Brooks

SaintFanInATLHELL · 11-26-2004, 01:14 AM

The thing that kills me is there are still people here defending this clown of a QB. Pssssssssttt.....people are laughing, now. Face it, it just isn\'t working. It\'s over. Buh-bye, AB.

I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see:

1. Someone the Saints can afford.
2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005.
3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers.
4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks.
5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making.

College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup?

OK Mr. GM, Brooks has left the building along with Haslett. Now what?

SFIAH

mutineer10 · 11-26-2004, 01:36 AM

I suppose, it may be time to revisit the whole \"leadership\" thing, so I\'ll ask you this - if a guy smiles or sulks, how does that affect his play? Does it make him throw worse? Does it make him trip over the 50 yard line? Does it make him unable to tackle? I mean really what \"football\" effect does this have on him? (Hint: most people will say that it effects those around him, but NOT him. Rebutal: NFL players are professionals who should worry about what they are doing and not whether some dumbass at or near the sideline - including QBs, fans, etc. - is similing.)

JKool, I wasn\'t jumping on ya\' with the AB/Favre thing, just getting my two cents in. I think we mostly agree, and we\'ve all seen enough circular arguments on here to want to avoid another one.

I\'m with whodi on the \"leadership\" question, as I\'ve said before. Sure, NFL players are professionals and shouldn\'t worry about some idiot grinning away his embarrassments on the sidelines ... but should that idiot be grinning away his failures to the ultimate detriment of the entire team? :casstet:

You can see where this goes ... nowhere. Again, we mostly agree, no circular argument required.

I don\'t believe AB is the future of the Saints, nor do I believe he wishes to be, and I think most of us are peaches and cream about that. But it\'s true the cost of getting rid of him, \"bigger fish to fry,\" etc. remains perfectly valid. Might as well keep him around for now and hope a new coach can do something with him (although, if some team is willing to pick up the payments on him, I wouldn\'t complain). It\'d be insane to get rid of AB now, with only Bouman to step in. But if we could sign someone else, I don\'t claim to know WHO, I wouldn\'t cry for his departure (don\'t think AB would, either).

Aside, my remark about \"Favre not smiling\" has caught some flak. I never painted Favre as an emotionless robot, in fact he\'s very emotional. I fully remember him grinning at Michael Strahan a few years ago, a grin that sparked the controversy regarding the sack record (did Favre take a fall?). What I DON\'T remember is Favre grinning when his team is losing and he\'s the one who put them there. Forgive my lack of complete and total detail...

[Edited on 26/11/2004 by mutineer10]

SaintFanInATLHELL · 11-26-2004, 01:42 AM

All this talk about \"if the defense was better, we\'d win\" is driving me nuts. Look, the Saints had the ball just as many times as the Broncos did. Yet the offense was only able to muster up 13 points. If that doesn\'t convince some of you the offense-which starts with the QB-isn\'t problematic, nothing will.

Actually it helps illustrate the point. You have a team whose defense in solidly in the top 10 again a team whose defense is virtually last in all categories.

Good defenses stop decent offenses. The Saints on occasion have decent offense. But the defense is TERRIBLE! AWFUL! HIDEOUS!

There doesn\'t need to be any discussion about the offense at all until the defense is fixed.

I see what you want: The Indianapolis Colts. Their offense is so together at this point that it\'s a defensive weapon. When your offense is averaging 34 points a game, it doesn\'t really matter if your defense is terrible... in the regular season.

But note that every time that Indy went up against a decent defense, the game became dicey.

All that many are saying is that right now it doen\'t matter if Brooks is broken or not. It doesn\'t matter if the offense is broken or not. The defense is so obviously broken, that there should be no other discussion.

I reiterate what I said before. The only people who think Brooks is worth a damn are some of the Saints fans and the coaching staff. If Brooks were available tomorrow to be signed as a starting QB, no teams would be interested. That\'s reality. The negatives regarding AB outweigh the positives. The rest of the football world understands this.

Let\'s face it...the QB with the pretty long ball and the slow delivery just isn\'t cutting it. People can say \"yeah, but!\" till they\'re blue in the face but the fact that no other team wants your QB is a pretty good indicator that he\'s never gonna get the job done.

Brooks is no Plunkett. He\'s not gonna get any better than he is right now. The sooner the Saints deal with it the sooner they\'ll be on the road to recovery.

Who do you replace him with? And how does dealing him fix the terrible, terrible defense?

SFIAH

BrooksMustGo · 11-26-2004, 09:13 AM

I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see:

1. Someone the Saints can afford.
2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005.
3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers.
4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks.
5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making.

