In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

That seems to be the prevailing opinion on Brooks from a lot of people...that he\'s fine early in games when it really doesn\'t matter, but that at the end of the game, especially when it\'s tight, and particularly when the Saints are trailing, that he performs horribly because \"he doesn\'t have what it takes to finish a game\".

But is that opinion backed up by fact, or is it just sort of a fuzzy \"feeling\" that these folks have?

First, a general look at the comparison to Jeff George. A guy who \"figures his big arm will get him out of a jam and makes dumb decisions\" generally is guilty of trying to force the ball into tight spots where it shouldn\'t be thrown, and as a result throws a lot of interceptions. I probably don\'t have to point out that in Brooks\' case his TD/INT ratio (24/8) and INT Percentage (1.5%) as a whole pretty much point to just the opposite--that in fact he DOESN\'T try to force the ball into the teeth of the defense because he thinks his strong arm will get the ball there.

As for \"folding in the clutch\"....Brooks\' overall numbers for the season:
518 att, 306 com, 59.1%, 3546 yds, 6.85 ypa, 24 TD, 8 INT, 88.8 Rating

Now for some breakdowns:
First Quarter-115 att, 65 com, 56.5%, 778 yds, 6.77 ypa, 4 TD, 2 INT, 81.7 Rating
Fourth Quarter-139 att, 80 com, 57.6%, 867 yds, 6.24 ypa, 7 TD, 0 INT, 92.8 Rating

Hmmmm.....seven fourth quarter touchdowns and no fourth quarter interceptions last year, huh? OK...but what about when the team\'\'s losing and needs him to perform?

When Ahead-142 att, 84 com, 59.2%, 929 yds, 6.54 ypa, 8 TD, 2 INT, 91.5 Rating
When Behind-265 att, 159 com, 60.0%, 1903 yds, 7.18 ypa, 12 TD, 4 INT, 90.8 Rating

Not a big difference, really. How about when the game\'s on the line, though?

Fourth Quarter Within 7-124 att, 72 com, 58.1%, 800 yds, 6.45 ypa, 6TD, 0 INT, 93.5 Rating

That\'s really not too bad...and doesn\'t really support the idea of a guy who \"folds\" when the pressure is on...nor lead one to believe that the team \"can\'t count on him\".

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Well, I wouldn\'t go that far. I don;t think Brooks can overthink anything, but I do know exactly what you mean. I think that the coaches have tried to teach Brooks to play outside of what is instinctual for him (i.e. sandlot ball). Thus, Brooks drops back and has to think, what am I supposed to do in this situation? Oh, right, roll right look for... oops, what happened to the ball?


What\'s funny to me Billy, is how hard you will argue to defend Brooks (pretty much at any cost), and further how completely inconsistent your claims are.

First I was a Brooks hater with a vendetta. Then you criticized me for \"being on the fence\" about the guy. Now you\'re attacking when I make a statement about the guy. How come you don\'t attack me when I make strong positive statements about Brooks? Only when I make negative statements - it\'s crystal clear here Billy.

Then, you attack my rationale for why Brooks is intelligent or not - let\'s flip that around Billy. If I asked you to prove that Brooks is worthy of being a starting NFL QB, how would you do it?

- You probably start with stats - yards, TDs, INTs, Completion Percentage. Those are OBJECTIVE measures. Of course, when I bring up the Wonderlic, and OBJECTIVE measure of intelligence you dismiss it outright and compare Aaron Brooks to Albert Einstein!!! OK, Kerry Collins had more yards and TDs in the season that the Giants last went to the Super Bowl than Brooks has ever had as a starter. Collins probably won\'t start this season - therefore Brooks should probably not be starting. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You use stats and objective measures to prove your points EVERY DAY on this board. You dismiss the same action when I use it in a negative fashion about AB. Agenda much?

- You would also probably say that coaches, analysts, scouts, and players all say Brooks is capable of starting. When I show the same it is meaningless. What do scouts and coaches know? They all liked Ryan Leaf for God\'s Sake. By your own statements those coaches and scouts are so dumb as to think Leaf is a starter, what is to say that they aren\'t just as wrong about Brooks? Again, you use what the coaches and scouts say to prove your own points, but discredit them when they disagree with you.

- Finally, you would most certainly say that you know AB can play b/c YOU\'VE SEEN HIM DO IT. You watch his play with your own eyes and formed some opinion about that. Well I\'ve seen AB speak and when he does he sure as hell sounds like an idiot to me. But that\'s not relevant right? SO neither is your first-hand observation.


