WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

If you don\'t call what you have against Brooks a Vendetta, then what do you call it? The only game Brooks cost this team, virtually on his own, was the Cleveland game. Remember he had no running game in Cleveland. Can you admit that? Is there another game you can think of where the blame is squarely on Aaron\'s shoulders? Which one? How many Saints records is he gonna have to break before you move on? Pick on someone else WhoDat. You\'re wasting precious energy.

You can spit stats almost as good as Saintz08, but you\'re still missing the target. Talk about how poorly Brooks performed all you want...the BOTTOM LINE is that the Saints were in a position to win when poor performance by other people sealed the teams fate. ...and you still haven\'t told me just exactly what it is you\'d like to see Brooks be held accountable for. I\'m thinking that the reason for that is because you realize that he\'s not the problem. Now, maybe you don\'t like him, and you, like me, are entitled to your opinion. You can talk \"West Coast\" \'til it falls into the Pacific for all I care. Now, we can discuss opinions all day, or we can discuss the BOTTOM LINE where Brooks is concerned. You can say anything you\'d like about the Vikings game...BOTTOM LINE is Brooks had the team in the position to win. You can talk all you want about the Bengals game...BOTTOM LINE is our defense couldn\'t stop a terrible offensive team. You can talk about the last Carolina game...BOTTOM LINE is as bad as Brooks looked at times, he had the team in a position to win, and it was a fumble and a dropped pass that cost the Saints that game. Get off Brooks man. We all know you don\'t like him, but it\'s ok to be wrong.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

whoa whoa whoa. See this is the double standard I\'m talking about with you Saintfan. Read my posts. I\'m saying that I DO NOT solely blame Brooks for the collapse. In my last post I said \"Dude, I\'m not blaming Brooks for the late season collapse. I think he was certainly part of it, but there were a lot of other things that contributed to that collapse.\"

I\'ve said in other posts that he is not THE problem with the Saints the defense is. But you keep trying to talk about the BOTTOM LINE, or whatever.

What\'s most interesting is that you say that BROOKS had the Saints in position to win all three of the last games. BROOKS did. McAllister, the O-line, our receivers, hell even the defense had nothing to do with that. It was all Brooks. But two dropped passes and one game winning drive are what LOST those games. Brooks\' play had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Why then did we only score, what, 13 points in our last two games? Brooks\' great play? Or was it everyone else on the team\'s fault? Dude, I\'m not blaming Brooks for the collapse. I\'m not even saying he\'s a bad player. Either you\'re not listening to what I\'m saying or you\'re as blindly commited to Brooks as Haslett is. I mean, seriously Saintfan. You\'re a smart guy. you know a lot about football, but you\'re yet to concede in the slightest that A - Brooks might have been at fault at least as much as any other player on the team for the collapse, or B - that he isn\'t the prototypical quarterback for the west coast offense. Now that\'s stubborn or stupid. I know you\'re not stupid, so it must be stubborn.

Let me ask you one very simple question. I\'m doing this simply to gauge your level of commitment to Brooks. It means nothing else to me.

In the last four games of the regular season, did any single player\'s performance fall more than Aaron Brooks\'? If so, who?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

I\'ll anwswer you\'re question just as soon as you answer mine. Tell me WhoDat, in all your complaining about Brooks and Screaming that he\'s got to go, tell me what it is exactly that you\'d like to hold him accountable for. I\'m still waiting on that one.

For what it\'s worth, I\'ve been saying from day ONE that while Brooks may very well have been PART of the problem (blame it on the injury, youth, coaches, whatever) he certainly was NOT \"THE\" problem. I\'ve been saying that, while you and others wanna scream for his head on a platter, you\'re missing the point. Every one of you Brooks bashers keep dancing around the ring but you won\'t admit the FACT that while post injury Brooks didn\'t play as well, he (and I give him credit because he\'s the QB, not because I\'m dissing any other player) had the team in position to win. He threw a pass that hit Jake Reed square in the hands. Jake catches that pass and the Saints are in the playoffs. Ya\'ll wanna cut other team\'s QB\'s slack (wasn\'t it you that allowed Warner some \"room\" due to his hurt finger?) but you won\'t do the same for Brooks. You and others keep saying how he\'s not built for the \"west coast\" offense but not once have you or anyone else had anything worth reading in response to that. If he\'s so freakin bad how in the heck do the Saints score 27 freakin\' points a game? Oh, it\'s because he\'s got talent around him according to Saintz08, as if to indicate that any idiot could step in and have the same results. Puh-lease! In fact I DID say Brooks had the team in a position to win. I say that because you and all the other Brooks bashers seems to feel as though he\'s the reason we lost. Wasn\'t he the QB that drove the Saints down the field to take the lead in the Vikings game (and the first Atlanta game too if I recall) only to have the defense give it back? If you\'re gonna scream when he makes a mistake then admit when he plays well too.

