|
Brooks
Quote:
It\'s a VERY academic argument when you think about it. Haslett will live and die as a coach with Aaron Brooks. \"As long as I\'m here, I want Aaron Brooks as my quarterback.\"--Jim Haslett http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pre...573968,00.html |
Brooks
Apologies for the assumption.
I was merely making the following point, which has nothing to do with WhoDat\'s beliefs actually: I am indifferent to Delhomme over Brooks. As far as options go, I agree that having more of them is better than having fewer of them. I don\'t think anyone would disagree with that. However, as I pointed out, at some point options must be excercised and choices must be made. My point was this: competition at QB (having options) can go south fast - that is, it is good in the short run but can quickly become a problem both on and off the field. Also, I\'m not sure why anyone thinks that O\'Sullivan was much of an option. He got whooped in preseason; he was maybe marginally better than Bouman. I\'m not sure that if we had him, we\'d consider him much of an option, if it weren\'t for the hype about him as the preseason started. Sure, like Bulger, he may develop into quite the QB, but I don\'t see any reason to believe that at this point. |
Brooks
Brooks will not be the starting QB next year, he has had alot of time to prove himself, just like HAZ. Both need to be somewhere else next year, PERIOD.
|
Brooks
BMG you said
Quote:
Quote:
|
Brooks
First Half Stats:
Delhomme: 15-21, 229, 1TD, 0 INT Brooks: 6-14, 65, 1 TD, 0 INT Who do you want? B/c anyone watching the game sees the difference. Delhomme is commanding, fiery, a fighter. AB is confused, dangerous, and anything but competitive. But what do I know??? |
Brooks
Quote:
What do you know?! A helluva lot more than Haslett does. A few years ago he wanted to avoid a quarterback controversy between Brooks and Delhomme. Now he\'s dealing with a quarterback controversy between Brooks and anybody but Brooks. He\'s a lost cause and Haslett\'s pigheadedness in starting/staying with/believing in AB will lose him his one and only headcoaching job. Meanwhile us fans are left here trying to pick up the pieces this red-haired, freckle-faced step-child of a coach left for us. Thanks, Jim...now we know why Kyle Turley thought you were an ass. It\'s because you are one. As for Brooks, perhaps the reason his receivers drop passes is because they\'re shocked and amazed that the ball is even catchable in the first place. One bit of good news though...us Saints fans have become pretty good at waiting til next year. We\'ve had enough practice at it. So, here we go again. [Edited on 6/12/2004 by JOESAM2002] |
Brooks
I just want to know what all those guys who lambasted Kyle Turley have to say now? Looks like crazy or not, he was right.... no?
All those guys who said Brooks wouldn\'t ruin Haslett\'s career. All those guys who said Haslett could turn it around. That our lack of quality players signed in FA wouldn\'t hurt, that guys like Orlando Ruff and Wayne Gandy would really get it done.... |
Brooks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder where all those guys that were screaming CB was the answer. Well they finally got one and SHAZAMMM! They don\'t really look any better. Linebacker was were they screwed up, And of course depending on Sullivan at NT. |
Brooks
... a lot of people want to find the root cause of the problems with the Saints and blame this player or that front office person or the other coach... it is really a combination of bad decisions and general coaching ineptitude by the coaching staff/front office, and player performance... ...yes the Saints have a horrible defense.. but defenses don\'t get that bad overnight... it takes a couple of years of not getting the right players for your system (and it is debatable whether there\'s an actual system or not), not coaching the players you have, letting the playmakers go because they aren\'t track stars or not \"your guys\", overpaying for players that cannot tackle/cover, and most important, I think, not accepting that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and that things would be fine... I still remember Bill Parcell, in 2002, as a commentator of ESPN, saying of the New Orleans Saints: \" you (the offense) know your defense is bad, and they are not going to get it done... you (the offense) need to score more points\"... that was October 2002... ...yes, the offense has underachieved, somehow... I say somehow because we assume that there\'s talent in this offense, but is it?... one thing that can be said about the offense the past 4 years is that it is consistently inconsistent... of course, we see a similar pattern of playmakers being shown the door because the coaching staff is unable to manage personalities, well, those personalities that belong to the players that aren\'t the present coaching staff\'s guys... the personalities of the coaches\' pets get pampered ( you know, like showing video to the press as evidence that it is all the players around the QB who are screwing up, not the QB, forgetting this is a TEAM sport)... ... many times I have heard the argument \"how can the offense be blamed when the defense spots 20 points to the opposition?