College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup?

I agree that the major problem facing this team is defense. We can\'t expect to give up 500+ yards a game and expect to win. We can\'t rank dead last and expect to win, regardless of who is playing QB.

The problem with Brooks as I see it is that he can\'t carry a team on his own and we\'re paying him like he can. We just can\'t afford to keep him. By your question I\'m not sure what \"reasonable numbers\" would be, but here\'s my take on the situation.

Next year we are going to lose some key players anyway because of the cap.

With Will Smith here, I don\'t see us franchising Howard again and he can make a big payday elsewhere. I don\'t see him staying.

Horn is scheduled to make 3.8 million next year. If he doesn\'t restructure, I don\'t see us keeping him. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=23954

If nflpa.org is right Bellamy is in a contract year.

Pathon is scheduled to make 2.5 million in the last year of his contract. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=25955

Gandy is going to go up the 4.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=20693

Ambrose\'s number doubles to 1.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=19131

Riley is in the last year of his deal.

Brooks\' number are going to dramatically increase over the final 3 years of his deal.
2004 325 million
2005 5.5 million
2006 625 million
2007 725 million
http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=27122

Given the productive guys we stand to lose like Horn, Bellamy and Howard. And the guys we are paying too much now like Ambrose and Gandy. We need to actually do something in free agency this year. We don\'t have enough draft picks to fill the holes we are going to have.

If we can deal Brooks now, before his cap numbers get totally out of hand, then maybe we could pick up a quality defensive player and a draft pick or two, maybe more if we find a team desperate enough.

If we lose Joe, I don\'t think the replacement QB is the most pressing need. I\'d rather pick up a quality LT by trade or free agency or if an elite draft prospect emerges, move Gandy to RT if we keep him. But at any rate, rebuild a run blocking o-line and depend on deuce. Then we could pick up 2-3 QB\'s in the offseason and run a play action passing game just to mix it up a bit. If we basically try to mimic what the Steelers are doing this year, we can pick up a talented young QB that we won\'t be expecting to win games by himself. By dealing Brooks and picking up a young LB or DT and drafting a quality LB, then maybe we can be stingier against the run.

All that said, I\'d like to see us go get someone like Mike McMahon from Detroit, David Garrard from Jax or Matt Schaub from the Falcons. I haven\'t really seen any college players that I\'d waste a 1st day pick on given our other needs at defense and o-line. But I think if we could manage to pick up 1-2 of those three guys and pick a rookie on the second day, then we should be in good enough shape to get a wild card berth.

My basic idea is not to \"replace\" Brooks as much as to change the focus of our offense to Deuce. As bad as open field tackling has been over the past few years, we should do really well if we had a run to pass ration of 65%-35% provided we had tackles to make that happen.

Saint_LB · 11-26-2004, 10:29 AM

Who do you replace him with? And how does dealing him fix the terrible, terrible defense?

SFIAH [/quote:0c2bcf2ee4]

I don\'t understand your logic. Your whole thing is since we don\'t have anything better let\'s just stick with him. If I were the GM of the Saints, I would definitely, without hesitation, give you an answer. Since I am not, it is pointless...because basically I would just be giving you an example of who would be on my wish list. But if I were GM of the Saints I would feel like it was my job to find someone else, and I would use whatever resources I have, understanding all of the ramifications involved, and it would be something more than just someone making a wish. I don\'t have to be a GM to see that something has to be done...and, if someone who is a GM can\'t see it, then our organization is in deep pooh-pooh.

shadowdrinker_x · 11-26-2004, 12:36 PM

Aaron Brooks is a good Qb..If he has time every play..He just isn\'t the same player from a few years back..

And the question is..What really needs to be done?...

Do you..Replace brooks..sign a big name guy..and leave the same O-Line?..Or..Kepp Brooks..Replace a few spots on the O- Line..and hope for the best..Because you Can\'t have both...While trying to replace a comatose Defense with quality football players..We just aren\'t healthy enough on the dollar to do it..Pick your Poison i guess is what I\'m trying to say...

SaintFanInATLHELL · 11-26-2004, 01:27 PM

Good. A Capologist. Finally some interesting conversation...

I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see:

1. Someone the Saints can afford.
2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005.
3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers.
4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks.
5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making.

College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup?

I agree that the major problem facing this team is defense. We can\'t expect to give up 500+ yards a game and expect to win. We can\'t rank dead last and expect to win, regardless of who is playing QB.

So we\'re all on the same page with that.