Finally Billy, you simply don\'t get it. Try it this way.

Person A: The Sky is blue. To support my claim that the sky is blue I offer these photographs of blue sky, I enter these scientific studies to show why it is blue (b/c it reflects the ocean), and lastly, I know it\'s blue b/c I can see that it\'s blue. Look up, it\'s blue!

Person B: I disagree with that statement.

Person A: Why?

Person B: On Mars the atmosphere makes the air look red. That clearly applies here.

Person A: no we\'re talking about earth.

Person B: Well, fact is, all those observations, all that objective evidence, and especially your opinion is worthless.

Person A: Can you enter anything to show that the sky is not blue? Can you show that the sky is some other color?

Person B: No. I am smart enough to know that I cannot form an opinion on whether or not the sky is blue. You clearly want to think that the sky is blue and are skewing things to show that.


Not tell me Billy, who won that argument? When a person has evidence to prove something as true, and another cannot disprove those claims nor can he prove that something else is A) also or B) otherwise true, then any reasonable person hasa to accept the first person\'s claims as true until such a time as some other evidence may be made clear. It\'s very simple, but considering we\'re talking about Aaron Brooks it doe not surprise me in the least that you don\'t get it.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Good morning to you too, WhoDat. :P

You could be right, WhoDat. There have certainly been plenty of idiots to play every position in football. Some of the \"idiots\" have had great football careers and are in the hall of fame. And some of the \"brilliant\" players failed miserably. Which proves the wonderlic isn\'t worth the paper it\'s written on when it comes to football.

Brooks scored a 17 on the wonderlic, but what does it prove when it comes to football? Does it prove he can\'t read defenses? Does it prove he can\'t make quick decisions? Does it prove he\'s not a leader?

Well, Dan Marino scored lower than Brooks, so the wonderlic can\'t tell us any of that. So, what\'s the use of the wonderlic?

If I follow your logic that the wonderlic is a TRUE measure of intelligence then I have to come to one of the following conclusions:

A. Intelligence isn\'t important when it comes to playing QB because Dan Marino is one of the greats of all time.
B. The wonderlic is flawed.

Whatever the case, I just can\'t put as much faith in the wonderlic as you.





[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Jake Delhomme scored 188 on the Wonderlic, earned a PhD in Meteorological Sciences (writing his dissertation on the study of the ocean\'s reflection on the lower atmosphere), won multiple oratorical contests across the Southeast, and saved a little baby kitten from house fire in suburban Charlotte.


**Great post, btw, Puddinhead.

***BnB, I didn\'t know you worked for Canadian Airlines (?).

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

WhoDat --

Let me give you a little crash course on why the sky looks blue and how color works when it comes to how the human eye sees color. I studied this at great lengths in my electronics course years ago...

- All colors of light have different wave lengths.
-The human eye can only see a finite range of wave lengths.
- Sun light contains every color in the color spectrum and when sunlight is shined through a prizm you can see every color in the rainbow.

So, the sky might appear to be blue to you and I, but different animals can see a larger portion of the color spectrum and it probably doesn\'t appear blue to them. :P

Also, everything we see is actually a reflection of what we are looking at. Since light waves take a certain amout of time to bouce off the objects that we\'re looking at... if we could build a machine to outrun the light we could travel back in time. And if we can travel back in time, then we could correct all of Brooks faults before they happen. Oh, and we could get the winning lotto numbers too... :P :P




[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

OH MY GOD!!!!! :o :o :o

I knew if I lived long enough, I\'d see it....

BILLY JUST PROVED THAT THE SKY ISN\"T BLUE!!!

Now, BC, if you\'d just move on to a couple of my other psuedo-realities like the grass being green, Britney Spears being talented, aligators in the sewers, Elvis being dead, my wife always being right....

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

whowatches --

Are those some of your topics we can look foward to on the EE board. :P

Hey, WhoDat seemed obsessed with the sky being blue. I ingored it as long as I could :exclam: :P

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Wasn\'t sure the motive behind the picture, and wasn\'t sure if it was some fascination of phallic symbols by BC, so I was going to distance.

After hearing about some of your ex-girlfriends, she probably is.

FYI- I\'ll be around this weekend, and I want a rematch, dammit. I didn\'t realize how accurate Stewart sucking was in that game.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

That was my attempt to attack you with a fighter jet. Didn\'t work, huh?

I didn\'t want to start too much trouble with you. I already was dealing with WhoDat and you use words like \"phallic\" and I have to get on a whole new level to combat you, B&B... :P

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Mods!! Mods!!!

BnB used the words \"phallic\" and \"sucking\" in the same post!!!

