Tobias-Reiper

..you don\'t travel much, do you?

spkb25

tobias you will have to show my wife that then because she is black and going on 30 and says she has never felt racism

Tobias-Reiper

... well, the fact that there\'s even a discussion about white QBs and black QBs should tell you something...

... I am not talking about having different water fountains or having to sit in the back of the bus... I am just saying, that this country is not as \"color blind\" as Danno thinks it is...

Saint_LB

I agree, Tobias. I believe that people want it to be different, and, to a certain degree, things are a lot different today. However, we are a long way from where we want things to be, IMO. However, the point of my thread may be getting lost in this discussion. I am merely pointing out that just because I am white, and am disenchanted with AB, doesn\'t make me a racist. It is his performance on the field that has led me to my opinions about him. His egotistical nature does not make things better. I am also contending that a lot of people are defending him, not because of his play, but solely because he IS black. There are numerous white QB\'s that I have become disenchanted with. Walsh, Everett, Shuler, even Hebert when he decided to take his football and go home. The list is longer, but you get the point, right. I just wish that people would quit tagging people as being racist just because they don\'t like the way that AB plays football, and I wish that people who are defending him would take a moment to ponder if there is any truth to the fact that they are defending him solely because he is black, and they like the idea of having a black QB over a white one. Also, are they bashing other white QB\'s, who have enjoyed much more success than AB has, solely because he is white. Just remember, this racism thing works both ways.

Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

SaintFanInATLHELL

I was actually wondering when you would.

I think the conversation so far, while off topic, has been forthright and civil. Personally I would let it go until these conditions were no longer met.

I\'ll weigh in with my two cents. I don\'t think the argument around Brooks is centered on race. Though I think a lot of Black folks would disagree. This Black man however takes a more objective view.

Brooks detractors usually point to intangibles, while Brooks supporters usually points to the stats. Brooks makes everything in the discussion worse whenever he opens up his big yap and starts spewing crap. With the amount of money he is making he should have a PR person whose job is to show him how to keep his big yap shut.

On the intangible side of the fence: leadership, attitude, playing big in the clutch, inspiring teamates (leadership again), showing fire and passion for the game, making the right decisions, appropriate sideline behavior, leading the team to wins despite the odds.

Tangibles are the usual yards, TDs, and the like. By the pure numbers, Brooks is the most productive Saints QB in the history of the franchise.

Then of course there are the myriad other issues involved. If last week and the upcoming championship games haven\'t shown anything else, it\'s that defense wins championships.

My stance wouldn\'t change about Brooks based on race. It\'s the same now that it has been: this team has much bigger problems that Brooks, specifically a weak defense, a suspect O-Line, and ill defined play calling. Fix those, bring in some real competition for Brooks, then re-evaluate.

To me the math is simple. In the last 3 years with Brooks at the helm, when the opposition is held to 20 points or less, the Saints are 16-6. That of course includes the last 4 games of the winning streak this year. That\'s a 727 winning percentage. Unfortunately that\'s only 22 out of 48 games. Since the team is a even 24-24 in the last 48 games, that means that when the opposition scores more than 20 points that the winning percentage drops to about 307.

We keep going over and over and over about Brooks. It\'s not about black or white. It\'s not about leadership and wins. It\'s not about attitutude. It\'s not about Brooks at all.

It\'s about defense dude. That\'s it. When the Saints solve their defensive problems and have 8 or 9 games where they hold the opposition to 20 or less, then and only then will they get more than the 7,8, or 9 wins that they\'ve been getting lately. Because 70 persent of the time in the last 3 years, the Saints have scored 20 or more points.

nuff said for now.

SFIAH

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

JKool

Ok, while I find this discussion something that should be in the \"everything else\" secontion, I thought this was interesting:

Really?

I hadn\'t notice that happening pretty well ever here at B&G. Now, I\'ve been involved in quite a few Brooks debates over the years and either (1) I\'m ignorant to such \"insinuations\", or (2) that actually almost never happens. Now, I\'m willing to admit that (1) is possible, but, without some additional evidence that this \"eventually\" occurs in most Brooks debates, I\'m skeptical and think (2) is more likely - though I\'m sorry if it did happen.

As for the rest of this thread, I think T-R said it quite well. Kudos. Also, SFIAH, nice post. And, nice analogy bk318. Nice work to all for keepin\' it civil.

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

GumboBC

Hmm... Since I got this thing started, let me say this.

I wasn\'t trying to be disrespectful or hurtful towards anyone. No matter what race you might be.

All I was saying is that the game is moving towards more atheltic guys at the QB position. And, from my observation, those guys are usually black.

Anyway, I don\'t want to get back on what I started in that other thread.

It wasn\'t intended to be offensive. I wasn\'t calling any race stupid or anything like that. Just saying who I thought the better athletes were. Again, I thought that was a compliment and that\'s the way it was intended.

Danno

As a manager of a import/export business that deals with several overseas clients, yes, I do.
You don\'t think much, do you?

JKool

Danno,

I thought your point was this:

1. Prejudice: judging someone/thing without sufficient evidence or based on facts that are irrelevant to the judgements you make. (Ignorance of the actual facts, essentially.)

2. Racisim: Prejudice about race AND with hate.

Was that wrong? I\'m not sure I think those are quite right as definitions, but I take your point.

I\'m inclined to agree with you that racisim is dying, but it is one of those \"operatic\" deaths that goes on several scenes too long. It is dying, but so very slowly, sometimes too loudly, and sometimes not without a fight (sadly).

However, this idea that racism is dying is something worth looking at - we still have wars and near genocides on the grounds that some other group has a different heritage (whether genetic or ideological) across this world of ours. Also, since I\'ve been here in the US, I\'ve seen a lot of racisim - systematic racisim, hate speach, ignorance combined with hate, and a lot of other unpleasant things. It is my mostly unfounded opinion that here in the US, it is not nearly as bad as it is in some other places, but it certainly isn\'t a paradigm of non-racism either.

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

Danno

Good post. You kinda nailed my point sort of. There is a big difference between innocent ignorance and hateful ignorance. I guess I\'d be considered a Euro-Hispanic. Euro-American dad, hispanic-american mom. I\'ve seen my share of hate and prejudice, but it comes from several different directions and no one ethnicity is blameless.
Where are you from?