The problem with Brooks as I see it is that he can\'t carry a team on his own and we\'re paying him like he can. We just can\'t afford to keep him. By your question I\'m not sure what \"reasonable numbers\" would be, but here\'s my take on the situation.

From the looks of your numbers below, Brooks\' salary gets out of hand after this year. So you may be right, he may need to be dealt after this season simply to give another team a chance to try to work out a new deal. In any case the Saints will cut him or force him to renegotiate before having to pay him $5.5 mil in 2005.

Next year we are going to lose some key players anyway because of the cap.

With Will Smith here, I don\'t see us franchising Howard again and he can make a big payday elsewhere. I don\'t see him staying.

Horn is scheduled to make 3.8 million next year. If he doesn\'t restructure, I don\'t see us keeping him. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=23954

Total agreement on both of those. Joe will have to take the signing bonus on a 4 year deal with a ballon at the end that he knows he\'ll never see.

If nflpa.org is right Bellamy is in a contract year.

Not a problem. Mitchell is ready and we can go ahead and draft the next safety in the 2nd or early 3rd rounds next year.

Pathon is scheduled to make 2.5 million in the last year of his contract. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=25955

Ouch! Pathon has had a good enough year that he could get decent money somewhere else. Also the Saints are not going to commit another $1 mil to Paython. Depending on the off season changes, Paython may restructure. But if not, then he\'s gone.

We\'re going to be in trouble at the WR position next year. I can smell it.

Gandy is going to go up the 4.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=20693

Frankly that\'s a no brainer to me. Ditch him. I\'d consider even using my #1 draft pick to get the best college tackle in the country. Anyone like Gallery around?

Ambrose\'s number doubles to 1.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=19131

Bye-Bye.

Riley is in the last year of his deal.

There are miracles!

Brooks\' number are going to dramatically increase over the final 3 years of his deal.
2004 325 million
2005 5.5 million
2006 6.25 million
2007 7.25 million
http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=27122

I added the decimal points. So tthis offseason is the renegotiation point. Brooks probably doesn\'t deserve that last $19 million. He\'d have to renegotiate or try to find another team that\'s willing to resign him to the big money.

Given the productive guys we stand to lose like Horn, Bellamy and Howard. And the guys we are paying too much now like Ambrose and Gandy. We need to actually do something in free agency this year. We don\'t have enough draft picks to fill the holes we are going to have.

And we haven\'t even started talking about the biggest need: Linebackers.

If we can deal Brooks now, before his cap numbers get totally out of hand, then maybe we could pick up a quality defensive player and a draft pick or two, maybe more if we find a team desperate enough.

That\'s an excellent argument. Logical and well thought out. It\'s the right reason to consider dealing Brooks.

If we lose Joe, I don\'t think the replacement QB is the most pressing need. I\'d rather pick up a quality LT by trade or free agency or if an elite draft prospect emerges, move Gandy to RT if we keep him. But at any rate, rebuild a run blocking o-line and depend on deuce. Then we could pick up 2-3 QB\'s in the offseason and run a play action passing game just to mix it up a bit. If we basically try to mimic what the Steelers are doing this year, we can pick up a talented young QB that we won\'t be expecting to win games by himself. By dealing Brooks and picking up a young LB or DT and drafting a quality LB, then maybe we can be stingier against the run.

And shoring up the defense is the #1 priority.

I thought the $5.5 mil was to be paid in 2006, not 2005. Brooks hasn\'t shown that he\'s worth that money. And he\'s not going to want to renegotiate. So Loomis had better be talking to the likes of the Bears, or even better the Cards. I\'ll bet money that Denny and his staff could turn Brooks into a top flight QB.

All that said, I\'d like to see us go get someone like Mike McMahon from Detroit, David Garrard from Jax or Matt Schaub from the Falcons. I haven\'t really seen any college players that I\'d waste a 1st day pick on given our other needs at defense and o-line. But I think if we could manage to pick up 1-2 of those three guys and pick a rookie on the second day, then we should be in good enough shape to get a wild card berth.

Great logic. And it\'s the first unemotional argument for getting rid of Brooks after this season that I\'ve seen.

BTW what in the heck are we going trade to get one of these young second stringers?

My basic idea is not to \"replace\" Brooks as much as to change the focus of our offense to Deuce. As bad as open field tackling has been over the past few years, we should do really well if we had a run to pass ration of 65%-35% provided we had tackles to make that happen.

You still need balance. You still need a QB that can make the throws, and make the right decisions. Most importantly you need a coaching staff that can instill the right decision making process into the team, and make both the right calls, and more importantly the right adjustments as the game proceeds. Our current coaching staff gets an \'F\' in all of these categories.

