Puddinhead

If you asked 10 Saints fans after the 2003 season, you'd probably get either 9 or 10 who would buy into the "national" perception that once again the Saints had swooned in December despite a 2-2 record in that month. If you took the question a little further and asked which player was most responsible for this, I'm guessing that at least 8 of the 10 would answer "Aaron Brooks...he always falters when it's most important."

Why do you think these fans have that opinion? Last year, when unlike in 2002 Brooks wasn't playing with a ruptured tendon in his shoulder, he finished out the year with 200+ passes without an interception, and some of his best play of the season. In contrast, a player who we all think of as our steadiest and most reliable, Deuce McAllister, had a pretty rough ending to his year. As Pat Kirwin at NFL.com pointed out:

Deuce McAllister is one of the better running backs in the NFL but down the stretch last year he managed only 248 yards rushing in 79 attempts with no touchdowns over the last four games. Did he run out of gas? He can't afford a fall off like that again in 2004.

No one blames McAllister's lack of production down the stretch for the Saints' failure to make the playoffs again (and I don't think they should), and yet it seems hardly anyone has any qualms about laying that failure at the feet of Aaron Brooks, who actually played some of his best ball at the end of the season last year.