Brooks
 

PS - LB, I disagree. :o

Brooks
 

Yes, I think we should have done that a long time ago...anybody would be welcome, as far as I\'m concerned. The guy is a loser.

BTW, I can\'t remember who posted about Favre not laughing after a goof, but, fact is, he has been seen doing it. But, given that he has won a ring and 3 MVP\'s, I will overlook that where he is concerned. When AB gets to that point, I will overlook his antics, also.

[Edited on 25/11/2004 by Saint_LB]

Brooks
 

Whodi,

As usual good points (as to you too mutineer). I have replied to mutineer as to the point of my comparison, and I think you\'ll see it too, Whodi, if you read it. It is a small point, not the one you guys keep saying doesn\'t make sense (SINCE I AGREE THAT BEYOND MY POINT THE COMPARISON IS USELESS - man, Whodat, I\'m starting to see why you stopped to say that you didn\'t think Brooks was the biggest problem, I\'m starting to feel like Danno too now).

If you read the argument I made, you\'ll see that I was NOT saying this:

Brooks = Farve

What I was saying was this:

I\'m just not sure at what point I stopped being clear that I don\'t think that they are comparable on any other feature than this feature, but apparently I did.

[Edited on 25/11/2004 by JKool]

Brooks
 

We can all see by now AB is not the future of this team. If you have a great QB and the rest of the team sucks you can still win games, by the QB not making mental mistakes.

AB should be leaving on the bus with Haz.

Brooks
 

Cherm,

You\'re alive! Good to see you pal.

Look I never said that AB was the future. What I said is we have bigger fish to fry in the short run. BMG made a good point about AB\'s cost, financially speaking, and I take that to be an interesting argument, but I haven\'t heard anything else of note (other than that Farve is better than Brooks, wow, that was a news flash, yikes, I\'m still reeling in shock...)

LB,

I just can\'t bring myself to think that Bouman would be better. I mean just look at how he performed in the preseason. At least AB can throw it past the third stringers - we have won a few games this year!

I also don\'t remember people saying that he doesn\'t laugh/smile; I do recall someone saying it doesn\'t happen as often this year, but I don\'t remember where I read that.

On a related point, I can see why people get frustrated with these really long thread. I\'ve now had to repeat myself several times. If you want to criticize the view, go back and read the other posts, that is where the view was presented.

Brooks
 

PS - GB has won two games this year in which Farve has made two to three serious mental errors. I saw these games.

Oh yeah, and


:dancingmonkey:

Brooks
 

What\'s up Kool, just saying some serious changes need to be made and that starts with the QB and Coach, the so-called leaders of the team. Bouman is not even a 2nd QB in my book and they should have cut him along time ago and kept JT. They should go out and sign a big time QB and Coach at all cost and let the rest of the team get in line.

Brooks
 

Cherm, waz up wit choo?

I agree that big changes need to be made, it is just my view that QB is somewhat further down the list than people have been saying. See the post by WhoDat earlier in this thread - I most agree with him on this.

Brooks
 

Kool, you brought Favre onto it. I think the fact that Favre was brought into it is automatically gonna make people poo-poo it all the way around. The feeling is, you can not compare the two in any way. You say people are misunderstanding because you said \"I wanna compare them on this one standard alone\" when there is more to that standard. Your argument was they both make bone-headed plays but Favre\'s are acceptable and they still win, and mine was Favre\'s are acceptable cause he holds himself accountable for his. How did that in any way veer from what you were saying?

Also, if you think the Packers have a good defense, I give you the Titans game and Colts game as examples. Their defense has been awful this year. Yet they still win cause of their qb. Hhhhmmm....

Back to the first point, you don\'t think that if someone said \"Brooks is like Peyton Manning in that they are both quarterbacks\" people wouldn\'t jump on them for making ANY comparison between Manning and Brooks? They would. You introduced the idea of comparing Favre to Brooks in any way, so naturally there are consequences as Brooks should not be compared to Favre in any way, good or bad.

[Edited on 25/11/2004 by saintswhodi]

Brooks
 

the fact brooks said \"i come here to do what is asked of me anf GET OUT OF HERE\" shows he doesnt give a sh@t.....

and buffalo has JP Losman, and he is going to be a great QB

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?

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

SFIAH

Brooks
 

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]

Brooks
 

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

SFIAH

Brooks
 

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.

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.

