Mike D on Brooks

BrooksMustGo · 10-19-2004, 10:16 PM

http://saintsreport.com/modules.php?...ticle&artid=24

Q: Can you shed any light on Brooks popularity and how he is really viewed by his teammates?
Q: listening to Brooks speak, he doesn't seem to be very bright at all. I just think that he might be a bit slow in the area of processing information adequately for an NFL QB rather than the area of memory retention. Do you see that at all, and how should the Saints game-plan to take advantage of Brooks' best attributes?

A: At another position not being well liked would not make be a huge issue, but you have to have a quarterback that is liked and respected to succeed. The players know that Brooks is talented, but it really comes down to a personality issue. Brooks has said himself that there is phony "love" and team chemistry on this team. He senses this factor and that is not good, especially when there are issues with your quarterback and other members of the offense. You have to be one mind, one-spirit in this league, but there is something in mix that just isn't right. Believe me, in this league when you are making the "big bucks", you better succeed or complications will arise. Also when teams underachieve at this level the coach and the quarterback shoulder the majority of the burden. I know it's not correct all the time, but that is the nature of the business.

A: Whatever you want to call it, Brooks does not have good football savvy. I see it in players like Kerry Collins, Kyle Boller, Kordell Stewart and even Vinny Testaverde (early in his career), also. They can make some great plays and then make two or three bonehead plays that negate the good ones. I saw it for many seasons with Jake Plummer in Arizona and now that he is with Mike Shanahan in Denver, he doesn't make nearly as many of these type gaffes. The ability to make good decisions under pressure is God given. Some guys have it more than others and some can develop these skills a bit better, but you can see that at this stage Aaron continues to make the same errors, time and time again.

Now, let me say this, Aaron has played 'good' this season in comparison to how well his offensive line and receiving core has played. His receiving core has really let him down in the early part of the season and I can't think of another offensive line that has had as many false starts as the Saints have. Brooks is a playmaker on offense, but his inconsistent nature and his history of untimely turnovers are a part of his game.

Hmmmm, Brooks is like Kerry Collins, Kordell Stewart or Kyle Boller; he can play great and then he can kill you with his stupid decisions. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around this season, but what is certain is that our QB is not going to elevate the level of play on this offense. Any other Brooks thoughts here?

JKool · 10-20-2004, 03:44 AM

BMG,

Why do you say this?

what is certain is that our QB is not going to elevate the level of play on this offense

When the article your post includes this:

I saw it for many seasons with Jake Plummer...

Do you mean that this year AB will not be what we want, he\'ll never be what we want, or that Haz will never make him what we want (or something else altogether)?

I just don\'t understand. Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde. Given your own post, I\'m not sure why you\'d conclude that it is CERTAIN that AB cannot become a great QB?

[Edited on 20/10/2004 by JKool]

St.Shrume · 10-20-2004, 06:49 AM

I see this over and over... People complaining, \'TRADE HIM TRADE HIM\' and then are shocked to see that player on a Super Bowl team. I truly believe Brooks could lead a team to the Superbowl.

He is not perfect. He may only be a top 15 QB, but if we had 11 guys that could play defense, even slightly, and we were 5-1 or 4-2, we\'d see things differently.

Do you think the Ravens were pumped up about Dilfer when they won the Superbowl?? Do you think he fit their bill as THE QB??? Heck no.

All this talk about chemistry, egos, etc. is just because they are losing. Do you hear the Giants\' players *****ing about Coughlin anymore?? Why? You think they suddenly love the guy? Hell no. But winning makes things better.

