WhoDat

You know when you\'ve lost Billy? When you stop debating the issue and start trying to split hairs about the meaning of a statement all while attacking the person making the statements.

You cannot argue the merits, so you attack me. Go ahead, call me a big fat liar - that doesn\'t change anything. Brooks still scored a 17 on the Wonderlic, less than average. The scouts still said he wasn\'t intelligent. No matter how much you come after me you cannot change the FACTS of the issue. Those things happened, and they are evidence that Brooks is not intelligent. You still cannot enter anything of merit, nor can you admit to any real fault on Brooks\' part.

Want me to dig up quotes where in the past you said that Brooks could throw the touch pass? I can and you know I will. I don\'t know why you won\'t admit that you question Brooks\' intelligence. I know you do - you know the game of football. Generally, after watching a guy play and reading all of the literature you come to a reasonable conclusion - it may take longer sometimes than with others, but...

Dan Marino is a nimrod, but the guy was a great QB. BnB is pretty smart but I guarantee he\'s a terrible QB. Why do you continue to cling to the idea that AB is basically flawless? Will admitting that he has faults crack the defense you\'ve so strongly supported for years? Even Saintfan has made concessions about the guy. C\'mon Billy, I know that you can do it.

\"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.\"

GumboBC

Too funny.. :P

I know when I lose because I start to attack you? And how exactly did I do that?

There was no name calling on my part. There was someone who called someone naive. But, that wasn\'t me. I understand you weren\'t talking to me, but, still... Pot/Kettle.

Let\'s see...... Who was it that started this \"special\" thread to point out that there are NO facts? But, yet, you don\'t like hearing it when you CLEARLY are stating Brooks is dumb as a FACT. Then you split hairs \'cause you don\'t want to admit it. Pot/Kettle.

My point has always been a simple one. And the point being, Brooks scored a 17 on the wonderlic test which is an average score. Did you know that, because obivously you didn\'t or you wouldn\'t keep saying he scored below average. Now, that\'s a fact.

Further, my point is I prefer not to jump to conclusions when I don\'t have nearly enough evidence to say one way or the other how intelligent Brooks is.

No one is attacking you. I\'m sure it must feel that way, though, when you are losing an arguement. But, please, show me where I attacked you?

WhoDat

You can\'t even get the facts straight now.

20 or 21 is average on the test.

From my earlier post complete with link. 17 isn\'t average, it\'s below average. That has long been established on this board.


Billy, this started out in a joking manner as if it were a trial. You would have lost, and no I\'m not just playing. Ask Gator.

When one party in a suit makes a claim in a complaint and backs it up with evidence, as I did, and the opposing party questions that, but provides no evidence and says that he has insufficient knowledge to form a belief, the second party loses. In fact, it doesn\'t even require trial. A simple motion for summary judgment is all it takes.

Don\'t believe me, ask Gator or look it up. In fact, here, I\'ll give you the definition myself:

\"summary judgment
n. a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party...\"

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Point is Billy, you may think you won this argument, but should it be judged, as in a civil action in court for example, you would have lost before trial. Go ahead, ask a lawyer. Sorry Bill, the gavel has dropped and AB was ruled unintelligent by summary judgment.

Maybe next time.

\"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.\"

GumboBC

WhoDat --

You know, the funny thing is, everyone always thinks they win the arguement.

See, IMO, I\'ve clearly won the arguement. You know why? Simple. Because my arguement wasn\'t that Brooks is dumb or intelligent.

My arguement is that we don\'t know. Now, you think you know based on a wonderlic test, interviews, etc., ect..

Someone\'s biggest strength is sometimes their biggest weakness. In your case, you think you\'re so smart that you have this thing figured out and you\'ve closed your mind.

See, you\'re under the impression I said Brooks was smart. That\'s probably because you are obsessed to prove that Brooks is dumb. I think your obsession is clouding your judgement and your ability to comprehend what I\'m saying.

You\'ll have to excuse me from sharing your opinion which you stated as a fact. You\'ll have to excuse me from not taking your advise by NOT arguing with you because you are right.

Brooks could be dumb as a rock. He could be very smart. I don\'t know. Obviously you do!!

BlackandBlue

How do we know anything about any of these players and how can we base judgements on things that we aren\'t sure are 100% fact??? Cause we\'re fans, that\'s why. We pay the money and buy the merchandise, and that, in this fine country of ours, is our right. So I will no longer sit around and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!!!!

[/quote:a4bcad31f5]Let\'s just remember...the guy was an Anthropology major at one of the more respected academic schools in the ACC[/quote:a4bcad31f5]

Dude, it\'s the study of human cultures, which is not far off from Sociology, which I know for a fact is not that friggin hard. Just because it may sound difficult, doesn\'t mean it is. And it\'s no longer what college you go to, so much as what you plan on studying at that school, outside of ivy league.

