Mike D on Brooks
 

JOESAM,

Didn\'t forget Earl, but he played here on his last legs. So while career-wise he was a great back, Saints-wise he wasn\'t. Sorta like Ken Stabler. I didn\'t count on people picking anyone who came here to finish out their careers. lol

Kool,

I remember Dunbar. Or Dumbar if you like. The guy from Iowa State was Troy Davis. Remember Ricky Whittle? And Ray Zellars? I always like Zellars for some reason, maybe it was the way he ran over a guy in college, creamed him. For my fb I am taking Lorenzo Neal though over Head. Neal was a punishing blocker.

Mike D on Brooks
 

There are technical problems. Quoting doesn\'t work anymore. Using line separators I guess.

============================================================

The problem you ppl have is you would rather try and make somone else look silly or try and shut them up instead of making a point.
============================================================
I wasn\'t trying to shut you up. I was making the point that your points didn\'t make any sense.

Let try it again...
============================================================
Yes Jake has been to a SuperBowl. Im not sitting here saying he is better than Brooks... However its a FACT he has been to a SuperBowl. I know he was in a better position with a better team, but wasnt he a backup at the begining of the season? However given a chance he proved he wasnt just an average backup QB. I think Brooks has more talent than Jake. He prolly has more talent than Brady too... However he hasnt been able to LEAD this team to anything. You all want to take one sentence from a post and reply on it to try and make someone look stupid. When did I say Jake was better? I didnt... I was just saying he had been to a SuperBowl.

============================================================
You\'re still trying to make the point that Brooks isn\'t suitable because he doesn\'t lead his team to wins even though he has more talent than the other guys. That gives the impression that if the other guys were in place of Brooks that they would lead the teams to wins, yes?

I refute that point. Almost nothing that\'s wrong with the Saints right now is due to the QB position. My point is that no matter who you put in at QB in this situation (Jake, Brady, McNabb, Peyton, McNair, etc.) that because of the other major problems that exists, that the QB would have little impact upon the situation. And no amount of leadership or smarts, which everyone claims Brooks has a lack of, would change that.

So I question why you\'re spending time bashing Brooks, when it\'s so apparent that the fault lays in other areas. Why are you not addressing those areas that has so much more impact?

============================================================

Jake didnt have better numbers than Brooks... However he had wins.


============================================================
NO!!! NOT TRUE! (yes I know I\'m screaming).

Look at the Panthers right now. They are 1 and 4 and near the cellar of the NFC south. So to say that Jake wins is a flat out untrue assertion.

Now if you said the Panthers won last year and Jake was QBing them, that would be true. But you\'re trying to put an untrue cause and effect upon the situation.
============================================================
Brooks can pass the ball all over the field with our Offense. However if he cant lead us to wins he isnt a great QB.

============================================================
I know the mantra. Saying it over and over again isn\'t going to make it any more true...

It takes 53 players, coaches, front office, ownership, and yes even fans for a team to win.
To single out one individual of this collection and state that they are the reason that the team is losing is disingenuous.
============================================================
I know he has come from behind wins. Our team talent doesnt have anything to do with him winning a game in the 4th? He does play great at tymes, but he still plays average at others...

============================================================
And our defense plays pitiful all the time. The whole game. Receivers drop the ball. Ball carriers fumble. The O-Line has presnap and postsnap penalties, along with blown blocking assignments. The special teams is erratic especially on returns.

And yet all of this is because of a lack of leadership by one individual? It\'s not the players who are making mistakes, or the coaches who may or may not be putting players in a position to win? It\'s not due to the fact that the front offices made bad personnel choices, or that maybe the owner doesn\'t have the right people in place? Are you sure that this is all because of Brooks\' leadership skills? Really?

It\'s really difficult to give any creedance to your arguments because they are so focused on a single supposed flaw and so completely misses the big picture.
============================================================

Im not just refering to one game that Brooks leadership has lead us to a lose. I know the Vikes had 605 yards... Ok so why did we lose to Tampa? Or Arizona?

============================================================
The same reasons I outline above. As I stated in my other post defense wins football games.
Both Tampa\'s and Arizona\'s defenses came to play while the Saints defenses on both afternoons were pretty much in the locker room.

Now of course the offense, Brooks included gets some of the blame. They didn\'t execute consistently. But when two backs that were run out of Dallas rolls up over 200 yards of rushing offense, or when a backup QB is made to look like an all pro, it\'s easy to see why the teams lost those games.

I know what you\'re thinking. You think that our high powered offense should simply outshoot the competition. But it leaves no margin for error, and forces our offense\'s play to be dictated by the opposing defense. Both really bad things in a football game. Winning teams play more conservatively. Winning teams are all willing to punt the ball. Why? Because winning teams have defenses that can get the ball back without giving up a ton of points.

