WhoDat

Uh, how about underhanded/backwards passes while under pressure? Does that count? LOL. Yeah - he\'s found new and exciting ways. Oh - and the fumbles are down but the INTs are up. TDs are down too I think. So is completion percentage.

As for cleaning house, that\'s exactly what we need - we just need it in the management/leadership category and not the player personnel area. We need better coaches and scouts. No question. That is the root of the problem. However, if there is one player who most embodies this coaching staff, who is it? One guy who is as inconsistent, shows flashes of brilliance followed by flashes of retardation, who never seems to \"get it\", who is a \"leader\" with no followers... who is that guy? It\'s AB. AB is the one player who most represents the Haslett regime and he should go with them IMO.

Now, I\'m not dumb enough to suggest that we simply get rid of him regardless and see what happens. There needs to be a plan. And it needs to fit with other plans like DT, MLB, o-line, WR, etc., but QB SHOULD be in there and an AB exit strategy needs to be formed when the new staff comes in. That\'s my opinion anyway.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

JKool

I didn\'t catch you napping, did I?

On your other point, CB should also figure in our plans. What would you say is the relative position of a QB replacement in terms of these others? Here\'s my list:

1. DT
2. MLB
3. SLB
4. OT
5. CB
6. OT
7. SS
8. QB
9. OG
10. WR

The only way that QB moves up the chart IMO is if our current QB costs too much for us to fill the first 4 spots with top flight FAs.

Thus, my offseason plan looks like this:
Use FA to get slots 1-4 and possibly 5 and 6. Draft for 5-8. Pick up extra FAs as possible for 9 and 10. Of course, that is very rough, since it will change based on targets of opportunity and how high our draft position is.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

dberce1

B-39, B-39....Next number, O-27....

Oops, sorry, that\'s not the lottery, that\'s bingo.

[Edited on 2/12/2004 by dberce1]

WhoDat

J - it depends... what do you mean by costs too much? With our cap situation and the number of players we could cut to make room, I don\'t think signing anyone would be impossible for this team. That said, if you assume Howard will not return with a franchise tag, I believe AB becomes the highest paid Saint next season, pending a Deuce contract extension. Does that seem smart to you?

JKool

Smart? I don\'t know.

However, I don\'t mind paying him if no one else is available to be a reasonable (outlined within this thread) replacement.

I guess, I just don\'t hate the guy as much as others do. When I look around the league, I see maybe 5 to 8 guys I would definitely take over him and another 2 to 6 that I would be indifferent toward. When I look at the QB situation on other teams, I start thinking we don\'t have it so bad.

His pay is only relevant to me if it prevents us from doing some of the other things we need to do - as noted in both your post and mine above. I suppose some people feel some sort of moral outrage with respect to his pay as compared to his performance; I don\'t - not yet anyway. Sure, he\'s overpaid, but if that isn\'t hurting our ability to get what we need, what is the problem?

Other than how people seem to talk about it, I don\'t think too many of us are in disagreement about Brooks. He\'s not great, he\'s got a handful of very serious drawbacks, but its not like he\'s not cut out to be an NFL starter - he\'ll just never be great. I can live with that. There are many not great QBs who\'ve taken their teams to the SB.

Thus, the only two arguments that I still consider relevant to my opinion on whether Brooks should go are these:
(1) He costs enough to prevent our having a good team next year and maybe the year after (since I am in favor of replacing him relatively soon), and
(2) We need a change of identity, and Brooks is the most obvioius way to change this identity.

While I\'m not convinced of either yet, I do think those sound reasonable - there are many arguments that have been offered (such as \"he smiles too much\") that I just don\'t think matter compared to our having a decent team.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintswhodi

Let\'s look at this Kool.

Definites I would take over Brooks: Culpepper, McNabb, Favre, Manning, Brady, McNair, Leftwich, Carr, Vick, Brees, Pennington. That\'s 11.

Quarterbacks I would take looks at over Brooks: Eli(hometown boy), Roethlisberger, David Garrard, Mike McMahon, Bulger, Palmer, Hasselbeck. That\'s 7.

Quarterbacks I would take a chance on being better than Brooks: Rivers, Leinart, Rogers, and Losman. That\'s 4.

That\'s 21 current and potential starting NFL qbs that I feel would do a better job, may do a better job, or has the potential to do a better job. I am sure I missed more. Doesn\'t look as good to me. It\'s all just opinion though and what you like in a qb.

JKool

Since all we\'re doing is giving opinions now, here\'s my list:

Take over Brooks today:
Culpepper, McNabb, Brady, P. Manning, Roethlisberger, Vick, and Carr.

Indifferent with respect to Brooks today:
Bulger, Leftwich, Plummer, Pennington, and Brees.

Guys worth considering but come with huge problems (like being freakin\' old or almost totally unproven):
Farve, McNair, Delhomme, Palmer, Hasselbeck, and Green.

It is my opinion that gambling on new \"talent\" is not the way to go (unless you\'re going to keep Brooks as a backup), but I would guess that you and I differ on that - especially in light of the fact that you value the draft much more highly than I do. The draft is all well and good, but the way to get solid players is FA IMHO.

At any rate, just as a matter of opinion, it seems to me that at most 18 guys are either better or near as good as the guy we\'ve got given the evidence we actually have (namely guys who\'ve played enough to form an opinion of their NFL caliber play).

I didn\'t consider this here, but if I was going to trade right now, I\'d consider the mobility, toughness, and age of the guy I selected very carefully, since he\'ll be running for his life before the end of the first 10 minutes of play. At first blush, it seems that Brooks has handled the pounding fairly well.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

shadowdrinker_x

You\'re right..He has handled the pounding very well..Especially when you consider he had surgery on his shoulder in the off season...

And He should be kept around..to continue to take the pounding..while the team is rebuilt...and, If he ends up getting hurt..you then let your back up go in...and they will sign someone from somewhere to back him up..they have to..

The more I sit on the situation..the more I am prone to look even beyond next year...To see the results of what is going to be taking place...I\'m not ready to call next year a bust by any means..but..If it takes two or three more years to get a guy in here who can win consitently..I have no problem letting Brooks stay till then

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by shadowdrinker_x]

WhoDat

How many people would like to still have Delhomme and/or O\'Sullivan right now?

Imagine that QB battle! Brooks, Delhomme, Bouman, O\'Sullivan.

PS - Word out of GB is that Grady Jackson might be the Packers\' MVP on defense. Having him in completely changes the look of the D and has helped improve their run defense dramitically! LOL

Still glad we got rid of that cancer and spent those two first rounders on Johnathan \"Buffet Line\" Sullivan.

Danno

Yeah, he comes into camp at 380 lbs, gets hurt (I wonder why) and misses the 1st 6 games.
He\'s played 5 games and is averaging a whopping 2 tackles per game.
Yea, I\'d love to have him back here. Man I wish we could get that kinda production. LOL.

He\'s an excellent part-time player, and a complete slacker.