It comes down to winning. And honestly, I still think our main reason for sucking so bad is our defense. We do not have to have a Vikings type offense. But we should have a defense that can stop Emmitt Smith and the Cards.

rich006 · 10-20-2004, 06:59 AM

JKool,
I agree that BMG\'s claim was a little inconsistent if you take it to mean that AB could NEVER improve on this team. However, if you take it to mean that he could never improve on this team with the current coaching staff, I think it\'s consistent, and accurate. With a coaching change, it\'s possible his play could be elevated quite a bit. However, my opinion is that it would be best to let him go if a suitable replacement could be found, just because we need some change for the sake of change at QB. I don\'t know who that replacement might be; my first thought is Kurt Warner, with a young project player to challenge him (not Bouman--maybe Ramsey?). I\'d want the new coach to be involved in the process. Wouldn\'t it be great to get Mueller back, btw?

Saint_LB · 10-20-2004, 08:09 AM

Brooks is a loser.

BrooksMustGo · 10-20-2004, 09:26 AM

Do you mean that this year AB will not be what we want, he\'ll never be what we want, or that Haz will never make him what we want (or something else altogether)?

I just don\'t understand. Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde. Given your own post, I\'m not sure why you\'d conclude that it is CERTAIN that AB cannot become a great QB?

Yes it\'s a pretty harsh statement and I could be be happily proven wrong. More what I\'m getting at is that the guys Mike mentioned in the Q&A were guys who needed a fresh start someplace else. If it\'s true that there is friction between Brooks and the other guys on the team (and I don\'t think this is a stretch based on the Charles Grant thing, things Horn has said and AB\'s own \"fake love\" comments), then maybe several people need a change of scenery in order to play their best. I agree with a statement that I think Halo has made on occassion: Haslett has ruined Aaron Brooks. The favoritism and excuses haven\'t helped the guy develop and now he\'s a veteran still making the same rookie mistakes over and over with no accountability. Brooks could be a very good player, but I don\'t see it happening here.

Collins took the Giants to the superbowl after all the guys in Carolina hated him and he basically got run out of town. Dilfer went to the superbowl managing the Ravens offense after stinking it up in Tampa for years. Plummer is being reborn in Denver now that he gets a chance to play with a lead for a change.

I think that Haslett has linked his own career in New Orleans to Brooks\' that the two are a package deal. Haslett has said on several occassions that as long as he\'s coach here, Brooks will be the QB. This ties the two together in a way that I\'m not sure the next coach will want to deal with. So while Barry Switzer did go to the superbowl with Troy Aikman, Aikman was a more proven commodity and didn\'t like Switzer. I\'m not sure Switzer could have won without Jimmy Johnson\'s team still intact (a point I happily concede). But the cowboys were Aikman\'s team far more than they ever were Switzer\'s. Brooks is no Aikman and if I were a new front office/coaching staff, I wouldn\'t want the distraction he provides. But then I suppose it all depends on who you want to keep. But if we cut everyone who\'s ever had trouble with Brooks, does that make Brooks easier or more difficult to work with when you have to spend a lot of time on fundamentals with him?

WhoDat · 10-20-2004, 09:26 AM

Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde.

Did they turn it around? I don\'t really consider Plummer or Testaverde as NFL success stories - unless you mean they are successful simply by still being in the league. These are guys who turned into top 5 QBs? Not in my book.

saintfan · 10-20-2004, 09:37 AM

if we had 11 guys that could play defense, even slightly, and we were 5-1 or 4-2, we\'d see things differently.

Where have I heard THIS before? :casstet:

JKool · 10-20-2004, 01:51 PM

Who,

Those guys are serviceable QBs who get the job done. Denver is on its way to the playoffs, and Plummer will not hurt their chances to win it all. Also, neither of them are \"idiots\" anymore - so in that sense, they certainly turned it around.

I think that BMG makes a compelling argument about Haz ruining Brooks. I don\'t know what I think about that yet, but it sounds relatively plausible to me.