Our defense is giving up 30 points a game. 30 POINTS! That\'s not a leadership issue.
============================================================


I know our team isnt playing great, but why is it that our DE and our QB are fighting? Brooks calling out the D maybe? Saying its their fault we lost? Do you know leaders that pick fights?
============================================================

Sure. Culpepper and Moss are a perfect example. They get in screaming matches on the sidelines during a game. See any problems now?
============================================================
The team doesnt get behind the guy then he cant lead them anywhere... I dont care how much talent a player has. If the team doesnt want to play with him he will not perform. Keyshawn Johnson didnt want to play in Tampa however you gonna tell me he isnt a solid WR? Why was he playing so bad there then? He didnt like the leadership... You think Carolina would have went to the SuperBowl with Roodney Pete? what about New England they didnt make it to the SuperBowl with Drew Bledsoe...

============================================================
Bledsoe was hurt much of that season. So that season he didn\'t get the opportunity. BTW IIRC Bledsoe was pretty much a class act in a tough situation because generally one doesn\'t lose one\'s position to injury.
============================================================
I guess the team talent is the only reason they went... Bledsoe doesnt have a better arm than Brady right? The fact is Brady has less talent, but more leadership and heart... How many more talented QBs were there when Joe Montana played?

============================================================
You\'re still trying to isolate the point. But you can\'t isolate it effectively. The only way you can do that is to put both guys into exactly the same situation and see how they respond.

A recurring theme in every example that you\'ve given above is threefold.

1. Each were on teams that had superior defenses.
2. Each were on teams that had superior coaching (Belechic and Walsh and their coordinators)
3. Each were on teams where the QB wasn\'t required to win the game week in and week out, simply to manage the offense.

I\'m surprised you didn\'t add Trent Dilfer to the list. I mean Dilfer was terrible in Tampa Bay. But in 2000 he gets put into the right situation and wins a SB. Clearly it was superior leadship.

============================================================
However who was the best QB of that tyme?
============================================================
Montana was. Marino, or maybe Elway were the most talented. Both are examples of how it take a team to get to the promised land. Elway finally got the defense and the back he needed. Marino never did.
============================================================
The thing is that it is a team game no matter how you look at it. They all have to work together so you picking on the defense isnt gonna help the Saints win. Neither will picking on the Offense... Im just saying that the Saints have more problems than just an inconsistent QB. We need to get the D playing better. We need to get some WRs to catch the balls that hit them in the hands. We need to find OL who know how to block for more than 2 seconds... The list goes on... I hope you get the point... But Im sure you wont...
============================================================
Now you\'re starting to sound like me. I do get the point. And I\'m not saying Brooks is perfect. He misses reads. He mishandles the ball. I still can\'t stand his throwing mechanics.

But the last paragraph you have above is closer to reality than the earlier \"if Brooks had leadship skills, then we would be winning.\"

SFIAH

Mike D on Brooks
 

That\'s right Whodi. I can\'t believe I forgot Lorenzo Neal. I love him too. I would have three fullbacks on the all time Saints of the past team.

Mike D on Brooks
 

And who would back up Archie?
Remember, we can\'t have Brooks since he\'s current.

Mike D on Brooks
 

Hebert. Hands down. I like Evrett too, but not nearly as much. I also think that Fourcade should make the team - even if he has to carry water - that guy brought it every week.

Mike D on Brooks
 

If only he had been a few inches taller and about 30lbs heavier.

Mike D on Brooks
 

Jkool,

Hebert is the back-up, no doubt. Even though he was a Falcon at one time he is still our boy. And I would have Fourcade just cause he led the Saints in that snow game with Dalton Hilliard against, the Jets? Bills? can\'t quite remember but I think we won. That guy had more heart than 3/4 our current team put together. He will be clipboard man. No way do I ever choose Chis Everett, but that interview on ESPN had to be the funniest Saints moment of all time. That guy just kept calling him Chris. Hilarious.

BNB

I hear you on Troy Davis. Wasn\'t he like the NCAAs leading rusher that year? Alas, they used him way too much in college and he was burned out when he got to the Saints. Pity.

FOB

Once again we are on the same page. Lorenzo Neal was and still is a monster. Why do we think we can replace fbs every coupel of years and let these beasts get away? Oh, cause we do. lol Karney is the next in line. Looks like Tom Rathman when he blocks.

Mike D on Brooks
 

That was the Bills in that game, when Hilliard ran like he was born in snow.
I hated Rathman, every time we played the 49ers. He could not be knocked backwards, he was a rolling boulder, be it running or blocking.
This thread is insanely long.

Mike D on Brooks
 

FOB,

I\'ve always liked Rathman. Thought he was the proto-type for fullbacks. That was a football player.

And to think, this thread got rolling cause of a simple statement about the current O and history. I think we are glad to focus on something besides what we are seeing on Sundays.

[Edited on 22/10/2004 by saintswhodi]

Mike D on Brooks
 

If we focused on what was we were seeing on Sundays, all of our computers would short out from the gallons of tears we shed on them. :D