If anyone has a \"double-standard\" it\'s you. I\'m perfectly willing to say that Brooks isn\'t where he can be. You\'re saying he never will be and you and others will reach for any branch on the tree in an effort to defend your position. You\'ll blindly look at stats or use some of the greatest QB\'s ever to play the game with which to draw your comparison. In all honesty, Brooks\' numbers are actually better than a lot of \'em after their first two years and still the Brooks bashers persist. I\'m here defending what Brooks is now and what he has the potential to be. You ask me when he\'s accountable, and I in turn ask you what you\'d like to hold him accountable for...exactly. You tell me the criteria and I\'ll give you my opinion as to when he should be held accountable.

Let me add that in antoher thread you posted the following:

\"I guarantee that Brooks will still lose games thanks to his stupidity\".

Now I ask you, what games did Brooks lose for the Saints this past season as a result of his \"stupidity\"? Aside from the Cleveland game where you had a young QB with no running game trying to do too much, name for me just one.

In the past I asked you if you thought the Saints would have scored more points if Jake were the starter. You responded with the following:

\"Yes, I am saying we could have averaged more with Jake\"

You also said about Brooks when comparing him with Jake Delhomme that, and I quote, \"He is also not as smart, not the leader, doesn\'t have the touch, and apparently doesn\'t have the heart that Jake does. \"

How can you asses Jake so well? What crystal ball are you looking into? Just to add some fuel to the blaze, here\'s something else you said:

\"Again, you\'re right about Delhomme. We didn\'t see enough of him in game situations to know how good he really is or could be. But he was 7-8 in the baltimore game for 100 and something yards. Those are the stats of a west coast quarterback. Short quick passes. Timing routes. Touch passes over linebackers. Three steps and get rid of it. Not five steps, dance, dance, look around lost, scramble, back pedal, throw off your back foor towards Horn into double coverage.\"

Lets see, he went 7-8 for 100 yards and now all of a sudden he\'s the \"West Coast\" man eh? As I have said all along, with very few exceptions, those that wanna see Brooks gone want it because they\'re fans of Jake Delhomme. You deny that you\'re a member of that club, but I\'m having a hard time believing it.

Aaron\'s numbers are NOT the numbers of a QB that should lose his starting job. When you throw for as many yards and touchdowns as he does you don\'t yank him WhoDat. No matter how loud you and Saintz08 and the rest of the folks sittin way up yonder in the cheap seats holler. Haz knows better...thanks GOD Haz knows better.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

OK Saintfan - to answer your question - I hold Brooks accountable for his own play. That consists of things like yards and touchdowns. It also includes completion percentage, interceptions, efficiency, the ability to manage the game, the number of mistakes he makes, leadership, etc.

He threw for a lot of yards and a lot of touchdowns, yes. But he had a great running game and break away receivers. How can you expect him not to throw for a lot of yards and touchdowns? He was also 27th in the league in completion percentage at what 52% or something like that. He was 21st in the league in passer efficiency. Those numbers matter more than yards or touchdowns ever will. Don\'t believe me, go look at the rankings for quarterbacks of teams who made the playoffs. They are all better than Brooks\' numbers in those categories. Hell, even Haslett said in his conference the monday after the season that Brooks needed to get his completion percentage up and could do some things to take care of the ball better.

Now, in your last post you admitted that he lost the Cleveland game. I say he also lost us the Cincinnati game with his three fumbles, consistent misreads and risky throws.

You\'re right about a few things. I do like Jake Delhomme. But not thinking that Brooks is THE guy has nothing to do with Delhomme. Even if Delhomme leaves, Brooks still won\'t be the right guy. And you watch, one of two things will happen. Brooks will go or the Saints will change their offensive scheme to better suit Brooks... why, BECAUSE HE ISN\'T A WEST COAST QUARTERBACK. Even Haslett knows that.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

PS - people that know football, know about Delhomme. That\'s why he\'s one of the most talked about free agent quarterbacks in the league. Haslett says that he can start on most of the other teams in the league, but that doesn\'t matter. It only matters what he says about Brooks right? That\'s all that counts. Inexperience with Delhomme is a bad thing, but inexperience (if you can call starting nearly 40 games in a row inexperienced) is POTENTIAL for Brooks. Strange how that works.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

How many of those awesome playoff QB\'s are starting their 2nd year? Hmmmm? Stats are relative my friend, and thats what I\'ve been saying all along. I\'ve also been more than willing to say Brooks has room to grow...thats the POTENTIAL I see in him that none of you \"bashers\" will concede to. Ya\'ll see more potential in Jake than you do Brooks but you have a grand total of what, 10 passes with which to base that opinion?