It\'s Brooks\' base salary was still on the relative cheap (southside of $4 mil) I\'d say keep him another year and instill those traits into him. It would make him a better QB and would make him better trade bait after 2005. It could even make him good enough to justify paying him that final $19 mil or some part of it.

However as it currently stands, he will, and should become a cap casualty. That\'s a justification for getting rid of players that makes sense. That\'s the way the cap part of the game works: Huge signing bonus spread out over the life of the contract; non guaranteed salary that balloons at the end of the contract; After June 1st cut or contract restructure to minimize the cap hit when the big salary kicks in. I understand that. We cannot afford to pay Brooks $5.5 mil next year. He won\'t take a pay cut most likely. So after June 1st he\'ll most likely be gone.

Does anyone know if there is a March 1st roster bonus for him? That may even make the decision cycle faster.

I can live with a cap casualty. That\'s the way the NFL works.

SFIAH

JKool · 11-26-2004, 03:54 PM

Well, I leave my desk for a day and you guys get busy here.

First, SFIAH, thanks for sticking up for the view while I was away. It seems that we agree that BMG has a decent argument. I\'m not convinced just yet, but I\'m heading that way; what do you think?

Second, Whodi, I totally disagree. Brooks and Manning can be compared on the grounds that they are QBs. This is very uninformative, though. Any one who said they cannot be compared at all would simply be wrong. You can compare Barry Sanders and Jerome Bettis on their cut back ability, no? Or is that a comparison that is just impossible? I think not; Barry\'s cut back ability is orders of magnitude bigger than Bettis\' (no offense to the Bus, but his ability to turn on a dime is just not there). The simple fact of the matter is, there are lots of ways Brooks and Farve can be compared (as you point out), and Brooks simply does much, much, much worse on some dimensions (a point I happily conceded even when I brought it up - if you look back, you\'ll see that). To say that there is no comparison possible is just plain ridiculous; to say that Brooks is worse (if you say it is an insult to Farve to compare them) IS to compare them!!! Thus, I repeat: I did not say that Brooks and Farve are equally good - I dare you to find such a statement. What I said is that teams with QBs who make bonehead mistakes can win, look at Farve and GB.

In fact, it appears to me that you don\'t even need to compare Brooks and Farve at all to make my point. If teams can win with QBs, like Farve, who make mistakes, then I don\'t see why anyone can say this: our team can\'t win because our QB makes bonehead mistakes. This statement is not necessarily true - our team can\'t win because our QB makes mistakes - becuase there is a team that can win when their QB makes mistakes.

Just take the Farve/Brooks comparison out if it if you find it objectionable (and I don\'t) and my point will stand. There is a putative counter-example to the claim people have been making - namely that a team can\'t win if their QB does dumb shiznit - namely Farve and GB.

Third, mutineer. I do agree that we are mostly in agreement. What do you think of the point I just made to Whodi?

Also, I have to retract that GB\'s defense is good. Fine point. GB still wins games when their QB has a caniption.

[Edited on 26/11/2004 by JKool]

JKool · 11-26-2004, 03:56 PM

LB,

I\'m not sure what your point is still.

Earlier in this thread, you said that you\'d be happy with Bouman. If that is your position, then why are you suggesting that it is up to the GM to find a replacement - you\'ve already said that Bouman will do for this season.

Are you merely suggesting that SFIAH\'s question applies only to next season?

You do agree that the defense is of primary import, right?

saintswhodi · 11-26-2004, 06:00 PM

Hey Kool, point taken. But here is where I am going. A team CAN win when a qb makes mistakes, I agree. But a team CAN NOT win if their qbs mistakes lead directly to points for the other team. Going back to Favre and AB, how many times have you seen Favre have a turnover that leads DIRECTLY to points for the other team? Rarely. If Favre has a turnover it is cause he is usually trying to bring his team back as their D is bad this year. But also, look at the throws he does make. Favre has the ability to right his mistakes while AB just compunds his with more mistakes. Favre rarely has turnovers in the red zone while AB has numerous. These are the mistakes a team CAN NOT overcome and this the difference between Favre\'s and AB\'s. So I still have to disagree.

Also, it may just be a personal opinion of mine thta Brooks should not even be able to be compared with the likes of MAnning anf Favre and I will freely admit that. That doesn\'t negate your ability to do so, it is just I have a differing opinion about it. If someone else is willing to do that though, and you have made your stance very clear in recognizing the mistakes, I have no prob with arguing the points.