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...

Brooks
 

Good. A Capologist. Finally some interesting conversation...
So we\'re all on the same page with that. 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.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.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.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.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?Bye-Bye.There are miracles!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.And we haven\'t even started talking about the biggest need: Linebackers.That\'s an excellent argument. Logical and well thought out. It\'s the right reason to consider dealing Brooks.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.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?
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

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]

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?

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.

Brooks
 

Let me make it crystal clear...get rid of AB. A good GM would have already had somebody waiting in the wings...I mean, this situation has been festering for almost three years now.

I don\'t believe defense is the most important thing right now...because I think these guys are capable of playing better. You start the game with a three and out, and they start thinking, \"Oh boy, here we go again.\" Give the defense some hope that the offense is going to at least take care of the ball, and not continuously put them behind the eight ball. I still am amazed at the patience some of you guys have with AB. I wonder if there is some underlying reason why some people are so willing to give him so much slack. He makes plays on a regular basis that would be unbelievable even for a rookie, and he\'s been around long enough to have eliminated these mistakes, but, it appears that he is horrible at handling pressure and making good decisions...he has brain cramps, and I am fed up to my gills with them.

Brooks
 

I totally agree with you and I\'m frankly scared. The ugly truth is that we cannot go one more year without addressing the LB\'s, but we really need a Ted Washington type DT, and I\'d like to have a safety. Looks like we really need 4 starters on defense.

Where it gets really ugly is on offense where I think LT is quickly becoming a critical need. I wouldn\'t be angry with a new RT either. If we deal Brooks and have to find another starter, it looks like we\'ll have plenty of needs before we even address the WR problem.

That\'s partly why I\'d like to emphasize the run. If Joe and/or Pathon won\'t renegotiate, then we may have to just accept a more limited passing game.

I\'m not looking forward to trying to put 8 new starters innto this team. By the way, I\'m watching Derrick Johnson beat up A&M right now and that kid is a must-take in my mind. Keep losing guys.

If nflpa.org is right, I think McMahon is in his last year. The tough part with him is that I wouldn\'t be surprised if Mooch decides to keep him as the starter next year. To my thinking, McMahon is the better, cheaper prospect than Harrington anyway. I\'d really like McMahon, but I\'m not optimistic about our chances. But if we could, I\'d throw something like a 4 year, 10 million dollar sort of offer at him.

Schaub I think is Mora\'s security blanket. I don\'t think it\'s likely that we can deal for him. If we could get great value for Brooks, I might take some of those picks and make a package deal for Atlanta? I really wish we had Pathon for another year and I\'d try to deal him for Schaub.

Garrard might be a pretty good candidate, but I haven\'t seen him much. Again, I\'m thinking some sort of package involving some picks. I\'m not sure that we\'ve got anyone Jax would really want.

After those 3 guys, I\'m not really sure who I\'d want. I think we\'d need Jim Fassel or Charlie Wiess to try and draft a rookie and start him. But I\'m not willing to give a 1st day pick to get a rookie QB, we\'ve got bigger needs right now.

I totally agree with you on the thought of Brooks to Arizona. I think Denny Green could tap Brooks\' potential to the degree that half this board would be up in arms, screaming, \"SEE, I told you so.\" If we could get Karlos Dansby, a 1st rounder and 3rd rounder, then I\'d offer to pay AB\'s moving costs.

Again, I totally agree with you. I want us to get a smart, accurate QB. But whoever we get will require a competent coaching staff to work with him. It just looks more and more like a rebuild. If we could fix the defense this offseason and get a quality LT, then I\'d consider it a success.

If we shop Brooks, then I\'d rather start shopping him soon, so we can take advantage of his value in this draft.

By the way, what would you think about franchising Howard again and trying to get someone to pay through the nose for him? I know it\'s reckless, but it might really work out if there aren\'t many free agent DE\'s out there. If we did get burned I wouldn\'t mind keeping Howard and letting Smith play LB in a 3-4 scheme.

Brooks
 

I\'ve never understood yours. It seems to be \"The guy sucks. Get rid of him.\"

But there are consequences. You have to have a player play that position. You have to pay that player. You have to deal with the cap hit due to Brooks. If you just cut him, the rest of the nearly $11 million signing/option bonus paid comes due right now. That\'s dead money that cannot be paid to anyone else.