Jake is a hot item for sure, and as well he should be, but you can\'t tell me there\'s not a reason he\'s failed to crack the starting lineup on the Saints for each of the 5 years he\'s been with the team. As I\'ve said before, you can\'t blame Brooks OR Haz for that, and you can\'t take 8 or 9 throws scattered throughout a season and draw any kind of comparison with Brooks that\'s gonna hold water. You\'re carrying around a leaky bucket!

Now, you wanna hold Brooks accountable for his own play, hell man, EVERYBODY is accountable for his own play. That doesn\'t even warrant a response.

...and just like Saintz08, when you\'re backed into a corner and staring at some pretty darn good Brooks numbers you can only come out with the \"he had a great running game and break away receivers\" line. Again, I was hoping for something a little more. Silly me I guess.

Also, I don\'t think I\'ve EVER typed anything negative about Jake Delhomme. I\'ve said over and over again that I like Jake. I even said I thought he should have been given an oppurtunity to start the year they brought in Blake. For me it\'s not about being negative about someone to back up my defense of Brooks. I have suggested that surely there\'s a reason he hasn\'t started that goes beyond all this crap about Haz being married to Brooks. He wasn\'t starting before either of them were getting paid by New Orleans.

You say Brooks lost the Bengals game. Even if I gave you that one then add it to the Browns game and you come up with two. If those two games give you reason to bench the man who\'s breaking Saints passing records then as I\'ve said before, I\'m glad you\'re not in charge. But there you go stating the following:

\"I say he also lost us the Cincinnati game with his three fumbles\"

Ok, then why not allow other players mistakes into the mix? You wanna talk to me about Aaron\'s fumbles, then speak to me about Reed\'s (or Joe\'s, or Donte\'s, or Boo\'s, or Pathon\'s) dropped passes. You won\'t have any of that because then you have to focus on something or someone other than Brooks don\'t you?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Look, I think AB could be a good QB. Really I do. Not great, but good. I even think he could QB us in a Super bowl. I just think the coaches are using him in the wrong way. He\'s a mobile QB. Let/make him be mobile. Seems like AB wants to prove he can be a pocket passer & the coaches want to keep him there too...I just don\'t get it.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Alright one question for all those that believe that one day Aaron Brooks will be a great Qb .

What team will he be playing for ????

These are the New Orleans Saints , unless you just joined us yesterday , that means they do not over pay any player and this potential stardom and Brooks ego are going to equal a league leading contract . I keep thinking based upon the recent history if he does hit the number 1 mark he might stop and try to renegotiate at that point .

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Saintfan - here is a list of some starting quarterbacks for playoff teams this year. Every one of these guys had a better quarterback rating than Brooks.
Kelly Holcombe - 3 CAREER games started
Chad Pennington - (best passer rating in the NFL) 12 career games started
Tommy Maddox - 15 career games started
Michael Vick - 17 career games started
Donovan McNabb - 54 career games started

Aaron Brooks has started 37 games in his career. So can we expect him to be as far along in his development by next year as McNabb is now? Or how about Pennington, who seems farther along than Brooks? Can we expect, the pure passer who is a better quarterback according to you than Vick, to actually have a better quarterback rating?

Saintfan, have you ever played football? I did. I still do in leagues every year. I also ran track in college. I know a thing or two about what it takes to be an athlete, and I probably play and watch more football than anyone I know. I have two, sometimes three, TVs set up during college and pro football season. I watch NFL Europe, hell I even watched the XFL just b/c it was football.

Brooks does have talent. He is not very smart. I agree with BillyH in that the coaches are using him the wrong way. That\'s just another reason he won\'t ever materialize in New Orleans. When he came in in relief of Blake in 2000 he played with instinct. He was running around, slinging the ball, making things happen. Now he, or the coaching staff, or whoever, decided Aaron Brooks should be a stand up, drop back, pure pocket passer. He is not that kind of quarterback. He is not suited for the system that the Saints run.

If you can\'t see times, every single game, when Aaron hears his coaches voices in his head then i don\'t know what you\'re watching. I can see the exact instant in a lot of situations where you can see \"throw the ball away,\" or \"don\'t run, you\'re a pocket passer\" actually going through his head. You can tell by his body language. He isn\'t smooth anymore. Things don\'t seem to come naturally. You don\'t see that?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Kelly Holcombe? Please. Vick? another please. Since you watch so much football and play it 23 hours a day, surely you can see that Vick had most of his success with his feet, not his arm. Pennington didn\'t look so good losing that playoff game did he? Maddox? Cooled off a bit right? And how old is he anyway? He\'s not 26, thats for sure. Now McNabb I like, but he couldn\'t beat the Bucs could he? Well, could he? He beat \'em in October as I recall, but not when it counted. If I\'m not mistaken, Brooks beat \'em twice...but oh yeah, Jake made that one last throw in the 2nd game...for, ummm, 6 yards. I guess we better credit Jake for that win huh? Jeesh...

