BrooksMustGo

I totally agree with this statement.

I disagree with this statement. Professional football teaches us nothing if it doesn\'t teach us this lesson: dozens of coaches have been more than willing to wreck their careers on ill advised decisions at the quarterback position.

We have to believe there is always a Mike Ditka who will give away the store to get a Heath Shuler, a Steve Spurrier who insists on getting Shane Matthews or a Bill Parcells who really thinks Vinnie Testaverde has enough left in the tank to be his starter. Now most often we see guys like Dan Reeves deciding that Tommy Maddux will replace John Elway or the Chargers deciding that Ryan Leaf is the solution to their quarterback woes.

After the beating that the Saints coaching staff has taken all year long, it is not surprising or even unlikely that some coach will say to himself, \"Self, Jim Haslett is a moron. Brooks has a cannon arm, can run, has thrown for tons of yards and the 3rd most TD\'s in the league in 4 years. I can build a team around him. Brooks problem has been coaching and I can fix that.\"

The truth is that even good coaches suffer from hubris. If we started shopping Brooks we could get some combination of a picks and players for him. I would think we would get at a bare minimum a 1st rounder for him, but truth be told I\'d rather have a proven LB, CB or DT and some combination of later picks for him. Right now, several teams in the league might get really excited about going 8-8 and Brooks might help get you to mediocrity.

We did waste a great deal of money on him.
Sullivan makes me sick and angry to contemplate. He should spend the rest of his time under contract as a takling dummy.

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

themightyduck

Wow, congratulations, B&G.net. Not only is this the biggest thread in the website\'s history, but it\'s the most ongoing and non-stopping debate I\'ve ever seen. :casstet:

4 years, people. We\'ve been debating Brooks for 4 years. What more is there to debate?! Is it because there are still people who think that Brooks is a top 5 or bottom 5 quarterback? Or do you all enjoy proving each other wrong? Is that it? Seems that way to me...

Look, you\'ve all overhyped this guy. He\'s an inconsistent starting QB. He\'s up and down. He was up at the start of the year and now he\'s down. THAT\'S ALL!

So can we please move on to more pressing issues?

When it comes to discussing Saints losses, Jack Daniels can be a great listener.

JKool

Tmd,

I\'ve been here a long time, and I thought this debate was worthwhile and new; furthermore, interesting things were said. In fact, there was almost no proving each other wrong or being proven right that I recall. There was interesting and mature discussion (mostly) of Brooks value relative to his cost, and not much of the usual \"he sucks\" \"he rules\" \"he sucks\" \"he rules\" that is typical of this discussion (though the \"he rules\" has been rare these days).

Also, it has not solely been about Brooks. The more pressing issues were being discussed in other threads. Do you think that it is unwise to discuss something just because there is something else more pressing, if both can be done at the same time?

In fact, in this thread itself many of the other pressing issues were discussed. If you merely look at the three posts ahead of yours, there is much there that is NOT about Brooks.

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

SaintFanInATLHELL

It won\'t happen. The debate continues because there\'s a continual call for the guy\'s head when it\'s clear that he\'s not the only problem, or even close to being the most pressing problem.

BMG expresses my sentiments on the subject exactly:
It seems to me that most Saints fan\'s frustration at the teams lack of performance is unfairly directed at Brooks. That\'s why the debate continues.

Every QB on a losing team goes through this. Fans believe that every QB can be Peyton Manning. But they don\'t see that Peyton Manning has three very capable receivers that all catch the ball, and a OC that can actually coach.

I\'m one of those supposed dummies that thinks that Brooks can be coached up. I believe that he doesn\'t need a lot of support to get things going.

And frankly I get tired of hearing the pages and pages and pages of bashing the guy here. Where no one talks about the fact that our receivers and TE put the ball on the carpet. Or that most of the 3 and outs in the 1st quarter are triggered by McCarthy almost always trying to run Deuce on 1st and 2nd down. And of course the Saints leading the league in false start penalties.

The doubters say that Brooks can\'t play in this league. His numbers says that he can. It doesn\'t matter when in the game that they come. The doubters says that Brooks can\'t win in this league. I have/will continue to say that winning is a team effort.

You have a guy that plays from behind each and every week. You have a guy whose defense has given up 20 or more points in virtually every game for nearly 2 straight years. A guy who played in a game this year where the defense gave up 605 yards and 5 TD passes, and yet only lost by 7 points. A guy that puts the ball right in the receivers hands at the end of the Atlanta game to win the game...I get tired of arguing, yet I feel that I must. Change the coaching staff. Change the defense. But until the Saints put Brooks, Deuce, and Horn in a position to win every week, leave them alone.

SFIAH

[Edited on 7/12/2004 by SaintFanInATLHELL]

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

WhoDat

If you don\'t like this thread you must have an a-g-e-n-d-a!!! LMAO.

RDOX

Saints Fan in ATL Hell!

I agree with most, if not all of your posts, because they appear to be well reasoned and precisely stated. I do disagree with you on Brooks. Here\'s why. I honestly believe that Aaron Brooks is a person who tends to be passive in personality. As a coach, one soon finds out that one can take an agressive player (Turley) and tone down that agression, but to try to bring agression up is a near impossiblity. Brooks, while highly talented, lacks agression and passion. He is fundamentally unsound in both his decisions on the field and in his delivery of a ball. Stallworth did drop the ball in the Atlanta game, but it was thrown 100 mph and behind him. Brooks has a cannon for an arm, but he fires the ball like a cannon on a 3 yard screen, making a catch damn near impossible.