11-26-2004, 01:14 AM	#91
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Brooks The thing that kills me is there are still people here defending this clown of a QB. Pssssssssttt.....people are laughing, now. Face it, it just isn\'t working. It\'s over. Buh-bye, AB. I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see: 1. Someone the Saints can afford. 2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005. 3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers. 4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks. 5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making. College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup? OK Mr. GM, Brooks has left the building along with Haslett. Now what? SFIAH

11-26-2004, 01:36 AM	#92
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Brooks I suppose, it may be time to revisit the whole \"leadership\" thing, so I\'ll ask you this - if a guy smiles or sulks, how does that affect his play? Does it make him throw worse? Does it make him trip over the 50 yard line? Does it make him unable to tackle? I mean really what \"football\" effect does this have on him? (Hint: most people will say that it effects those around him, but NOT him. Rebutal: NFL players are professionals who should worry about what they are doing and not whether some dumbass at or near the sideline - including QBs, fans, etc. - is similing.) JKool, I wasn\'t jumping on ya\' with the AB/Favre thing, just getting my two cents in. I think we mostly agree, and we\'ve all seen enough circular arguments on here to want to avoid another one. I\'m with whodi on the \"leadership\" question, as I\'ve said before. Sure, NFL players are professionals and shouldn\'t worry about some idiot grinning away his embarrassments on the sidelines ... but should that idiot be grinning away his failures to the ultimate detriment of the entire team? :casstet: You can see where this goes ... nowhere. Again, we mostly agree, no circular argument required. I don\'t believe AB is the future of the Saints, nor do I believe he wishes to be, and I think most of us are peaches and cream about that. But it\'s true the cost of getting rid of him, \"bigger fish to fry,\" etc. remains perfectly valid. Might as well keep him around for now and hope a new coach can do something with him (although, if some team is willing to pick up the payments on him, I wouldn\'t complain). It\'d be insane to get rid of AB now, with only Bouman to step in. But if we could sign someone else, I don\'t claim to know WHO, I wouldn\'t cry for his departure (don\'t think AB would, either). Aside, my remark about \"Favre not smiling\" has caught some flak. I never painted Favre as an emotionless robot, in fact he\'s very emotional. I fully remember him grinning at Michael Strahan a few years ago, a grin that sparked the controversy regarding the sack record (did Favre take a fall?). What I DON\'T remember is Favre grinning when his team is losing and he\'s the one who put them there. Forgive my lack of complete and total detail... [Edited on 26/11/2004 by mutineer10]

11-26-2004, 01:42 AM	#93
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Brooks All this talk about \"if the defense was better, we\'d win\" is driving me nuts. Look, the Saints had the ball just as many times as the Broncos did. Yet the offense was only able to muster up 13 points. If that doesn\'t convince some of you the offense-which starts with the QB-isn\'t problematic, nothing will. Actually it helps illustrate the point. You have a team whose defense in solidly in the top 10 again a team whose defense is virtually last in all categories. Good defenses stop decent offenses. The Saints on occasion have decent offense. But the defense is TERRIBLE! AWFUL! HIDEOUS! There doesn\'t need to be any discussion about the offense at all until the defense is fixed. I see what you want: The Indianapolis Colts. Their offense is so together at this point that it\'s a defensive weapon. When your offense is averaging 34 points a game, it doesn\'t really matter if your defense is terrible... in the regular season. But note that every time that Indy went up against a decent defense, the game became dicey. All that many are saying is that right now it doen\'t matter if Brooks is broken or not. It doesn\'t matter if the offense is broken or not. The defense is so obviously broken, that there should be no other discussion. I reiterate what I said before. The only people who think Brooks is worth a damn are some of the Saints fans and the coaching staff. If Brooks were available tomorrow to be signed as a starting QB, no teams would be interested. That\'s reality. The negatives regarding AB outweigh the positives. The rest of the football world understands this. Let\'s face it...the QB with the pretty long ball and the slow delivery just isn\'t cutting it. People can say \"yeah, but!\" till they\'re blue in the face but the fact that no other team wants your QB is a pretty good indicator that he\'s never gonna get the job done. Brooks is no Plunkett. He\'s not gonna get any better than he is right now. The sooner the Saints deal with it the sooner they\'ll be on the road to recovery. Who do you replace him with? And how does dealing him fix the terrible, terrible defense? SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

