And the Answer is :

saintz08 · 10-04-2004, 02:57 PM

BROOKS, GRANT HAVE MILE-HIGH FRACAS

A league source tells us that Saints quarterback Aaron Brooks and defensive end Charles Grant got into a rumble on the flight back from the team's 34-10 pasting at the hands of the Arizona Cardinals.

Though we don't know who started it or whether any damage was done to either player (or to the plane), the thinking in Saints land is that the scrum might push the team toward maximizing its potential in 2004.

Fortunately for the Saints, they'll go nearly three weeks without having to hop another flight. On Sunday, they face the Bucs at home. The following Sunday, they host the Vikings on ESPN. And their ability to sweep the coming home stand will go a long way toward proving whether the scuffle will make any difference for a team that went from promising to underachieving via a 3-hour stint in the desert on Sunday.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Anyone wanna bet the arguement was not over the last chicken wing .... Saintfan ????

[Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]

saintfan · 10-04-2004, 03:01 PM

Anyone wanna bet the aruement was not over the last chicken wing .... Saintfan ????

Not sure I completely understand what you mean here. If I had to guess I\'d say Brooks probably called some people out for their sorry play and Grant got tee\'d.

saintz08 · 10-04-2004, 03:01 PM

Props to you 08. This is, without question, your best conspiracy theory of the year! LOL

Thanks Saintfan .

The team is coming apart at the seams .

Maybe Grant said \" J.T. should start cause he could lead the offense better then you against a worthless defense like Arizona \" ....

saintfan · 10-04-2004, 03:02 PM

Maybe Grant said \" J.T. should start cause he could lead the offense better then you against a worthless defense like Arizona \" ....

Could be. More likely tho that Brooks called out the defense for allowing the sorry Cards to run the ball at will.

saintz08 · 10-04-2004, 03:05 PM

Could be. More likely tho that Brooks called out the defense for allowing the sorry Cards to run the ball at will.

Like the high powered offense was scoring at will and kept the defense off of the field ??? Then again they might have had 7 more points had fumbalaya Brooks not been true to his name ....

[Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]

saintfan · 10-04-2004, 03:20 PM

Like the high powered offense was scoring at will and kept the defense off of the field ??? Then again they might have had 7 more points had fumbalaya Brooks not been true to his name

7 points wouldn\'t have dont much for the final score, but believe it or not I was as pizzed about that fumble as you. Either way, Brooks can\'t do much when he\'s (a) running for his life and (b) can\'t get the ball off casue of pre snap problems and (c) there\'s a holding call on every other offensive play and (d) his vaunted receivers keep dropping the stupid ball.

blackroses · 10-04-2004, 04:17 PM

Well **** I don\'t blame him your gonna let a 36 year old run for 100 some yards what a joke. My Chaney Highshool squad of 96 could stop Emmit from rushing 100 yards. The current squad of 2004 could too.

GEAUX SAINTS. WHO DAT GONNA BEAT DEM SAINTS WHO DAT WHO DAT. WHO DAT GONNA CHUCK THAT THAT ROCK STECKER STECKER. I gotta layoff the crack lmao

saintz08 · 10-04-2004, 04:27 PM

7 points wouldn\'t have dont much for the final score, but believe it or not I was as pizzed about that fumble as you. Either way, Brooks can\'t do much when he\'s (a) running for his life and (b) can\'t get the ball off casue of pre snap problems and (c) there\'s a holding call on every other offensive play and (d) his vaunted receivers keep dropping the stupid ball.

A. Make sure all passing plays have a hot route slant option on them . Getting the ball out quicker gets the defense on their heels .

B . Repeat the snap count twice in the huddle at the end of the play call , Call cadence louder at the line .

C. Make the read faster and lead the receivers with the ball .

D. Take some heat off the ball , hands sweat in the desert heat .

[Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]

saintfan · 10-04-2004, 04:38 PM

A. Make sure all passing plays have a hot route slant option on them . Getting the ball out quicker gets the defense on their heels .

B . Repeat the snap count twice in the huddle at the end of the play call , Call cadence louder at the line .

C. Make the read faster and lead the receivers with the ball .

D. Take some heat off the ball , hands sweat in the desert heat .

So, if I may. In other words you\'re saying Brooks, as you typically attempt to insinuate, is solely responsible for the failure of our offensive line to \"excel\" and our receiver\'s inablilty to catch catchable passes.

I guess you missed the Non Call then. You know, the one where there was holding in the end zone. You know...the one where our guy was holding the moment the ball was snapped (there are several other similar examples you must have missed). I\'m sure you\'ll fail to acknowledge that many catchable passes (some right on the numbers) were just thrown too \"hot\" to handle.

Uh huh. Your agenda is as clear as ever. LMAO

BrooksMustGo · 10-04-2004, 05:50 PM

08 you\'ve collided with the ABB standard for post game evaluation.