If I were the GM I would make a simple observation: Aaron Brooks has had only one offensive coach and played in essentially one system since his introduction into the league. That coach is Mike McCarthy, who was the QB coach at Green Bay, and then the offensive coordinator here. McCarthy in fact is the reason that Brooks is a Saint.

If I were the GM, I\'d fire the coaching staff and get another one in. I\'d go ahead
and pay the $5.5 million next year for Brooks with the understanding that if he can\'t get it straight in the new system he\'ll be released June 1, 2006. I would then build an offensive system with a strong O-line, and a varied offense that revolves around Deuce with Brooks as the complement. I\'d coach the guy up.

Other than a dislike for the guy\'s attitude, you\'ve offered nothing as to why the Saints should flush half of a $36 million contract and have to start over in the QB position with nearly $6 million of dead money on the cap.

The Saints have committed to him. He has shown that he can play in this league. Invest in the investment instead of starting over.

And frankly I wouldn\'t want you to be the GM if you think that Brooks is the #1 priority here. The new GM has 3 priorities:

1. Get a coaching staff that can actually coach.
2. Get a defense that can stop someone.
3. Get Deuce signed. Whatever it takes.

Brooks isn\'t on the list. That\'s why I don\'t understand why we keep talking about Brooks, and talking about Brooks, and talking about Brooks.

SFIAH

Brooks
 

One replacement was JT O\'Sullivan who was traded away because the GM said this was the last year of his contract, many teams were interested in him and the Saints didn\'t want to lose him without getting something in return. I guess the thought never crossed their minds to try and extend his contract in the first place.


Before I pretend to be a GM, how many more years is Brooks under contract? I will say this though: I seriously don\'t believe there will be too many teams interested in a multi-player deal in which the Saints end of the deal is only Aaron Brooks. I just don\'t see that he commands that much value.

Brooks
 

I think we\'re all in agreement here that the Saints are in big trouble in most areas. The defense clearly is awful and needs to be tended to. But this thread started out being about Brooks and that\'s why we\'re talking about him.


I\'ve read just about every post on this thread and there seems to be two camps here: the \"Keep Brooks\" camp and the \"Lose Brooks\" camp. The \"Lose Brooks\" camp-of which I\'m a part-is pretty much in agreement as to why he should go and has stated those reasons fairly consistently. The \"Keep Brooks\" camp is much less defined. Some think he should stay because he\'s really not that bad; some think he should stay cuz he\'s all we\'ve got; some think he should stay cuz he\'s making a boatload of money and they don\'t want to take a loss; some think he should stay cuz he might be really good again some day; some think he should stay cuz it\'s not his fault the team sucks this bad.


The one thing no one in the \"Keep Brooks\" camp has said is probably the most important: We need to keep Brooks because he knows how to win.


Aaron Brooks doesn\'t know how to win and methinks he\'s never gonna learn. This is not just conducive of his attitude, it is the complete essence of his play. We see it game after game. His actions on the field, his statements after the game, the things he says to the media all point to an absence of the competitive spirit. He is clearly a \"take the money and run\" player and the Saints have spent way too much time and money on players like that throughout their history.


We need someone at QB who is a winner, knows how to win and plays, acts and leads like he\'s winner. Brooks meets none of these criteria and that is reason enough to lose him. Try to work a trade but if that doesn\'t work either cut him or, if the cap hit is too hard, park his butt on the bench until he can at least pretend winning means something to him.


When one wants to win, one does the little things necessary to win. Those little things are lacking in Aaron Brooks\' general makeup. There is no competitive spirit, no competitive fire in his belly. To him, good enough is good enough. Gaudy stats are fine but winning is what matters most. How long would Aaron Brooks have lasted under someone like Vince Lombardi? I think we know the answer to that one...

Brooks
 

Other than the financial argument (offered by BMG and still under consideration by several of us in the opposed camp), I\'ve heard no good reason to get rid of Brooks. If you\'re not in agreement that whether or not Brooks stays on the grounds of his value relative to his cap number and the cost of good players on defense, then I don\'t agree.

I don\'t think that the \"lose Brooks\" camp is any more unified than the \"keep Brooks\" camp. The reasons to \"lose Brooks\" include such winning arguments as these: (1) People are laughing at him, (2) he smiles too much, (3) he\'s no Brett Farve, (4) he doesn\'t \"know how to win\", (5) he\'s had plenty of time to be good, and he\'s not, (6) anyone would be better, and (7) blah blah blah.