Rich006,

A good reading, I\'d say.

blackwidows · 10-20-2004, 03:44 PM

Seems to me you people need to get your facts straight. Brooks not a qb bull. He just set a record for the most plays without an interception last week not to mention his stats say diffrently. Look at the stats please . When is the last time you had a qb year after year in the top ten in stats for the saints I think Jim everett. Not to mention Brooks is one of the only ones to throw for 3,000 yards in three straight seasons. Now I will agree that his discision making is not up to par. I mean your at the redzone you have one of the best backs in the league all of a sudden your gonna go pass happy and throw an interception. Once your at the 20 whatever happened to running the football. This is some of Mccarthy\'s fault though also. Anyhow he has worked on his mechanics some what such as not shuffling back 15 yards when pressure was coming than trying to out juke everyone. He seems to be able to find the open running lane when pressure is coming now unlike past times. I hate to say it other than the 1 interception last week the loss against the vikings was not his fault. The defense was getting used last Sunday. I thought I was watching highschool ball for a minute. I\'m sorry when your offence gets you back in the ball game and your only behind bye 7 now and the defense allows the opponents to score again. This is just to much of a deficit too overcome. Not to mention They tire themselves out when they can\'t get off third down and force the opposition to punt. More of a ruuning game could of helped too. When rush for 1000 yards you have a good chance at winning most of your games. This keeps the score down so the opponents offence does not have much time to comeback either. Or in are case we where the ones getting rushed on trying to come back. culpeper looked like Moon,cunningham,the k gun jim kelly, and montana put together. Every week I evaluate the opposing runningback this week I though the runningback was not much of a threat. Boy was I wrong I should of known better when you let a back such as emmitt Smith A Rookie IN 91 RUSH FOR 100 YARDS. I guess you can expect everyones runningbacks to run on you. Something telling me Moore DID NOT HAVE 100 YARDS AGAINST US. He sure did play a big part in there offence though. It\'s almost like octavius swithed jerseys with Moore. http://www.nfl.com/stats

[Edited on 20/10/2004 by blackwidows]

[Edited on 20/10/2004 by JOESAM2002]

10-19-2004, 10:16 PM	#1
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Mike D on Brooks http://saintsreport.com/modules.php?...ticle&artid=24 Q: Can you shed any light on Brooks popularity and how he is really viewed by his teammates? Q: listening to Brooks speak, he doesn't seem to be very bright at all. I just think that he might be a bit slow in the area of processing information adequately for an NFL QB rather than the area of memory retention. Do you see that at all, and how should the Saints game-plan to take advantage of Brooks' best attributes? A: At another position not being well liked would not make be a huge issue, but you have to have a quarterback that is liked and respected to succeed. The players know that Brooks is talented, but it really comes down to a personality issue. Brooks has said himself that there is phony "love" and team chemistry on this team. He senses this factor and that is not good, especially when there are issues with your quarterback and other members of the offense. You have to be one mind, one-spirit in this league, but there is something in mix that just isn't right. Believe me, in this league when you are making the "big bucks", you better succeed or complications will arise. Also when teams underachieve at this level the coach and the quarterback shoulder the majority of the burden. I know it's not correct all the time, but that is the nature of the business. A: Whatever you want to call it, Brooks does not have good football savvy. I see it in players like Kerry Collins, Kyle Boller, Kordell Stewart and even Vinny Testaverde (early in his career), also. They can make some great plays and then make two or three bonehead plays that negate the good ones. I saw it for many seasons with Jake Plummer in Arizona and now that he is with Mike Shanahan in Denver, he doesn't make nearly as many of these type gaffes. The ability to make good decisions under pressure is God given. Some guys have it more than others and some can develop these skills a bit better, but you can see that at this stage Aaron continues to make the same errors, time and time again. Now, let me say this, Aaron has played 'good' this season in comparison to how well his offensive line and receiving core has played. His receiving core has really let him down in the early part of the season and I can't think of another offensive line that has had as many false starts as the Saints have. Brooks is a playmaker on offense, but his inconsistent nature and his history of untimely turnovers are a part of his game. Hmmmm, Brooks is like Kerry Collins, Kordell Stewart or Kyle Boller; he can play great and then he can kill you with his stupid decisions. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around this season, but what is certain is that our QB is not going to elevate the level of play on this offense. Any other Brooks thoughts here?