11-26-2004, 09:13 AM	#94
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see: 1. Someone the Saints can afford. 2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005. 3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers. 4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks. 5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making. College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup? I agree that the major problem facing this team is defense. We can\'t expect to give up 500+ yards a game and expect to win. We can\'t rank dead last and expect to win, regardless of who is playing QB. The problem with Brooks as I see it is that he can\'t carry a team on his own and we\'re paying him like he can. We just can\'t afford to keep him. By your question I\'m not sure what \"reasonable numbers\" would be, but here\'s my take on the situation. Next year we are going to lose some key players anyway because of the cap. With Will Smith here, I don\'t see us franchising Howard again and he can make a big payday elsewhere. I don\'t see him staying. Horn is scheduled to make 3.8 million next year. If he doesn\'t restructure, I don\'t see us keeping him. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=23954 If nflpa.org is right Bellamy is in a contract year. Pathon is scheduled to make 2.5 million in the last year of his contract. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=25955 Gandy is going to go up the 4.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=20693 Ambrose\'s number doubles to 1.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=19131 Riley is in the last year of his deal. Brooks\' number are going to dramatically increase over the final 3 years of his deal. 2004 325 million 2005 5.5 million 2006 625 million 2007 725 million http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=27122 Given the productive guys we stand to lose like Horn, Bellamy and Howard. And the guys we are paying too much now like Ambrose and Gandy. We need to actually do something in free agency this year. We don\'t have enough draft picks to fill the holes we are going to have. If we can deal Brooks now, before his cap numbers get totally out of hand, then maybe we could pick up a quality defensive player and a draft pick or two, maybe more if we find a team desperate enough. If we lose Joe, I don\'t think the replacement QB is the most pressing need. I\'d rather pick up a quality LT by trade or free agency or if an elite draft prospect emerges, move Gandy to RT if we keep him. But at any rate, rebuild a run blocking o-line and depend on deuce. Then we could pick up 2-3 QB\'s in the offseason and run a play action passing game just to mix it up a bit. If we basically try to mimic what the Steelers are doing this year, we can pick up a talented young QB that we won\'t be expecting to win games by himself. By dealing Brooks and picking up a young LB or DT and drafting a quality LB, then maybe we can be stingier against the run. All that said, I\'d like to see us go get someone like Mike McMahon from Detroit, David Garrard from Jax or Matt Schaub from the Falcons. I haven\'t really seen any college players that I\'d waste a 1st day pick on given our other needs at defense and o-line. But I think if we could manage to pick up 1-2 of those three guys and pick a rookie on the second day, then we should be in good enough shape to get a wild card berth. My basic idea is not to \"replace\" Brooks as much as to change the focus of our offense to Deuce. As bad as open field tackling has been over the past few years, we should do really well if we had a run to pass ration of 65%-35% provided we had tackles to make that happen.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

11-26-2004, 10:29 AM	#95
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks Who do you replace him with? And how does dealing him fix the terrible, terrible defense? SFIAH [/quote:0c2bcf2ee4] I don\'t understand your logic. Your whole thing is since we don\'t have anything better let\'s just stick with him. If I were the GM of the Saints, I would definitely, without hesitation, give you an answer. Since I am not, it is pointless...because basically I would just be giving you an example of who would be on my wish list. But if I were GM of the Saints I would feel like it was my job to find someone else, and I would use whatever resources I have, understanding all of the ramifications involved, and it would be something more than just someone making a wish. I don\'t have to be a GM to see that something has to be done...and, if someone who is a GM can\'t see it, then our organization is in deep pooh-pooh.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

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

11-26-2004, 12:36 PM	#96
shadowdrinker_x Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 218	Brooks Aaron Brooks is a good Qb..If he has time every play..He just isn\'t the same player from a few years back.. And the question is..What really needs to be done?... Do you..Replace brooks..sign a big name guy..and leave the same O-Line?..Or..Kepp Brooks..Replace a few spots on the O- Line..and hope for the best..Because you Can\'t have both...While trying to replace a comatose Defense with quality football players..We just aren\'t healthy enough on the dollar to do it..Pick your Poison i guess is what I\'m trying to say...

