A Brooks answer
 

Interesting comment from Duece and Haslett .

Ever think Brooks looks lost or confused in the pocket ?? Maybe he had the wrong play in his mind ...... ;)

How many years does it take to learn the plays ???

Saintfan , can we blame Duece's fumble on Brooks now ???.... ;)

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...1330190020.xml



[Edited on 14/9/2004 by saintz08]

A Brooks answer
 

How do you justify blaming it on Brooks -- except for your agenda? Deuce was carrying the ball. He got popped. He dropped the ball. If Deuce were any kind of man he\'d own up to it. Is Brooks supposed to run along side him saying \"don\'t drop it, don\'t drop it\" too!?! Jeesh you people are INCREDIBLE. :casstet:

A Brooks answer
 

Some leader on offense , he does not know the playbook .Which results in improper blocking for his back which resulted in a fumble .... ;)

Look beyond the single moment Saintfan , you can do it ..... :o

A Brooks answer
 

I think you\'re both missing the big picture. Brooks knowing not knowing the playbookis irrelevant. Maybe he just made a mistake. Maybe he called a play from last year on accident in the heat of the moment.

The big question is why is Brooks having to call a play on his own anyway? Is it because McCarthy is up in the booth taking 35 of the 40 seconds we have trying to decide which running play to call? :mad:

A Brooks answer
 

08, my friend, you fail to see the REAL issue here, and that issue is that the ball was in his hands and he dropped it. A bad play didn\'t make him drop it. Poor blocking didn\'t make him drop it. He was running with the ball and got popped -- one on one -- and failed to hang on to the football. You\'re always eager to fault Brooks at any oppurtunity. Why do you fail to fault other players who make equally boneheaded plays?

Could it be....

an AGENDA?

Exposed...yet again. It\'s sad really. Pull your pants back up 08. Nobody here wants to see that. LOL

A Brooks answer
 

It\'s Brook\'s fault for calling the play. This QB\'s today don\'t know how good they have it, getting the plays called in on a headset, please. Brook\'s should go back and study his play book a little more.

A Brooks answer
 

Scotty\'s right. Even though this story does give us a great, albeit disturbing, window into how the offense runs.
1. Brooks is not running the offense in any sort of meaningful way, he\'s just McCarthy\'s mouthpiece.
2. McCarthy can\'t be taking 30-40 seconds to make up his mind.
3. If McCarthy isn\'t getting the play out in a timely way, you can\'t count on Brooks to know what to do.
4. Maybe 08\'s argument about Brooks\' wonderlic score holds water after all.
5. Bottom line, you can\'t leave the playcalling up to Brooks on any level and that is on McCarthy.

A Brooks answer
 

Deuce\'s fumble is Deuce\'s fault.

If you think Brooks calling a play that we don\'t have is no big deal, you don\'t know football. I could probably still call a play from my high school playbook and I was a WR and that was a LONG time ago.

A Brooks answer
 

I did some checking WhoDat and your old coach told me you played left out....

A Brooks answer
 

His coach told me that he swung both ways ;)

A Brooks answer
 

I\'m not really concerned about the fumble. Deuce was just trying to get more yards. The problem was that he was hit 1 or 2 yards in the backfield on a 3rd&1 AGAIN.

It\'s becoming clearer and clearer that McCarthy has no real understanding of his own offense. It seems as though he has simply stolen someone else\'s playbook and is trying to pass it off as his own.

He sucks at game planning, at halftime adjustments, at play calling, and at evaluating his own offense\'s strengths. I\'m really becoming surprised they\'ve ever scored under McCarthy\'s leadership.

All that said and I\'d still rather have McCarthy over Carl Smith.

[Edited on 15/9/2004 by ScottyRo]

A Brooks answer
 

WhoDat,WhoDat,WhoDat when are you going to learn? These guys just sit and wait for you to say something. They\'re like wolves on the lamb. LMAO!!! :P

A Brooks answer
 

Hey Gator, even I am skeptical after that thing on Sunday in the Superdome, but even you can\'t say it\'s time for the bags already?

A Brooks answer
 

Brooks is a loser....how long is it going to take for the coaching staff and owner to realize this... or, is it possible that they have already realized it, but are forced to let him play to justify his huge contract. Whatever, the fans come out huge losers, too, because they keep getting force-fed this crap and it seems to be a nightmare that keeps repeating itself.

A Brooks answer
 

Why is he a loser? Give specific instances please? An edit. Note that I have the tired old list of quotes in the middle of this post. Feel free to use any or all of them. But I\'d really like to see something innovative.

It\'ll take a huge drop off in production for that to happen. He\'s easily a top 10 QB in this league and frankly if he had a coordinator that could really game plan and receivers that could catch the ball consistently he could be a top 5.

Just look at the stats.

Let\'s flip the question. Why is it always Brooks that\'s the loser? Let\'s take another example: Deuce McAllister. He\'s been on the team one less year than Brooks. He\'s been ultra productive in the last 2 years. He\'s disappeared in games especially in the late season swoons of the Saints of late. Yet no one is calling for his head. Can someone explain that to me? Why isn\'t he labeled a loser? Why isn\'t he labeled a non leader because he isn\'t fired up on the sideline and in the locker room? Why are there not calls for him to be traded for a LB and a CB? What\'s the difference? I\'d really like to know. Note that Deuce didn\'t get not one 100 yard game in the last 4 games of last year.

Doesn\'t make sense. See there are a bunch of teams that would absolutely love to have Brooks. Take San Francisco, Arizona, and possibly still Miami for starters. I\'m sure there is some tradable talent for him. But the Saints never pulled the trigger. Why? Could it be that they in fact believe that the guy is not the problem and that he in fact has the tools (including leadership) to take the team to the next level? Hmmmm.