Since all the \"Bashers\" are so big on numbers, lets take someone considered to be among the leagues \"elite\"...also 26 years old, but with a bit more experience than Brooks and compare the numbers. McNabb\'s numbers are as follows:

Rating this year: 86.0
YDS: 2289
TD\'s: 17
Career Completion %: 56.9

Here\'s Brooks\' numbers:
Rating this year: 80.1
YDS: 3572
TD\'s: 27
Career Completion %: 55.3

Now do you see a big difference? I don\'t. I won\'t talk about the TD\'s or the Yards cause McNabb missed some time this year, but you can look at those numbers and decipher from them what you will. One thing I know for sure is no matter what those numbers are, you\'ll spin \'em against Brooks any way you can.

Let me again remind you of something you posted earlier when I made a comment about Brooks having to deal with blitzers coming at him as soon as he got the snap. You said:

\"The problem is that teams study film, you see. Those teams learned that Brooks was a fast ball pitcher who couldn\'t make the kind of touch and timing passes that you need to be successful in the west coast offense. So they crowded the middle and sent the house.\"

Having said that, don\'t come to me with QB ratings and stats for guys who, as you so rightfully indicate have only \"3 CAREER games started\" or \"12\" or \"15\", or \"17\". Lets be fair in comparing those guys to Brooks by giving those guys \"37\" games and allowing teams to \"study film, you see\" before we try and make any kind of accurate, meaningfull comparison.

And yes, I do see some indicision on the part of Brooks at times. HE\'S YOUNG AND STILL LEARNING. I can\'t scream that loud enough. But since you\'ve played so much football, perhaps it should be easy enough for you to do better. Now that I\'d like to see.

And I might also take the time to add that all that \"running around, slinging the ball, making things happen\" that you talk so fondly about is the very same thing you\'re complaining about now. Dont\' believe me? Maybe you just dont\' remember. Earlier you typed, \"Not five steps, dance, dance, look around lost, scramble, back pedal, throw off your back foor towards Horn into double coverage.\"

So which is it gonna be WhoDat? Do you want the man to scrambe around and \"make things happen\" or what? I just don\'t understand why you\'re so down on Brooks. Like all the other \"bashers\" you simply won\'t even attempt to take a positive spin on the Saints starting QB and I don\'t understand why. I don\'t understand why you feel the way you feel. You can talk about his footwork in a positive light, or you can put the negative spin on it. It seems to be whatever suites you at the time. Rather than acknowledge that our offensive line was TERRIBE at picking up blitzers you instead credit the other teams defensive co-ordinator and ultimately attempt to put the blame squarely on Aaron Brooks\' shoulders where it obviously doesn\'t belong. Now, having played so much sandlot football, and with the ability to watch and absorbe up to 3 games on TV all at once...having run track in college and all, I\'d expect you to be a bit more aware of things.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Oh give me a break Saintfan - are you seriously trying to say that Brooks\' ability to dance and scramble, his style of play overall, this year is the same as it was in 2000? You know its not.

You\'re the guy that want it both ways. First you say Brooks is only in his second year, how can we expect him to play as well as those other QBs in the playoffs. Then when I show you quarterback with less experience who are playing better, you say that Brooks\' time in the league hurts him. Give me a break. Go one way or the other man.

Again, I love how Aaron Brooks beat the Bucs, but the Saints (especially the o-line, receivers, and defense... basically everyone except Brooks) lost the last three. Dude, no one player wins or loses games. I\'ve said that before, haven\'t I? Should we go back and find more quotes Saintfan? Or is that irrelevant. God knows without Brooks we couldn\'t have beaten the Bucs, or Packers, or 9ers, etc.... but give me Brooks and some first graders and they never lose. So what would you like to see Saintfan? If I show you younger players who are playing better you whine about teams not being able to figure those young kids out. You think teams don\'t know Vick\'s MO?! If I show you more experienced quarterback playing better than Brooks you whine about how he is only 26 and a 2nd year starter... So who can I compare him to? In your opinion, who are his peers?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Here you go Saintfan, I found as many stats for as many QBs as I could in their second year as a starter. I counted their second year as the first year in which they started after any year in which they started any games. Thus, last year in these rankings, would have been Brooks\' second year. However, I used his stats this year, which are better than last year\'s... so basically, I gave Brooks the benefit of the doubt in these rankings. He has more experience as a starter than any QB on this list at the time of the stats.