I got you this weekend. Nine-ish or so I should be finished with all the dadgummed painting the boss...er... I mean... missus is having me do.

My infamously horrible luck with the feistier sex has made it all the way to Dallas?!!? Doh!! No where to escape!

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

New day, Billy argues something new. ;)

Bill - I agree 100% with those statements. In fact, I made them before you did. Go look at the top of the thread. I specifically said that AB having a baboon\'s intellect does NOT preclude him from being a successful NFL QB. I used Marino to prove that point. I never suggested at any point in this debate that AB A) was a bad QB, B) not capable of being the starter, or C) not capable of making the Pro Bowl. In fact, I said he could do ALL of those things well. I wasn\'t arguing about AB\'s game, I was discussing his level of intelligence - which, we have since decided is pretty low.

From my first post that started all of this:
Wow, all of this could have been avoided. Read first, reply second. :P

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

WhoDat --

I knew if we kept going I would paint you in a corner.. :P

Just going by what you have said, here\'s what we got.

1. The wonderlic tells us if a QB is dumb.
2. Brooks scored 17 on the wonderlic, so he is dumb.
3. Dan Marino scored lower than 17, so he is dumber than Brooks.

Conclusion: Dan Marino was great at reading defenses; made quick decisions; and was a great leader. And he was dumb.

Which means intelligence isn\'t important at the QB position since Dan Marino was one of the greatest QB\'s of all times. Do you agree?

[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 9/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Paint me into a corner?!?!?! LMAO.

Billy - I said that not being intelligent does NOT mean a QB wil be bad or unsuccessful earlier in THIS THREAD. I\'ve said it about Brooks for WEEKS now. You think you just exposed me? LMAO!!!!


All that said, YES, intelligence IS important for a QB IN GENERAL. Some players have been able to overcome it in the past due to the right overly-compensated mix of ability in other areas. However, YES, no one HOPES for a dumb QB.

Please, please, please also read this:

I set out to prove that Brooks was not intelligent, and I INITIALLY stated that his lack of intelligence did not stop him from being a good QB. I said that in the FIRST post in this debate. You have argued that BROOKS IS NOT DUMB. You DID NOT argue that Brooks was a good QB. You argued specifically ABOUT HIS INTELLIGENCE.

You just said, \"Brooks scored 17 on the wonderlic, so he is dumb. \"

Can you not see how you\'ve lost? C\'mon. Even you gotta see that.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Now, I\'m going to have to start questioning your intelligence, WhoDat.

I said no such thing. Look at my post again...and look below...


PLEASE answer this for me... How did Dan Marino overcome being stupid??

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Ok boy\'s I haven\'t had to do this in quite some time. Please don\'t use phallic and suck in the same post. God knows you might get my heart racing, and we all know i\'m not ready for that yet. :( BnB it sure is good to see you haven\'t lost your sense of wit and mastery of thought yet. Now if we can get Billy and WhoDat to decide if AB is really dumber than a box of rocks, we\'ll all be ready for the start of the season. Personally,I think it\'s an insult to the box of rocks. One rock, maybe, but a whole box? :D

For my question of the 2 of you is: Is the ocean really blue?

[Edited on 10/7/2004 by JOESAM2002]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

It\'s one of those questions that we may just never be able to answer. The ocean is blue b/c it reflects the sky, the sky is blue b/c it reflects the ocean. It\'s a never-ending cycle. What cam first, the ocean or the sky?

Billy is only part right about sky. The sun does contain 100% color, and as I\'m sure he knows, 100% saturation of color is....??? White. No it\'s not black, black is in fact 100% devoid of color. So, sunlight is actually white. The rays are reflected in the atmosphere causing a change in color. That\'s why you get these great reds and purples and oranges when the sun sets and rse, b/c the angle creates the greastest \"bend\" in the reflection.

Based on his comments here, I wouldn\'t be at all surprised if Billy said that the sky appeared orange to him!! :P

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Well, it ain\'t blue here in Biloxi. :P Unless you go out on the other side of the islands. Kinda like where you\'re at Joe. I used to live over that way. The ex still does... ;) I\'ve been to all the beaches over your way. Crystal, McFadden, etc... Except I never got to go to the nude beach. :P

WhoDat is correct about light being bent. Or filtered. Since the atmosphere is only seperating colors and not destroying them, then the other colors are being reflected somewhere. In Califonia the sky may be blue. In Louisiana it may be red and in Florida it may be green. Afterall energy cannot be destroyed. Just converted from one form to another. ;)







[Edited on 10/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Man, I feel like I\'m watching a tennis match the way WhoDat & GumboBC go back and forth with each other. Keep up the good posts.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

ADVANTAGE: WhoDat. ;)

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Fault!!