What is all this \"knowing how to win\" stuff? Look, everyone in the NFL knows how to win - score more points than the other team. No one is confused about that.

What I am confused about is your argument that Brooks is not a winner. Wins and losses are NOT how teams evaluate players, and I don\'t believe that we should either - scouts evaluate players who haven\'t played a single down in the NFL on the basis of their mechanics, football intelligence, physical attributes, and so on! If you have an arugment as to why we should think Brooks (who is NOT in the bottom third of NFL STARTERS) doesn\'t have enough skill to be an adequate QB to take us to the SB, then you haven\'t given said argument.

I\'m getting a bit tired of this meaningless and over used phrase - x is not a winner. What does that mean? If you can answer that, then I\'ll consider the argument - until then, none has been offered.

I\'m not saying there isn\'t an arugment (other than the relatively good financial one) that we should get rid of Brooks, I\'m just saying that I haven\'t heard it yet.

Brooks
 

Obviously the \"keep Brooks\" people are completely oblivious to the mistakes AB makes on a consistent basis. I don\'t have to go back any further than last week to point out some kind of idiotic underhand gift of a TD to a MLB just standing there watching the play...and then late in the game an interception thrown right into the defenders hands, and, because he was not fast enough, he wasn\'t able to score, but had the sideline practically to himself. And that was just last week. I know, QB\'s throw the ball backwards to a lineman all the time, why the fuss? I don\'t like pointing these things out, but the \"keep Btrooks\" people don\'t seem to remember these \"lowlights\".

How can you possibly say that I keep saying that I don\'t want to keep him but yet have not given any reasons why. Is it really necessary for me to go back and point out all of the numerous blunders and instances of bad judgement he has had? We are watching the same games, please don\'t play stupid anymore, it is very unappealing.

BTW, all of you thinking we are going to be able to trade him and come up with a windfall in return...forget it. Maybe before this year started, we might have been able to work out a deal that would have included him to get someone like Big Ben, Eli, or, maybe Brees. But that was then, and this is now. Any value AB had, or, in aonther words, anyone who had still thought he might come around, has now seen the light....at least, people who know football and can tell a loser when they see one. He might get you a third round pick now, but, I would be surprised if he would be worth any more than that. He chokes big time under pressure, and doesn\'t show any signs of getting better. Everybody is going to look at that for exactly what it is, and are not going to be willing to give up the farm for someone who would be considered a project.

Brooks
 

There is nobody else around, so I will take this time to try to explain who I am and where I am coming from, and, finally, to put an end to the statement that I have not given a reason as to why we should have given up on AB a while ago.

As to who I am, I am a middle-aged male who grew up on the Gulf Coast, and now reside in the Chicago area. I was an athlete as a youth, playing football, basketball, and baseball until I graduated, and football and baseball through JC. Being an athlete on the Gulf Coast, it is only natural that you would be thrilled when you found out there would be a professionaly football team in NO. It would also follow that you would become a life-long fan of the Saints, which I did. I would venture to say that I have watched more Saint games than 99.9% of you that post here. AB is not the first QB that I have grown disenchanted with...and it has nothing to do with race. I didn\'t care for Hebert\'s attitude, although I admit that he was an adequate starter. I didn\'t care much for the way he acted when Fourcade beat him out, and he kinda took his football and went home. That decision cost us big-time, because we ended up giving the farm to Dallas for a loser named Walsh.

Anyway, to adress the issue as to why, IMHO, we should get rid of AB...and, keep in mind, that I realize that this is just my feelings, as I can not speak for anyone else. I have been a die-hard Saint fan all this time, and it is only now, after 37 years or so, that I have finally stopped tuning in on the Saints, and have lost some of the fire as a fan that I once had. My reason for doing this is due to my total frustration over the fact that they have stuck with AB throughout the last four years, and we have not had hardly more than a glimpse of anyone else during this time. And, don\'t get confused. It is not his attitude that has me feeling this way, even though I don\'t care for it at all. IT IS HIS INCONSISTENT, CHOKING, STYLE OF PLAY. I am sure you all remember an occasion or two when going with someone else might have been the right thing to do, and, possibly have gotten us into a playoff or two, but, we didn\'t. I blame Haz for this, and, have stated earlier in another thread, that I do think he should lose his job, if, for no other reason, for his total refusal to try anyone else at that position. This logic has cost us at least three quality QB prospects, that have now gone on to other teams. If I were a GM, or even the owner, and thought there were a lot of people out there that have decided they will stop watching until they make a change, I might at some point in time decide to try something different, in an effort to save my job, the head coaches job, and to bring back the fans that are starting to fall off the bandwagon.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but there should be no more speculation as to why I feel a change is needed at the QB position.