Rank Name GS Att Cmp Pct Yds YPA Lg TD Int Rate
1 Drew Bledsoe 16 691 400 57.9 4555 6.6 62t 25 27 73.6
2 Tom Brady 16 601 373 62.1 3764 6.3 49t 28 14 85.7
3 Brett Favre 16 582 363 62.4 3882 6.7 49 33 14 90.7
4 Jeff Blake 16 567 326 57.5 3822 6.7 88t 28 17 82.1
5 Jeff Garcia 16 561 355 63.3 4278 7.6 69t 31 10 97.6
6 Peyton Manning 16 533 331 62.1 4135 7.8 80t 26 15 90.7
7 Aaron Brooks 16 528 283 53.6 3572 6.8 64 27 15 80.1
8 Trent Green 14 509 278 54.6 3441 6.8 75t 23 11 81.8
9 Donovan McNabb 16 493 285 57.8 3233 6.6 64t 25 12 84.3
10 Steve McNair 16 492 289 58.7 3228 6.6 47 15 10 80.2
11 Brad Johnson 13 452 275 60.8 3036 6.7 56 20 12 84.5
12 Kordell Stewart 16 440 236 53.6 3020 6.9 69t 21 17 75.2
13 Mark Brunell 14 435 264 60.7 3281 7.5 75 18 7 91.2
14 Matt Hassleback 10 419 267 63.7 3075 7.3 49 15 10 87.8
15 Kerry Collins 12 364 204 56 2454 6.7 55 14 9 79.4
16 Rich Gannon 11 354 211 59.6 2166 6.1 50 12 6 81.5
17 Kurt Warner 11 347 235 67.7 3429 9.9 85t 21 18 98.3
18 Brian Griese 10 336 216 64.3 2688 8 61 19 4 102.9

What these stats show is that Brooks compares to second year QBs the same way that he compares to QBs this year. He is 5th in TDs and 7th in yards. However, as is par for him, he was 17th of 18 in completion percentage and 15th of 18 in QB efficiency rate. The three guys he beat out - Kerry Collins (who was playing for the Panthers during a losing season), Kordell Stewart (need I say more), and Drew Bledsoe (a year in which he was on a losing Patriots team). Again, Aaron Brooks is not efficient. He is not well suited for the West Coast offense.

So congratulations to Aaron Brooks, compared to other QBs in their second year, he is basically better than Kordell Stewart, despite far more talent than most of these other QBs had. Are these numbers OK, or are they not fair to poor little Aaron? Oh that\'s right, you don\'t like numbers or \"stats\" b/c they don\'t have a category for potential.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Potential? I think Bill Parcells once said, Potential simply means \"you haven\'t done it yet\"

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

You\'re exactly right WhoDat, there isn\'t a category for potential. Nor is there one for receivers running precise routs. I see nothing to indicate how a QB should react when he\'s got a linebacker staring him in the face because the \"golden boy\" left tackle whiffed on his block or the full or half back stood there and watched while the linebackers took a straight line to the QB. Again, I\'m not saying Books is perfect I\'m saying the man is, as we type, growing into a SOLID NFL QB. How many of those guys in your stat list had exactly one receiver worth anything to throw to in their first year? Of those guys in your list, if my memory serves me, exactly half of \'em have made it to the big game. Of that half, two of \'em are among the three that \"Brooks beat out\" in the effeciency rating. I\'m thinking that has something to do with the fact that Stats don\'t always tell the whole story. I\'m thinking that you have to look at the team as a whole. I\'m thinking that tells me you can\'t single out a guy and demand his starting job simply because you\'d prefer someone else in that position. I\'m saying you and the rest of the \"bashers\" refuse to see anything positive about the best QB New Orleans has seen since you were running track in college.

You won\'t give Brooks any credit for winning a game, but you\'ll slam him with all the blame for a loss. Why is that? Why is it that, among all these stats and numbers and opinions of yours, you have nothing to respond to AVERAGING 27 POINTS A GAME. Stats be damned, what the heck else do you want? I\'m by and large happy with the play of the offense and the QB. So is most everyone else. Everyone agrees the Saints are a young team that hasn\'t reached it\'s potential offensively...even scoring as much as they did last year. It\'s beyond me to try and figure out why you\'re not happy. You just don\'t like Brooks...plain and simple. As I\'ve said over and over again, you\'ll use numbers, sports writers, even Hokie for heaven\'s sake...ANYthing in an attempt to prove your pittiful point when the bottom line is that with Aaron Brooks as the QB the Saints averaged 27 points a game. In his first year, it was Brooks, Horn, and Williams who, as a threesome, combined for 6342 yards passing, rushing, and receiving! That, my boy, is the highest total of ANY three players in Saints History! Lemme tell ya Joe didn\'t accomplish what he accomplished without Brooks, and Williams didn\'t do it without a passing game, of which the Saints quite obviously have a damn good one.

Let me also correct you on yet another thing you have misrepresented. You say that I have said that Brooks\' time in the league hurts him. Man what are you smokin\'? I have NEVER said that. Excuse me but YOU said it. Can you hear me laughing? YOU\'RE the one who said his time in the league has allowed other teams to prepare for him...then you talk about how great QB\'s with 3 freakin\' games experience are when compared to Aaron. I\'m tellin you that, by your OWN stupid criteria you CAN\'T say that since it was YOU who indicated that because teams have seen Brooks now they are better prepared to defense him. Well DUH...there\'s a lightning bolt for ya. Thats some logic there WhoDat. Can you teach the rest of us that very valuable skill?

