may be skewed to some degree, but i wouldn\'t necessarily say I was unfair with Brooks. I will admit to being hasty, should he have a good year this season and continue to improve. I will admit my wrongs there and say that you and Saintfan were right in wanting to grant the guy some time, IF he plays better ball this season. However, if AB finds a new and exciting may to screw up this season (locking onto Joe Horn, backpeddling, throwing off his back foot, fumbling, or something totally new), I won\'t feel that I was being unfair. I continue to believe that we paid Brooks before he proved his worth and that move has not paid off. I also think that at the time, my criticisms of the guy were not unfair. He was inefficient. He did make bad decisions. Did he not? Now, it seems like you may turn out to be right in his ability to improve, but to date, you have not been vindicated. That said, I hope you are Billy, I really do.
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.\"

06-24-2004, 04:45 PM	#28
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	GumboBC salutes WhoDat My argument \"for\" Brooks is now and has always been that the problem with our team hasn\'t been points scored. You can argue \"it\" until you actually figure out how to clone \"it\" in a lab, but this team\'s problem has been DEFENSE, and while all the Who-Tanger\'s and 08er-aid consumers were hollering this, that, and the other in an attempt to show their general displeasure with Brooks as the Starting QB our defense was busy giving up 20 + points a game...and nobody was saying anything about it. From the day Aaron Brooks started his first game until now this team has scored enough points to win. Brooks isn\'t perfect. I\'m not saying it...never have...but Brooks isn\'t the issue. Funny how people speak about all these \"weapons\" Brooks doesn\'t take full advantage of. How many times did the Saints starting linup include Horn, Pathon, and Stallworth last year...AT THE SAME TIME??? Too many generalizations and not enough FACT. You focus on the team\'s record and blame it on a QB who\'s numbers are generally as good as anybody\'s and ignore the defense giving up 20+ points a game when you have an agenda.
	C'mon Man...

06-24-2004, 04:55 PM	#29
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	GumboBC salutes WhoDat Show me where Gator or I ever said that defense wasn\'t a major concern. Show me where I ever said that Brooks was MORE of a concern. (I won\'t speak for 08 or BrooksMustGo, but...) Seriously, you guys this that if we say Brooks had a bad game that translates into it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost the game. If we criticize Brooks in general than we\'re saying that he is THE problem with the team. I\'ve never said that and I continue to feel that way. Can you understand that saying \"Brooks didn\'t play well\" is a mutually exclusive thought from \"it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost?\" After all this time I\'d think you\'d learn not to polarize. I mean, when Brooks plays well and you two jump on here to rave about it do you see me chiming in with - How can you possibly this Brooks won that game by himself? Our D only allowed 10 points! No, b/c I understand the difference between making a comment about a player and suggesting that he is the root of all good or evil.
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.\"

06-24-2004, 05:03 PM	#30
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	GumboBC salutes WhoDat I\'ve always thought it interesting that some of you were more interested in griping about Brooks than about the real issues with the team. It\'s that simple. Whodat...you know I love ya, but you have used every angle known to man in an attempt to show Aaron Brooks isn\'t capable...first of being an NFL QB, then of being a QB in our \"system\", then of not being worthy of his Salary. You\'ve focused your general displeasure with Brooks on something new as quick as he\'s forced you to. Not that I care, but I know for certain you\'ve put the ills of the team squarly on his shoulders...even when the defense couldn\'t stop a team full of grandparents on vacation.
	C'mon Man...