11-26-2004, 01:27 PM	#97
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Brooks Good. A Capologist. Finally some interesting conversation... I\'m still waiting to hear for a resonable replacement. The criteria I see: 1. Someone the Saints can afford. 2. Someone who is going to be available in 2005. 3. Someone who can put up reasonable numbers. 4. Someone who displays the leadership qualities the Brooks supposedly lacks. 5. Someone who fills the supposed gaps in Brooks\' skillset: reading defenses, touch, being able to make all the throws, decision making. College players? Free agents? Trade for a backup? I agree that the major problem facing this team is defense. We can\'t expect to give up 500+ yards a game and expect to win. We can\'t rank dead last and expect to win, regardless of who is playing QB. So we\'re all on the same page with that. The problem with Brooks as I see it is that he can\'t carry a team on his own and we\'re paying him like he can. We just can\'t afford to keep him. By your question I\'m not sure what \"reasonable numbers\" would be, but here\'s my take on the situation. From the looks of your numbers below, Brooks\' salary gets out of hand after this year. So you may be right, he may need to be dealt after this season simply to give another team a chance to try to work out a new deal. In any case the Saints will cut him or force him to renegotiate before having to pay him $5.5 mil in 2005. Next year we are going to lose some key players anyway because of the cap. With Will Smith here, I don\'t see us franchising Howard again and he can make a big payday elsewhere. I don\'t see him staying. Horn is scheduled to make 3.8 million next year. If he doesn\'t restructure, I don\'t see us keeping him. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=23954 Total agreement on both of those. Joe will have to take the signing bonus on a 4 year deal with a ballon at the end that he knows he\'ll never see. If nflpa.org is right Bellamy is in a contract year. Not a problem. Mitchell is ready and we can go ahead and draft the next safety in the 2nd or early 3rd rounds next year. Pathon is scheduled to make 2.5 million in the last year of his contract. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=25955 Ouch! Pathon has had a good enough year that he could get decent money somewhere else. Also the Saints are not going to commit another $1 mil to Paython. Depending on the off season changes, Paython may restructure. But if not, then he\'s gone. We\'re going to be in trouble at the WR position next year. I can smell it. Gandy is going to go up the 4.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=20693 Frankly that\'s a no brainer to me. Ditch him. I\'d consider even using my #1 draft pick to get the best college tackle in the country. Anyone like Gallery around? Ambrose\'s number doubles to 1.5 million. http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=19131 Bye-Bye. Riley is in the last year of his deal. There are miracles! Brooks\' number are going to dramatically increase over the final 3 years of his deal. 2004 325 million 2005 5.5 million 2006 6.25 million 2007 7.25 million http://www.nflpa.org/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=27122 I added the decimal points. So tthis offseason is the renegotiation point. Brooks probably doesn\'t deserve that last $19 million. He\'d have to renegotiate or try to find another team that\'s willing to resign him to the big money. Given the productive guys we stand to lose like Horn, Bellamy and Howard. And the guys we are paying too much now like Ambrose and Gandy. We need to actually do something in free agency this year. We don\'t have enough draft picks to fill the holes we are going to have. And we haven\'t even started talking about the biggest need: Linebackers. If we can deal Brooks now, before his cap numbers get totally out of hand, then maybe we could pick up a quality defensive player and a draft pick or two, maybe more if we find a team desperate enough. That\'s an excellent argument. Logical and well thought out. It\'s the right reason to consider dealing Brooks. If we lose Joe, I don\'t think the replacement QB is the most pressing need. I\'d rather pick up a quality LT by trade or free agency or if an elite draft prospect emerges, move Gandy to RT if we keep him. But at any rate, rebuild a run blocking o-line and depend on deuce. Then we could pick up 2-3 QB\'s in the offseason and run a play action passing game just to mix it up a bit. If we basically try to mimic what the Steelers are doing this year, we can pick up a talented young QB that we won\'t be expecting to win games by himself. By dealing Brooks and picking up a young LB or DT and drafting a quality LB, then maybe we can be stingier against the run. And shoring up the defense is the #1 priority. I thought the $5.5 mil was to be paid in 2006, not 2005. Brooks hasn\'t shown that he\'s worth that money. And he\'s not going to want to renegotiate. So Loomis had better be talking to the likes of the Bears, or even better the Cards. I\'ll bet money that Denny and his staff could turn Brooks into a top flight QB. All that said, I\'d like to see us go get someone like Mike McMahon from Detroit, David Garrard from Jax or Matt Schaub from the Falcons. I haven\'t really seen any college players that I\'d waste a 1st day pick on given our other needs at defense and o-line. But I think if we could manage to pick up 1-2 of those three guys and pick a rookie on the second day, then we should be in good enough shape to get a wild card berth. Great logic. And it\'s the first unemotional argument for getting rid of Brooks after this season that I\'ve seen. BTW what in the heck are we going trade to get one of these young second stringers? My basic idea is not to \"replace\" Brooks as much as to change the focus of our offense to Deuce. As bad as open field tackling has been over the past few years, we should do really well if we had a run to pass ration of 65%-35% provided we had tackles to make that happen. You still need balance. You still need a QB that can make the throws, and make the right decisions. Most importantly you need a coaching staff that can instill the right decision making process into the team, and make both the right calls, and more importantly the right adjustments as the game proceeds. Our current coaching staff gets an \'F\' in all of these categories. It\'s Brooks\' base salary was still on the relative cheap (southside of $4 mil) I\'d say keep him another year and instill those traits into him. It would make him a better QB and would make him better trade bait after 2005. It could even make him good enough to justify paying him that final $19 mil or some part of it. However as it currently stands, he will, and should become a cap casualty. That\'s a justification for getting rid of players that makes sense. That\'s the way the cap part of the game works: Huge signing bonus spread out over the life of the contract; non guaranteed salary that balloons at the end of the contract; After June 1st cut or contract restructure to minimize the cap hit when the big salary kicks in. I understand that. We cannot afford to pay Brooks $5.5 mil next year. He won\'t take a pay cut most likely. So after June 1st he\'ll most likely be gone. Does anyone know if there is a March 1st roster bonus for him? That may even make the decision cycle faster. I can live with a cap casualty. That\'s the way the NFL works. SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

