Brooks and Saints are losers

Saint_LB · 12-08-2004, 08:17 PM

Why did you dig for this thread?

Because the team I have devoted so much time to during my lifetime has sunk to such a low level of ineptness. The best way for me to ventilate my frustration would be to shout from the rooftop at the top of my lungs how bad the Saints suck every time they have a game like last Sunday\'s. But since I can\'t, this is the next best thing. Any more questions...have I broken some rule that I am not aware of.

BlackandBlue · 12-08-2004, 08:22 PM

Can I ask a question without having the mod status dangled in front of me?

Saint_LB · 12-08-2004, 08:52 PM

Can I ask a question without having the mod status dangled in front of me?

I was serious...I thought your job might be to weed out the negative people.

BlackandBlue · 12-08-2004, 09:02 PM

Nope, we don\'t put any restrictions on that sorta thing here, unlike other boards. Trust me, the people that cross the line find out real quick- but there are so few rules, it makes my job fairly easy.

RDOX · 12-09-2004, 09:39 AM

Nope, we don\'t put any restrictions on that sorta thing here, unlike other boards. Trust me, the people that cross the line find out real quick- but there are so few rules, it makes my job fairly easy.

And that\'s why I like this board. I just had a reply banned because I stated a negative opinion about Fumbles on SR.com. This seems to be one of the more intellectual football boards that I have come across.

Personally, I have followed the Saints since their inception, and actually saw the first organized practices of the team back in 67. That makes me suffer from OFS (Old Fart Syndrome), but every year I back this team to the hilt. I was elated when Benson hired Big Mule and Hazlett. I thought that Big Mule was more of a football man than Bill Kuharich and would make more of an impact in the front office. It looked that way the first year, until Blake was hurt, and Hazlett fell in love with Fumbles and speed. He just forgot that with speed, you have to be able to play the game of football also. But, I digress.

I enjoy this board because of the fact that people here actually think before they type, and disagree with both class and intelligence. The moderation is also quite rational. I am not afraid to make a negative post here for fear of getting banned or flamed. This ain\'t the case on the SR.com board.

I also realize that many of you are much younger than I and are participants in something foreign to me called Fantasy Football. It appears that the love of Fumbles\' \"Stats\" comes from playing FF and not following what goes on at the game. I disagree with this, because, having been a coach, I know that there are many intangibles in players and consequently a team, which play into making a winner. \"Great Stats\" don\'t win games. Johnny Unitas was a legend, but he played on a team that usually didn\'t win in Baltimore. Same was true for Bobby Lane, a great coach, sorry human being, with \"great stats\" and a dog of a team in Pittsburg.

\"Great Stats\" are for people who don\'t really understand the game of football. The only \"Great Stat\" that COUNTS is how many W\'s are in the column, period. I honestly don\'t believe that Fumbles can put the W\'s in the Saints, or any other team\'s column. To me he\'s damaged goods, fundamentally unsound, who tends to panic under pressure, and who is looking out for only himself. Montana was quiet, but forceful, because he didn\'t panic, and was fundamentally sound football wise. Farve, Marino, Kilmer, Hebert all had fire and used it to raise production of their teammates. Brooks has none of this. Therefore, we lose.

saintswhodi · 12-09-2004, 09:53 AM

RDOX, I couldn\'t agree with you more. I have tried to argue that point also that wins are the biggest measure of a successful qb, and not how many tds and yards you can rack up once the game is decided. How many tds and yards you get when the game is still in doubt is what counts. I have heard the argument that we were in the Vikes game cause of Erin Brookovich, then I look at Minny\'s D and what Chad Hutchinson did to them for the Bears of all teams, and I think this kind of game from Brooks is more an abnormality than the norm. He can dominate weak defenses, but if you have a semblance of cohesion on your defensive unit, he won\'t show up until you are safely ahead by 21. I mean we can blame the D, and to an extent it is their fault, but how many 3 and outs can a D recover from to start a game? When you put 0 points on the board in the first quarter, AND go 3 and out taking hardly any time off the clock and giving the other team more possessions, how long is a fragile D gonna stand up? I submit our D could be better than Indy\'s, but we put no pressure on the opposing offenses to hang with us cause ours is inept, so they look worse.

Brooks is definitely damages goods. He needs the chance to warm the pine elsewhere. Trade him for a draft pick and take a run at Brees, Garrard, or Mike McMahon and draft another qb in the later rounds. It\'s time for a new identity.

