Hey 08...
 

Interesting, after all we\'ve been through lately. You\'ve insinuated time and again that I\'m nothing short of ignorant for bringing luck to the table, but nearly a year later you finally come around. LMAO

Allow me to provide you with a simple example that you can observe as this season rolls along. First, watch Stecker run into the line and rarely advance. Then, watch Deuce run into the line and move people. This, I would submit, has FAR more to do with Deuce\'s 1600 than our line \"excelling\" at run blocking. T-Rex mattered too I think. ;)

I don\'t know whether to accuse you of being blind or biased or what, but I don\'t now nor have I ever given \"immunity\" to Brooks. Perhaps to you it seems that way since I defend him when he is critized for WR\'s dropping catchable balls, when he is blamed for fumbles by the RB or for our defense\'s inability to stop a screen pass, but you know as well as I that he has been blasted unfairly. Whether you admit it or not doesn\'t really matter. There\'s tons and tons of history on this site and lots of others.

Wrong again. I don\'t ignore it. I challenge people who harp on a particular play by pointing out that Farve has made a bone-headed decision or two in his time. I watched, for example, Jake Delhomme under throw pass after pass last year. His WR\'s came back and made a play. NOBODY on the Delhomme bandwagon would even respond. Interesting huh? He\'s still doing it this year -- and throwing off his back foot -- \'cept he hasn\'t been anywhere near as fortunate (lucky). If you disagree then it\'s my opinion you\'re not being honest. What I\'m saying is Brooks\' critics aren\'t fair. If pointing that out gets filtered down to you thinking I give him \"immunity\" then so be it.


If Brooks would have fumbled the ball 4 times in limited action so far this year is there even a chance you\'d have popped on here and called him out? I think so -- but that\'s just my opinion -- based on history. Have you seen much in the way of mention regarding Deuce costing us the game with his 2nd fumble? No? Our Pro Bowl RB seems to have a problem lately.

Joe Horn comes to play...period. That\'s a given.

Just because our WR\'s are talented doesn\'t mean they perform. I\'m not at the games...I watch on TV, so I can\'t say for certain, but I\'d be willing to bet we have one WR (maybe two) that run good routes. Yes, sometimes I think Brooks hold on to the ball too long, but I think he gets blasted for it unfairly sometimes because I don\'t think our guys do much in the way of getting open. You disagree?

I don\'t think Conwell is playing necessarilly well, and I think Boo, while I\'m a fan of his, still has a lot to learn.

To say that I \"suggest\" Brooks doesn\'t fail the team just as often, I don\'t think, is accurate. I don\'t have to do much Brooks bashing. There are plenty of people more than ready to blame him for our inability to stop a screen for Christ\'s sake. He\'s not immune for sure, but he is not now nor has he ever been the problem with this team.

So now\'s where you ask me what I think the real problem is. My response? Coaching...to a degree. You guys wanna rake Haz over the coals...can\'t really blame you since he\'s the HC, but I maintain that I like Jim. I like his style. The Cowboys had 11 penalties last Sunday and played VERY undisciplined football against the Giants. There Coach: Bill Parcells. As I\'ve said before, the buck stops with Haz. However, I\'d like to keep Jim and do something horrible to Mike and Rick.

Ahh yes, he did, and played his heart out no question, but he got LUCKY more than a bachelor at a cat house last year. His WR\'s made plays ours don\'t. Period...and they aren\'t able to or aren\'t willing to make them this year? He got all the credit in the world for having \"it\", but \"it\" and $5.00 will buy you some coffee at Starbucks won\'t it? \"IT\" minus that line and a consistant running game -- and a little luck -- isn\'t worth much huh?

Hey 08...
 

War of the Moderators.

Cool. :popcorn:

Hey 08...
 

Scoot over and make some room ....

:popcorn:

Hey 08...
 

Make room for me :beer2:

I got $5 on the skirt.

Hey 08...
 

Hmmmmmmmmm? :peer:

Hey 08...
 