\"... well, it would take an opposing team at least 3 offensive possessions to score 20 points... what did the Saints offense do in their 3 possessions? 3-and-outs, INTs, fumbles, that\'s what the offense did... so yeah the other teams are ususally ahead by 20, but the blame falls on both sides of the ball, the defense for not stopping them and the offense for not scoring... ..and to keep with the original title of the thread: :) ...the ball that hit Pathon and was then intercepted was a bad pass... people want to blame Pathon for it, but if you look at the replay, you\'ll see that ball was thrown behind Pathon... he was going west, the ball hit him in the elbow when he tried reaching behind him to catch it, and then the ball ricochet\'d east,... had the ball been thrown properly, it would have been in front of Pathon, and had Pathon not be able to catch such ball, the ball would\'ve ricochet\'d in front of Pathon, not behind him... ..so there... |
Brooks
Sadly, Tobias has hit the nail on the head. This team\'s offense is in a daze. The 3 & outs kill the defense. The lackidazical attitude by the QB is what kills drives the quickest. Mr. Brooks had trouble getting the snap from center yesterday. I truly believe that what ails this team comes from three sources:
1. LoomBoom and the front office bean counter mentality. 2. Hazlett not wanting a QB \"controversy\" letting Brooks override Blake then Delhomme. 3. Aaron Brooks lack of drive, fire, passion, name it in order to inspire, lead, inflame, name it his team mates on the field. I predict that Brooks will post good numbers wherever he goes, but will not be in contention for a playoff berth. He\'s damaged goods and the rest of the NFL knows it. That means that we wasted $36 mil on him, and God knows what of Buffet Sullivan. :casstet: |
Brooks
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Sullivan makes me sick and angry to contemplate. He should spend the rest of his time under contract as a takling dummy. |
Brooks
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? |
Brooks
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. |
Brooks
Quote:
BMG expresses my sentiments on the subject exactly: Quote:
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... Quote:
SFIAH [Edited on 7/12/2004 by SaintFanInATLHELL] |
Brooks
If you don\'t like this thread you must have an a-g-e-n-d-a!!! LMAO. ;)
|
Brooks
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. |
Brooks
...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... |
Brooks
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. :poke: |
Brooks
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. |
Brooks
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. |
Brooks
JKool you will be proud of me for not taking the bait on the leadership importance.
|
Brooks
Quote:
I stepped away from this Frankenstein\'s monster of a post when I thought we\'d said it all. Now we may have, officially. - I sincerely hope Favre vs. Brooks isn\'t about to catch on again. Oh please no, not again... - As for why we keep arguing that Brooks is bad, but so is the rest of the team, check out BMG\'s words of wisdom back on page 5 or so. But really, all these are worthy arguments and this is a post for the ages. Fact is, we\'re still stuck with AB - regardless of the rest of our many troubles - unless someone is willing to take him off our hands. Were that to happen, we\'d still need a QB ... most of us have agreed Bouman is not the answer. I\'d like Jake Delhomme back, too (might as well go on the record as one of those guys!), but our present coaching staff, front office, etc. never asked me, and it\'s probably never going to happen. Every QB from Mike McMahon to Drew Brees has been argued here, but next year - whether we like it or not - our QB is overwhelmingly likely to be Aaron Brooks. As someone else posted - \"He\'s got a great smile!\" :greenchainsaw: |
Brooks
I never weighed in on the Favre to Brooks comparison, but what the hey.