12-08-2004, 08:17 PM	#51
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks and Saints are losers Why did you dig for this thread? Because the team I have devoted so much time to during my lifetime has sunk to such a low level of ineptness. The best way for me to ventilate my frustration would be to shout from the rooftop at the top of my lungs how bad the Saints suck every time they have a game like last Sunday\'s. But since I can\'t, this is the next best thing. Any more questions...have I broken some rule that I am not aware of.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

12-08-2004, 08:22 PM	#52
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brooks and Saints are losers Can I ask a question without having the mod status dangled in front of me?

12-08-2004, 08:52 PM	#53
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks and Saints are losers Can I ask a question without having the mod status dangled in front of me? I was serious...I thought your job might be to weed out the negative people.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

12-08-2004, 09:02 PM	#54
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brooks and Saints are losers Nope, we don\'t put any restrictions on that sorta thing here, unlike other boards. Trust me, the people that cross the line find out real quick- but there are so few rules, it makes my job fairly easy.

12-09-2004, 09:39 AM	#55
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	Brooks and Saints are losers Nope, we don\'t put any restrictions on that sorta thing here, unlike other boards. Trust me, the people that cross the line find out real quick- but there are so few rules, it makes my job fairly easy. And that\'s why I like this board. I just had a reply banned because I stated a negative opinion about Fumbles on SR.com. This seems to be one of the more intellectual football boards that I have come across. Personally, I have followed the Saints since their inception, and actually saw the first organized practices of the team back in 67. That makes me suffer from OFS (Old Fart Syndrome), but every year I back this team to the hilt. I was elated when Benson hired Big Mule and Hazlett. I thought that Big Mule was more of a football man than Bill Kuharich and would make more of an impact in the front office. It looked that way the first year, until Blake was hurt, and Hazlett fell in love with Fumbles and speed. He just forgot that with speed, you have to be able to play the game of football also. But, I digress. I enjoy this board because of the fact that people here actually think before they type, and disagree with both class and intelligence. The moderation is also quite rational. I am not afraid to make a negative post here for fear of getting banned or flamed. This ain\'t the case on the SR.com board. I also realize that many of you are much younger than I and are participants in something foreign to me called Fantasy Football. It appears that the love of Fumbles\' \"Stats\" comes from playing FF and not following what goes on at the game. I disagree with this, because, having been a coach, I know that there are many intangibles in players and consequently a team, which play into making a winner. \"Great Stats\" don\'t win games. Johnny Unitas was a legend, but he played on a team that usually didn\'t win in Baltimore. Same was true for Bobby Lane, a great coach, sorry human being, with \"great stats\" and a dog of a team in Pittsburg. \"Great Stats\" are for people who don\'t really understand the game of football. The only \"Great Stat\" that COUNTS is how many W\'s are in the column, period. I honestly don\'t believe that Fumbles can put the W\'s in the Saints, or any other team\'s column. To me he\'s damaged goods, fundamentally unsound, who tends to panic under pressure, and who is looking out for only himself. Montana was quiet, but forceful, because he didn\'t panic, and was fundamentally sound football wise. Farve, Marino, Kilmer, Hebert all had fire and used it to raise production of their teammates. Brooks has none of this. Therefore, we lose.
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

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

12-09-2004, 09:53 AM	#56
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Brooks and Saints are losers RDOX, I couldn\'t agree with you more. I have tried to argue that point also that wins are the biggest measure of a successful qb, and not how many tds and yards you can rack up once the game is decided. How many tds and yards you get when the game is still in doubt is what counts. I have heard the argument that we were in the Vikes game cause of Erin Brookovich, then I look at Minny\'s D and what Chad Hutchinson did to them for the Bears of all teams, and I think this kind of game from Brooks is more an abnormality than the norm. He can dominate weak defenses, but if you have a semblance of cohesion on your defensive unit, he won\'t show up until you are safely ahead by 21. I mean we can blame the D, and to an extent it is their fault, but how many 3 and outs can a D recover from to start a game? When you put 0 points on the board in the first quarter, AND go 3 and out taking hardly any time off the clock and giving the other team more possessions, how long is a fragile D gonna stand up? I submit our D could be better than Indy\'s, but we put no pressure on the opposing offenses to hang with us cause ours is inept, so they look worse. Brooks is definitely damages goods. He needs the chance to warm the pine elsewhere. Trade him for a draft pick and take a run at Brees, Garrard, or Mike McMahon and draft another qb in the later rounds. It\'s time for a new identity.