And away we go... by the way, does this ride ever stop??? LOL

Never said luck didn\'t have something to do with EVERY team EVERY season. What I did take exception to, if memory serves, is that when I, and others, suggested that Haslett might be to blame for the problems with this team - for poor coaching, poor game planning, poor talent evaluation - you suggested that I had an agenda. You blamed the Saints troubles on two things last season: injuries and luck. Never did I say that those things DON\'T matter. What I did say is that the excuses change every year. The team is young, there were locker room problems, they practiced in the heat and got tired late in games, injuries, bad luck... when is enough enough? If you want to continue to support Haslett, go right ahead - the rest of us see the problem - and if there is one person here who is seemingly blind to the HC\'s inability, who makes excuses at every turn, who misplaces blame - all those things that you claim create an agenda - it\'s you.

Yes, Deuce is a bigger back who does more after first contact - no question. Deuce has had some big holes over the last few years. You don\'t want to give teh line credit for that, but gripe when I don\'t give your lover boy Brooks credit when he throws a rocket shot 3 yards behind a WR and the WR miraculously comes down with the ball. Sound fair... LOL

PS - didn\'t you say Smith was unimportant and his loss wouldn\'t matter earlier this offseason? Flippity flop, flippity flop...

Yes, he is. But you suggest everything that I say is unfair and to fulfill an agenda. That simply isn\'t true. I won\'t call you a liar, but you know that\'s not the case. I defended AB last year, I\'ve defended him this year - but still I\'m the man with the agenda. There have been hundreds of posts bashing AB in the last few weeks - entire threads that I purposely left alone. You know what I learned - you generally only replying when 08 or I do. Who has an agenda?

THIS SEASON - AB has missed more sure TDs than WRs have dropped. I think blaming him for Deuce\'s fumbles is silly - same goes for screen passes. You know that, b/c you tried to lure me into those arguments and I didn\'t bite.

So you compare AB to a guy who, although I respect greatly, is past his prime, and a guy making his 20th NFL start (PS - both of those guys have played in a Super Bowl - does that count in the equation??). AARON BROOKS claim FOUR YEARS AGO that he was a TOP FIVE NFL QB. He\'s not now, and NEVER HAS BEEN. When you say something like that, demand $ b/c of it, and then don\'t deliver you expect to get leeway with the fans? When the team tosses a season in the crapper to protect your fragile ego you expect patience and understanding?

Aaron Brooks ranks 14th in the NFL in passer efficiency right now. Aside from the obvious true TOP FIVE QBs like Manning, Culpepper, McNabb, Hassleback, and Pennington, these QBs currently rank better than AB in efficiency this season:

Drew Brees
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Tim Rattay
Kurt Warner
Ben Roethlisberger

PLEASE show me how those guys play on teams with better lines, better RBs, better TEs, and better WRs. Explain that please.

Interesting that you say that. AB DOES have 4 fumbles this year. He has MORE than 4 fumbles - a lot more. He has more than 4 fumbles on the snap - but I\'m NOT all over him about it, am I?

Meanwhile, I DID call Deuce out. I did say that he needs to stop fumbling. It IS a problem - but as much as you would like to deflect attention elsewhere, Deuce having a problem does not mean that Brooks does not.

This is just plain inaccurate. You defend the guy like he\'s your kin and while we attack him, you attack us.

Hey 08...
 

Yes, you did. You insinuated that I was all but ignorant for even suggesting that luck had anything to do with the results of a football game. I\'ll quote you if I have to, but somehow I don\'t think I\'ll have to. I find that doubly interesting with you recent issues with me regarding how I post. Remember that thing about the pot and the kettle? ;)

Wrong again. The agenda talk doesn\'t have anything to do with Jim and has everything to do with Aaron Brooks. Do I need to post your quotes here for that as well? Your most recent agenda is to attack me for my style of posting, which is amazing to me considering you readily admit to participating...oh, but you don\'t do that anymore huh? You couldn\'t be MORE wrong, but then I\'m not trying to sway the opinion of people that post here with respect to you.

No, not directly, because that would hinder your ability to crawfish, but what you DID do and STILL do is insinuate that I and others are missing the point by saying that they do.

I\'m not gonna get too deep in a Haz war with you, mostly because I agree that a coaching change is the likely result, but I see Jim as a skapegoat in all this more than I am willing to accuse him of not having the ability to coach a football team. All the things you listed -- all the things you previously didn\'t buy into -- are factors. You try really hard to put your finger on ONE thing, but you can\'t...not if your willing to acknowledge ALL the things that play into a team\'s success or lack of it. The buck stops with Jim. I won\'t argue that, but just as you do in your argument against Brooks, you want to hold him responsible for things beyond his control -- like injuries -- which you readily bring to the table when discussing this years Panthers, as an example. Flippity Flop INDEED. ;)


You can\'t see why I call you out on the agenda thing, so I\'d like to take a moment here to thank you for stating it so CLEARLY. You make excuses -- but only for select players. You misplace blame -- but only where certain players are involved. I have admited readily in the past that I DO have an agenda -- fair assesment. What\'s yours?