But I\'ll let you guys get back to this \"hot new\" topic you are discussing, even though I think you\'re looking in the wrong place. I don\'t think it has to do with his intelligence. As a matter of fact, I believe he actually overthinks what he is going to do. After watching some footage from last year, that is the only thing I can come up with because

1. When he drops back to pass, count how many times he stops himself from throwing, I\'m not talking about his fake pump, you can tell the difference.
2. This could also explain why his interceptions last year were rediculously low compared to his TD\'s. Don\'t care who you are, 24/8 aren\'t bad numbers at all.

Oh yeah, Advantage WhoDat, based solely on the following statement

You think AB\'s indecisive? Throw me out there and see what happens.



[Edited on 8/7/2004 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

[Edited on 8/7/2004 by GumboBC]

BlackandBlue

Spit it out, son.

GumboBC

BlackandBlue <marquee> <marquee>

26DEUCE26

I love this kind of discussion. First of all, I do not think Brooks is a good leader, but nor do I think he needs to be for this team to be successful. Look at the Ravens championship team from a few years ago. Who was their leader, Trent Dilfer? No, I would venture to say it was Ray Lewis a MLB. My point is the Saints need somebody to step up, and claim this team as their own, and obviously that person is not Aaron Brooks. That does not mean that he is not good enough to be in the top ten QBs in the league, which I think he definitely is. Bottom line is we need to improve our defense 180 degrees to take some pressure off of Brooks to have to score every time we have the ball. If this does not happen I do not think that Brooks should have to shoulder the blame. It should be put on Venturi. In football the best offense is a good defense.

Puddinhead

This is not intended to be any kind of shot whatsoever at you, 26DEUCE26...but you know what one of the greatest things of all about the whole concept of a \"team\" is? It\'s that it doesn\'t matter one whit what you, me, or any of the rest of us here think as far as \"leadership\" goes. It only matter what the actual members of the team think. If they consider Brooks, or anyone else, their leader and follow his example, then by default that guy is a \"team leader\". We spend so much time as fans trying to break everything down as far as \"who\'s the team leaders\" and \"who\'s the disruptive influences\" and so on because...well, because we\'re fans, and that\'s what we do. In the case of quarterbacks generally and Brooks specifically we have a \"need\" to pick out the minutely detailed reasons for any lack of success. And frankly, even though we (ultimately) pay the salaries, the vast majority of us just aren\'t qualified to pick it apart to that extent. How many of us complain that Brooks \"isn\'t intelligent or decisive enough\" and use as our evidence the \"fact\" that we see him preparing to throw to one spot and then changing his mind and ending up holding the ball longer than we think he should. (As an aside, I would point out that the ultimate success or failure of individual plays determines if the QB \"holds the ball too long\" or \"is patient and methodical in picking apart the defense\") I, for one, am not afraid to admit that in spite of my 30+ years as an NFL fan I don\'t know the progression of reads on each particular play in the Saints passing game well enough to know if Brooks follows it well or not. I\'m sure the pre-snap alignment of the strong safety is likely a determining factor on which receiver to check first on many plays, for example....but I don\'t know which receiver that is, and I don\'t know for which plays the safety may be the first \"key\" and for which plays another defender is the \"first read\". And frankly, after the first receiver in the progression is covered, I don\'t know who the second \"look\" is to know if Brooks turns to the right receiver or not. My guess is that most of the fans who aren\'t actually in the football business probably are in the same boat as me. But that doesn\'t stop us from giving our opinions.

In the first Tampa game last year, for three quarters the Saints defense made Brad Johnson look like an idiot. He looked completely befuddled every time he dropped back to pass, like he hadn\'t the slightest idea where he was supposed to go with the ball given what he was seeing. This, from a quarterback whose reputation is as one of the league\'s more cerebral, if not more physically gifted, play-callers. Finally in the fourth quarter he seemed to catch fire, and suddenly the Bucs passing game was clicking to the point that they came back to tie the game. Seems that Johnson finally figured out the right way to read the defense, right? Except that the network crew (I know, sometimes they sound like morons....but they DO put in a lot more \"study\" than we do, and usually have more of a football background as former NFL players or coaches than we do, too) point out that the reason Johnson is suddenly completing passes is that he\'s completely stopped trying to read the defense--he\'s just forcing the ball in to his primary receiver right off the snap, whether he\'s \"covered\" or not, and relying on his receiver to make a better play on the ball than the defender. And for that stretch, his receivers were doing just that. Was Johnson \"more intelligent\" in the fourth quarter than in the first three quarters? If I were just watching the game by myself I might be persuaded to come to that conclusion....but I\'m listening to a guy who has at least some background to have some knowledge about the game telling me that essentially, just the opposite is what\'s happening. Johnson has \"stopped thinking\" and is basically doing a touch football offense--\"You run a short post, and I\'ll throw it to you this time.\"