WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks

WhoDat · 01-23-2003, 02:17 PM

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 · 01-23-2003, 03:07 PM

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.

jm · 01-23-2003, 03:54 PM

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

saintfan · 01-23-2003, 04:20 PM

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 · 01-23-2003, 07:00 PM

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.

saintfan · 01-24-2003, 09:35 AM

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!

saintfan · 01-24-2003, 10:44 AM

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 · 01-24-2003, 04:59 PM

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.

saintfan · 01-24-2003, 05:54 PM

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 · 01-25-2003, 10:15 AM

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?

01-23-2003, 02:17 PM	#51
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-23-2003, 03:07 PM	#52
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-23-2003, 03:54 PM	#53
jm 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 133	WhoDat and Saintfan sound off on Brooks Potential? I think Bill Parcells once said, Potential simply means \"you haven\'t done it yet\"
jm 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 133

01-23-2003, 04:20 PM	#54
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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.
	C'mon Man...

01-23-2003, 07:00 PM	#55
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-24-2003, 09:35 AM	#56
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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!
	C'mon Man...

01-24-2003, 10:44 AM	#57
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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!

01-24-2003, 04:59 PM	#58
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

01-24-2003, 05:54 PM	#59
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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?
	C'mon Man...

01-25-2003, 10:15 AM	#60
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"