10-20-2004, 03:44 AM	#2
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike D on Brooks BMG, Why do you say this? what is certain is that our QB is not going to elevate the level of play on this offense When the article your post includes this: I saw it for many seasons with Jake Plummer... Do you mean that this year AB will not be what we want, he\'ll never be what we want, or that Haz will never make him what we want (or something else altogether)? I just don\'t understand. Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde. Given your own post, I\'m not sure why you\'d conclude that it is CERTAIN that AB cannot become a great QB? [Edited on 20/10/2004 by JKool]

10-20-2004, 06:49 AM	#3
St.Shrume 100th Post Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 125	Mike D on Brooks I see this over and over... People complaining, \'TRADE HIM TRADE HIM\' and then are shocked to see that player on a Super Bowl team. I truly believe Brooks could lead a team to the Superbowl. He is not perfect. He may only be a top 15 QB, but if we had 11 guys that could play defense, even slightly, and we were 5-1 or 4-2, we\'d see things differently. Do you think the Ravens were pumped up about Dilfer when they won the Superbowl?? Do you think he fit their bill as THE QB??? Heck no. All this talk about chemistry, egos, etc. is just because they are losing. Do you hear the Giants\' players *****ing about Coughlin anymore?? Why? You think they suddenly love the guy? Hell no. But winning makes things better. It comes down to winning. And honestly, I still think our main reason for sucking so bad is our defense. We do not have to have a Vikings type offense. But we should have a defense that can stop Emmitt Smith and the Cards.
St.Shrume 100th Post Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 125

10-20-2004, 06:59 AM	#4
rich006 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 335	Mike D on Brooks JKool, I agree that BMG\'s claim was a little inconsistent if you take it to mean that AB could NEVER improve on this team. However, if you take it to mean that he could never improve on this team with the current coaching staff, I think it\'s consistent, and accurate. With a coaching change, it\'s possible his play could be elevated quite a bit. However, my opinion is that it would be best to let him go if a suitable replacement could be found, just because we need some change for the sake of change at QB. I don\'t know who that replacement might be; my first thought is Kurt Warner, with a young project player to challenge him (not Bouman--maybe Ramsey?). I\'d want the new coach to be involved in the process. Wouldn\'t it be great to get Mueller back, btw?
rich006 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 335	"I'm going back to New Orleans, to wear that ball and chain."

10-20-2004, 08:09 AM	#5
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Mike D on Brooks Brooks is a loser.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

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

10-20-2004, 09:26 AM	#6
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Mike D on Brooks Do you mean that this year AB will not be what we want, he\'ll never be what we want, or that Haz will never make him what we want (or something else altogether)? I just don\'t understand. Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde. Given your own post, I\'m not sure why you\'d conclude that it is CERTAIN that AB cannot become a great QB? Yes it\'s a pretty harsh statement and I could be be happily proven wrong. More what I\'m getting at is that the guys Mike mentioned in the Q&A were guys who needed a fresh start someplace else. If it\'s true that there is friction between Brooks and the other guys on the team (and I don\'t think this is a stretch based on the Charles Grant thing, things Horn has said and AB\'s own \"fake love\" comments), then maybe several people need a change of scenery in order to play their best. I agree with a statement that I think Halo has made on occassion: Haslett has ruined Aaron Brooks. The favoritism and excuses haven\'t helped the guy develop and now he\'s a veteran still making the same rookie mistakes over and over with no accountability. Brooks could be a very good player, but I don\'t see it happening here. Collins took the Giants to the superbowl after all the guys in Carolina hated him and he basically got run out of town. Dilfer went to the superbowl managing the Ravens offense after stinking it up in Tampa for years. Plummer is being reborn in Denver now that he gets a chance to play with a lead for a change. I think that Haslett has linked his own career in New Orleans to Brooks\' that the two are a package deal. Haslett has said on several occassions that as long as he\'s coach here, Brooks will be the QB. This ties the two together in a way that I\'m not sure the next coach will want to deal with. So while Barry Switzer did go to the superbowl with Troy Aikman, Aikman was a more proven commodity and didn\'t like Switzer. I\'m not sure Switzer could have won without Jimmy Johnson\'s team still intact (a point I happily concede). But the cowboys were Aikman\'s team far more than they ever were Switzer\'s. Brooks is no Aikman and if I were a new front office/coaching staff, I wouldn\'t want the distraction he provides. But then I suppose it all depends on who you want to keep. But if we cut everyone who\'s ever had trouble with Brooks, does that make Brooks easier or more difficult to work with when you have to spend a lot of time on fundamentals with him?
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