Fair? Not at all. I think Deuce is FAR more responsible for his 1600 than I think our line \"excels\" at blocking...run or pass. No, our line isn\'t the worst in the league, but they are by far one of the more inconsistant. You disagree? Again, I think it\'s pretty obvious T-REX had a little to do with it too. As I\'ve stated earlier, you watch Deuce move people where Stecker can\'t and see if you can justify continuing THIS argument. Now after next weeks game -- and our line opens up a hole or two -- you\'ll be in here hollerin\' \"I told you so\", but out of the whole game you\'ll harp on two or three decent plays and refuse to acknowledge the rest. Watch and see. ;)

Regarding Brooks, I\'m not asking you to give him \"credit\" for what might not be a \"prefect\" throw. I would like to see you admit that our receivers routinely drop CATCHABLE passes, and I\'d like to see you acknowledge it when it happens, not a year after the fact when, finally, the TV announcers start mentioning it. Further, I see our WR\'s drop FAR more \"catchable\" passes than I see them making miraculous ones. I suppose I can be certain you disagree since you ALWAYS side with whatever is most negative with respect to our QB.

It\'s not that EVERYthing you say is unfair, it\'s that you typically don\'t want to acknowledge the WHOLE picture where Brooks is concerned. Same way you call me out for getting personal and then turn right around and call Brooks my \"lover\" or refer to me as \"Casper\" until I have to edit your posts. I used to be amazed at your hypocracy, but I\'m not amazed anymore. I\'ve come to expect it. You\'ll give Deuce a pass for the 4 games last year by giving credit to the opposing defense. Can you find for me one, just ONE instance where you ever did something similar where Brooks is concerned. You can\'t because you never have.

Lets take your recent \"rate Aaron Books\" thread as an example shall we? At the time I\'m writing this you rank Brooks lower than me, BlackandBlue, and BMG. How come? It is my point that you are typically more crital of Brooks than most others. Is this not proved in your very own little poll? Yes, you did say Brooks should make the pro bowl...and then you turn right around and rate him as a horrible QB. Pick a friggin\' side of the fence already! By the way, and just out of curiosity, do you still rate Brad Johnson higher than Brooks? LOL

Give me some Veteran receivers that can get open, and a line that can block with some consistancy, and some play calling that makes sense, and get back to me on that. I think Brooks was right to ask for that money. I wonder, had you been in his shoes at the time, if YOU would have been content to make less money than the Backup you were starting ahead of after having been the QB who guided the team to it\'s first ever playoff win? I\'m judging Brooks in that regard based on what I would have done, and I would have likely done the same thing. Money says you might very well have done it too. ;)

I don\'t reaccall you calling Deuce out. I do recall you being prompted to do so tho. You haven\'t started a single thread related to Deuce\'s obvious decline that started in about November of LAST year. Rather, you cut him slack by proping up the defense he was playing against. Did you start a thread to call Deuce out like you\'ve done in the past regarding Brooks? No? I wonder how much you think the Saints should pay Deuce next year, considering he has a history of injuries and tends to fade down the stretch, has a fumble problem and refuses to change? Got in a bar fight too right? How much?

Which is precisely why I wonder why you dragged Brooks into the Deuce bashing I was doing a couple weeks ago. That\'s how the most recent converstaion regarding our O-Line got started. I\'m not defending Brooks by bashing Deuce. My attempt all along was to prove, to show, to verify that the standard those of you who typically hold Brooks to didn\'t apply when talkin about another player. When you start griping about bad routes and dropped passes and Brooks having to run for his life a bit more -- maybe take a few opinion polls -- I might take you seriously. \'Til then I have no choice but to point out that the criteria you use to judge players is skewed.

Oh, by the way...umm no, I didn\'t. But you\'re quite welcome to attempt to prove that I did. ;) Wrong again baby...wrong again.








[Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]