Under the Anything But Brooks standard. By that I mean, if there is a loss, under no circumstance can Brooks play any part of explainting what went wrong. :icon_eyesroll:

The inverse principle works during a win. If we win, ignore any other explanation because it\'s plain as day that Brooks single-handedly won the game by himself. :icon_bs:

:kerry:

10-04-2004, 02:57 PM	#1
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	And the Answer is : BROOKS, GRANT HAVE MILE-HIGH FRACAS A league source tells us that Saints quarterback Aaron Brooks and defensive end Charles Grant got into a rumble on the flight back from the team's 34-10 pasting at the hands of the Arizona Cardinals. Though we don't know who started it or whether any damage was done to either player (or to the plane), the thinking in Saints land is that the scrum might push the team toward maximizing its potential in 2004. Fortunately for the Saints, they'll go nearly three weeks without having to hop another flight. On Sunday, they face the Bucs at home. The following Sunday, they host the Vikings on ESPN. And their ability to sweep the coming home stand will go a long way toward proving whether the scuffle will make any difference for a team that went from promising to underachieving via a 3-hour stint in the desert on Sunday. http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm Anyone wanna bet the arguement was not over the last chicken wing .... Saintfan ???? [Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-04-2004, 03:01 PM	#2
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	And the Answer is : Anyone wanna bet the aruement was not over the last chicken wing .... Saintfan ???? Not sure I completely understand what you mean here. If I had to guess I\'d say Brooks probably called some people out for their sorry play and Grant got tee\'d.

10-04-2004, 03:01 PM	#3
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	And the Answer is : Props to you 08. This is, without question, your best conspiracy theory of the year! LOL Thanks Saintfan . The team is coming apart at the seams . Maybe Grant said \" J.T. should start cause he could lead the offense better then you against a worthless defense like Arizona \" ....
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-04-2004, 03:02 PM	#4
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	And the Answer is : Maybe Grant said \" J.T. should start cause he could lead the offense better then you against a worthless defense like Arizona \" .... Could be. More likely tho that Brooks called out the defense for allowing the sorry Cards to run the ball at will.

10-04-2004, 03:05 PM	#5
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	And the Answer is : Could be. More likely tho that Brooks called out the defense for allowing the sorry Cards to run the ball at will. Like the high powered offense was scoring at will and kept the defense off of the field ??? Then again they might have had 7 more points had fumbalaya Brooks not been true to his name .... [Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

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

10-04-2004, 03:20 PM	#6
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	And the Answer is : Like the high powered offense was scoring at will and kept the defense off of the field ??? Then again they might have had 7 more points had fumbalaya Brooks not been true to his name 7 points wouldn\'t have dont much for the final score, but believe it or not I was as pizzed about that fumble as you. Either way, Brooks can\'t do much when he\'s (a) running for his life and (b) can\'t get the ball off casue of pre snap problems and (c) there\'s a holding call on every other offensive play and (d) his vaunted receivers keep dropping the stupid ball.

10-04-2004, 04:17 PM	#7
blackroses Registered Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 85	And the Answer is : Well **** I don\'t blame him your gonna let a 36 year old run for 100 some yards what a joke. My Chaney Highshool squad of 96 could stop Emmit from rushing 100 yards. The current squad of 2004 could too. GEAUX SAINTS. WHO DAT GONNA BEAT DEM SAINTS WHO DAT WHO DAT. WHO DAT GONNA CHUCK THAT THAT ROCK STECKER STECKER. I gotta layoff the crack lmao
blackroses Registered Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 85

10-04-2004, 04:27 PM	#8
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	And the Answer is : 7 points wouldn\'t have dont much for the final score, but believe it or not I was as pizzed about that fumble as you. Either way, Brooks can\'t do much when he\'s (a) running for his life and (b) can\'t get the ball off casue of pre snap problems and (c) there\'s a holding call on every other offensive play and (d) his vaunted receivers keep dropping the stupid ball. A. Make sure all passing plays have a hot route slant option on them . Getting the ball out quicker gets the defense on their heels . B . Repeat the snap count twice in the huddle at the end of the play call , Call cadence louder at the line . C. Make the read faster and lead the receivers with the ball . D. Take some heat off the ball , hands sweat in the desert heat . [Edited on 4/10/2004 by saintz08]
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-04-2004, 04:38 PM	#9
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	And the Answer is : A. Make sure all passing plays have a hot route slant option on them . Getting the ball out quicker gets the defense on their heels . B . Repeat the snap count twice in the huddle at the end of the play call , Call cadence louder at the line . C. Make the read faster and lead the receivers with the ball . D. Take some heat off the ball , hands sweat in the desert heat . So, if I may. In other words you\'re saying Brooks, as you typically attempt to insinuate, is solely responsible for the failure of our offensive line to \"excel\" and our receiver\'s inablilty to catch catchable passes. I guess you missed the Non Call then. You know, the one where there was holding in the end zone. You know...the one where our guy was holding the moment the ball was snapped (there are several other similar examples you must have missed). I\'m sure you\'ll fail to acknowledge that many catchable passes (some right on the numbers) were just thrown too \"hot\" to handle. Uh huh. Your agenda is as clear as ever. LMAO
	C'mon Man...

10-04-2004, 05:50 PM	#10
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	And the Answer is : 08 you\'ve collided with the ABB standard for post game evaluation. Under the Anything But Brooks standard. By that I mean, if there is a loss, under no circumstance can Brooks play any part of explainting what went wrong. :icon_eyesroll: The inverse principle works during a win. If we win, ignore any other explanation because it\'s plain as day that Brooks single-handedly won the game by himself. :icon_bs: :kerry: