saintswhodi

Thanks for getting back Kool. I see there are several points we are gonna disagree on. But that\'s all good. I see it still comes down to the \"who\'s better than Brooks out there\" and that makes me ill cause this staff put us in this position. That is more frustrating than anything else. That\'s like if you needed a new car cuase yours runs okay, but occasionally it stalls and won\'t start, and you miss work. So you shop for a new car, but none of the ones in your price range APPEAR(key word) to be better than yours. Now without driving any of them, you have chosen to stick with the one that stalls on you cause you know what it can do and risk losing your job. I on the other hand would take a shot at the new car and the chance that it wouldn\'t stall on me. But if it does, what have I lost? I had the same thing either way. Add to that the fact that the old car thinks it\'s better than most other cars on the road and blames you for its stalls, well you see where I am going. :P

Hi baron, I agree with this

100%. It was evident even in the last 4 games this year when the TEAM played much better. He was still just as inconsistent as ever.

JKool

Whodi, I don\'t think we really disagree on that much. However, I wouldn\'t say that it comes down to no one better - that is just an additional fact.

I like your analogy, but the risk isn\'t that you can\'t do worse, because you could do A LOT worse. You\'re merely risking your job with your current vehicle; with a new vehicle you could guarantee losing your job - say you buy a car that never runs. Also, in our case, we don\'t just need to buy a car but we also need a nice suit and brief case. If we buy a new car, instead of investing in those other things, and the new car turns out to be a dud, we\'re in even worse shape than sticking with the risk we currently have.

My argument, however, remains the same: Brooks can win 8 games. Does anyone really think that with a better than last placed defense and a solid offensive line, that we wouldn\'t do better? That must be the position held by those who claim that Brooks sack stats, etc. are HIS fault (or mostly his fault). By that reasoning, we\'d have to blame Bulger, Culpepper, and Vick for their sacks - since their lines were as bad as ours and those guys took more sacks (at least if we grant Whodi\'s point about this).

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

saintswhodi

You missed my point Kool. It was never that Leon caused these sacks, although I feel he is responsible for some. My point on the sacks was there are playoff teams with about the same offensive line, defense and penalties, if not worse, that were in the show. We weren\'t again. I never said AB causes the sack problems, though you and I have been through this point before and we BOTH agreed AB does cause SOME sacks. An exact number can\'t be determined. So this:

is not a correct statement. I will cite the Rams again cause I have seen a lot of their games. Bulger does not run around in the pocket and generally gets rid of the ball fairly quickly. Yet he was sacked as many times as AB and missed two games. My point is there are playoff teams with lines as bad as AB supporters wanna say ours is, if not worse. I think you totally mis-read me on that one, cause AB causes most of the sacks was NEVER my point.

Agreed on the new suit and briefcase, but I see other teams with a slightly better car and an old suit and briefcase similar to ours in the playoffs. And in the case of the Texans, 8-8 with a tougher division and conference. So to me, if we upgrade the car, that alone will get us to the playoffs. Upgrading the car need not be priority one, but it needs to be done THIS off-season. That is another point I have always made. I never said there weren\'t bigger problems, but even if there are does that mean we can\'t address this one also? Is there a limit to how many problems can be addressed in one off-season? That\'s about as bad as the \"noone else with his talent\" out there argument. You basically are saying you would keep a qb not cause he is good or brings added value to the team, but cause he is the default option. I want no part of that.

And YOU CAN do a lot worse, but if your goal is to reach the Superbowl, and you can\'t even make the playoffs in the last 4 years, how much worse can it be? If we miss the playoffs AGAIN next year, but we are 3-13 instead of 8-8, will that somehow make it worse? We still aren\'t in the playoffs and we get Matt Leinart. 8-8 to me is horrible and I have said it all year. Our defenses and line was better the previous years, were we in the playoffs then? I guess I don\'t understand that. Defense got worse, which means it had to be better the last few years. Line got worse, which mean it had to be better the previous few years. What has been the same? Number 2.

[Edited on 24/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

JKool

Whodi, just as a point of order: I understood you fairly well, though thanks for the clairification, sometimes I make points that are directed at the views that other people have (even if I make them off of your good arguments).

Here is my response, but I have to say that it has been a fine discussion so far:

(1) The idea with respect to causing sacks (and again I know we agree on this one) is this: if the lines are equally good and the sacks are the same (or worse), thus the only difference is the QB, then an argument from aggregate stats says this - either our boy is the cause of some of his sacks and so are the other QBs you note given the stats, OR we don\'t look at the aggregate sack stats and we look at the particulars (which is what you did in citing the Rams - good point). If we look at the particulars then comparing their aggregate sack stats is merely misleading - since the particulars matter. That was the point we were discussing earlier regarding the where, when, and how turnovers and penalties earlier. It is simply my view that you are a smart guy who knows his sh-t; this argument that you gave just doesn\'t work, since it requires the aggregate stats and ignoring of the particulars. I thought it was interesting, but flawed. I like the points when you point to particulars much better - those are often stronger and more compelling arguments.

(2) There is a limit to the number of problems that can be addressed in the offseason. We have only so many draft picks, so much money, so many available options, and so much available time. This, it seems to me, makes it the case that we have to prioritize. My priority list goes like this: LB, OT, LB, DT, OT, S, CB, and then maybe QB (but that is in close with TE, Backup RB, another Safety, and an OG).