WhoDat, you just don\'t understand the culture Brooks comes from. ;)

See, you might hear Brooks say: \" fo shizzle my nizzle\"

You don\'t understand and you think Brooks is dumb, but what it means is:

\"I concur whole-heartedly, my African-American brother\" :P

So, when Brooks says: \"I owned \'em with my eyes.\" You think he\'s stupid.

But, what he means is: \" The receivers were open all day, but they kept dropping the damn ball.\" :P

Game, set, match~~ :o










[Edited on 11/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Ahhhhhhh.... Judge Gator has made his ruling.

Here\' the evidence WhoDat has presented:

1. WhoDat said \"scouts\" said Brooks was dumb.
But, he didn\'t present any names or actual statements. I have never seen any scout say Brooks was dumb. Where\'s the proof?

2. WhoDat says Brooks is dumb based on the interviews he has seen.
That\'s a personal opinion. Is WhoDat an \"intelligence profiler\" ? No way that holds up.

3. WhoDat presented Brooks\' wonderlic score.
While a score of 17 is slightly below average, it doesn\'t prove anything. Even Mr. Wondelic (and there is really a Mr. Wonderlic) has said the wonderlic test can\'t say for sure how intelligent someone is.

And finally........... No one has enough, or can get enough evidence to prove anything. Which has been the point I\'ve been trying to make all along.

[Edited on 12/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

And another thing. The wonderlic isn\'t designed to test intellignce. The wonderlic is designed to test \"how quickly\" someone can process information.

Oh, and the proof: ;)

More Proof:

Edit: WhoDat - I have provided you with overwhelming evidence that the wonderlic doesn\'t measure how intelligent someone is. Even from Charlie Wonderlic himself. Now, would you like to step up to the plate and admit that you\'ve put way too much stock in how valueable the wonderlic is?

This is all fun and everything, but you have been defeated..LMAO... :P

[Edited on 12/7/2004 by GumboBC]

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

I just like giving WhoDat a hard time. ;) I\'ve leared a lot of things just by having to research the arguments WhoDat presents. I\'ve learned all about the \"odds\" in Vegas. I know much more about the \"wonderlic\" test. The list goes on.....

Truth be known, I like hearing the negative side. I don\'t even know if you can call it the \"negative\" side. I mean, when you underachieve all these years, it\'s not all negative, it\'s the \"truth.\" A lot of it anyway.

I\'ll be glad when training camp gets here. I\'ve thought of everything in the world to talk about. You can only talk about Aaron Books, Delhomme, and \"what\" we need to do to improve so many times.

Well, I\'ll be gone from the board for a few weeks (hold your applause) Maybe saintfan can hold things down while I\'m gone. ;) And gator and WhoDat can keep everyone from taking in too much sunshine.


Oh,

For the record: I don\'t think Brooks is the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, I don\'t think he\'s stupid either.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

The facts are that Brooks haters can come up with their own stats to shown Brooks is inadequate, and even more easily the Brooks supporters can come up with twice as many stats to show Brooks is above average.

You will never change the minds of a Brooks Hater... ever.

He can win the Superbowl and the Brooks Haters will swear it was in spite of him, or he had a lucky day.

Its pointless to argue with someone who has their mind made up already.

Why bother? We\'ve all said everything that can be said about Brooks both positive and negative. Aren\'t you getting tired of it?

I\'ll bet Brooks isn\'t dumb enough to type the same argument to the same people 7 zillion times.

In regard to Psycho’s view on Aaron Brooks...
 

Here\'s the rub with the wonderlic...

Delhomme scores fairly well and goes undrafted right?

Brooks Scores \"middle of the road\" and is drafted low right?

Anybody know where Dan Marino was drafted? His wonderlic score was 16 and he was drafted 27th overall...the 5th QB taken in 1983. Now we can look at all the records he owns and we can say Mr. Marino is an exception. On the other hand we might look at Marino\'s situation (much like many many others) and determine a couple things:

a. Scouting / Drafting is FAR from an exact science
b. A person\'s wonderlic score is probably not something someone would want to submit as evidence in a trial

If you\'re trying to debate a football player\'s ability to play football based on the wonderlic it is my opinion that you\'re gonna lose that argument based on the overall performance of those in the NFL who scored poorly and performed average or better. There are too many Hall of Fame and future Hall of Fame players that didn\'t do well on it. ;)