There are IMO three reasons that Brooks is a failure:

1. He has no competition and is complacent because he knows that no one else is coming in. (That error falls directly on Hazlett, McCarthy, and LoomBoom)

2. He is fundamentally unsound in the short to mid range passing game. (That\'s all on him, because he tends to panic and seems to forget what to do.)

3. He does not have the \"intangibles\" that it takes to make his team members respect him and try to do their best for him. (That\'s his too, because of his docile, passive, laid back personality that does not make him a leader)

This team lacks leadership at all levels. Offense lacks leadership from the O-coordinator on down. Defense looks like McKenzie is trying to emerge as a leader and they have \"looked\" better, a D-Coordinator with a simpler scheme would help. Special teams are special. Freddie McAfee has stepped up and is \"Da Man.\" Al Everest is the best coach on the team, and does the best job of bringing out the fire in his players. I believe he should be promoted to either D-Coordinator or O-Coordinator. One thing for sure, under Al they wouldn\'t give up, they may get beat, but they sure as hell wouldn\'t give up.

That is the problem with this team right now, they\'ve given up on themselves, the coaches, and the season. They are going through the motions, period. Hazlett has saddled himself with two coordinators who can\'t coordinate, and a QB who doesn\'t have the emotional, intellectual, or football fundamentals abilty to compete at the NFL level. We see it, the players see it, and I believe that Hazlett sees it. He\'s outta here next season, not because he\'s a poor coach, but because he chose the wrong man to be his leader---Brooks.

Tobias-Reiper

...the debate continues because of a fluke playoff win in 2000...
...the debate continues because when the WRs make a catch that the have to reach against their bodies and twist and contort in the air, \"is all Brooks\"...
...the debate continues because Brooks \"wins games by himself\", yet losses are \"not his fault\"...
...the debate continues because of a certain \"perennial clipboard holder\" who would \"never start in the NFL\", because all he did was go against \"burger flippers\"... who reached the Superbowl.. (yeah, I know... it\'s the Panthers\' system, it\'s all Stephen Davis, it\'s the Panthers\' defense, he\'s just asked not to screw it up, etc...)

..so that\'s why the argument continues... someone says how awesome Brooks is, another points out a flaw...

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

JKool

SFIAH, nicely done... again.

TR, welcome to the board.

Who, hilarious!

DDOX, nice post. I would like to take issue with one point though, just as a point of interest: having competition does not seem to necessarily make one better, why do you think it would help Brooks? Here is my favorite example: Brett Farve. It has been a long time since Farve has had any \"real\" competition for his job, and he seems just fine. Thus, I suppose there is no general principle that competition for one\'s position would help. In fact Sully is also an example. There is plenty of competition for his job, but all that did was make him MORE complacent (when he lost it).

At any rate, one thing you might say is this: because of Brooks easy going nature, competition MIGHT help him - since it would give him some motivation. (Right, Farve just has a natural fire, so there is no need for competition to spark it.) I think I might agree with this. However, it is possible that Brooks is more like Sully here: if there were serious competition, he may just give up.

PS - The QB doesn\'t have to be the team leader. It would be nice if he were (and frequently he is), but I don\'t see that that is a necessity for a good team.

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

saintswhodi

One problem Kool, you have taken an elite qb again and used him as your example. Favre is not the norm of qbs. Who is Manning\'s comp since he has been in the league? Who was Elway\'s and Marino\'s? Nobody. These are elite qbs.

A better example for Brooks would be Drew Brees. Competition was brought in for him this year, and look what happened. Brees was never considered an elite qb, not even on AB\'s level. Yet it is clear the competition brought in to challenge him has brought out a Drew Brees that is drawing raves from everyone. If Brooks is so good, competition would make him raise his level like Brees did. Unfortunately, I feel he is more likely to wilt like Sullivan. That\'s why he needs to go. He either has no competition so he is complacent, or he gets some, wilts, and we all know he will cry and whine like a baby in the media if he is on the bench next year. He already cried and whined earlier this year and he is the starter with no competition.

JKool

Whodi,

Again, I have to disagree that no comparison can be made.

First, is being \"elite\" a thing that you\'re born with all or nothing, or is simply being really good at a bunch of things?

Second, isn\'t being \"elite\" a comparison to other people (namely the non-elite)?

Third, are all \"elite\" people exactly the same, or can they be compared among themselves and with others? I.e. isn\'t it possible to have \"elite\" talent in one area and not another - being \"elite\" simply meaning having enough \"elite\" skills or talents?

I just don\'t agree with this argument that you keep making that some people are just so special that no comparison at all can be made to them. I can\'t understand this - \"who is better Farve or Elway?\", there is an answer to that because they belong to the class \"elite\", but NOTHING can be said about this \"who is better Farve or Brooks?\" because one is elite and no comparison can be made, since the other isn\'t. Can\'t we just ask in what ways are they the same and what ways are they different? The only point I need Farve for is that some people thrive without competition - so there is no general rule that competition will help.

At any rate, my point was this: usually one of two things happens in the face of competition - (a) the person who faces competition folds, e.g. Sully, or (b) the person rises up, e.g. Drew Brees (I suppose). How do we know up front which group Brooks falls in? I\'m sure there is some evidence one way or the other, but I haven\'t heard it yet. Notice that there is no need for a reference to Farve to make the point - namely that there is no categorical principle that competition will help.

I guess, a priori, I agree with you that Brooks would probably wilt, but I\'m not sure I have any evidence for that.

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