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by Saint_LB]

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by Saint_LB]

Brooks
 

JKool,

Well, how do I say this? I\'ve agreed that Favre has his dog days, but when it comes to the Pack winning in spite of boneheaded QB play, I think Favre still remains the difference in the end.

When you really think about it, talent-wise the two teams aren\'t all that different at the skill positions (I hope this doesn\'t open another can of worms), so why is the Pack successful? I can\'t say Ahman Green is any better than Deuce McAllister, so we can\'t blame our running game. I guess Javon Walker and Donald Driver are a slightly better tandem (again talent here folks, don\'t go stat crazy on me) than Joe Horn and Donte Stallworth, but not significantly better. I don\'t think Bubba Franks is more physically talented than Boo Williams, though mentally he\'s light years ahead. We\'ve all agreed neither team has a dominating defense. So what\'s the difference?

Sure, the most glaring reply is COACHING, but some Packers fans were calling for Sherman\'s head earlier in the season (notice how much better they\'ve been since Sherman himself started calling the plays?). The other response unfortunately brings us back to the Brooks/Favre comparison.

Maybe it\'s best put this way:

The Packers can win in spite of Brett Favre\'s mistakes, but the Packers cannot win without Brett Favre.

Do you agree with that statement? Now try it with AB:

The Saints can win in spite of Aaron Brooks\' mistakes, but the Saints cannot win without Aaron Brooks.

Doesn\'t work, does it? First of all, the Saints can\'t win PERIOD, at least not regularly. And while it\'s true that when we do get a win it\'s largely on AB\'s back (49ers, Rams, Chiefs), alot of our failures can be placed on those same shoulders.

Brett Favre brings alot of the so-called \"intangibles\" to the Pack that AB simply doesn\'t bring to us. Words such as Leader, Competitor, Legend and phrases such as Future Hall of Famer are easily applied to Favre, but a quiet few would apply them to Brooks. In the end, Favre is the heart and soul of the Green Bay Packers, and lately it\'s tough to tell if the Saints even have heart or soul...

Brooks
 

I\'m going to snip to the chase...

I posit that we don\'t know if Brooks knows how to win. There are simply too many variables to make that determination. I think we can all agree that one person cannot win football games. It\'s the ultimate team sport. Teams win an lose games on the collective individual efforts of their players, coaches, scouts, front office, owner, and even fans.

Brooks hasn\'t been put in a situation where everything else is clicking and he\'s the only one screwing up. Everything from bad play calling, to penalties, to drops, add to his problems of defensive misreads and happy feet.

The Altanta paper has an article on the Saints. It mirrors what is said about Brooks: talented, inconsistent, can\'t rise above mediocre.

The way I see it Brooks has only been taught at the NFL level be exactly one coach: Mike McCarthy. Maybe he just needs another coach to show him the way.

But I think the get rid of Brooks campaign is hasty. Everyone has these expectations that Brooks is going to develop into a premier QB. But I believe that takes both internal fortitude and the proper external influence. I don\'t believe that Brooks has ever had that proper external influence. I don\'t know if he\'ll become that Peyton Manning type QB if properly coached.

But I guess I\'ll laugh bitterly when you Lose Brooks folks gets your wish. When the guy goes to Denny\'s QB University in Arizona and becomes the next McNabb.

Then you\'ll be asking \"Why couldn\'t he do that when he was here in New Orleans?\"

Some elements to the answer to that question are here.

SFIAH

Brooks
 

LB,

Ok. I see an argument now. The objection that the \"keep Brooks\" people are making is just this: though we understand you fixation on his poor play, his poor play is still good enough to be a starter in this league; given our poor showings on defense and our o-line, Brooks is at least a tertiary concern. Getting rid of him make cost us the resources to get the players we need to fix our dead defense and ailing o-line (unless BMG is right, of course).