I think JKool is basically right, you can compare anyone you want. So when you compare the two guys what do you have? Both are fairly mobile, big armed guys who seem to have most success when they are freelancing, bootlegs, etc. Both are pretty accomplished sandlot type players. Neither one comes across as meticulous students of the game. Both are pretty durable. Both practiced on the same field a few years back. Both throw for a lot of yards and a lot of TD\'s. Both have proven to be pretty good playing from behind (I\'m not prepared to put Brooks in John Elway type company here). Both of them have the nasty habit of just heaving the ball into coverage and costing their team the game. On paper and by the numbers, the guys are somewhat similar. However, I think the differences are more striking and more telling. 1. The \"One Man Gang\" Factor--Favre has the capacity to carry a team on his back. During the superbowl years, Favre WAS that offense. Brooks needs a supporting cast. 2. The Loyalty Factor--Favre\'s team reveres him. His guys would run through a brick wall for him. Even when Favre louses things up, no one minds because he\'s Brett Favre. After Favre\'s Dad died, Donald Driver pulled all the Green Bay WR\'s together and they promised each other, \"Whatever he puts in the air, we WILL catch.\" Brooks doesn\'t seem to inspire a similar level of devotion from his team. Now I can already hear you saying, \"Who cares if they like him, they should do their friggin job and block or catch.\" But we\'ve all had jobs for bosses we liked and bosses we didn\'t. Favre seems to inspire people to go the extra mile, Brooks doesn\'t. 3. The Passion Factor--Favre seems to have fun. They guys who play with him don\'t miss this and seem to have a good time too. Brooks seems to be doing a job. Brooks makes comments like--\"I\'m just here to do my job and then leave.\" 4. The Leadership Factor--Favre might as well operate without a head coach. The Packers are Brett Favre\'s team. Brooks needs a head coach to call the shots. The Saints are a lot of things, but they have never been AB\'s team. 5. The Responsibility Factor--Favre takes the blame for his mistakes. He doesn\'t blame drops, protection, or route running. Brooks seems, at best, unwilling to take blame and, at worst, gets into finger pointing. 6. The Winning Factor--Favre has won about 65% of his games or so. Usually, he has won with a weak cast around him. Can you imagine what Favre\'s numbers would be like if he\'d ever had a Joe Horn type WR? Green Bay went for a lot of years with a weak running game and then went to a weak receiving corps, a strong defense to a pourous defense. Through it all, Favre wins. Brooks is at best mediocre with a much stronger supporting cast around him, at least on the offense. 7. The Cap Factor--Favre makes more money than god, but when the team is in cap trouble, Favre reworks his deal to give some space. His deal is so back loaded now that he\'s never going to see that money, but you never hear about money with him. Even when he came off the bench to replace an injured starter. Brooks is probably going to give us a shot at showing whether the team comes before his check if we try to keep him this off-season. I\'m not optimistic about this. My gut feeling is that Brooks is a prima donna, but let\'s all hope I\'m wrong on this if we get stuck with him. 8. The Role Factor--Favre is a football player. That\'s all he is and all he wants to be. He doesn\'t represent anything other than the Green Bay Packers. He has no agenda other than winning games. For Favre it\'s simple, go out and win the superbowl. Brooks seems a bit confused as to his role. From remarks he\'s made and things he does, I wonder if he gets too far into his role as a \"black\" QB, rather than just a winning QB. It seems like there\'s a chip on his shoulder about it. Anyway, those are just some quick observations. The guys are similar on paper, but they couldn\'t be more different when it comes to intangibles. |
Brooks
BMG, you forgot Favre is a first ballot hall of famer, Brooks doesn\'t even know where Canton is. Also, I guess you could compare anything you want, but who would listen if you compare a Mercedes to a Yugo? i.e. Favre to Brooks?
|
Brooks
Subguy, I am proud of you! However, that is usually the case.
Mutineer, I can\'t help myself, please forgive me. Not only does he have a great smile, but he may beat you with his eyes... :shockedbig: Ok, I know it is kind of lame, but I think that repetition is the key to humor... BMG, you have become one of my favorite people, and I think that was a terrific analysis. I\'m glad we mostly agree these days (you\'d make my life hard otherwise, I\'m sure). Whodi, you know I love ya bud. I\'m pretty sure that we more or less agree on this point. You can\'t blame me though for taking the oportunity to make the point though, can you? Also, I\'m pretty sure that you agree with my general point - competition doesn\'t OBVIOUSLY help someone. |
Brooks
AB and Favre both play QB in the NFL...that\'s about where the comparison ends. I think it is a huge injustice to Favre to even suggest that AB is in the same category as him. Like SW said, Favre will be a first ballot hall-of-famer, Brooks won\'t even get on the ballot...unless things change soon for him. I agree with BMG that the biggest difference between the two is that Favre\'s teammates would kill for him, whereas AB\'s teammates would probably like to kill him.
|
Brooks
Kool, we definitely agree on the point, and we both seem to feel AB would wilt and pout and complain(oh he\'s done that already, my bad). lol I just didn\'t like the choice of who was used for the comparison, but the point was still valid, and we do agree on the outcome.
|
Brooks
Whodi,
Tizz-ight. :notnice: |
Brooks
Just so this topic might make it to 8 pages...
