johnnythesaint

Hey Bnb,
Was that gratuitous posting or what?

As a rookie, it is tempting to use Jkools
tactics, inflate them numbers baby!!!

JKool

BnB,

Tempting....

BlackandBlue

Good point- post count bumping, anyone?

JKool

Whodi,

I don\'t think any of those quotes claim that we need a QB who is as \"talented\" - athletically anyway. People do want a QB who is at least as good (which was my point) - whatever that means.

Your points are taken quite well, but why should we trade down just so some people aren\'t annoyed. Also, many of the great QBs are inconsistent as well - e.g. Farve - which few people seem to notice when they complain about Brooks.

I\'m not sure how to evaluate your claim about a less talented QB who makes fewer mistakes. I don\'t think anyone is obviously against that, but it is hard to decide what that means.

My stance remains that if the defense were fixed, Brooks would be good enough (not great mind you, but good enough) to take this team where we want it. Sure he\'d probably cost us a handful of games, sure I\'d consider an upgrade, but people are making way too much stink out of this Brooks thing when EVERYONE seems to agree that this team has bigger fish to fry.

It is my honest opinion that everyone got bored of talking about the reall problem - cough - coaching - cough - and are just on this Brooks thing because he had a huge part in that embarassment we just suffered.

As I recall, one of the big complaints is that he will be on the NFL \"low lights\" this year for those ridiculous underhand passes. However, last year he threw a key block in the \"River City Relay\" which was an NFL \"highlight\" for the ages. I guess, I\'m just not sure what being in highlights or lowlights has to do with anything.

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

JKool

johnny,

If I were trying to \"run up my stats\", I wouldn\'t waste my time posting long messages and making arguments, I would simply type \"agreed\" after posts I agreed with as often as possible. Take whatever strategy you like, but that one has always appeared to be the most effective to me.

JKool

Warm out today
Warm Yesterday
Even warmer today

Met her on my CB
Said her name was Mimi
Sounded like an angel come to earth(come to earth)

When I went to meet her
Man you shoulda seen her
Twice as tall as me, three times the girth(times the girth)

Oh my fat baby loves to eat(loves to eat)
A big ol\' budda-belly and her breasts swing past her feet(feet)
My fat baby loves to eeeaaat
My big old fat ass baby loves to eat

I got blisters on me fingers!!

[Edited on 24/11/2004 by BlackandBlue]

BrooksMustGo

JKool, I think what\'s kind of on people\'s mind is that given the myriad of other problems we\'re facing, Brooks might be too expensive to keep.

He doesn\'t manage the game very well, he doesn\'t make all the throws, he has poor decision making and while his bonehead moves aren\'t always what costs us games, they underscore the fact that he can\'t carry a team alone.

I think you\'re right, if we had a defense like Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia or Buffalo, then he probably would be just good enough to get us to the playoffs. But we don\'t and without a defense like that, he can\'t.

Right now, Brooks best value to us is trade bait. His contract is about to get really out of control, but some teams are so starved for a QB, like Miami, Oakland, Arizona or San Fran that we might really get a good deal for him. If we could pick up one or two young defensive players and some draft choices, then maybe Brooks could be our Herschel Walker. With 2-3 defensive players and a LT, maybe we could pick up a qb to manage games for us and give everyone a steady dose of Deuce. Pittsburgh really provides a good model for us on this.

Brooks isn\'t Manning or Favre and we need to stop pretending that he is. The San Diego game is a nice way of looking at Brooks career. His numbers were awful until the game was out of reach and then in the second half, he threw for a lot more yards, had more completions and brought his passer rating back into a less embarrassing range. But it doesn\'t matter that he has good numbers, because the game is already over.

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

BlackandBlue

I was thinking some kind of deal, like Aaron Brooks to San Fran for Jamie Winborne and some draft picks. Immediate upgrade to the linebacker position, and, with all the cap problems they are having, they will need to let someone go in order to pick up a solid QB and sign Peterson.

blake6900

Look, the NFL is a nice little club. Teams don\'t make disparaging statements about other teams or their players. But their actions do speak. And when/if Brooks becomes available there may be a few takers for him as a backup but no one, repeat, no one will sign him as a starter. Brooks is on the way to becoming Kordell Stewart.


I see a lot of talk here about trading Brooks to this team and that team. Many of you are buying into Brooks\' own spin: \"I\'ve got great stats, I\'m a great QB, if it doesn\'t work here. that\'s OK cuz everybody wants me.\" That\'s delusional. If you read what I said closely, you\'ll see I didn\'t say no teams would want Brooks. I said no team would sign him as their starter. That means no team would build their future around him. That means Brooks is on the way to becoming Kordell Stewart. Baltimore has Boller. That\'s a kid with a future and the Ravens know it. Miami needs a head coach before anything else and in fact that team made the same mistake with Fiedler that the Saints have made with Brooks. It\'s doubtful Wayne Hyzinga will make the same mistake again and invest time and money in a lost cause. Re: Oakland, do you really believe Aaron Brooks is a QB Norv Turner or Al Davis would want? C\'mon.


While I don\'t look at AB as the \"biggest problem\" and I do look at him as one that, if solved, would fix a lot of other problems, including the lack of defense. Sustained drives are a defense\'s best friend and by and large the Saints are unable to sustain drives. When they do the ball is turned over with no points scored so, other than time off the field, nothing is gained for the defense. Clearly the defense is porous but their play could improve greatly if they weren\'t expected to be on the field so long.


Perhaps it would be helpful to list Aaron Brook\'s pros and cons to determine just how good he is. I\'ll start.


PROS: Great long ball thrower. Good scrambling ability. That\'s about it.


CONS: Can\'t read defenses, can\'t throw touch passes, too often throws mid-range passes high, behind, in front or short of the receiver, lacks good leadership skills, can\'t call audibles, rarely takes responsibility, very slow delivery.


Help me out with the Pros and Cons.

BrooksMustGo

He\'s got a great smile.

I would basically agree with you on the Kordell Stewart part. BUT is seems to take a couple of moves for that to really happen. Coaches ruin their careers all the time because of an unfounded and irrational belief in a QB\'s potential. Dan Reeves with Tommy Maddox, Cowher with Kordell, Haslett with Brooks, the Dolphins organization with Fiedler. It happens all the time.

I don\'t think it\'s much of a stretch to believe that someone would believe that Haslett, the defense, and drops are what\'s killing Brooks.

Someone will get enamored with that big arm and say things like, \"look at his numbers\", \"see how far he can throw the ball\", \"see the 4rth quarter comebacks\", \"if his WRs had dropped everything he\'d be a pro-bowler\", \"the fans in NO held him back\" and \"he\'s barely scratched the surface of his potential.\"

I think we could get a pretty good deal for him right now. But I do agree, the longer we keep him, more people will refuse to accept the excuses made for him. Besides, this is the year of the resurrected QB. But if we are going to get value for him we need to deal him quick.

[Edited on 24/11/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

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