(3) I just don\'t see that the QB situation is so dire it needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW. Soon, perhaps, but now? Our QB can make the playoffs, win a playoff game, win 8 games a year with the WORST defense in the league (almost of all time), and an OLine that we all agree needs SERIOUS help. Sure he\'s no Culpepper or Bulger, but he\'s no Collins either.

(4) A fine point on our having a better line and defense in the past, but there is a point about how much better they\'ve been. We need serious improvement in both areas. Our coaching has been the same over that time too, and I believe that is a big factor in our number of wins - not only number 2 has been the same all along. It is my opinion that coaching has hurt us more than our QB - this is not a rare view around here.

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

saintswhodi

As you know I have called for Haslett\'s departure as well, consistently. So coaching is a problem for me as well.

See my point isn\'t to say these qbs cause sacks for their teams, the point was despite the number of sacks for these qbs their teams were in the playoffs. I am not discerning whether they cause them, avoid them, or any of that. I simply felt that our qb position was weaker than those of other teams in similar situations. I titled the thread as I did cause the common mis-conception is that Leon is held back cause of the line. I just wanted to point out none of those other guys were held back in similar situations. The sacks were just a stat I was using to compare line play. Are there other stats for the line? Yes, but I still find it hard to believe a line that gives up more sacks than ours gives up LESS hurries. I agree it is not as concise as it could be, but it was the easiest stat to look up for an o-line.

Here is where I stand on the off-season. If we go LB and T in free agency, I already consider us ahead of the game. That leaves us safety in the first round if Thomas Davis is available. Or Travis Johnson at DT. That takes care of 3 of the 4 biggest needs between free agency and the draft. If we trade Leon after free agency, that probably gives us a player or an extra pick in the draft, one or the other. I for one am not against a rookie starting at qb, cause I don\'t see us winning with the one we have. I think that\'s where our biggest divide in our arguments is. QB is lower on your list cause you think we can win with AB. I do not.

And actually, I would take Collins over AB. He led his team to a Superbowl. He was a totally different guy in New York than in New Orleans and Carolina and posted good stas in Oakland with NO running game and average at best receivers. That\'s just me though. He is no Ken Dorsey, I can say that.

GumboBC

saintswhodi--

Your game is exactly the same as many foks here at B&G.

You try and blame EVERYTHING on Brooks.

Hey, there\'s nothing wrong if you think Brooks can\'t get the.
job done.

However, when you start to say things such as:

1. Our offensive line didn\'t affect Brooks and team.
2. Dropped passes haven\'t hurt.
3. Our defense isn\'t LARGELY responsible for us not making the playoffs.

When you start saying those things you become a \"one trick pony\". It\'s clear to me that you have only a purpose here. And that\'s to convince folks that Brooks is almost totally at fault! And no one else!!

Your refusal to talk about much elese, other than Brooks, tells me a lot about you and that\'s about all I got to say about that.

So, when I say the offensive line and dropped passes hurt Brooks. I\'m not say Brooks isn\'t responsible for a lot of what happened. I\'m saying there\'s PLENTY of blame to go around.

Get it? Or course you don\'t!! And you never will...

saintswhodi

Hey, no sweat off my back. You have your opinion, I have mine, If all you got out of this argument was all the blame is on Brooks, as normal you haven\'t read it or don\'t understand it. If you look a post or two up, you can see CLEARLY where I list problems that should be addressed before Brooks. But since you were called out, you gotta find aomeone on the opposite side of the fence and try to claim bias. Nice try though. It woulda worked had I not seen how most of your \"disagreements\" go.

GumboBC

saintswhodi --

Hey dude, it\'s all good. You certainly aren\'t alone is blaming Brooks for most of this team\'s failures.

You just all happen to be wrong.... :P

Just out of curiousity, what % of the problem would you say Brooks is?

25? 50? 75? 99? What % would you say Brooks is?

saintswhodi

Realizing that there is a front office, coaches, and 52 other players, I would give him a hearty 10%. That is a lot for an individual player. But since you blame him 0%, there won\'t be any fair answer for you cause I went above that mark.

[Edited on 25/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

GumboBC

Brooks is 10% of the problem, huh?

Yet, Brooks is 90% of all you talk about. Now, that doesn\'t make much sense.

I think Brooks is more like 15% of the problem. Honestly, I do. But that means there\'s 85% more of a reason we\'re not making the playoffs.

I also think that the 15% blame that I\'m placing on the QB (Brooks) can be reduced by shoring up the O-line.

You go to great lengths to show us how the O-line, dropped passes, penalties, etc., are no excuse.

Do you HONESTLY think poor blocking, dropped passes, and penalties are no excuse?

Look bud, you\'re not going to convince anyone of that.

IMO, you\'d be better off making your case about Brooks and leave that arguement out of it.

If you told that to an NFL coach they would laugh you out of their office. No offense, but they would.

So, talk about the % of bad throws and you\'ve got yourself a credible arguement. Talk about is stupid remarks to the media. Talk about anything on the Brooks\' subject, but leave penalties, dropped passes, and poor blocking out of it.

No one is going to buy that.

Look, football is about consistency from every position. Not just the QB position.

In fact, QB play depends more on the consistency of the other 10 guys than vice-versa. Brooks is only ONE guy.



[Edited on 25/1/2005 by GumboBC]