11-26-2004, 03:54 PM	#98
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks Well, I leave my desk for a day and you guys get busy here. First, SFIAH, thanks for sticking up for the view while I was away. It seems that we agree that BMG has a decent argument. I\'m not convinced just yet, but I\'m heading that way; what do you think? Second, Whodi, I totally disagree. Brooks and Manning can be compared on the grounds that they are QBs. This is very uninformative, though. Any one who said they cannot be compared at all would simply be wrong. You can compare Barry Sanders and Jerome Bettis on their cut back ability, no? Or is that a comparison that is just impossible? I think not; Barry\'s cut back ability is orders of magnitude bigger than Bettis\' (no offense to the Bus, but his ability to turn on a dime is just not there). The simple fact of the matter is, there are lots of ways Brooks and Farve can be compared (as you point out), and Brooks simply does much, much, much worse on some dimensions (a point I happily conceded even when I brought it up - if you look back, you\'ll see that). To say that there is no comparison possible is just plain ridiculous; to say that Brooks is worse (if you say it is an insult to Farve to compare them) IS to compare them!!! Thus, I repeat: I did not say that Brooks and Farve are equally good - I dare you to find such a statement. What I said is that teams with QBs who make bonehead mistakes can win, look at Farve and GB. In fact, it appears to me that you don\'t even need to compare Brooks and Farve at all to make my point. If teams can win with QBs, like Farve, who make mistakes, then I don\'t see why anyone can say this: our team can\'t win because our QB makes bonehead mistakes. This statement is not necessarily true - our team can\'t win because our QB makes mistakes - becuase there is a team that can win when their QB makes mistakes. Just take the Farve/Brooks comparison out if it if you find it objectionable (and I don\'t) and my point will stand. There is a putative counter-example to the claim people have been making - namely that a team can\'t win if their QB does dumb shiznit - namely Farve and GB. Third, mutineer. I do agree that we are mostly in agreement. What do you think of the point I just made to Whodi? Also, I have to retract that GB\'s defense is good. Fine point. GB still wins games when their QB has a caniption. [Edited on 26/11/2004 by JKool]
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

11-26-2004, 03:56 PM	#99
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks LB, I\'m not sure what your point is still. Earlier in this thread, you said that you\'d be happy with Bouman. If that is your position, then why are you suggesting that it is up to the GM to find a replacement - you\'ve already said that Bouman will do for this season. Are you merely suggesting that SFIAH\'s question applies only to next season? You do agree that the defense is of primary import, right?

11-26-2004, 06:00 PM	#100
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Brooks Hey Kool, point taken. But here is where I am going. A team CAN win when a qb makes mistakes, I agree. But a team CAN NOT win if their qbs mistakes lead directly to points for the other team. Going back to Favre and AB, how many times have you seen Favre have a turnover that leads DIRECTLY to points for the other team? Rarely. If Favre has a turnover it is cause he is usually trying to bring his team back as their D is bad this year. But also, look at the throws he does make. Favre has the ability to right his mistakes while AB just compunds his with more mistakes. Favre rarely has turnovers in the red zone while AB has numerous. These are the mistakes a team CAN NOT overcome and this the difference between Favre\'s and AB\'s. So I still have to disagree. Also, it may just be a personal opinion of mine thta Brooks should not even be able to be compared with the likes of MAnning anf Favre and I will freely admit that. That doesn\'t negate your ability to do so, it is just I have a differing opinion about it. If someone else is willing to do that though, and you have made your stance very clear in recognizing the mistakes, I have no prob with arguing the points.