1st possession 1st down-Perfect pass to Joe Horn, DROP 2nd down-Deuce up the middle for 3 3rd down-Perfect pass to Deuce, DROP 2nd possession 1st down-Deuce to right for 2 2nd down-Pass to Deuce, DROP 3rd down-Brooks scrambles for 7. 3rd Possession 1st down-Deuce left for 3 2nd down-Deuce fumbles, another TD Carolina Yup, I think Aaron may be part of the problem, and I\'m not being sarcastic. I remember seeing Dan Marino screaming and yelling, spit flying from his mouth, face fuming red and freaking smoke coming out of his ears when his teammates screwed up. Even walking toward the sidelines he\'s chewing Clayton/Duper/Nathan/Carter a new one. As his pathetic defense is out there stopping no one he\'s still on the sidelines jawing. They immediately re-grouped and stopped F\'ing up. It didn\'t matter if it was hall of famer Dwight Stevenson, he\'d get in their face, and they respected him, and they responded. None of the 1st 3 possessions point directly at Brooks being the problem. But his lack of holding HIS offense accountable for such horrid play speaks to his leadership deficiencies. That wouldn\'t be as big an issue if we had a coach or coordinator that took the role of on-field disciplinarian. But that ownership isn\'t coming from anywhere, and thats a problem. Put Brooks on a team with a solid disciplinarian (like Tuna) and I personally think his production would improve dramatically. Just my two cents. |
Brooks
Danno, accountability is generally lacking all around from this team. AB and the coaches, the main people who should be holding offensive players accountable, do not. Deuce doesn\'t, but whoever expected he would? Even when he was going to the pro bowl he just went out there and led by example. What I do find funny is the players who take the balme for losses few as they are, are the ones busting their arses. Charles Grant, LeCharles, Brian Young. They take the blame, when players who are doing half what they are doing aren\'t. What kinda screwed up deal is that?
|
Brooks
Nice points, Danno.
I also agree that it is the coaches job to get the team in line. Of course, Marino was effective at it as well. Two points: (1) Did Marino do this early in his career, or was it only after he\'d established himself as a first rate player (though, I suppose, that actually ocurred pretty quickly for him)? Given that AB isn\'t generally considered a first rate player (or at least not as first rate as Marino - :shock: ), do you think players would actually respond well (or anywhere near as well as to Marino) to that from him? (2) It is your view that leadership is needed. However, why should it come if not from the coaches then from the QB? I mean, it is obvious to me that it would be great a QB was a leader (as the focal point of the offense, something about that seems natural), but it certainly doesn\'t have to be, right? I guess, I don\'t see that Whodi\'s point about AB being one of the main people who should hold other players accountable, and not someone like Duece, is true. Sure it would be nice, if AB did these things. But why does the RB get to \"lead by example\" and the QB must \"lead with his voice\"? PS - :broccoli: |
Brooks
PPS - Danno, did you just mention Marino and Brooks in the same post! How is that even possible!?!
:bugeyes: |
Brooks
It\'s simple Kool, the qb gets the blame for wins and losses, whther his team gave up 50 and he threw 3 picks trying to bring them back, or they won by 20 and the D held the other team scoreless. It\'s all on the qbs head. Baltimore loses, and people say it\'s cause Boller is not ready and he is not the answer, forget that Heap hasn\'t played all year , Jamal is out and Ogden has been out, his 3 best offensive players. Forget that the defense gave up 14 points in the 4th quarter. People are blaming Boller. That\'s just how it goes. How many rb leaders are there in the NFL? Tomlinson is the best rb in the league, and he is prob the most quiet guy ever. Sanders was the greatest ever, he never took a leadership role. He led by example, like Deuce. IT is a qbs job or a head coach\'s job to be the leader on a team w/o strong personalities, which is what we have. IF we had strong personalities, like a Ray Lewis, then someone else could doit, but we don\'t. So it falls on AB or the coaches, as it should.
|
Brooks
I\'ve been looking into this drop issue. I just don\'t see drops killing this offense.