10-20-2004, 09:26 AM	#7
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Mike D on Brooks Some of these guys mentioned as being \"idiots early on\" turned it around - like Plummer and Testaverde. Did they turn it around? I don\'t really consider Plummer or Testaverde as NFL success stories - unless you mean they are successful simply by still being in the league. These are guys who turned into top 5 QBs? Not in my book.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

10-20-2004, 09:37 AM	#8
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Mike D on Brooks if we had 11 guys that could play defense, even slightly, and we were 5-1 or 4-2, we\'d see things differently. Where have I heard THIS before? :casstet:

10-20-2004, 01:51 PM	#9
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike D on Brooks Who, Those guys are serviceable QBs who get the job done. Denver is on its way to the playoffs, and Plummer will not hurt their chances to win it all. Also, neither of them are \"idiots\" anymore - so in that sense, they certainly turned it around. I think that BMG makes a compelling argument about Haz ruining Brooks. I don\'t know what I think about that yet, but it sounds relatively plausible to me. Rich006, A good reading, I\'d say.

10-20-2004, 03:44 PM	#10
blackwidows 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 245	Mike D on Brooks Seems to me you people need to get your facts straight. Brooks not a qb bull. He just set a record for the most plays without an interception last week not to mention his stats say diffrently. Look at the stats please . When is the last time you had a qb year after year in the top ten in stats for the saints I think Jim everett. Not to mention Brooks is one of the only ones to throw for 3,000 yards in three straight seasons. Now I will agree that his discision making is not up to par. I mean your at the redzone you have one of the best backs in the league all of a sudden your gonna go pass happy and throw an interception. Once your at the 20 whatever happened to running the football. This is some of Mccarthy\'s fault though also. Anyhow he has worked on his mechanics some what such as not shuffling back 15 yards when pressure was coming than trying to out juke everyone. He seems to be able to find the open running lane when pressure is coming now unlike past times. I hate to say it other than the 1 interception last week the loss against the vikings was not his fault. The defense was getting used last Sunday. I thought I was watching highschool ball for a minute. I\'m sorry when your offence gets you back in the ball game and your only behind bye 7 now and the defense allows the opponents to score again. This is just to much of a deficit too overcome. Not to mention They tire themselves out when they can\'t get off third down and force the opposition to punt. More of a ruuning game could of helped too. When rush for 1000 yards you have a good chance at winning most of your games. This keeps the score down so the opponents offence does not have much time to comeback either. Or in are case we where the ones getting rushed on trying to come back. culpeper looked like Moon,cunningham,the k gun jim kelly, and montana put together. Every week I evaluate the opposing runningback this week I though the runningback was not much of a threat. Boy was I wrong I should of known better when you let a back such as emmitt Smith A Rookie IN 91 RUSH FOR 100 YARDS. I guess you can expect everyones runningbacks to run on you. Something telling me Moore DID NOT HAVE 100 YARDS AGAINST US. He sure did play a big part in there offence though. It\'s almost like octavius swithed jerseys with Moore. http://www.nfl.com/stats [Edited on 20/10/2004 by blackwidows] [Edited on 20/10/2004 by JOESAM2002]
blackwidows 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 245