saintfan

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.

C'mon Man...

WhoDat

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?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

saintfan

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.

C'mon Man...

WhoDat

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.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

WhoDat

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.

saintfan

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?

C'mon Man...

billyh1026

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.

saintz08

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

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?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

saintfan

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.

C'mon Man...