I went here for my information by the way: http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/index.asp Brooks has had about 4.8% of all his passes dropped this year. Tom Brady has had about 4.5% of his dropped. Favre has had about 4.7% of his dropped. Brees has had about 4.4% of his dropped. Manning is noteworthy in that 3.6% of his are dropped, but then he\'s only made 385 attempts in contrast to AB\'s 442. I wonder if our problem is less the drops and more the lack of run blocking? We throw the ball too much. We don\'t run block very well and we end up playing behind and taking out be offensive weapon out of the game. I\'m not sure this is a good idea or even good football. I feel pretty comfortable in suggesting that drops aren\'t our problem. Play calling certainly is. Run blocking certainly is. Game planning certainly is. Our irrational devotion to the passing game certainly is, but I just don\'t see how drops are the problem. |
Brooks
Whodi,
I take your point. So you agree that it isn\'t necessary that the QB be the leader, it just makes sense that after the coaches it should fall to the QB (provided there aren\'t others to do it). I don\'t know what I think about the RB point; surely being a great RB does not require being a leader, but, of course, it doesn\'t mean they couldn\'t be - right? I sometimes wonder whether it is necessary to be a great QB you must be a leader (whatever that means); of course, you can be a darn good QB and not be a leader. It seems to me that yes you do have to be a leader to be a great QB. Then I wonder about Montana - surely, he was a great QB, but he had a calm demeanor. He lead by example, the way you suggest Duece does, but he didn\'t \"lead with his voice\" - as people seem to think Brooks should. Was Montana not great despite the fact he was calm and easy going or just not great? BMG, Nice post. I agree. Just one problem, you mentioned Brooks and Farve in the same post! OMG!!! How is that even comprehensible!?! |
Brooks
kool, I do agree that a qb doesn\'t have to be the leader. But if noone else steps up, he should be, at least on the offensive side of the ball. When people drop balls, he needs to say something about it if the coaches aren\'t. It\'s not required a qb be the leader, as Ray Lewis was the leader of the Balt team that won the Superbowl. In this case Ray Lewis was enough leader for the whole team, so the qb can take a back seat. We have no personalities like that on our team. I think all it would take is for AB to stand up and say, \"Hey, I have made mistakes but I wanna lead this team. I want to be here and I want to get it right. I will hold myself accountable for my bad passes if you guys do the same for your drops.\" He would probably glean a little more respect just for admitting his faults, but he won\'t and we know it.
And naturally, a great rb could be a leader, I just don\'t have many examples where that was the case. If you have some, I would love to think about them. In Montana\'s case, you are exactly right. He was very calm, but he won games. He made plays. His play lead his team to greatness so he didn\'t have to get demonstrative. His team believed im him as their leader. He had to earn it though, and AB has not. So AB could lead by example, but he has shown neither the ability, the capacity, or the want to do so. SO at the least, he can start to be accountable, and hold others accountable. you gotta start somewhere. |
Brooks
Whodi,
I think we are in near complete agreement! I\'ve been trying to think of an example at RB. They tend to be the strong silent type, don\'t they? Maybe Roger Craig or Marcus Allen - they were a bit more vocal on the sidelines than others - I don\'t know? It would be cool if someone had a more solid example. |
Brooks
We\'re almost there Kool. Stay with me. I think Marshall Faulk was a leader on the Rams team. I can\'t clearly recall him getting in someone\'s face, but I know he plays with a lot of passion. I would say Emmitt, but there were so many strogn personalities on that team I can\'t focus on him as the leader. I know Ricky Watters was vocal, but I would not consider him a leader. I can\'t really think of one, so until someone does, I think history shows if a rb is good enough, he leads by example, and that is good enough for Deuce IMO.
|
Brooks
Quote:
And since we\'re mentioning the silent, lead-by-example RB\'s, I\'m surprised noone mentioned Priest Holmes. I think he\'s the perfect example. Maybe he got passed over \'cause he\'s gimped up right now! |
Brooks
Well boys,
I guess we agree that RB isn\'t usually a \"vocal leader\" position. In fact, it is pretty darned hard to think of even one who is/was. They are often, if any sort of leader, \"example leaders\". We\'re also in agreement then that QBs don\'t need to be \"vocal leaders\" to be great QBs - e.g. Joe Montana. However, they may need to be \"example leaders\". Which is, of course, one of the reasons that Brooks isn\'t a GREAT QB. We\'re also in agreement that the responsibility for \"vocal\" leadership starts with the coaches then seems to naturally move to the QB - so having a \"vocal\" QB is an asset, but not a necessity for a quality team. Damn, that is some fine work. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com