I\'ll finish this little rant by adding that there is also not a stat for how much sandlot football you play with the neighbors or how many TV\'s you can focus on all at once that relate to whether or not you have a clue when it comes to Aaron Brooks. Your blind refusal to see points on the scoreboard over your perference for another QB is all I need to see. I\'ve still not seen you indicate to me that you come anywhere near understanding that it was dropped passes that ultimately kept the Saints out of the playoffs this year, not bad ones. I\'ve said it before. I continue to be quite content knowing Haz is in charge and you\'re not.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

1. You continue to target our receivers for poor play. Can you name five other teams in the league who you believe have a better receiving corp right now than the Saints? I don\'t believe that there are five teams with better receivers. Thus, it stands to reason that we have a top five receiving corp. So let\'s drop that line of discussion b/c it\'s crap.

2. You continue to target our offensive line for its poor play. The same offensive line that was able to open enough holes for our second year running back (imagine that, a player excelling in his second year) to lead the Conference in rushing. Now, I will admit that their play during the Carolina was poor. However, other than that, can you name a game in which they did not perform to par?

3. Do you believe that our team could not have averaged 27 points per game with another quarterback? Do you truly think that our offense NEEDS Aaron Brooks to be as successful as it was last year? Does he deserve some of the credit for the offense\'s production? Absolutely... but no more than our line, our receivers, our runningbacks, or our offensive coordinator.

4. Let\'s ask a question to everyone here - who played worse in the last three games? Saintfan contends that \"it was dropped passes that ultimately kept the Saints out of the playoffs this year, not bad ones.\" That\'s interesting considering Brooks\' quarterback rating of, what, 20 something in the last two games. I remember dropped passes, sure. I also remember our receivers selling out their bodies to go up and get errant passes. So again I ask you Saintfan to name a player, any player, whose production dropped more sharply than Brooks\' when it mattered.

Saintfan, listen to me this time. Can you do that? Read this part really carefully, OK? I have nothing against Aaron Brooks as a person. I can see why people believe he will be a good quarterback one day. I think those people are over estimating this kid\'s ability to mature, and under estimating what it takes to be successful in this league. He may be a great quaterback one day, but it probably won\'t be with the Saints.

Yes, I would rather see someone else start for the Saints next year. I\'m not saying take any chump off of the street. I\'m not even saying start Delhomme, b/c the reality is he probably won\'t be here. However, there are a number of quarterback out there who read defenses better and make smarter decisions then Aaron Brooks. That statement will ALWAYS be true in this league. And a quarterback who can do those things will ALWAYS be better suited for a west coast offense. Watch and see, the Saints quarterback will change, or their system will... I\'ll bet you any dollar amount you want to wager. End of discussion.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

End of Discussion? I\'m sure you\'d like that huh? You keep asking me to in essence say that Brooks is the second coming of Joe Montana. I never said he was. I\'m saying to you that Brooks is FAR more than adequate and quite capable of taking the Saints all the way. You won\'t have it, and continue to post junk in an effort to prove a point you simply can\'t prove because your dislike for Brooks is personal, not professional.

1. I have NEVER indicated that I believe we have poor receivers. What I HAVE attempted (a large waste of my time) to do is make you understand that, while Brooks didn\'t play very well in the last game of the season he threw a lasar that hit Reed in the hands at the goal line. Now, if Reed makes that catch (one that you, in particular, what with all your sandlot football experience and all would surely have made) we\'re there. It is THAT play along with a few others that allows me to say Brooks had the team in position to win. That, in spite of the Delhomme-ites in the cheap seats. That in spite of the injury. ...and I\'m not the only one who is aware of that. Anyone who\'s interested in what REALLY happened knows that. You don\'t see it now and you never will. How about you stop trying to indicate I\'m saying things I\'m surely not? Eh?

2. I targe our offensive line for it\'s poor play because of the numerous times (way to many of \'em friend) Brooks got the snap only to look up and find himself on the run. You have repetedly attempted to blame EVEN THAT on Aaron Brooks! You know it and I know it. Deny it \'til the dry cows come home, but you know it as well as anyone else who watched the team.

3. Do I believe another QB could have averaged 27 points with our offense. Sure I do. A capable QB with the Saints weapons would do well. Thats why Brooks did well, because he is a CAPABLE QB...a young one at that, who will only get better as he develops more and as he and the receivers grow more accustomed to each other. My point is that Brooks did just fine, and yet you \"bashers\" still wanted him removed. It\'s personal, not professional, and the points on the scoreboard prove it.