No. The ever repeating nightmare crap is the continue calls for the guy\'s dismissal even over the coaches dismissal. It\'s like a persistent lie that people want to be true, so they just keep saying it over and over figuring if they complain long enough and loud enough then something will be done.

But it defies logic. So they settle on an emotional response: \"He\'s a loser.\", \"He smiles too much.\", \"He\'s not a leader.\", \"He\'s too laid back.\", \"He doesn\'t get fired up.\", \"He doesn\'t get upset when the team is losing, so he must like losing.\"

I\'ll put it simply. If emotion really won football games then the Saints should be working on their 4th consecutive title, because Haslett is the most fired up, emotional, get upset, tortured coach in the league. So the Saints should have a 80 game winning streak because if you\'re fired up, you can win.

Yeah. Right. The best coaches in the league right now is the innovative, methodical thinker that doesn\'t get too up and too down: Belichik (sp) and his two coordinators.

Same for QBs. Farve should have 10 titles now. He doesn\'t. Why?

I\'m tired now. Tired of arguing. So I\'ll simple trot out the tired old quote of mine:

\"Brooks\' attitude in unsuitable for an NFL QB in many fans\' minds.\"

SFIAH

[Edited on 16/9/2004 by SaintFanInATLHELL]

A Brooks answer
 

You make a good point but...don\'t you ever wonder why Brooks almost never calls audibles at the line of scrimmage? And the odd time when he does, it rarely is successful? Let\'s face it, the man is no Einstein.


Brooks may indeed have made a simple mistake with the blocking scheme. However, he could have changed up the play at the line. For whatever reason he didn\'t. Brooks has shown year after year now that athleticism alone is not enough to get the job done. His lack of leadership skills is bad enough but an inability to think quickly under pressure-like when the NFL switches off the helmet speaker-doesn\'t reinforce his teammates\' faith in him.


He showed us all a fundemental lack of smarts when he announced he didn\'t want to be known as a scrambling QB. Why bother telling the rest of the NFL \"I want to be a statue back there\" when the threat of running was such a potent weapon. No one has ever asked Brooks that question and until someone does I\'m gonna continue to think there\'s not a whole lot goin\' on up there...

A Brooks answer
 

I\'m curious to know where your figures come from. In other words, how many audibles does he call in a game? Among those how many were successful versus not successful?

On a semi-related note, I\'m sure you watched the Green Bay / Carolina game on Monday night. Did you notice how successful the Panthers were running the screen. Was this because Farve can\'t throw one in practice and thus the Green Bay defense is unable to learn how to defend it? Just curious...and all in fun of course. ;)

:poke:

A Brooks answer
 

what?

A Brooks answer
 

In another thread it was insinuated that the Saints inability to defend the Screen Pass was due directly to Brooks\' inability to throw one. So, since GB had so much trouble with the Screen pass on MFN I\'m wondering if the reason, in the poster\'s opinion, is because Farve is also unable to throw one.

Does 1=1 and 2=2 or not?

:P

A Brooks answer
 

I believe that the equation you\'re looking for is:

If a=c and b=c then a=b... ;)

You never were good at math, just look at your interpretation of Brooks\' statistics!

A Brooks answer
 

You know me far better than I\'d readily admit, but the question remains. Since it has been opined that the Saints cannot defend the Screen because Brooks cannot throw the screen, did Green Bay have the same problem on Monday due to Farve\'s inability to throw a screen pass?

A Brooks answer
 

I guess all the drops on Sunday was also because of AB\'s playcalling...........thats why they got so open! You people are incredible(Call yourself football fans? blamin a fumble by deuce on Ab?)

A Brooks answer
 

Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

:icon_bs:

A Brooks answer
 

CLEARLY! LMAO.

Who made that statement anyway?

You know me well enough to know that I may be able to be baited at times, but I\'m not quite dumb enough to rush in and defend the guy who said that the Saints can\'t defend a screen pass b/c AB can\'t throw one.

True, the Saints are pretty terrible using the screen and defending it. I\'m not sure why, but if I really had to guess, I think I\'d say something like this:

The ability to defend a screen well has to do with LBs and DTs being able to diagnos the lpay quickly and get out in the flats to nail the RB out of the backfield. Where has the weak spot on our D been for years (other than CB) - DT and LB.

On Offense, I don\'t know. Either our Line doesn\'t sell it well, Brooks doesn\'t sell it well, Deuce is such a major target on our offense that no team is going to allow him to just slip out of the backfield, or McCarthy can\'t coach it and call it appropriately. My bet is all of the above. I\'d like to see them try a few with Stecker. The guy is better in the open field than Deuce (he\'s a speedy make-you-miss kind of a runner), and he\'s less likely to attract the attention of every LB on the field when he \"slips\" out of the backfield (as compared to the 235 pound MVP of our team).

A Brooks answer
 

True, you are easily baited (as most of us are) but I\'m not baitin ya here. I\'ll just say it was said (by someone) that the Saints Defense is unable to defend the screen pass because they are unable to practice it because Brooks can\'t throw one in practice. Now, while that\'s not THE silliest thing I\'ve ever heard (08 still holds the record), it\'s way up there.

So, I\'m waiting on the fellow that posted that to asnwer the question. We all watched the Pathers run the screen rather successfully last Monday night. I\'m askin the fellow who made the original statement if this is because the GB defense is unable to practice defending the screen due to Farve\'s inability to throw one in practice? ;)