Whodi,

Good argument; nicely done. I cannot agree, but ONLY because I don\'t know how to decide if GB can or cannot win without Farve. There is no such regular season game to appeal to for evidence for as long as I can remember. Point taken either way - I believe we have reached an impasse on this. Still, nicely argued.

SFIAH,

Nicely put. I agree for the most part with what you are selling. Here is an argument for you (I can\'t really remember who gave it, but it sounded somewhat compelling to me): there is a learning period for QBs, a time frame in which they can really learn, after that they sort of settle in to one style or another. Brooks, who has only been taught by the chumps here, has missed his learning period and will never be much better than he is. Other than a few counter examples like Gannon, this view seems more or less plausible to me. What do you think?

As for trading Brooks, there are a lot of teams with the idea that \"WE can turn it around for a guy with skills like that\" (sort of like the girlfiend who stays with you because she thinks SHE is the girl that can whip you into shape). I\'m sure we could get something significant for him, but I\'m sure it is in between the really optimistic and the really pessimistic estimates that have been presented so far - perhaps a second rounder and a backup player (of course, if that was a young, backup QB, this would make many happy).

[Edited on 27/11/2004 by JKool]

Brooks
 

PS - Nicely done guys. I think this may be the longest, sustained argument that I\'ve ever seen on this board that hasn\'t devolved into name calling. Kudos.

Brooks
 

Amen!!!!! :D

Brooks
 

Man, what an idiot...

:P

[Edited on 28/11/2004 by mutineer10]

Brooks
 

Yeah, the both did the same thing. Good call JKool. Favre looks angry because he cares that he let his team down by throwing an int. Brooks smiles after he throws an int b/c he doesn\'t care. This is a fact. Not an irrelevant fact, and, if you think it is, open your eyes.

Brooks
 

d4p,

I agree that it is a fact that either Brooks cares or he doesn\'t. I don\'t see what stength of evidence smiling is. That is, I don\'t see how you know that he cares or not based on the fact that he smiles (if there is other evidence you intend, then I\'d be happy to hear it).

Also, with respect to winning and losing games, I don\'t see how \"caring\" has much to do with it. Back when I played there was a QB who cared a lot about every play, but this just got him tied in a knot - by the end of the game, he was so wound up, he sucked. The other guy I played with mostly took it as a game, but he was just better. He played well whether we were up or down, and he was light hearted whether we were up or down - sure, that bothered some people, but I say that that was there problem not his.

Thus, I conclude that caring can sometimes matter, but it CAN BE completely irrelevant (and sometimes it can be a detriment - though I think this is rare). Thus, I stand by my claim that throwing an INT that is returned for a touchdown has the same basic effect in terms of winning or losing, whether you smile or not.

BTW, I don\'t understand your point. Do you really think that they did different things, even though they both threw and INT for a touchdown just because one cares and the other doesn\'t (even though I don\'t believe that to be the case)? If yes, that sounds crazy to me. If you think they did different things, then what did they do differently? It seems to me that smiling or not does NOT effect whether or not they both did the same dumb thing (namely throw a pick that was returned for a TD).

I\'m sorry that you think this view is stupid (or produced with my \"eyes closed\"). However, I\'m neither stupid nor blind, so I wonder what you could mean? If you think this is a bad view, then I\'ll be happy to change it - if you give me reason to. Making snide comments is not an argument, at least last time I checked.

Brooks
 

So much for an enlightened discussion that doesn\'t dissolve into name calling.

Should we start attacking people at random or do we have assigned victims for this part of the board? If we haven\'t assigned victims yet, I\'m calling WhoDat.

Brooks
 

PS - For anyone still paying attention to this particular thread, the points I was making were merely made to respond to the argument that Brooks is the biggest problem with this team (I was merely arguing that his making dumb mistakes is not reason to think that he is the biggest problem with the team), nothing more - for the fourth time. I\'m not a huge Brooks fan anymore, but I do honestly believe that he is not our primary problem - the primary problem is the coaching (followed by our lack of linebackers followed by gaps in the interior of our d-line and our o-line in general).

Brooks
 

BMG,

Who was name calling? ;)

I think we should have a lottery to see who our targets should be; what do you think?

Brooks
 

JKool, I just thought I\'d get my shots in on WhoDat. I\'m frankly tired of him coming in here and thinking he can get by on his good looks alone. :rollinglaugh:

Do you think we could interest Tennessee in a trade for Brooks if McNair retires on them?