4. Now, who played worse? Honestly, I think the whole team sucked pretty bad those last 3 games, but I hold, as the ultimate reason the Saints didn\'t make the palyoffs, the defense responsible...down to every last player, because we all know if one unit fails another unit suffers. It\'s the domino effect. Dude, I\'ve said all along that there\'s plently of blame to go around. Brooks has to shoulder some of that blame too, but not all of it, and I\'ll defend him against irrashional posters like you as long as my fingers will type. You\'re not judging the man fairly...period.

How can you say people \"believe he will be a good quarterback one day\" and it the very next sentence say, \"I think those people are overestimating this kid\'s ability to mature, and underestimating what it takes to be successful in this league\"? Which is it? Do you think he\'ll be good \"one day\" or do you think he won\'t? This is \"wishy-washy\" to the \"N-th\" degree isn\'t it? Dont\' crawfish on me now WhoDat!

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Thanks Gator. As you know I\'m not an \"all numbers\" guy, but I don\'t think they\'re totally worthless either. Kinda gotta take the numbers and other variables all into the equation. Thats my opinion anyway. Good stuff...thanks again!

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

OK Saintfan, you say that I\'m putting words in your mouth... you have stated repeatedly that my dislike for Brooks is personal. Why, because I don\'t think he is the right QB for the Saints. That makes it a personal attack? I am judging him entirely by what I\'ve seen on the field. I don\'t know the guy, how can it be personal? Just because a person doesn\'t like your golden boy doesn\'t mean that he is of low character and/or attacks people for some seedy reason.

Aso for you final paragraph. It\'s very easy. People like you believe Aaron Brooks is already a star in the NFL. A lot of others think he is a step or two away. I think those people are thinking wishfully. I\'m not going to say that Aaron Brooks is never going to be a good NFL quarterback. I\'m not a fortune teller. But I have serious doubts about his abilities to do it in the next couple of years. Partially, because I don\'t think the Saints coaching staff is helping him develop like he should be, and the team runs an offensive system that does not suit him.

One note - the defense allowed fewer points in the last two games of the season than it did in any other week. Sorry, they didn\'t play worse than Brooks.

Finally, Saintfan let me say that I think you are aptly named. Saintfan is the perfect handle for you. I realized the reason that your argument for Brooks upsets me so much. It is the same argument that Saints fans have been making for 35 years. \"We\'ll be better next year\" applied to Brooks becomes \"He\'ll be better next year.\" we have so much potential... we\'re young... misplaced blame and the inability to make tough decisions...
it sounds like every saints fan says about this team every year, you\'ve just managed to apply it to one player.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Where was the defense against the Lions, or Falcons (twice) or Minnesota, or Cincinatti? You didn\'t really wanna go there did ya? Or have you reached that level of desperation?

Ummm, yes sir, my name is appropriate, becase I\'m a fan of the TEAM...thats T-E-A-M. Having played so much sandlot football and having the ability to watch multiple games all at once surely you\'re familiar with the concept. TEAM, which is why I am able to see more than one player as having fault.

Do you actually have the nerve to accuse ME of misplacing blame? Man, you refuse to see any fault other than Brooks. You\'ve gone so far as to Blame Aaron for the fact that time after time linebackers came at him untouched! How\'s THAT for misplaced blame? I can\'t help but believe it\'s more than pure ability or lack of it that causes you to feel the way you feel. By your own admission you were screaming for Brooks\' head half-way through the season when the team was 6-1. Were you basing your condemnation of Brooks on ability then? If not then what...pretty simple to see if you ask me...YOU JUST DON\'T LIKE HIM.

As for me I am appropriately named and so are you. I am a Saint fan, thus my name. Your name is \"WhoDat\", as in, perhaps, who dat oughta be our Quarterback this week?

Let me also add that calling Brooks my \"golden boy\" isn\'t entirely accurate. I defend him againts the \"bashers\" because the \"bashers\" are pickin\' on an easy target...the QB. I\'d like to see ya\'ll acknowledge the FACT that the line was pourous at times. I\'d like to see ya\'ll acknowledge that FACT that down the stretch our quite capable receivers dropped and/or fumbled some pretty critical balls. I have never indicated that Brooks was faultless, only that he\'s not totally to blame. I\'ve tried to remind those of you who seem to be so quick on the trigger that Brooks is young and starting his second year and that fact alone should allow him some breathing room. You (and some others) were ready to can him when the team was 6-1 and playing very well. What gives?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

Saintfan, this is the last post I\'m going to write in this thread, unless, once and for all you can show that you understand that my opinions of Brooks are not personal. You say that I haven\'t conceded anything... go back and look. I have. I\'m not blaming Brooks for the Saints season - the good or the bad. I am putting a decent portion of the collapse on his shoulders, although the coaching staff is far more to blame.

I have nothing against Aaron Brooks. Maybe he will be the great quarterback that you believe he will be one day. That doesn\'t mean he is the right guy for the Saints. In 80% of the cases I\'ve seen in the NFL, the difference between good and great, when you\'re talking about a quarterback, depends primarily on the system. Rich Gannon has never been a great quarterback, but look at what he can do when he is in a system that fits him. Brad Johnson - same thing. Hell, a lot of people even claim that Montana and Young were only as good as they were b/c of San Francisco\'s system.

Now, you admitted that another \"capable\" quarterback could have played just as well as Brooks this year. I agree. Do you disagree that Delhomme is also a \"young\" and \"capable\" quarterback? Even Haslett said he could start on half of the teams in the league. So, why is it so hard for you to understand my desire for the Saints to replace a \"capable, young, athletic\" starting caliber quarterback with a \"capable, young, smart\" starting caliber quarterbcak who is better suited for the system which the Saints are running? Why is that so hard? Even if you disagree with my opinion, I can\'t believe that you cannot understand it.

Even Haslett has said that Brooks is not really a west coast quarterback. I believe that Delhomme is perfect for that type of system. Yes, I know that we only saw him throw 10 passes all year... but I can\'t remember seeing Brooks go 7-8 for 100 yards at any point in the season, and he threw, what, 500 passes? Saintfan, it wouldn\'t matter to me if we were talking about Culpepper and Bulger, it has nothing to do with the players as people. My concern is for the team. I want the best player for the job in every position. Obviously, you and I... and Haslett, disagree on who that is. But my opinions are not limited to Brooks. I said over and over that with Clemons playing like he was I didn\'t understand why they didn\'t give Cox a shot. Do I hate Charlie Clemons too? Or is it different b/c Clemons played terribly? Am I only allowed to make \"educated\" thought out decisions on bad players?

The bottom line to me is that Brooks has athletic talent, but not many of the intangibles that make quarterbacks good in this league. I\'ve used stats, media reports, analysts opinions, etc. to make what I believe to be a solid argument in that regard. Delhomme certainly does not have Brooks\' arm or athleticism, but from what I\'ve seen and heard of him, he makes up for it in smarts and efficiency. So to me, if you have two guys capable of starting, the decision on who to start should boil down to the system, which Delhomme is better suited for. Do you get it now?

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

What happens if Jake leaves? Then there won\'t be anymore what ifs. There are quite a few teams interested and I think it\'s a good posiblity considering the amount of teams looking for a consistant QB.
I guess we will see on Feb. 28th.

WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks
 

The only thing I \"get\" WhoDat is that you\'re crawfishing badly. I\'m gald to see your getting tired of tyring to prove a point you\'ll never prove. And I am forced to assume your attacks on Brooks are as much personal as anything simply because your comparisons aren\'t fair and again, by your own admission, you were after his head when the team was 6-1. You\'re attacking the coaches now because you\'ve had to realize that Brooks isn\'t the issue.

And if you\'ll look back at your own posts, you\'ll no doubt read and be forced to realize that you have put far too much blame on Brooks. You refuse to account for the fact that he doesn\'t have the experience some people you\'d like to compare him to have. You\'ve gone so far as to insinuate that Michael Vick is a better QB and you\'ve even reached the depths of attempting to blame Aaron Brooks for shotty blocking. You are far more forgiving when speaking of other QB\'s. Don\'t take my word for it. Look back at your own posts and verify it for yourself.

You ask me if I \"disagree that Delhomme is also a \"young\" and \"capable\" quarterback?\" when time after time after time I have indicated that I see nothing wrong with Jake...that I like Jake...that I thought he should have been given a chance to start before they brought in Jeff Blake. Are you reading what I type in here or not? Go back and find ONE post I made indicating otherwise...just ONE. I can tell you now you won\'t find it. Don\'t waste your time.

The New Orleans Saints are a young team with very talented (but very young) weapons. It is my belief that they are a team still searching to some degree for an identity. You\'re hell bent on this \"West Coast\" thing, but I\'m not so sure what the Saints are trying to do is in its essence really \"West Coast\". Now you can preach to me about how Delhomme is better suited for a \"West Coast\" offense all you\'d like. I might just respond by asking you what happened to Rich Gannon yesterday, in a system you say he\'s so well suited for. How many INT\'s did he throw? Does he get the credit or do you load him up with all the blame? I know one thing for sure, and that\'s that you\'d be screaming for Brooks\' job after a game like the one Gannon played yesterday huh?

Let me finish by saying you\'re awefully adamant about my insisting that Brooks either is now or one day will become a \"great\" QB. I have defended the fact that Aaron is right now a quality NFL QB with the ability to get much better, but I have never indicated that he is now or will ever become a \"great\" QB. I do, however, think he has all the tools to do so. Let me remind you that it does not take a \"great\" QB to win the superbowl. A team that wins the superbowl must have certain intangilbes that cannot come from one man. You already know that tho, don\'t you? You know that if for no other reason than that the QB that won the superbowl yesterday is, by no stretch of your imagination, a \"great\" NFL QB.